Why is the Democratic Party against the only person who could save them?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? Inserting another layer between the will of the electorate and the elected?

Globally, yes. Specific to what we were talking about in the thread, namely this election, no.

Except that that extra layer has saddled us with a shit sandwich, y'know?

Pat answer, kid. You should be better than this. Did you honestly not know what he was trying to say?

I knew what he was trying to say. I want, for once, for him to be able to write a full sentence that is coherent and doesn't require decoding. He has no idea what he's talking about, so I point out his ignorance.

Listen, his abuse of English grammar and punctuation drives a writer like me up the wall. But if you knew what he was trying to say, criticizing his language rather than his point really isn't on point, now is it? And although he is very often wrong about things political, I think this particular point is strong.

[Chad32]

Given the amount of voter blaming that happened after this election, I'd say we have a ways to go for that.

Who else to blame?

Big money buys ad-time on networks and online, but in the end it still comes down to who believes what they see. And that points the finger directly at the voters.

Yes, that does indeed mean that we may well be in the whirlpool.

The people running the propaganda, and lying candidates. Why would you blame voters who are often probably too busy with their own lives to do deep research into whether or not a candidate is lying to them with "public and private" positions. People want to blame third party voters for Clinton's loss, and gloss over 9% of dem voters for going over to Trump. It isn't the voter's fault that the DNC passed up who is now the most popular politician in the country for who is now either 1st or 2nd most unpopular. If the dems want to win, they need to push a winning candidate. If they want to ignore their constituents for big money donors, then don't blame the constituents for not voting for their candidate.

[Mister Agenda]

Bernie is the single most effective politician in Senate or Congress. Why is he treated like gatbage?! Additionally why is the Democratic Party so goddamned thick, they'll throw away provressives like during the election, and opt for a quid pro quo with republicans where they wI'll always be perpetual losers,  in exchange for a little piece of the pie??? Get money out of politics and everyone will be on equal footing! 

https://youtu.be/ZmPsX2tNV1Y

For one thing, he's not a Democrat. He was an independent before his presidential campaign, became a Democrat for purposes of running a campaign with a chance of winning, and returned to being an independent when it was over. From the point of view of Democrats who worked in the party for decades, the only thing he accomplished last year was to get Trump elected. I don't see why their point of view would be so mysterious.

[Minimalist]

I was speaking in terms of the general elections, and not the primaries, as I'm sure you understood, and ignored.

But why?  The primaries are where any choice is most apparent.  Even the Dems started off with 6 entrants in the field.  We spend a year and a half narrowing the field down to the two you are so unhappy with but you can't ignore the process.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why would you blame voters who are often probably too busy with their own lives to do deep research into whether or not a candidate is lying to them with "public and private" positions.

It really doesn't take much to look behind the curtain. There are a multiplicity of resources available for fact-checking. People don't avail themselves of it because they're too busy? Okay ... that sounds like you're agreeing with me.

People want to blame third party voters for Clinton's loss, and gloss over 9% of dem voters for going over to Trump. It isn't the voter's fault that the DNC passed up who is now the most popular politician in the country for who is now either 1st or 2nd most unpopular. If the dems want to win, they need to push a winning candidate. If they want to ignore their constituents for big money donors, then don't blame the constituents for not voting for their candidate.

I agree that the candidate matters when it comes to earning -- or losing -- votes. Of course they matter. But at the end, it is the votes that matter most, and that inculpates the voters.

I was speaking in terms of the general elections, and not the primaries, as I'm sure you understood, and ignored.

But why?  The primaries are where any choice is most apparent.  Even the Dems started off with 6 entrants in the field.  We spend a year and a half narrowing the field down to the two you are so unhappy with but you can't ignore the process.

Nor am I, I was speaking to the specific context of my comment upthread.

Now, the primaries as well suffer the vicissitudes of voter whimsy too, no argument there. Of course, we saw in this last campaign that while back-room deals may be a thing of the past, the hangover from that era still has clear implications in these primaries. In this sense, the voters in the Democrat primaries don't carry the same blame that I assign to the voters in the GE.

[Silver]

I was speaking in terms of the general elections, and not the primaries, as I'm sure you understood, and ignored.

But why?  The primaries are where any choice is most apparent.  Even the Dems started off with 6 entrants in the field.  We spend a year and a half narrowing the field down to the two you are so unhappy with but you can't ignore the process.

We could certainly do something about changing it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like, perhaps, avoiding the two major parties until they present worthy candidates?

[SteelCurtain]

Like, perhaps, avoiding the two major parties until they present worthy candidates?

This would be perfectly rosy nice if the reality were that no more than ~1% of the electorate would do it.

But the GOP exists and their voters are loyal. So avoid the Democratic Party and we'll just hand the keys over.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like, perhaps, avoiding the two major parties until they present worthy candidates?

This would be perfectly rosy nice if the reality were that no more than ~1% of the electorate would do it.

But the GOP exists and their voters are loyal. So avoid the Democratic Party and we'll just hand the keys over.

I avoid both major parties. Perhaps if you and others did as well, that stranglehold could be broken?

There is a difference between the two, don't misunderstand me, but on the major issues, they are very indistinguishable.

I think so long as you and your ilk insist on American politics being a binary game, nothing will get done. You'll ask me where would I start, and chide me for "throwing away my vote". But tell me, what have you done?

You buy into the system that you yourself criticize. Who are you to chide me for actually bowing out?

I refuse to vote major party henceforth, except in 2018 in order to hopefully help return the Congress (one house or the other) to the Dems in order to achieve a balance. Outside of that, I wish both major parties could be loaded onto a sealiner suffering from major welding defects and sailing the North Atlantic in springtime.

My best hope is that they don't drag us down with them.

Majorities always start out as minorities. You're just behind the curve, is all.





Unless us Americans wake up we will be ridden to the bottom in this new Gilded Age.

[vorlon13]

I keep thinking this thread should be about Biden