• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

Mick Mac

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
7,851
There’s a serious gerrymandering problem currently favouring the GOP at both state and federal level which may may be resolved by a case currently being considered by the Supreme Court.
That's in Wisconsin isnt it?

Viceland had a nice documentary about it. The GoP have software that models what way you need to distribute to get the results you need. They suggested it was a factor in the Dems losing states but I wonder about that. Virginia might put the lie to that
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
The Presidential election that elected an inexperienced, irresponsible, misogynistic male totalitarian when there was an experienced, competent female as an alternative is a defeat for women.

Despite that obvious fact more than 50% of white American women voted for the inexperienced, irresponsible, misogynistic male totalitarian.

That was pathetic and the women will pay for it for a long time to come.

Democracy will also pay for it as totalitarianism is on the rise as the election of Trump shows.

More than 50% of white women did this despite the fact that a competent and experienced woman was for the first time going for the most powerful political position in the world.

The defeat of Hillary Clinton in the US presidential election is the most significant occurence in the women's lack of power issue for a long time.
Actually, as I watch events unfold in terms of the Weinstein scandal, Weiner and others, there is definitely a shift happening towards better balance and respect fro womens rights I would have thought. It's inconceivable that the sort of activities that Kennedy and Clinton indulged in for example could happen today in the white house. Or that a wife of a president would tolerate such a thing. Trump's era is turning out to be quite good for women ironically.

On the OP. Democrats out of the game for the next presidential election. Trump is a shoe in. They simply don't have anyone. It's really abut building someone for the following election at this point.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
Have these gerrymandering conditions always been in place?
There has been gerrymandering for decades if not centuries. Some of it has been Democrat (and a couple still are) bur at present the vast majority is GOP which uses database info to set its boundaries with utmost precision. Some has been racist but that has been banned by SCOTUS. Now it may ban partisan gerrymandering too. In a couple of states the dems have had a voting majority but have won only a third of the seats. This is wrong and undemocratic.
 

devoutcapitalist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
16,437
Surely Trump is beatable in 2020, the GOP are in a mess at the moment and I generally support the GOP but despise Trump.

Will the Democrats go for a Trump style populist spoofer in 2020, If not Sanders then who is likely to be the candidate.

I'm starting to think that Sanders could have beaten Trump last year.
 

devoutcapitalist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
16,437
Actually, as I watch events unfold in terms of the Weinstein scandal, Weiner and others, there is definitely a shift happening towards better balance and respect fro womens rights I would have thought. It's inconceivable that the sort of activities that Kennedy and Clinton indulged in for example could happen today in the white house. Or that a wife of a president would tolerate such a thing. Trump's era is turning out to be quite good for women ironically.

On the OP. Democrats out of the game for the next presidential election. Trump is a shoe in. They simply don't have anyone. It's really abut building someone for the following election at this point.
Assuming Johnson doesn't run and the Greens don't run a candidate in 2020, Trump will probably need to get to around 50% of the popular vote in 2020 to get re-elected compared to 46% last year.

Who knows how the American economy is doing in 2020 plus the fact that many of his voters in the Rustbelt may have coped on that he was a snake oil salesman in 2016 regarding promising to bring back heavy industry jobs.

The Dems can win in 2020 If they get a candidate who is not obsessed with trendy identity politics.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,598
It's been mentioned a few times on various threads that the Dems need to get good candidates and speakers to help them win the 2018 mid-term Congressional and the 2020 POTUS elections. There are already good congressional candidates but the Dems real problems are lack of national leadership and lack of effective policies.

HRC is a has-been on a book tour and speaking at various events by invitation and tweeting about Don "Capone" Trump, but it is likely she will be fading away into retirement; maybe she'll keep some backroom involvement with the Dems and the DNC, helping other candidates to fundraise, etc. This is notwithstanding Donna Brazile's recent comments on DNC funding and control about which there are already some statements countering hers.

Who is getting the national media attention? HRC and Donna (for the next week or so), with a few bits and pieces from Elizabeth Warren, plus Bernie Sanders following his own agenda (as usual, and not getting all that far). Nancy Pelosi, as the Dems' leader of the House of Representatives, has started some policy proposals and slogans, and is trying to keep the Rep Dems in check (eg insisting that it is far too early for a call for impeachment) but although she is doing a good job, Nancy Pelosi is 76 yo and is not considered to be presidential material.

And there are serious financial problems. After Obama's win in 2012 the Dems were in debt and at one point did not have enough money to pay staff. They owed US$20 million. HRC paid this debt and also paid both state organisations and Federal candidates money from her fundraising. Bernie chose to pay nothing, keeping his donations for his own use, and so did Obama(!).

Something is wrong with the Dems' administration.

There is an excellent, in depth article from the New York Times by Robert Draper which discusses the Dems' problems:

A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The 44th president left office as one of the most popular in American history. He also left behind a party struggling to find an identity — and to reconnect with voters in time for the 2018 elections.

The problems are such that I do not think the Dems will be able to get their act together in time for 2018 or even 2020. Miracles do occur though...

What do you think?
I wouldn't get too depressed if I was you. The Democrats will come back, swings and roundabouts and all that.

Yes, the Democrats are at their lowest level across the country in close to a century, they have been relegated to the Coasts and a few urban metro areas around the Great Lakes. The party can't go any lower.

On the flip side, the GOP is in the best shape it's been in close to a century too but one year into the Trump Presidency, can't get anything done. That said, the stock market is roaring, unemployment is shrinking so he maybe around for a few more years.

The Democrats will come back, it may take a few years, or another election cycle or two, maybe less but they aren't going away.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,598
They need to start with fresh leadership in the House - Pelosi is utterly crap and useless
She needs to go and take Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and Maxine Waters with her. They are all in their 70s and it's time to pass the torch to a new generation.

Pelosi is good at fundraising but not much else. As the first female Speaker, her place in history is assured but it's time to give a younger restless caucus a chance.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,843
The Dems can win in 2020 If they get a candidate who is not obsessed with trendy identity politics.

Indeed, however therein lies the problem.
The DNC still hasn't woken up to reality.
A few commentators have (e.g. Jimmy Dore), but the majority still have their heads firmly in the sand.
The denial remains.

They keep making excuses as to why Trump won.
These range from Russia to racists.
And, in my honest opinion, they were all irrelevant.

Firstly, whilst Russia allegedly bombarded social media with ads, the vast bulk of demographic that voted for Trump is not the age group to be influenced by that medium.
And if you believe racists elected him, then you have to believe they somehow didn't vote when a black candidate became president - twice. It's simply not plausible.

The fact remains that Clinton was an appalling candidate who illegally gerrymandered her victory over Sanders.
She was the face of an uber-establishment candidate at a time when there was a rich vein of anti-establishment feeling running through country.
The Clinton Foundation reeked of corruption.
And her health was severely questionable.

What struck me the most though, was the release of emails proving how the 'neutral' DNC purposely took Clinton's side over Sanders.
There should have been absolute outrage.
Instead all the media focused on was who leaked the revelations.
It was a 'shoot the messenger' exercise.
Any party with a backbone would have conducted an immediate review and thrown Clinton overboard.
But they didn't.
And today, they still wouldn't.
Which is why, so far, I don't think they learned their lesson.
It's still the same corrupt party.
Yes, there are moves to change it. But I've yet to be convinced it will succeed.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,598
Actually, she is not. She was a far more effective House Speaker than Boehner or Ryan. Her part in passing the Affordable Care Act and Obama's programme is second only to Obama himself.

And to change to satisfy Republican hate-mongering would be a massive mistake.

By the way, she re-took the House from the Republicans in 2006, when the pundits said it could not be done. And held it in 2008. The lady has form.

That being said, it is time for a new generation of Democrats to start stepping up.
2006 and 2008 were bumper years for the Democrats, you would be hard pressed to find a defeated incumbent in either of those years for the main elections.

Pelosi was widely expected to ascend to the Speakership after the 2006 elections. You had the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, and add a few messy sex scandals for the GOP and very few thought that the GOP would hold either house of Congress.

Those two elections (2006 and 2008) were Gimmies for the Democrats, they just needed to not get caught in bed with dead girls or live boys.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,598
The Presidential election that elected an inexperienced, irresponsible, misogynistic male totalitarian when there was an experienced, competent female as an alternative is a defeat for women.

Despite that obvious fact more than 50% of white American women voted for the inexperienced, irresponsible, misogynistic male totalitarian.

That was pathetic and the women will pay for it for a long time to come.

Democracy will also pay for it as totalitarianism is on the rise as the election of Trump shows.

More than 50% of white women did this despite the fact that a competent and experienced woman was for the first time going for the most powerful political position in the world.

The defeat of Hillary Clinton in the US presidential election is the most significant occurence in the women's lack of power issue for a long time.
Has it ever occurred to you that many women don't vote with their vaginas, much like most men don't vote with their penises?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
14,598
Indeed, however therein lies the problem.
The DNC still hasn't woken up to reality.
A few commentators have (e.g. Jimmy Dore), but the majority still have their heads firmly in the sand.
The denial remains.

They keep making excuses as to why Trump won.
These range from Russia to racists.
And, in my honest opinion, they were all irrelevant.

Firstly, whilst Russia allegedly bombarded social media with ads, the vast bulk of demographic that voted for Trump is not the age group to be influenced by that medium.
And if you believe racists elected him, then you have to believe they somehow didn't vote when a black candidate became president - twice. It's simply not plausible.

The fact remains that Clinton was an appalling candidate who illegally gerrymandered her victory over Sanders.
She was the face of an uber-establishment candidate at a time when there was a rich vein of anti-establishment feeling running through country.
The Clinton Foundation reeked of corruption.
And her health was severely questionable.

What struck me the most though, was the release of emails proving how the 'neutral' DNC purposely took Clinton's side over Sanders.
There should have been absolute outrage.
Instead all the media focused on was who leaked the revelations.
It was a 'shoot the messenger' exercise.
Any party with a backbone would have conducted an immediate review and thrown Clinton overboard.
But they didn't.
And today, they still wouldn't.
Which is why, so far, I don't think they learned their lesson.
It's still the same corrupt party.
Yes, there are moves to change it. But I've yet to be convinced it will succeed.
Pretty good summary.

The GOP used to give candidates their turn, Romney, McCain and Dole for example without any success. They got the nomination on a second or subsequent try and it didn't work. The Democrats tried it too and found it doesn't work so well, at least in the modern era.

The excuses continue to pile up but what I sincerely hope it that Hillary's failure doesn't stop the party from producing credible female candidates for the nomination in the future
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
18,894
The excuses continue to pile up but what I sincerely hope it that Hillary's failure doesn't stop the party from producing credible female candidates for the nomination in the future
Interesting to hear Donna Brazile been quoted as more or less saying that if Hilary was not female she would have been replaced during the campaign, she talked about the aura of failure coming from the Clinton campaign and seriously thought about trying to draft in Biden to replace her to try and save the White House(Biden/Brooker ticket is what they were looking at) but in the end she felt they could no do that to the first female nomination so they were stuck with her.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
13,514
Last edited:
Last edited:
One feature of both Trump and Sanders was that they weren’t even authentic party members and both were to the left of centre of the parties they wanted to take over. Both were also anti-globalists in their own way. It’s a very odd situation which may arise from the two party duopoly running out of steam - probably time for change anyway. I could see some Dems pointing out they won the popular vote but the emptying centre of the country seems to be turning against them. In fairness, if I recall correctly, twelve years of one party in the WH has only happened once since WWII so it was always a long shot. An insurgent candidate for the Dems would have had to criticize Obama and that would have divided the party. I wouldn’t consider Clinton appalling - she was solid enough in a Dole, Kerry, McCain kinda way in the debates for example but she had no charisma.
 

Roberto Jordan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,059
It's been mentioned a few times on various threads that the Dems need to get good candidates and speakers to help them win the 2018 mid-term Congressional and the 2020 POTUS elections. There are already good congressional candidates but the Dems real problems are lack of national leadership and lack of effective policies.

HRC is a has-been on a book tour and speaking at various events by invitation and tweeting about Don "Capone" Trump, but it is likely she will be fading away into retirement; maybe she'll keep some backroom involvement with the Dems and the DNC, helping other candidates to fundraise, etc. This is notwithstanding Donna Brazile's recent comments on DNC funding and control about which there are already some statements countering hers.

Who is getting the national media attention? HRC and Donna (for the next week or so), with a few bits and pieces from Elizabeth Warren, plus Bernie Sanders following his own agenda (as usual, and not getting all that far). Nancy Pelosi, as the Dems' leader of the House of Representatives, has started some policy proposals and slogans, and is trying to keep the Rep Dems in check (eg insisting that it is far too early for a call for impeachment) but although she is doing a good job, Nancy Pelosi is 76 yo and is not considered to be presidential material.

And there are serious financial problems. After Obama's win in 2012 the Dems were in debt and at one point did not have enough money to pay staff. They owed US$20 million. HRC paid this debt and also paid both state organisations and Federal candidates money from her fundraising. Bernie chose to pay nothing, keeping his donations for his own use, and so did Obama(!).

Something is wrong with the Dems' administration.

There is an excellent, in depth article from the New York Times by Robert Draper which discusses the Dems' problems:

A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The 44th president left office as one of the most popular in American history. He also left behind a party struggling to find an identity — and to reconnect with voters in time for the 2018 elections.

The problems are such that I do not think the Dems will be able to get their act together in time for 2018 or even 2020. Miracles do occur though...

What do you think?
There is an unwillingness to challenge the status quo in the Democrat agenda and this will be excaerbated by the , somewhat understandable, distraction of the Trump administrations continuing incompetence and unravelling under federal invetsigation.

On the one hand there are many Dmeocacts who recognize that the partys priorities and agenda should be guided by the needs of their core , the working and lower middle classes, which are common regardless of race, creed or gender.

On the other hand the party is beholden to donors and high profile supporters who , to be frank, are democrats in name only when it comes to prioritization of the agenda and meaningful reform.

As long as anyone in the DNC can hold the types of views I have heard expressed along the lines of writing off the entire white , red state Trump vote as hicks and red necks the party will have a problem - because , while those states are not necessarily the key to winning, those types of views are a betrayal of progressive , left wing values and come from the same type of vantage point as republicans who , for example, ignore ( or maybe even passively sustain) inner violent crime because its only african americans killing african americans .

Both parties suffer from the bipolar broad church nature of party politics but at least the republicans get called out on it. I think its been too easy for democrats , at a national level, to believe they are fighting the good fight and therefore lose focus or lose the message with the public. We all know senior republicans are most concerned with the self interest of the donors from the 1% and 0.1 % (see the tax plan) - but they dont put this front and center as the core of the policies because - well, it loses votes and doesn't matter to folks. The democrats however think that because the self interest of their equivalent funders are more virtuous and just then its ok to lose focus on what really matters and communicating this in a way that is understandable, compelling and welcoming to a broad set of voters.

On top of this they also suffer because it is quite clear that , as I stated baove, many of the same types of people , with the same sets of priorities, in reality fund both parties. With only geographical location, ethinc/ religious background or sexual preference pushing would be republicans into the demoncrat embrace.

Its not an uncommon conundrum and its possibly a reflection of a good thing i.e. wider social conscious , improving education and the slow , almost negligible but still real, social mobility that is increasing the progressive numbers in the top 10 , 5, 1 and 0.1 5 of the socio-economic pyramid. However it needs to addressed and recognized that it is distorting and its inevitable results is to polarize ( corbyn/ sanders) and/or let the "bad guys" in 2 out of 3 election cycles.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,475
Last edited:
Last edited:
It's been mentioned a few times on various threads that the Dems need to get good candidates and speakers to help them win the 2018 mid-term Congressional and the 2020 POTUS elections. There are already good congressional candidates but the Dems real problems are lack of national leadership and lack of effective policies.

HRC is a has-been on a book tour and speaking at various events by invitation and tweeting about Don "Capone" Trump, but it is likely she will be fading away into retirement; maybe she'll keep some backroom involvement with the Dems and the DNC, helping other candidates to fundraise, etc. This is notwithstanding Donna Brazile's recent comments on DNC funding and control about which there are already some statements countering hers.

Who is getting the national media attention? HRC and Donna (for the next week or so), with a few bits and pieces from Elizabeth Warren, plus Bernie Sanders following his own agenda (as usual, and not getting all that far). Nancy Pelosi, as the Dems' leader of the House of Representatives, has started some policy proposals and slogans, and is trying to keep the Rep Dems in check (eg insisting that it is far too early for a call for impeachment) but although she is doing a good job, Nancy Pelosi is 76 yo and is not considered to be presidential material.

And there are serious financial problems. After Obama's win in 2012 the Dems were in debt and at one point did not have enough money to pay staff. They owed US$20 million. HRC paid this debt and also paid both state organisations and Federal candidates money from her fundraising. Bernie chose to pay nothing, keeping his donations for his own use, and so did Obama(!).

Something is wrong with the Dems' administration.

There is an excellent, in depth article from the New York Times by Robert Draper which discusses the Dems' problems:

A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The 44th president left office as one of the most popular in American history. He also left behind a party struggling to find an identity — and to reconnect with voters in time for the 2018 elections.

The problems are such that I do not think the Dems will be able to get their act together in time for 2018 or even 2020. Miracles do occur though...

What do you think?
The 1st question is why does it bother an Australian living in England on an Irish discussion forum who POTUS is?
The 2nd question is why do you lie about Hillary referring to President Trump as "Don Capone Trump" tell us or link us to her saying that.

The 3rd point is that the Election of Mr Trump is as a result of a sharp shift to the right world wide which led to Brexit and the recent German election result. Elections are won by persuading floating voters and these have realized that the commie leftie greenie libloon ideology is a dangerous naive mistake. Its commie segment leads to Castro and Kim Yung 2, its leftie segment leads to the destruction of economic activity and uncontrolled immigration. Its greenie side leads to the the climate change hoax and the renewable enerty scams and its libloon segment leads to Grace the pirate. Voters don't want it and it will be a generation until they do, if ever.

Hopefully by then, Grace's night shelter won't have wifi
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,475
One feature of both Trump and Sanders was that they weren’t even authentic party members and both were to the left of centre of the parties they wanted to take over. Both were also anti-globalists in their own way. It’s a very odd situation which may arise from the two party duopoly running out of steam - probably time for change anyway. I could see some Dems pointing out they won the popular vote but the emptying centre of the country seems to be turning against them. In fairness, if I recall correctly, twelve years of one party in the WH has only happened once since WWII so it was always a long shot. An insurgent candidate for the Dems would have had to criticize Obama and that would have divided the party. I wouldn’t consider Clinton appalling - she was solid enough in a Dole, Kerry, McCain kinda way in the debates for example but she had no charisma.
You make a good point. Farage and Trump broke down the broad church of left and right into segments. They stuck right wing labels on some of it like immigration, support for the military, police, denunciation of green constraints and manufacturing and stuck left wing levels on more of it such as gay/lesbian rights, support for veterans, and support got labour unions, energy jobs. In Trump's case he even rolled out a classie wife.

Like it or not Trump is a sort of celebrity himself making it hard for the Dems for find an equally well known candidate. They all privately know it will be at least 2032 before they will be in with a chance.
 

ne0ica

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
8,143
It's been mentioned a few times on various threads that the Dems need to get good candidates and speakers to help them win the 2018 mid-term Congressional and the 2020 POTUS elections. There are already good congressional candidates but the Dems real problems are lack of national leadership and lack of effective policies.

HRC is a has-been on a book tour and speaking at various events by invitation and tweeting about Don "Capone" Trump, but it is likely she will be fading away into retirement; maybe she'll keep some backroom involvement with the Dems and the DNC, helping other candidates to fundraise, etc. This is notwithstanding Donna Brazile's recent comments on DNC funding and control about which there are already some statements countering hers.

Who is getting the national media attention? HRC and Donna (for the next week or so), with a few bits and pieces from Elizabeth Warren, plus Bernie Sanders following his own agenda (as usual, and not getting all that far). Nancy Pelosi, as the Dems' leader of the House of Representatives, has started some policy proposals and slogans, and is trying to keep the Rep Dems in check (eg insisting that it is far too early for a call for impeachment) but although she is doing a good job, Nancy Pelosi is 76 yo and is not considered to be presidential material.

And there are serious financial problems. After Obama's win in 2012 the Dems were in debt and at one point did not have enough money to pay staff. They owed US$20 million. HRC paid this debt and also paid both state organisations and Federal candidates money from her fundraising. Bernie chose to pay nothing, keeping his donations for his own use, and so did Obama(!).

Something is wrong with the Dems' administration.

There is an excellent, in depth article from the New York Times by Robert Draper which discusses the Dems' problems:

A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself
The 44th president left office as one of the most popular in American history. He also left behind a party struggling to find an identity — and to reconnect with voters in time for the 2018 elections.

The problems are such that I do not think the Dems will be able to get their act together in time for 2018 or even 2020. Miracles do occur though...

What do you think?
I'm sure most Dems wish she had.

Hillary and the Clintons are not going anywhere. They are like a bad rash which won't go away. I'm sure they are grooming Chelsea to run in 20somthing.

Its been only like 17 years since Bill was in the White House. Time for them to go away.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
With mass immigration they wont have to be thinking about the white working class anymore and can just play off the animosity of "people of colour" to white folks while probably moving further to the economic right.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom