Democrats Are In Disarray...Not GOP

bush_cheney2004 · November 19, 2016

The news media likes headline hooks with alliteration, hence 'democrats in disarray'. But this has been true for a lot longer than President-Elect Donald Trump's stunning knockout of Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 presidential election. The Democrats have been bleeding seats ever since 2009, in significant numbers (depending on when you count):

14 Senate seats
69 House seats
12 governorships
910 state legislature seats

Quote

Obama’s record for losses, at least through the 2014 midterms, is historically bad having overseen two horrible midterm elections for Democrats. Overall, Sabato wrote, Democrats during Obama’s presidency lost 11 governorships, 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, and 913 state legislative seats and 30 state legislative chambers.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

Americans are now watching the scramble and infighting over Democratic Party leadership in the wake of Trump's victory. "What went wrong?" Perhaps they were able to convince themselves that the Republican Party was in far worse shape, based on the GOP's 2016 nomination circus. But it has been the Democrats who have been slowly bleeding out. They did not take control of anything, and will likely lose more ground because of the states/districts in play for the 2018 midterms. News media played along, focusing a lot of energy on Donald Trump since 2015. This is the same Trump who will likely make Supreme Court justice appointments as well.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi is now fighting for her political life....going from first female Speaker of the House to old has been who won't go away. The DNC is also struggling to find new, relevant leadership after losing the presidential election to a political rookie who understood voters more than they did.

Perhaps confirmation bias has been at play when MLW threads gleefully discussed a "failing" Republican Party while ignoring reality on the ground and in voting booths.

Accordingly, what will save the Democratic Party from more losses ? A failed Trump presidency ?

?Impact · November 19, 2016

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Perhaps confirmation bias has been at play when MLW threads gleefully discussed a "failing" Republican Party while ignoring reality on the ground and in voting booths.

I would say if you want to discuss reality, then why do you present only one side of the equation? You talk about seats the Democrats lost, but totally ignore the seats the Republicans have lost. If we look at the House for example, there was a net gain of 7 seats by the Democrats so obviously the Republicans had losses. Since you have all the research since 2009, then how about telling the whole story?

bush_cheney2004 · November 19, 2016

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I would say if you want to discuss reality, then why do you present only one side of the equation? You talk about seats the Democrats lost, but totally ignore the seats the Republicans have lost. If we look at the House for example, there was a net gain of 7 seats by the Democrats so obviously the Republicans had losses. Since you have all the research since 2009, then how about telling the whole story?

Because that is the whole story....net losses....more than under any president from Truman to G.W. Bush. Where was the "whole story" when some here proclaimed the demise of the Republican Party ?

Hal 9000 · November 19, 2016

True, The democrats are like a sports team that hasn't figured out that its time to change the core players and move along.

msj · November 20, 2016

Hmmm, in 1977 one would be forgiven for thinking that things were looking dour for the GOP: Carter was president, both houses held by the Dems. I think it was 37 to 12 in governorships held.

Who would have predicted the rise of the GOP in the 80's.

Who will predict the rise of the Dems now?

August1991 · November 20, 2016

1 hour ago, msj said:

Hmmm, in 1977 one would be forgiven for thinking that things were looking dour for the GOP: Carter was president, both houses held by the Dems. I think it was 37 to 12 in governorships held.

Who would have predicted the rise of the GOP in the 80's.

Who will predict the rise of the Dems now?

Uh, who could have predicted the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1977?

Well, Reagan did.

And Deng defeated Mao - in the late 1970s.

=====

Trump may be on a similar path as Reagan. And if so, the so-called "progressives" are not able to predict the future at all.

Progressive?

The world is not a Khrushchev utopia. Nor has eugenics determined our future. Mao was wrong, like Chomsky.

Edited November 20, 2016 by August1991

August1991 · November 20, 2016

1 hour ago, msj said:

Hmmm, in 1977 one would be forgiven for thinking that things were looking dour for the GOP: Carter was president, both houses held by the Dems. I think it was 37 to 12 in governorships held.

In 1991, the Soviet Union GosStatKrom people in Moscow were also thinking that "things were looking dour".

bush_cheney2004 · November 20, 2016

Democrats are in trouble...moving left won't help...and this guy explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WhOT_lQiA

overthere · November 21, 2016

Both parties are in disarray. The US political apple cart has been turned upside down!

It will be interesting to see if the Republican Old Guard is now ready to march to Herr Trumps tune!

August1991 · November 22, 2016

Progressives in North America typically refer to tobacco as one of their main victories. Progressives defeated Big Tobacco. (American progressives also refer to civil rights.They defeated Jim Crow.)

These "progressives" don't talk about blood-letting or eugenics which, in their time, were considered "progressive"

=======.

Years ago, our PM famously said that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Precisely. The State has no business in the affairs of civil rights. In a civlised society, you can choose whom you want to be with.

Modern, progressive, liberal, conservative ------- I think that these terms are about to change their meaning..

Edited November 22, 2016 by August1991

bush_cheney2004 · November 22, 2016

Canada's state broadcaster has finally figured it out too.....Democrats in decline:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/democratic-party-future-election-1.3850194

bush_cheney2004 · November 23, 2016

A qualitative assessment of how much trouble the Democrats are in, and how wrong they were/are.

Protesting about the "1%" never made any sense in the first place. Bill Clinton tried to warn them.....

Quote

On the economy, we have to get our math right. The income disparity in the United States isn’t about the 1 percent versus the other 99. This thinking has led Democrats astray. The truth is that one-third of adults are economically secure and getting wealthier year by year.

Wake up Democrats, we're in big trouble

betsy · December 20, 2016

He's doing his whining in a Book Store! Hahahaha :lol:

Quote

Bill Clinton bashes Trump, blames 'angry white men' and Comey for wife's loss

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/19/bill-clinton-bashes-trump-blames-angry-white-men-and-comey-for-wifes-loss.html

Get over it.

Edited December 20, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · December 20, 2016

Is this thread-worthy? Didn't you already create an all-purpose gloating thread?

sharkman · December 20, 2016

Huh, I thought it was the Russians.

BubberMiley · December 20, 2016

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Huh, I thought it was the Russians.

That's what the evidence suggests. Though you and the rest of the Alex Jones minions think that evidence is all just a DMC conspiracy.

DogOnPorch · December 20, 2016

It's what the doctored evidence suggests...yes.

betsy · December 21, 2016

On 12/20/2016 at 11:30 AM, BubberMiley said:

Is this thread-worthy? Didn't you already create an all-purpose gloating thread?

Gloating? For reacting to a ridiculous, hypocritical sore-loser? You'd think he was the one who missed out on the White House! :lol:

Of all people, you'd think the Clintons would set a good example.....especially when Trump was gracious enough to be the first to reach out to Bill.

Edited December 21, 2016 by betsy

?Impact · December 21, 2016

1 hour ago, betsy said:

especially when Trump was gracious enough to be the first to reach out to Bill.

Two words that don't belong together

Omni · December 21, 2016

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Two words that don't belong together

Good point. Plus we all know that Trump has been good buddies with the Clinton's for years.

I can think of a word or two that DO belong together with Trump, but I don't think they are allowed on here.

betsy · December 21, 2016

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Two words that don't belong together

Still, Clinton proved himself to be a sore loser. Seems he's having a tough time getting over it than dear Hill. :lol:

I suppose he's moaning, "there goes the bevy of young buxom interns!"

Who knows, maybe Hillary secretly felt relieved that she's lost!

There are several words that goes together with Bill.....but I don't think they are allowed on here.

Edited December 21, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · December 21, 2016

24 minutes ago, betsy said:

There are several words that goes together with Bill.....but I don't think they are allowed on here.

Are you talking about when he got caught saying he can get away with grabbing women by the pussy because he's a celebrity, and then got Russia to leak the Podesta emails within an hour of when the tape of him saying it was released?

Or was that someone else?

betsy · December 22, 2016

11 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Are you talking about when he got caught saying he can get away with grabbing women by the pussy because he's a celebrity, and then got Russia to leak the Podesta emails within an hour of when the tape of him saying it was released?

Or was that someone else?

Nope. Based on what I've seen from the news......not him.

You must be referring to someone else......

kimmy · December 24, 2016

The Democrats are, undoubtedly in disarray right now. At present it seems as if Bernie Sanders is the remaining spokesman for the party. Hillary Clinton seems to have gotten the message and removed herself from public discourse.

Retiring Senator Harry Reid, one of the most cantankerous Democrats, has filled a paper bag with dog-poop, set it on fire, and set it on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's doorstep. Wasserman-Schultz was a contentious figure during the primaries, due to the widespread (and probably accurate) perception that she was in the tank for Hillary and did her level best to undermine Bernie Sanders. Harry Reid goes one step further-- he contends that "that congresswoman from Florida" was "worthless" as the chair of the DNC. DWS already resigned as the DNC Chairperson prior at the DNC convention, when she was booed off the stage by people who were disgusted by what leaked emails revealed about what she and her staff thought of Bernie Sanders. Harry Reid's criticism isn't in regard to the Democratic primaries, it's in regard to her failure to make the DNC a winning organization at the state level. Under Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Democrats got whipped in every election except for the 2012 Presidential election, which Barack won in spite of DWS, not thanks to her. She sucks, she's an awful person, and if a comet fell out of the sky and hit her, it would be the best thing that happened to the Democrats in years.

-k

H10 · December 25, 2016

On 11/20/2016 at 3:53 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Democrats are in trouble...moving left won't help...and this guy explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WhOT_lQiA

I watched the video, the concept is grossly flawed. He is saying there are more Republicans in the house and senate, so running left wing candidates on the far left will be less successful because Republicans will not work with them. This is a gross flaw for several reasons

1. Republicans block conservative democrats more than they do liberal ones.

2. It erroneously presumes that more Republicans getting elected to the house, senate and governorships, means that there is a large tidal wave of right wing republicans support. This is actually the opposite of the truth. Republican's voter base is shrinking and dying off, so they are resorting to tactics like voter caging, disenfranchisement, blocking voters from accessing the ballot, reducing the numbers of days voters can, eliminating early voting, and throwing in id requirements and purging voter rolls. In 2008-2010, Democrats were not thinking that Republicans would try to literally steal the elections in 2012-2016. Look at what occured in North carolina, the Republicans literally are trying to turn the state into a Republican dictatorship by stripping the powers of the govenor to governor because voter backlash despite all attempts to steal the election failed.

3. There is actually a tidal wave towards the left, as America has become increasingly progressive. Obama got 69 million votes from the progressive left who was staying home before and not voting because they don't vote for moderate democratic candidates. Who was the person drawing the crowds of 20,000, Clinton moderate republican, or farleft progressive sanders? Progressive left voters heavily outnumber Republicans. Democrats lose when they try to run republican light neo-con candidates. 20-30-40 years ago, it use to be true that Dems could only win by running southern republican conservative style type candidates like lbj, carter or clinton. Its just not the case anymore. We seen Obama turn red states blue by running on a extremely progressive platform of heathcare for all and win re-election. We seen him get senators in red states like alaska, virginia, and north carolina elected when normally democrats would have no chance in hell in getting elected in such a deep red state like alaska.

4. The real problem democrats face is that the leadership is old, out of touch with their base, want to take on large amounts of corporate money instead of appealing to the voting base due to the ease of which donor money can be turned into private money for a politician. If Sanders was not cheated by Clinton, he would have beat her, and had a much better chance at beating Trump. I can't say he would for sure. but Sanders understood how to talk to voters in a way to connect to them. Clinton was out of touch and had a terrible record and was very unliked by the democratic core. The dems need people like keith ellison leading the dnc, not corrupt wasserman-schultz, they need people like tim ryan leading the party in the house who can relate to the democratic, rust belt middle class and white male core, they need people like Sanders as the candidate or Warren or charismatic progressive candidates in order to win. Because when democrats run republican imitations like Clinton, the progressive majority stays home or votes republicans.

You want proof of that, look at the election of Obama in 2008 on a county by county level, compared to Clinton in 2016. I just picked Wayne county (detroit) michigan.

in 2008 Obama got 656,000 votes in total or 74% compared to McCains 24.5% or 216k

In 2016 clinton 517k or 66.8% of the vote compared to 228k or 29.5% of the trump vote.

In the state of Michigan, the entire state was decided by just 16,000 votes.

Clinton lost 139k voters (who are mostly african american or white progressives in detroit) one city, and it cost her the entire state. Trump did not gain some land slide amount of voters. He added 200k voters to what Mccain had while clinton LOST 600k voters Obama had.

Look at Wisconsin.

In 2008 Obama got 1.67 million votes in wisconsin or 56% of the vote compared to McCains 1.258 million or 42.4%

In 2016 Clinton got 1.382 million votes to Trumps 1.405 million votes losing by less than 23k votes state wide.

In Milwaukee county, Wisconsins largest city, Obama got 67.5% of the vote and 317k votes compares to McCains 31% of the vote and 147k

In the same county Clinton got 288k votes or 66% and Trump got 126k or 29%.

Trump got even fewer votes than McCain in Milwaukee, so in theory, Clinton should have been able to grab those 20k extra votes up for grabs and add them to the 317k obama had. She was unable to hold on to them because by being right wing, progressives stayed home and didn't vote for her. This is why she had such a huge loss of voters in such a liberal city. Had she just held on to the obama progressives in one city, not even counting madison, she'd win the state.

The Republican party is grossly unpopular in America, so much so, that in the last 7 elections they have have only one the popular vote 1 time. That is losing the majority of the voters 6 of 7 times. This is why they cheat so much, because they can not win without cheating.