Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 14, 2016 - 08:10pm PT
|
August posted Much of the Democrats poor showing is due to gerrymandering.
Indeed. Why? Because after breaking records with massive turnout for a transformational president in 2008, Democrats sat home in 2010 and allowed the Tea Party to dominate legislatures in state houses and governors mansions from coast to coast. The Republicans were then handed the responsibility of drawing new congressional lines and enshrined obstructionism for a decade. Democrats proceeded to show up in huge numbers in 2012 and reelected Obama and won back the Senate. In 2014, Democrats repeated their mistake and sat home, losing the Senate. There is a lack of commitment by the Democratic coalition to consistently stand up and be heard. Meanwhile Republicans are enacting a regressive and oppressive agenda in states all over the country while Democrats bicker over whether or not a democratic-socialist can single handedly implement single payer healthcare, end fracking and implement a $15 minimum wage.
There is a lack of seriousness on the part of Democratic voters that I find incredibly frustrating.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 06:02am PT
|
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 06:09am PT
|
There is a lack of seriousness on the part of Democratic voters that I find incredibly frustrating.
It's okay. The Republic party has enjoyed its dance with the Devil. Now, it must pay the piper.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 06:52am PT
|
Good read, HDDJ...
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/276743-democracy-in-the-crosshairs
In recent debates, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump boasted about the millions of votes they have received in the presidential primaries, with each touting the 8 million or 9 million votes they have won so far. So, out of a country of about 321 million people, these candidates will take maybe 10 to 12 million votes each by June — votes from less than 4 percent of the country.
Modern communications, higher voter education and the power of the internet are colliding with outdated methods of voting and participation to produce a system badly in need of reform. The result is a democracy that is veering off course, increasingly reflecting the will of powerful activist groups and the political extremes, and not of the broad population of the country.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 07:25am PT
|
Interesting points, Crank. I fear the quote you posted belies a false sense of history though. It seems to me that a broader portion of the electorate is getting involved in elections and are frustrated that the actual process doesn't match the one we are taught in 7th grade nor the one the media reinforces. Groups of dedicated, motivated people will always have outsized influence..that's the point of organizing. 50-60 years ago the idea of presidential candidates NOT being picked by party insiders would have been strange. I'll give the rest of it a read.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 07:42am PT
|
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 08:13am PT
|
Trump saw Muslims celebrating 9/11 at 7/11's which is why he was confused.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 11:14am PT
|
Sounds like legit voting issues in NY at the moment. People who have been living in one place and voted 7 months ago all of a sudden not on the list at their precinct. Some people on another forum are on the list in Yonkers where they've never lived. No bueno.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 11:33am PT
|
Fingers crossed for HRC. Sure hope the polls are right on this one.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2016 - 06:16pm PT
|
Election called immediately for Trump. Still unclear if he'll break 50% and sweep the delegates.
Democratic side will still take a while. The NYT has a good editorial on why Sanders should stay in the race no matter what and I think they make some good points.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 09:30pm PT
|
How about that Ted Cruz fella? Got skunked in the big apple.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
Apr 19, 2016 - 09:38pm PT
|
"a while" turned out to be not very long. She cruised to a 15-point advantage.
Bernie stay in? Sure. But tone it down.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 20, 2016 - 05:27am PT
|
HERE IS SOMETHING YOU WON'T HEAR FROM THE CORPORATE MEDIA
Clinton won 58% of the New York vote but only got 54% of the delegates!!! Each of those delegates represents 7300 voters. The people's voice has been silenced!!! Source: The New York Times
Fun fact: Each New York Democratic elected delegate represents about 7300 voters. Wyoming's Democratic Caucus was attended by about 7300 and determined the outcome of their 14 elected delegates. 1 caucus goer in Wyoming was roughly 14 times more powerful than 1 voter in New York. (Note that these numbers are based on actual voter turnout)
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 20, 2016 - 07:57am PT
|
This election is so weird.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 08:23am PT
|
Sanders is turning into a whiner.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 09:04am PT
|
Dang, he's got my vote.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 11:25am PT
|
As general election polling becomes more representative of the actual outcome, Vox and Real Clear Politics estimate that at this rate Democrats not only would win the presidency and take back the Senate, they could even take back the House.
One reason the Republicans are having such a hard time catching up to Clinton is because they aren’t united, and are quite fractured. Democrats, while having their own differences, are nowhere near the breaking point the Republicans are, and that is a huge advantage heading into the general election.
Republicans should be terrified. If they were smart, they would broker their convention and nominate Kasich, who consistently beats Hillary Clinton in the polls. But since when has the Republican Party done the smart thing?
Years of fear mongering and peppered racism has not, nor will it, pay off for the GOP. They created this monster, now they have to deal with it.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/04/20/trends-show-republicans-are-screwed-for-2016-and-its-all-thanks-to-trump/
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 11:42am PT
|
Conventions and parties exist to get people into power, not necessarily to reflect the will of the party electorate. That has always been the case. Usually, these two princilples line up, but as we are now seeing, and as Trump voters might soon find out, this isn't always true.
(Some Sanders voters seem to forget that notwithstanding her superdelegate advantage, Hillary is at this point reflecting the will of both the party and the electorate--she has more votes than Sanders and the support of party elite.)
So, Kasich could be nominated. So could Cruz or Rubio: nothing illegitimate about it. But elevating a second or third or fourth place finisher over someone who has the most votes and delegates would cause trump people to go apesh#t. And without those voters, Kasich or Rubio or Cruz would be in big trouble, even with their crossover appeal.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Apr 20, 2016 - 11:52am PT
|
good points, Dirt
and it is probably true to say that Trump is now Well Known to the American people and so his negatives are likely at or close to their maximum
but Cruz is a different story as all the attention has been on Trump, and IF Cruz gets
the Republican nomination then his azz will be vetted and his repulsiveness will become as evident to the electorate as it is to all his congressional colleagues
kind of seems a tie to me, Trump or Cruz, as to which one would be worse for the Republicans as their nominee - either one hands the Presidency to Mrs. Clinton
and very likely the US Senate also, alas the House will stay Republican
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|