NYT: The Democratic Party Is in Worse Shape Than You Thought

[DKW 86 7,410]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/opinion/the-democratic-party-is-in-worse-shape-than-you-thought.html?_r=0

I recently joined a Alabama Democratic Party Reform effort. This is why. 

 

[Mikey 16,550]

Good read! I've been trying to tell my cradle to grave Democrat sister that unless the Dems take a turn toward the middle their outlook is dim. I'll sent this on, as she firmly believes anything that's published in the NYT or Washington Post.

[bigbird 60,368]

Thanks for posting.  Some very valid points that both parties should try and consider.

[SaturdayGT 719]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Good read! I've been trying to tell my cradle to grave Democrat sister that unless the Dems take a turn toward the middle their outlook is dim. I'll sent this on, as she firmly believes anything that's published in the NYT or Washington Post.

I get the impression that most dems feel they are already in the middle...

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

Like Big Bird said both parties should read this. Trump won the Republican party for the same reason he won the Presidency he recognized how much both parties are beholden to elite groups on both the Left and the Right. Trump isn't really a Republican that is why he won. Hillary and Trump were both flawed candidates but if you watched the primaries with Bernie's strong showing despite the roadblocks the DNC put up and then Trump with no political background beating the professional politicians in the Republican party it was more a vote against both parties than for Donald.

We had 8 years of Republican's caring more about stopping Obama and hurting the Democrats than compromising and trying to help the country, Democrats who started with a super majority in the senate and majority in the house who forced through Obamacare with multiple known flaws because they wouldn't listen to any ideas from the other side so they lost control of both and we are now seeing the same thing from the Democrats and Republicans now that the shoe is on the other foot. Democrats obstruct anything the Republicans do without talking and compromising and Republicans not willing to listen to anything the Democrats say. 

We have no new ideas to address old problems that the old ideas did not fix. Inner city poverty and violence, loss of family farms, jobs being outsourced to other countries, poor educational systems, deteriorating infrastructure, cost of healthcare, etc. Neither party really addresses any of the real issues all they do is work to get elected.

[DKW 86 7,410]

I think you are correct. DT won because he wasn't a Republican. If it weren't for DWS and Brazile, Sanders would have won. Both parties would have had outsider candidates. Unfortunately DT read it first and won. 

[TexasTiger 12,810]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I think you are correct. DT won because he wasn't a Republican. If it weren't for DWS and Brazile, Sanders would have won. Both parties would have had outsider candidates. Unfortunately DT read it first and won. 

Sanders would have won, but Brazile and DWS didn't cost him the nomination.

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

I really like Sanders, but, as a leftist, I'm glad he didn't win. With the GOP controlling everything else, it would have just been a waste. I think Trump and the Republicans having full control for a couple of years is going to benefit the left greatly. People are going to get a healthy dose of what the right is all about, and I don't think it's going to take too well. The Republicans are going to piss off a lot of middle and lower class people in this country and they wont have anyone to push blame on. I hate to see people have to suffer, but sometimes people need to be directly affected to really see where they want things to go. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

22 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I really like Sanders, but, as a leftist, I'm glad he didn't win. With the GOP controlling everything else, it would have just been a waste. I think Trump and the Republicans having full control for a couple of years is going to benefit the left greatly. People are going to get a healthy dose of what the right is all about, and I don't think it's going to take too well. The Republicans are going to piss off a lot of middle and lower class people in this country and they wont have anyone to push blame on. I hate to see people have to suffer, but sometimes people need to be directly affected to really see where they want things to go. 

To each his own but I spent 8 years of Obama seeeing the way I didn't want things to go. Now it's Trump's turn. I don't agree with everything he does but I fully support him as my POTUS and truly believe if the disruptive Dems ever get over their defeat Trump will make America great again. He is off to a good start keeping his promises which most politicians don't do.

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

To each his own but I spent 8 years of Obama seeeing the way I didn't want things to go. Now it's Trump's turn. I don't agree with everything he does but I fully support him as myPOTUS and truly believe if the disruptive Dems ever get over their defeat Trump will make America great again. He is off to a good start keeoing his promises which most politicians don't do.

So in your opinion, it's disruptive for the Dems to fight Trump, and they should just get over their defeat? Whats really interesting to me is how quickly the right has forgotten about their disruption of Obama. It's almost as if y'all think that the Republicans were completely accommodating and bi partisan during the Obama years. Surely you can see how hypocritical your "disruption"  argument is?

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

12 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

To each his own but I spent 8 years of Obama seeeing the way I didn't want things to go. Now it's Trump's turn. I don't agree with everything he does but I fully support him as myPOTUS and truly believe if the disruptive Dems ever get over their defeat Trump will make America great again. He is off to a good start keeoing his promises which most politicians don't do.

Also, What does Make America Great Again actually mean? What time period are we trying to go back to here? 

[AUUSN 823]

3 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Also, What does Make America Great Again actually mean? What time period are we trying to go back to here? 

 

[DKW 86 7,410]

16 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Sanders would have won, but Brazile and DWS didn't cost him the nomination.

I think the emails between HRC and DWS and Podesta easily show that they conspired against Sanders. Passing along questions, putting debates on at odd times. Brazile even stated she could never forgive herself for the hurt she caused in the party with her handling the questions  

[Mikey 16,550]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Sanders would have won, but Brazile and DWS didn't cost him the nomination.

I have seen this assertion before, but there's no logical reason to think Sanders would have even done as well as H. Clinton. Middle Americans, the ones that put Trump in office, would not have voted for a socialist. All those red states would have stayed red and maybe  a couple more would have been added.

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

I have seen this assertion before, but there's no logical reason to think Sanders would have even done as well as H. Clinton. Middle Americans, the ones that put Trump in office, would not have voted for a socialist. All those red states would have stayed red and maybe  a couple more would have been added.

I'm not so sure you're right about the Middle Americans. Sanders polled pretty well in the Mid West and if Hillary had won those states, we'd be in a different situation right now. Bernie Sanders isn't what people historically think Socialism is. He's kind of a socialist lite. And people seem to realize this. Socialist or not, rural Americans wanted a candidate that hey felt cared about them, this election, and Sanders fit that mold. Also, Sanders had absolutely no personal baggage. Hillary's previous issues are what kept her down, along with the fact that the right has been grooming people to hate her for the last 20 years. 

[auburnphan 6,050]

Most Americans have no clue what socialism entails.   They believe that Russia is the symbol of Socialism even though they evolved into a totalitarian society in the 1930's.  Our government misused the word in its fight of the spread of Russia's power....so it will forever be misunderstood by most Americans that have not educated themselves.

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

1 hour ago, auburnphan said:

Most Americans have no clue what socialism entails.   They believe that Russia is the symbol of Socialism even though they evolved into a totalitarian society in the 1930's.  Our government misused the word in its fight of the spread of Russia's power....so it will forever be misunderstood by most Americans that have not educated themselves.

I completely agree. And I think that more Americans opened up to the idea that you can have socialist aspects to a Capitalist country, in this past election cycle. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

20 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

So in your opinion, it's disruptive for the Dems to fight Trump, and they should just get over their defeat? Whats really interesting to me is how quickly the right has forgotten about their disruption of Obama. It's almost as if y'all think that the Republicans were completely accommodating and bi partisan during the Obama years. Surely you can see how hypocritical your "disruption"  argument is?

 

20 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

So in your opinion, it's disruptive for the Dems to fight Trump, and they should just get over their defeat?--yes. They should be regrouping rather than continuing to while and try to explain why they lost. But as for me I  hope they never get organized again.

Whats really interesting to me is how quickly the right has forgotten about their disruption of Obama. It's almost as if y'all think that the Republicans were completely accommodating and bi partisan during the Obama years. Surely you can see how hypocritical your "disruption"  argument is?--the outrage when Obama was elected was a whimper to what has gone on in the country since Trump was elected. But the left always seems to see it differently and call it hypocracy.

 

[homersapien 11,353]

39 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

 

 

1) Understanding why you lost is a part of re-grouping.  Duuuuh!

2) Obama is not an incompetent, narcissistic psychopath.  Duuuuh!

 

[TexasTiger 12,810]

5 hours ago, Mikey said:

I have seen this assertion before, but there's no logical reason to think Sanders would have even done as well as H. Clinton. Middle Americans, the ones that put Trump in office, would not have voted for a socialist. All those red states would have stayed red and maybe  a couple more would have been added.

Trump promised universal health care and no cuts to entitlements. Your logic is dated.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I think the emails between HRC and DWS and Podesta easily show that they conspired against Sanders. Passing along questions, putting debates on at odd times. Brazile even stated she could never forgive herself for the hurt she caused in the party with her handling the questions  

Not disputing that. Just don't think it would have changed the primary votes sufficiently. 

[AuCivilEng1 10,995]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

 

 

To be fair here, Trump and Obama are too different beasts. Obama wasn't trying to ban people, talking sh*t on twitter about everyone, cutting important programs,proposing a health care bill that is, by far, more harmful than anything we have now, and isolating us from our allies. Trump's aftermath is far more hostile that Obama's was. I'll give you that. Put giving what Trump has done,since he's been in office, what they did to Obama seems a little over dramatic. Trump is getting exactly what he deserves from the media, because he can't keep his fat mouth shut. He's doing this to himself. 

[Mikey 16,550]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump promised universal health care and no cuts to entitlements. Your logic is dated.

Trump promised to dump Obamacare, which he may very well do. He has had a way of keeping election promises, in spite of the obstructionists. He promised no cuts to Social Security and there have been no cuts. Since he can always fall back on Obama's infamous: "I don't need congress, I have a phone and I have a pen" Trump may continue to move the nation on forward in spite of the Left. Your logic is premature.

[homersapien 11,353]

"Obstructionists"?   

Are you referring to the Republican-controlled senate or the Republican-controlled house?

Sounds like you'd prefer a Trump dictatorship.

[TexasTiger 12,810]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Trump promised to dump Obamacare, which he may very well do. He has had a way of keeping election promises, in spite of the obstructionists. He promised no cuts to Social Security and there have been no cuts. Since he can always fall back on Obama's infamous: "I don't need congress, I have a phone and I have a pen" Trump may continue to move the nation on forward in spite of the Left. Your logic is premature.

He promised universal healthcare.