Author Topic: Omaha Steve & Co. trashes Democrat party  (Read 237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57220
  • Reputation: +2172/-171
  • ^^^indefatigable
Omaha Steve & Co. trashes Democrat party
« on: September 21, 2018, 09:36:21 PM »

Oh my.

FugitiveBirdie (2024 posts)    September 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm
The Democratic party went AWOL in 2016 – and is still missing

On 8 November 2016 Donald Trump won the US presidency. But it was also the day the Democratic party went awol. Almost two years later, the Democrats are still not to be found. They have no clear leader, or even leadership team, no convincing analysis of why they lost the election, and, consequently, no strategy to do better next time.

In a July 2017 Washington Post-ABC News poll a majority of Americans (52%) said the Democratic party “just stands against Trump”, while just a minority (37%) believed the party “stands for something”. I seriously doubt these numbers will have changed much since then. As Democratic leaders limit their interventions to anti-Russia and anti-Trump platitudes, they might rally their partisan core, but they lose the bigger base – including millennials.

Now, before you start shouting “fake news” or “uninformed voters”, do you really know what the Democratic party stands for? I don’t. Sure, the Democratic party has always had different factions. Just like the Republican party it is a “big tent” party. In fact, the 2016 presidential elections showed that the US has four potential main parties, forced by an unforgiving electoral system into two actual parties. But because the Republicans hold the presidency, they have less of a problem with presenting a clear face (if not necessarily position) to the American voter. The Democrats don’t have this luxury.

Democratic partisans will counter that, since Trump came to power, Democrats have won many of the local and state races that have been held. But they glance over the fact that these races were won with many different candidates and positions, some diametrically opposed to each other. Moreover, some races were won despite, rather than because of the Democratic party.

My summation is that corporate Dems would rather lose to a Republican than lose control of the Democratic Party on behalf of their donors.

Why else wouldn’t they rally around the most popular politician in the country, someone with a likeness to a form leader that won the presidency for decades, ended the Great Depression, and won World War 2.*

*  :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Bernie Delano Franklin?  Gawd, that's funny.

Fire with Fire (1607 posts)    (Reply to original post)   September 21, 2018 at 5:13 pm

1. No snark intended — and I appreciate the post

By now, this insight ought to be common knowledge.  The Dems don’t care about winning and there are over 1000 Republicans holding offices taken from Democrats over the last eight years to prove the point.

nevereVereven (5558 posts)    (Reply to Fire with Fire - post #1)   September 21, 2018 at 6:05 pm

3. Yeah- the Dem Party went missing back around 1992…

The author of this article just now noticed? Not exactly a font of insight & wisdom, to put it mildly.

jwirr (5132 posts)    (Reply to original post)   September 21, 2018 at 5:34 pm

2. I love your last sentence.* IF they cannot learn from that they never will.

*  :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Franklin Delano Sanders?
Democrats: A bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich people by telling poor people that other rich people are the reason they are poor

Life is short, and suddenly you're not there any more.