The GoP?

[Lexicus]

Does this actually happen? My experience is that most of the people who would care enough to make this gesture will suck it up if a race really could go either way. Certainly these people exist, but I have to believe that for every one that does, another nine are invented by the leadership to excuse their own chronic inability to mobilise their constituencies.

liberals: *make not pushing hard for policies that materially benefit majority of country's citizens into a point of pride because they believe the Market should distribute resources*
also liberals: "people won't vote for us because they're whiny crybabies"

 

[Patine]

liberals: *make not pushing hard for policies that materially benefit majority of country's citizens into a point of pride because they believe the Market should distribute resources*
also liberals: "people won't vote for us because they're whiny crybabies"

The Democratic Party of the United States is NOT the same as "Liberalism" as a socio-political movement, nor is the Republican Party of the United States the same as "Conservatism" as a socio-political movement. Americans are just constantly and repeatedly cheated, again and again, by their corrupt, self-serving, elitist, out-of-touch, failed political parties of high criminals who have the whole electoral system rigged in their favour as thoroughly as one of the "dominant parties" or "parties of power" in one of the "emerging democracies" the U.S. Department of State likes to scold for their bad governing habits. Case and point - in 2016, Hillary Clinton was NOT a Liberal, and Donald Trump was NOT a Conservative.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Does this actually happen? My experience is that most of the people who would care enough to make this gesture will suck it up if a race really could go either way. Certainly these people exist, but I have to believe that for every one that does, another nine are invented by the leadership to excuse their own chronic inability to mobilise their constituencies.

Clinton, 2016. Oh and the big slumps in turnout that handed over Congress to the GOP during Obama's off-years. Obama was an energetic campaigner, to the point where he was routinely and consistently attacked by the right for using the organs of state (like Air Force One) to help the Democrats win elections. He also built one of the first big internet-based, grass-roots campaigning machine which was widely praised by both sides for its effectiveness. Coincidentally, the Republican response via Trump has been to take those examples and double-down on them but I digress. In any case, people still sat out those crucial elections and gave over Congress and the Presidency (and the Courts! - McConnell announced his strategy before the election) to the GOP.

People knew what the stakes were and stayed home. And I don't think you can look at the entire field of Congressional democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 as a bunch of limp-noodle loosers that deserved it. And yup, Clinton sucked and could have done a better job of campaigning. But if Obama couldn't keep a majority in the Congress over 8 years, I don't think we can blame solely her for the loss. The left tends sits things out when they don't have a big unifying cause or attractive candidate on the ballot - at least to the extent where they lose the election. And hell, a lot of the most progressive candidates in the 2018 lost their elections, so again, you can't blame everything on a lack of attractive candidates for the left.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are real structural problems the left faces thanks to gerrymandering and our stupid brand of federalism. But even that doesn't fully explain the absolute walloping the left was handed from 2010 to 2018. They just don't vote consistently. And I think a lot of that has to do with our tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to policies and politicians.

 

[Patine]

Clinton, 2016. Oh and the big slumps in turnout that handed over Congress to the GOP during Obama's off-years. Obama was an energetic campaigner, to the point where he was routinely and consistently attacked by the right for using the organs of state (like Air Force One) to help the Democrats win elections. He also built one of the first big internet-based, grass-roots campaigning machine which was widely praised by both sides for its effectiveness. Coincidentally, the Republican response via Trump has been to take those examples and double-down on them but I digress. In any case, people still sat out those crucial elections and gave over Congress and the Presidency (and the Courts! - McConnell announced his strategy before the election) to the GOP.

People knew what the stakes were and stayed home. And I don't think you can look at the entire field of Congressional democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 as a bunch of limp-noodle loosers that deserved it. And yup, Clinton sucked and could have done a better job of campaigning. But if Obama couldn't keep a majority in the Congress over 8 years, I don't think we can blame solely her for the loss. The left tends sits things out when they don't have a big unifying cause or attractive candidate on the ballot - at least to the extent where they lose the election. And hell, a lot of the most progressive candidates in the 2018 lost their elections, so again, you can't blame everything on a lack of attractive candidates for the left.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are real structural problems the left faces thanks to gerrymandering and our stupid brand of federalism. But even that doesn't fully explain the absolute walloping the left was handed from 2010 to 2018. They just don't vote consistently. And I think a lot of that has to do with our tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to policies and politicians.

But you portray the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election as Liberal voters handing the White House over to a Conservative, when, as I said above, there was no Liberal (except maybe Stein) and no Conservative (except Castle and McMullin) on the General Election ballot that year, at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you portray the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election as Liberal voters handing the White House over to a Conservative, when, as I said above, there was no Liberal (except maybe Stein) and no Conservative (except Castle and McMullin) on the General Election ballot that year, at all.

The nominees do represent the parties though even if they don't fit the traditional labels.

Trump had really done anything a normal republican would do except he has been more offensive and incompetent than the others. Tax cuts, deregulation etc.

The party writes the policy in most cases the president signs it.

 

[Patine]

The nominees do represent the parties though even if they don't fit the traditional labels.

Trump had really done anything a normal republican would do except he has been more offensive and incompetent than the others. Tax cuts, deregulation etc.

The party writes the policy in most cases the president signs it.

You seem to have misread my post. I didn't say no REPUBLICAN in a partisan sense, I said no CONSERVATIVE in an ideological sense. The term I used is very important - in fact, it's a key factor. And Trump seems intent on not being reduced to a rubberstamp for McConnel.

 

[Zardnaar]

You seem to have misread my post. I didn't say no REPUBLICAN in a partisan sense, I said no CONSERVATIVE in an ideological sense. The term I used is very important - in fact, it's a key factor. And Trump seems intent on not being reduced to a rubberstamp for McConnel.

For the most part Trump has passed and supported GoP policies. High court courts, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, anti immigration.

Trump's not a neo con or competent but he is passing conservative friendly agenda although he's pissing off to many people IMHO.

 

[Lexicus]

The Democratic Party of the United States is NOT the same as "Liberalism" as a socio-political movement, nor is the Republican Party of the United States the same as "Conservatism" as a socio-political movement.

In the sense I used the term "liberal" there both Republicans and Democrats are liberals.

Americans are just constantly and repeatedly cheated, again and again, by their corrupt, self-serving, elitist, out-of-touch, failed political parties of high criminals

You really like to pile on the adjectives.

But if Obama couldn't keep a majority in the Congress over 8 years, I don't think we can blame solely her for the loss.

Indeed; we can also blame Obama. Obama took plenty of justified flack for focusing almost entirely on the Presidency and allowing the Democrats to be destroyed at the state level while he was supposed to be leading the party.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But you portray the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election as Liberal voters handing the White House over to a Conservative, when, as I said above, there was no Liberal (except maybe Stein) and no Conservative (except Castle and McMullin) on the General Election ballot that year, at all.

Yes, there wasn't a left candidate on the ballot but there was a clear choice between a moderate, center-left candidate and an extreme right candidate. Like I said before, a lot of people on the left look at that choice as two losing propositions rather than one proposition that would allow them to win - albeit a lot less than they'd like - and one hard losing proposition. If they sat out the election because Clinton wasn't liberal enough, then they got the worse possible outcome of that choice. The perfect was made into the enemy of the good. I'm not saying Clinton was a leftist. I'm not even saying she was a good candidate. But on all the issues we care about, she was light years ahead of Trump and by not voting, we wound up with Trump who has dragged everything to the fascist right.

Indeed; we can also blame Obama. Obama took plenty of justified flack for focusing almost entirely on the Presidency and allowing the Democrats to be destroyed at the state level while he was supposed to be leading the party.

I also blame Obama for not at least attempting to retake the court. That he sat back and let McConnell steal it unopposed is pretty unforgivable. You're right though, he completely ceded the state races and had no strategy to combat gerrymandering. But he did go to the mat for Congressional races and then for Clinton.

 

[Lexicus]

I also blame Obama for not at least attempting to retake the court. That he sat back and let McConnell steal it unopposed is pretty unforgivable. You're right though, he completely ceded the state races and had no strategy to combat gerrymandering. But he did go to the mat for Congressional races and then for Clinton.

I'm torn between blaming Obama and blaming the system on that one. It's almost impossible to amend the Constitution generally but every state has to unanimously consent to changing how the Senate works. That, ultimately, is why I think we'll need to just scrap the Constitution and draw up a new one eventually.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Senate Majority Leader has a ton of power over how the Senate is run. Things like filibustering and requiring 60 votes to pass anything are things that can be changed without the consent of the states.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm torn between blaming Obama and blaming the system on that one. It's almost impossible to amend the Constitution generally but every state has to unanimously consent to changing how the Senate works. That, ultimately, is why I think we'll need to just scrap the Constitution and draw up a new one eventually.

Presidents don't really do much in the day to day running of the party.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm torn between blaming Obama and blaming the system on that one. It's almost impossible to amend the Constitution generally but every state has to unanimously consent to changing how the Senate works. That, ultimately, is why I think we'll need to just scrap the Constitution and draw up a new one eventually.

In the end you have to blame the system. Obama was someone who thought he could work the system ( which after all he had a certain amount of success at doing at lower levels). The Republicans since Gingrich have been focused on making the system unworkable if their policies aren't supported. The system can't cope with their level of obstructionism. They are choosing to make the 2 party gains and losses system unworkable.

 

[Lexicus]

The Senate Majority Leader has a ton of power over how the Senate is run. Things like filibustering and requiring 60 votes to pass anything are things that can be changed without the consent of the states.

That's true but the Senate is already a blatant device of minority rule and will only get worse in the next few decades. It won't be long before something like 15% of the population has 70 Senators. That's politically unsustainable and morally wrong.

 

[Patine]

For the most part Trump has passed and supported GoP policies. High court courts, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, anti immigration.

Trump's not a neo con or competent but he is passing conservative friendly agenda although he's pissing off to many people IMHO.

Yes, again, I'm not disputing Trump was REPUBLICAN in a partisan way. I'm saying he WASN'T CONSERVATIVE, in an ideological way. But you've twice now ignored that distinction I've made clearly, conflated "Republican" and "Conservatives" as perfect and flawless analogous terms in your mind, and then reiterated how Trump follows the REPUBLICAN party line to tell me how I'm mistaken, which is not what I was disputing. But, hey, you're one of those out there who believes in real, actual, solid, unified, coherent, organized, and lock-step "Right" and "Left" blocs actually existing as socio-political forces. Time to upgrade your political education!

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, again, I'm not disputing Trump was REPUBLICAN in a partisan way. I'm saying he WASN'T CONSERVATIVE, in an ideological way. But you've twice now ignored that distinction I've made clearly, conflated "Republican" and "Conservatives" as perfect and flawless analogous terms in your mind, and then reiterated how Trump follows the REPUBLICAN party line to tell me how I'm mistaken, which is not what I was disputing. But, hey, you're one of those out there who believes in real, actual, solid, unified, coherent, organized, and lock-step "Right" and "Left" blocs actually existing as socio-political forces. Time to upgrade your political education!

It's forums, right and left is suitably generic enough.

If the Dems are struggling to get elected (I expect good results 2020) what's the point of mentioning Jill Stein and the greens on around .5 or 1% of the vote.

In NZ we have two left wing parties that matter. There's a heap more but they're irrelevant as you pay $500 bucks and get a few friends and family to register and you to can have your own party.

Some if the parties are also outright satire. I live in a country where they had enough people register their religion as Jedi for shits n giggles.

We had the McGillicardy Serious party and a mystic yoga party in 1996 whose political ads involved riding bouncy balls.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm thinking of starting my own political party ... would any of you like to get in from the start?

My party only has a single political goal: making me Queen of the Universe. Then all will be right with the world.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm thinking of starting my own political party ... would any of you like to get in from the start?

My party only has a single political goal: making me Queen of the Universe. Then all will be right with the world.

Come to NZ it's cheap and easy to register your own party. We've had more ridiculous parties.

Goddess Queen if the Universe. May as well go all in.

Quick Google results.

The Pirate Party of New Zealand
Not a Party

Defunct party
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGillicuddy_Serious_Party

I remember the above one from my first two elections. Mother tried explaining it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm thinking of starting my own political party ... would any of you like to get in from the start?

My party only has a single political goal: making me Queen of the Universe. Then all will be right with the world.

Well if we can only ensure your immortality I'm all for it. Otherwise its your successors I'm going to worry about.

 

[MaryKB]

Well if we can only ensure your immortality I'm all for it. Otherwise its your successors I'm going to worry about.

My first decree will be for my eternal youth.