House Democrats are turning on themselves ...

[sportage]

Democrats could be going thru an realignment of sorts.
Something the republicans need to do.
Where democrats can emerge as a new more progressive party for the people, republicans are stuck with orange hair and a fat ass.
I wouldn't worry about democrats.
What I am watching is how Bernie Sanders will do this time around?
I'm beginning to expect Bernie to emerge as the front runner. And if he does then democrats had better go along, or else.
I can see Bernie as president. His official presidential black trench coat, offset by his silvery while hair, as Bernie ascends the ramp of air force one.
I see presidential as in Franklin D. Roosevelt presidential.
I had this same vision back in 2016. This time it could be inevitable. America deserves this.

 

[fskimospy]

Mainstream is the ability to build coalitions and win elections by expanding beyond safe harbors and friendly turf. Hillary lost states that in any other election would be safe blue states. Reagan was mainstream. Obama was mainstream. Hillary was not.

She won the popular vote by about the same amount that Obama did in 2012. As far as I can tell ‘mainstream’ appears to be defined as ‘win the electoral college’. I reject that definition.

 

[blankslate]

She lost PA, MI and WI. Your map doesn’t change that fact.

Over 200 counties that voted for President Obama twice turned around and voted for Trump as you can see in the map many of those counties are in the states you mentioned...
Was Racism a factor I don't doubt that it was. However, I don't think it was the only factor....

from the New York Times shortly after the election was over in 2016
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It

Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.

“We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.

They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets.

“I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”

“I felt cornered,” said Ian Pfeiffer, 25, who works the grill at Jake’s Delicatessen and says he did not vote. “We were stuck between Trump and Hillary. They really left us with no choice.”

So I'll probably get accused of being a negative person (dilligaff?) but one thing has changed for the positive in my opinion
Most Democratic Candidates who have announced for 2020 have expressed support for Medicare for All and some other economic policies that were pretty much rejected by most of the high ranking Democratic Party Officials.

Now which candidates do I think would stick to them besides Bernie (who in fact still does have Pro-Hillary haters who haven't forgotten 2016; watch the chat of the Randi Rhodes Show streamed live on youtube from 1600 to 1800 hours New York time on weekdays and you'll see them... not every day but the chat does seem to have at least a few days in a week that a "debate" over 2016 breaks out)?
It's hard to say I have some ideas but they aren't the ones being given much attention by the major cable channels in general... one is almost being ignored... perhaps because of anti-regime change stances although the reason one hears is because of past positions on LGBTQ rights which this candidate has come around to the (imho) correct side on. They have voted for every pro-gay rights bill that has been presented since entering congress.

There is of course another person who has gotten a lot of praise (justifiably so) in the recent testimony of Consigliere Cohen but she's too young to actually run for president for a few years... I would like to see her run in the future no doubt though.
you know who I'm talking about don't you...

While AOC has gotten praise from the media for getting Consigliere Cohen to point the House in which direction to find out more about Trump's financial shens
Rho Khanna has through his line of questioning has gotten Consigliere Cohen to highlight how Trump after being inaugurated has violated finance laws in relation to paying off Stormy Daniels.



__________________

 

[brandonbull]

She absolutely appealed to the mainstream. That’s why she won the popular vote by millions.

What you’re saying is the ‘mainstream’ is a minority of Americans who have an institutional electoral advantage. Why on earth would that be the mainstream.

She won the "popular vote" by millions due to California. Trump won the "popular vote" in 30 states compared to Hillary's 20, and is a meaningless stat in the context of a presidential election.

 

[fskimospy]

She won the "popular vote" by millions due to California. Trump won the "popular vote" in 30 states compared to Hillary's 20, and is a meaningless stat in the context of a presidential election.

Who cares? Californians are Americans the same as anyone else.

I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit the simple fact that more Americans wanted the liberals to win.

 

[Greenman]

Who cares? Californians are Americans the same as anyone else.

I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit the simple fact that more Americans wanted the liberals to win.

I don't know why liberals can't admit the fact that the popular vote doesn't matter. The states elect the president, not the people.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know why liberals can't admit the fact that the popular vote doesn't matter. The states elect the president, not the people.

Huh? I'm confused as to why you think that's relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about what is mainstream, not who won the presidential election. Also, the states do not elect the president, the electors do. Technically if the electors felt like it they could elect anyone they wanted, against the will of the states. It's a very dumb system, haha.

Regardless, I personally have never heard that 'mainstream opinion' would be decided by the majority of electoral votes, I think the pretty universally agreed upon definition of 'mainstream' would be what the most PEOPLE support. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[trenchfoot]

Huh? I'm confused as to why you think that's relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about what is mainstream, not who won the presidential election. Also, the states do not elect the president, the electors do. Technically if the electors felt like it they could elect anyone they wanted, against the will of the states. It's a very dumb system, haha.

Regardless, I personally have never heard that 'mainstream opinion' would be decided by the majority of electoral votes, I think the pretty universally agreed upon definition of 'mainstream' would be what the most PEOPLE support. Wouldn't you agree?

Logic does not apply when it's so much more convenient to rely on "feels". In this arena where "feels" come into play, there is no fact or logical piece of evidence that can't be refuted with hearsay, hubris and propaganda, the weapons of choice for those that cannot construct an convincing argument any other way.

In this world of "feels", feelings will triumph over logic and fact every time the two stand face to face. There is no argument to be had when "feels" is all that matters. It's the world where Trump has reigned supreme since his ascendance to the throne of smoke and mirrors.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Who cares? Californians are Americans the same as anyone else.

I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit the simple fact that more Americans wanted the liberals to win.

Because that is simply not true. How many conservatives in California, New York and other blue states stayed home on election day? The popular vote tells us that Clinton was wildly popular in areas already inclined to vote for Democrats. Her electoral loss indicates her inability to form a winning coalition. She lost the Bernie Bros and blue dog Democrats. That is on her.

 

[fskimospy]

Because that is simply not true.

It's about as indisputably true as you're going to get with something like this. Clinton won the most votes on election day and Clinton led in basically all polls of likely voters, registered voters, and all Americans and we all know the national polls were highly accurate, predicting the end result within about 1 point of the actual results.

So yes, it's true. More Americans wanted the liberals to win and there's no way around it.

How many conservatives in California, New York and other blue states stayed home on election day? The popular vote tells us that Clinton was wildly popular in areas already inclined to vote for Democrats. Her electoral loss indicates her inability to form a winning coalition. She lost the Bernie Bros and blue dog Democrats. That is on her.

Why wouldn't exactly the same thing be true for liberals in red states? If you can show me any credible evidence that shows a majority of Americans actually preferred Trump I am open to hearing it. Literally all evidence I am aware of says the opposite though.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know why liberals can't admit the fact that the popular vote doesn't matter. The states elect the president, not the people.

True to a point. The EC does yield anomalous results on rare occasions. Prior to 2000, the EC & the popular vote had given the same result since 1888.

OTOH, winning Trump style in no way justifies a radical agenda that most people reject. A politician who cared about what Americans want would govern to the center under such circumstances, but not Trump, of course.

 

[ivwshane]

Are idiots still talking about the election when the discussion is about what is mainstream?

You really can't fix stupid.

 

[blackangst1]

Who cares? Californians are Americans the same as anyone else.

I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to admit the simple fact that more Americans wanted the liberals to win.

So you would agree Texans or Oklahomans are Americans the same as anyone else?

 

[Jhhnn]

So you would agree Texans or Oklahomans are Americans the same as anyone else?

Well, yeh, of course, but Californians aren't Real Merricuhns according to Brandonbullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

So you would agree Texans or Oklahomans are Americans the same as anyone else?

Yes. Why do you ask?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's about as indisputably true as you're going to get with something like this. Clinton won the most votes on election day and Clinton led in basically all polls of likely voters, registered voters, and all Americans and we all know the national polls were highly accurate, predicting the end result within about 1 point of the actual results.

So yes, it's true. More Americans wanted the liberals to win and there's no way around it.

Why wouldn't exactly the same thing be true for liberals in red states? If you can show me any credible evidence that shows a majority of Americans actually preferred Trump I am open to hearing it. Literally all evidence I am aware of says the opposite though.

I don’t understand you’re angle. Even if I agreed that Clinton was mainstream, and that the popular vote reflects a preference towards liberal policies, it doesn’t change the outcome of the election itself. It’s a moot point.

 

[fskimospy]

I don’t understand you’re angle. Even if I agreed that Clinton was mainstream, and that the popular vote reflects a preference towards liberal policies, it doesn’t change the outcome of the election itself. It’s a moot point.

This isn't even my tangent, so asking me what my angle is makes no sense.

1) I said Democratic and AOC's policies are mainstream because most people support them.
2) Someone said as a counterpoint that the Democrats lost the last presidential election, implying that meant their policies aren't mainstream.
3) As evidence that they were mainstream I noted that in that election Democratic policies got millions more votes than the alternative. ie: most people supported them.
4) Now you're saying 'why does that matter, they lost the election'. The election never mattered to begin with, that was your guys' point!

My point is very simple - mainstream policies are most easily defined as policies that the most people support. The evidence is that most people support the Democrats' policies. If other people want to argue that conservatives get to win elections anyway because of institutional bias in their favor have at it. It doesn't change what most Americans want.

 

[ElFenix]

So you would agree Texans or Oklahomans are Americans the same as anyone else?

whoa hold on a moment let's not get ahead of ourselves here

 

[Starbuck1975]

This isn't even my tangent, so asking me what my angle is makes no sense.

1) I said Democratic and AOC's policies are mainstream because most people support them.
2) Someone said as a counterpoint that the Democrats lost the last presidential election, implying that meant their policies aren't mainstream.
3) As evidence that they were mainstream I noted that in that election Democratic policies got millions more votes than the alternative. ie: most people supported them.
4) Now you're saying 'why does that matter, they lost the election'. The election never mattered to begin with, that was your guys' point!

My point is very simple - mainstream policies are most easily defined as policies that the most people support. The evidence is that most people support the Democrats' policies. If other people want to argue that conservatives get to win elections anyway because of institutional bias in their favor have at it. It doesn't change what most Americans want.

Yes, I am aware of how we got here. An election does not necessarily reflect the mainstream or what people want. When Bush defeated Kerry, did that make neoconservatism mainstream? America elected Obama under the premise of “Hope and Change” and yet also chose to hand Congress over to an opposition that promised to dismantle his agenda.

The problem is that most Americans have no idea what they want.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, I am aware of how we got here. An election does not necessarily reflect the mainstream or what people want. When Bush defeated Kerry, did that make neoconservatism mainstream? America elected Obama under the premise of “Hope and Change” and yet also chose to hand Congress over to an opposition that promised to dismantle his agenda.

The problem is that most Americans have no idea what they want.

I never argued that an election did that. That was you guys! I simply noted that even if we used your metric it was clear more people wanted liberal policies.

My argument is by basically any metric you choose the Democratic Party platform represents mainstream ideas. If you disagree, please list the metric you believe says otherwise.

 

[Greenman]

True to a point. The EC does yield anomalous results on rare occasions. Prior to 2000, the EC & the popular vote had given the same result since 1888.

OTOH, winning Trump style in no way justifies a radical agenda that most people reject. A politician who cared about what Americans want would govern to the center under such circumstances, but not Trump, of course.

That's a fair assessment. But in the words of Obama "elections have consequences".

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I am aware of how we got here. An election does not necessarily reflect the mainstream or what people want. When Bush defeated Kerry, did that make neoconservatism mainstream? America elected Obama under the premise of “Hope and Change” and yet also chose to hand Congress over to an opposition that promised to dismantle his agenda.

The problem is that most Americans have no idea what they want.

God damn you are dumb! He just explained to you what the conversation was and that it was someone else who brought up the election and you ignored it and continued on your path of stupidity. Wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I never argued that an election did that. That was you guys! I simply noted that even if we used your metric it was clear more people wanted liberal policies.

My argument is by basically any metric you choose the Democratic Party platform represents mainstream ideas. If you disagree, please list the metric you believe says otherwise.

Perhaps, but those mainstream ideas always have caveats:

People want universal health care...until you tell them they will lose their existing plans

People want low cost housing...until you put it in their backyard

People want needle exchange programs...until tent cities emerge in proximity to them

People want public service unions...until those unfunded entitlement liabilities are suffocating governments

People want high speed rail...do we really need to go there

People want the green new deal...I see a lot of big SUVs on the road again

 

[Starbuck1975]

God damn you are dumb! He just explained to you what the conversation was and that it was someone else who brought up the election and you ignored it and continued on your path of stupidity. Wtf is wrong with you?

You can sometimes catch a glimpse of unicorns on the path of stupidity. I have a stick up my ass, so it impairs my judgment. It makes me really self conscious when you draw attention to it.

 

[ivwshane]

You can sometimes catch a glimpse of unicorns on the path of stupidity. I have a stick up my ass, so it impairs my judgment. It makes me really self conscious when you draw attention to it.

Then admit when you are wrong or are mistaken and people will respect you more and you are more likely to receive kudos. Imagine how your conscious will feel when that happens!