The Democratic Party Continues to Ignore Reality

[Moonbeam]

Sanders got less coverage than Clinton because he was losing badly. The idea that the media wanted to cover Sanders more but was somehow convinced not to do so is ridiculous. They were simply more interested in the Republican primary shit show. What coverage the Democratic primary did get was strongly negative towards Clinton and very positive towards Sanders.

When you say more interested, could you possibly mean there were more papers they could sell covering that, more eyes gathered for advertisement revenue? I'm curious as to what interest could possible mean here because what I find to be of interest would be to support candidates who have at least a tenuous focus on the real issue, that money determines what gets covered in the legislature and everywhere else.

America is asleep, drugged out of its mind and the rich are paying for the pills.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The idea that the DNC was ever going to be entirely impartial between someone who had been a part of the party for their whole lives and someone who attempted to hijack it as a convenient vehicle is kind of ridiculous anyway. I bet you if the RNC's emails were released you would see the same or worse about Trump. If anything I'm surprised it wasn't worse and what did come out was exceptionally mild. People are just looking for excuses.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the DNC's actions materially affected who won the race. Sanders never had a chance because he didn't have institutional support, didn't have a natural base of support outside of white people, and pushed bad policies that didn't add up. People need to own up to Sanders's flaws as a candidate instead of trying to convince themselves he was robbed by the nefarious DNC.

Institutional support? Well no and if you choose not to believe that lack of support didn't influence how Sanders was treated by the DNC then that's you right, but I don't buy it. What it does prove to me is that our current system makes it impossible for good candidates as a whole come to office. Two parties in absolute control who will suffer no competition is a poor way to run a democracy. One may say that there's nothing in the system that forbids a third party and say that's sufficient, but then there's no reason why we can't go up to the Trumps of the world because it's a free country and the wealthy and powerful are equal to the poorest dispossessed. I disagree.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think the current Democratic party strikes the right balance between encouraging business activity (which pays for the social programs) while at the same time taxing and regulating business and taking care of the people who fall through the cracks.

Let's say you are correct in that assessment of "balance".
Problem is there has been a decline in labor for the past 40 years. A trend that is only going to accelerate as automation kicks in. This is not a time for balance, as people find themselves in painful positions of hopelessness right now due to a systemic failure in our system.

• Suicide rates are highest for men in their 50s
• Appalachia: The big white ghetto
  
• Stores are closing at an epic pace
• Most Millennials Are Finding It Hard to Transition Into Adulthood
• 'The millennial side hustle,' not stable job, is the new reality
• America’s Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Replaced by Robots
• Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

The conclusion is that "normal" is a disaster, "balance" is a disaster. It is time for a revolution to match these changes.
We need to expand safety nets so that they actually work, and not be called socialists by the DNC Congressional leader.

 

[Moonbeam]

The idea that the DNC was ever going to be entirely impartial between someone who had been a part of the party for their whole lives and someone who attempted to hijack it as a convenient vehicle is kind of ridiculous anyway. I bet you if the RNC's emails were released you would see the same or worse about Trump. If anything I'm surprised it wasn't worse and what did come out was exceptionally mild. People are just looking for excuses.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the DNC's actions materially affected who won the race. Sanders never had a chance because he didn't have institutional support, didn't have a natural base of support outside of white people, and pushed bad policies that didn't add up. People need to own up to Sanders's flaws as a candidate instead of trying to convince themselves he was robbed by the nefarious DNC.

Again, I don't see that as the issue. Sanders isn't important at all. What is important is that he was the only one talking about the only issue that matters, in the sense that there is no hope for any liberal policies as long as money controls the political agenda and nobody seems to want to deal with that fact in the only party that traditionally ever cared. The issue is that the DNC is asleep and that Sanders sounded a wake-up call that is still being ignored. Sanders never had a chance because money has purchased the Democrat's mind set. What you call hijack to me sounds like words that would be used by somebody whose political partisanship has come under attack. What? The revolutionaries are trying to pry the party from the cold dead hands of bought and paid for surrogates of the wealthy?

 

[fskimospy]

Institutional support? Well no and if you choose not to believe that lack of support didn't influence how Sanders was treated by the DNC then that's you right, but I don't buy it.

I mean my first paragraph basically said it influenced the amount of institutional support he got. Parties aren't very excited about people who aren't members trying to come in and take them over, which is exactly what Sanders did. What I don't buy for a second is that this made any meaningful difference in the outcome. Sanders had no chance because he simply lacked support outside of middle to upper class whites.

What it does prove to me is that our current system makes it impossible for good candidates as a whole come to office. Two parties in absolute control who will suffer no competition is a poor way to run a democracy. One may say that there's nothing in the system that forbids a third party and say that's sufficient, but then there's no reason why we can't go up to the Trumps of the world because it's a free country and the wealthy and powerful are equal to the poorest dispossessed. I disagree.

The problems with the system that inhibit good candidates from running have literally zero to do with the DNC and the RNC though. As I have said many times, the Constitution was written incredibly poorly when it came to designing our system of elections. It all but guarantees a two party system and until you either amend the Constitution or implement instant runoff voting viable third parties will never exist.

 

[theeedude]

Let's say you are correct in that assessment of "balance".
Problem is there has been a decline in labor for the past 40 years. A trend that is only going to accelerate as automation kicks in. This is not a time for balance, as people find themselves in painful positions of hopelessness right now due to a systemic failure in our system.

• Suicide rates are highest for men in their 50s
• Appalachia: The big white ghetto
  
• Stores are closing at an epic pace
• Most Millennials Are Finding It Hard to Transition Into Adulthood
• 'The millennial side hustle,' not stable job, is the new reality
• America’s Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Replaced by Robots
• Inequality in America is getting worse according to top economists

The conclusion is that "normal" is a disaster, "balance" is a disaster. It is time for a revolution to match these changes.
We need to expand safety nets so that they actually work, and not be called socialists by the DNC Congressional leader.

Republican base is committing suicide by ballot, and trying to blame the Democrats, who from 1980-2017 had full control of government a total of 4 years, during which they balanced the budgets by raising taxes on the rich, tried to pass universal single payer and passed health care subsidies precisely for the people you are pretending to give a sh!t about. Last 40 years has been the rise of conservatism, union busting, roll back of the New Deal, and consequent return of the old, shitty deal. The white working class thought that cutting taxes and rolling back programs would only impact the minority poor aka welfare queens. They were wrong, dead wrong. Now they are in the firing line, and are acting like spoiled children. And yes, there are soul crushing economic losses for the low and medium skilled labor yet to come from automation, get ready for them by supporting politicians who will increase the safety net, or bear the consequences. No pity from me if you vote to gut the safety net, then fall through what's left and die. I am an engineer in Silicon Valley, and the pace of progress on AI and robotics is absolutely staggering. It's far in excess of Moore's law. Eventually it will start to slow, but technologically, even now we have the tech to automate millions and millions of jobs, it's just a question of time to gather enough data to train the AI. You've been warned.

 

[Moonbeam]

I mean my first paragraph basically said it influenced the amount of institutional support he got. Parties aren't very excited about people who aren't members trying to come in and take them over, which is exactly what Sanders did. What I don't buy for a second is that this made any meaningful difference in the outcome. Sanders had no chance because he simply lacked support outside of middle to upper class whites.



The problems with the system that inhibit good candidates from running have literally zero to do with the DNC and the RNC though. As I have said many times, the Constitution was written incredibly poorly when it came to designing our system of elections. It all but guarantees a two party system and until you either amend the Constitution or implement instant runoff voting viable third parties will never exist.

Exactly what a progressive democratic party would be pushing shouting about at the top of their lungs, and advocating and teaching about at the expense of all other issues since it is the one issue that keeps all others from happening.

People are in part an amalgamation of what they hear and process and money controls what messages people hear. A drum beat of resistance ended the war in Viet Nam. A drumbeat of protest got blacks freedom from slavery. A drumbeat of protest over taxation without representation ended English domination of her American colonies. Everybody in office today is a winner of the status quo system. How willing will they be to change the system. Just because some woman with a MA says that doesn't refute the truth of what she said. Truth is truth and it matters not at all regarding its truth as to who says it. The truth will always arrive via an outsider of some sort. It is the fact of the need for the truth of a message that will cause it to spread. A dying country that is loved will open lots of eyes.

 

[theeedude]

What's hilarious to me is that anti-establishment candidate like Sanders and his supporters are complaining that the establishment didn't support him. Seriously.

 

[dank69]

God Damn it dank! Grow a pair. Our candidate didn't lose because she was about oppressing straight white men, grabbing guns or wasting money. She lost because she didn't speak effectively to straight white men that what they are angry about is economic insecurity and loss of self worth because they can't provide for their families and that she intended to do something about eliminating the grip the wealthy have on politics that have caused all that to happen. Nor do enough politicians on the left support the 2nd amendment like Sanders does. And democrats have a long way to go to figure out how to demonstrate the economic value of the money they 'throw' at the system.

When you campaign for office in a nation politically retarded people, using those terms for the sake of brevity, you have to at least spend some of your time educating the public on what are the real issues, like telling them that they have no say because the rich are pulling all the strings. You have to call for a revolution, a class war. You also have to tell the rich to step back from the trough so they aren't swarmed and devoured by crazed cannibalistic piglets. Greed and competition and the self hate that creates it is eating the nation alive.

Things aren't as bad as you fantasize they are. They're a fucking lot worse. Democracy is dead and the situation is absolutely hopeless. You can take all your anguish, grief, and morning your losses and pour them down the toilet for all the good it will do. When you come to the end of your rope, you discover one last problem, that you're clinging to the rope. Let the fuck go. The thing about free fall is that it's gravity free and in the nothing there's no ground to hit.

Here is what Hillary's policy on campaign reform was:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Here is Hillary talking about campaign finance reform back in 2015:
http://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/

Here is her talking about overturning CU at the DNC:

And here's what I believe. I believe America thrives when the middle class thrives. I believe our economy isn't working the way it should because our democracy isn't working the way it should.

That's why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And if necessary we will pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Notice she is telling you what you are telling us now, that Democracy isn't working like it should.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republican base is committing suicide by ballot, and trying to blame the Democrats, who from 1980-2017 had full control of government a total of 4 years, during which they balanced the budgets by raising taxes on the rich, tried to pass universal single payer and passed health care subsidies precisely for the people you are pretending to give a sh!t about. Last 40 years has been the rise of conservatism, union busting, roll back of the New Deal, and consequent return of the old, shitty deal. The white working class thought that cutting taxes and rolling back programs would only impact the minority poor aka welfare queens. They were wrong, dead wrong. Now they are in the firing line, and are acting like spoiled children. And yes, there are soul crushing economic losses for the low and medium skilled labor yet to come from automation, get ready for them by supporting politicians who will increase the safety net, or bear the consequences. No pity from me if you vote to gut the safety net, then fall through what's left and die. I am an engineer in Silicon Valley, and the pace of progress on AI and robotics is absolutely staggering. It's far in excess of Moore's law. Eventually it will start to slow, but technologically, even now we have the tech to automate millions and millions of jobs, it's just a question of time to gather enough data to train the AI. You've been warned.

Why did this happen. Could it be that money paved the road to this wonderful paradise you describe? I think the answer is obvious. In a system that is motivated by greed and competitiveness, the most selfish and cut-throat have won. Now the prize they won is turning to shit cake. Have you got your body guard and your gated community? Good luck sleeping at night........ The fires of hell are coming.

 

[Moonbeam]

What's hilarious to me is that anti-establishment candidate like Sanders and his supporters are complaining that the establishment didn't support him. Seriously.

The hilarious part is you didn't support him for that reason and he lost. You heard the wrong message and ignored the right one. The point of this thread is that that exact same denial is just now by you still being expressed. The establishment lost and it lost because the establishment clings to it. Democracy is dead and you are the knife that killed it. Poor Bernie, he never had a chance. Right, he never had a chance because of you. Poor poor Bernie? Poor poor you, actually. Are you there yet?

 

[theeedude]

Why did this happen. Could it be that money paved the road to this wonderful paradise you describe? I think the answer is obvious. In a system that is motivated by greed and competitiveness, the most selfish and cut-throat have won. Now the prize they won is turning to shit cake. Have you got your body guard and your gated community? Good luck sleeping at night........ The fires of hell are coming.

If they are coming, they are coming. Crisis is going to sober up a lot of people drunk on right wing ideology, like the Great Depression did. In the meantime, I am making money to help weather the storms.

 

[Jaskalas]

If they are coming, they are coming. Crisis is going to sober up a lot of people drunk on right wing ideology, like the Great Depression did. In the meantime, I am making money to help weather the storms.

But will you greet them with open arms and show them a path to salvation, or is it "FYGM"?
Hence the anxiety over whether Sander's message is listened to or not, from the only leaders who likely would.
Indicators make us fear that progressive messages are marginalized or even attacked at the DNC.

"We gotta save people..."
"We’re capitalists—that’s just the way it is."​

 

[Moonbeam]

Here is what Hillary's policy on campaign reform was:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

Here is Hillary talking about campaign finance reform back in 2015:
http://time.com/4024830/hillary-clinton-campaign-finance-proposal/

Here is her talking about overturning CU at the DNC:
Notice she is telling you what you are telling us now, that Democracy isn't working like it should.

Yes, I know. She was second best at that message but it wasn't her primary theme and there isn't any other message that matters but that one if you think democracy will ever work again. It's isn't what is said or by whom, but how focused you are, how internally aware you are of the real problem. She was calling for more of the same, good and solid progressive democratic establishment policy, infinitely superior to Trump, but insufficient to deal with what was obvious to Sanders, that the establishment pace wasn't fast or sufficient enough to deal with America's pain. We need a revolution.

If they are coming, they are coming. Crisis is going to sober up a lot of people drunk on right wing ideology, like the Great Depression did. In the meantime, I am making money to help weather the storms.

If they are coming they are coming in part because of you. That's where you're in denial. You blame the other side and don't offer up as an alternative someone who is good but has not focused like a laser on the economy and why it's not providing for average people.

She says we have cancer but talks about identity and race as if that would appeal to white males who are hurting. They are all hurting for one reason, a shortage of work for average people to do that can support their families. Focus on the pie size, not over who has been getting the smallest piece and needs more of the tiny slice the working class gets.

 

[theeedude]

But will you greet them with open arms and show them a path to salvation, or is it "FYGM"?
Hence the anxiety over whether Sander's message is listened to or not, from the only leaders who likely would.
Indicators make us fear that progressive messages are marginalized or even attacked at the DNC.

"We gotta save people..."
"We’re capitalists—that’s just the way it is."​

I am not their mother. But I a OK paying reasonable taxes to support a safety net for those displaced by automation, etc, should they ask for one through their representatives. But if they want to keep doing the small government thing and giving me tax cuts instead, I'll manage too.

 

[Maxima1]

She won fair and square by a pretty large margin. If people want to push the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction I'm all for that, but let's not try and rewrite history here. There was no way Sanders was going to win the Democratic primary and the idea that Sanders's popularity now means anything as compared to what his popularity would have been in the general election are in a fantasy world.

Quit making comparisons to her as Sec of State and Bernie's popularity now. We can look at during and after the primaries, which is the better indicator. He was double digits on Trump and beating the other GOP candidates generally. What planet are you from? The establishment was crushed on the Republican side as the base became split, and the same problem existed on the Democrat side. Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment. Trump wasn't the Condorcet winner in the primaries (one vs. one, he would have lost to Rubio, Cruz, etc.). Hillary would have done badly in the general election if it was another GOP candidate, even Lyin' Ted probably would have beat her.

 

[desura]

Yeah, the Democrats hollowed out. Sanders will be way too old next time around. He was too old this time around as well.

Globalization has resulted in a concentration of wealth. This has the side effect of destroying local communities as well as the local political talent that used to be there. And the local churches as well.

Trump did hit on something...the Reagan formula is dead. It has been dead for a while. The big question is more visceral: immigration, culture, localism vs cosmopolitanism, globalism, transnationalism.

If Sanders were like 55 years old, he'd be something. But he's like 83 or something? Biden will be 82 in 2020.

In the end, people want to make their own decisions, even if they are the "wrong" decisions, they still want to make them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well that's all nice and such but the DNC is about being self serving. It's closed doors, cigars and a good port, going against its stated position on impartiality. But it's all about power, not the public. Talking loud about what they want to be seen as doing and profit for not doing anything unapproved by Hillary's masters. I'm thinking that should stop.

Classic trolling.

How's this? Partisan hacks suck and their parties and this absurd lock on choice should be torn down and something approaching Democracy replace it.

Let me help you with definitions

"a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.
"he is regarded among climate scientists as a concern troll"

Now let's looky here. Post is about Dems not getting it. I'm on topic and you fit the description to the tee by concern trolling in the post I just quoted trying to divert to change the topic from Dems failures.

Stop doing what you complain about.

Yes, you're undermining genuine discussion. If you genuinely care about what you profess then you really have to admit that Dems "get it" a Helluva lot more than Repubs. So tearing down Dems just makes Repubs relatively stronger, which is apparently what you really want. That, or you're not as smart as you think.

 

[fskimospy]

Quit making comparisons to her as Sec of State and Bernie's popularity now.

Why? I haven't heard a single argument as to why that comparison is bad other than it tells people uncomfortable facts.

We can look at during and after the primaries, which is the better indicator. He was double digits on Trump and beating the other GOP candidates generally. What planet are you from?

Wait, what? I'm from the planet where people don't try to compare the standard bearer of a political party with a failed candidate in popularity in a highly partisan environment.

Not only is that not a better indicator, it's about the worst and most misleading indicator I can think of. Clinton's popularity, especially among republicans, tracked almost perfectly with how likely they thought she was to become president. Saying that wouldn't have happened to Sanders is magical thinking.

The establishment was crushed on the Republican side as the base became split, and the same problem existed on the Democrat side. Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment. Trump wasn't the Condorcet winner in the primaries (one vs. one, he would have lost to Rubio, Cruz, etc.). Hillary would have done badly in the general election if it was another GOP candidate, even Lyin' Ted probably would have beat her.

I don't see how hypothetical Clinton matchups against Ted Cruz are at all relevant.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, the Democrats hollowed out. Sanders will be way too old next time around. He was too old this time around as well.

Globalization has resulted in a concentration of wealth. This has the side effect of destroying local communities as well as the local political talent that used to be there. And the local churches as well.

Trump did hit on something...the Reagan formula is dead. It has been dead for a while. The big question is more visceral: immigration, culture, localism vs cosmopolitanism, globalism, transnationalism.

If Sanders were like 55 years old, he'd be something. But he's like 83 or something? Biden will be 82 in 2020.

In the end, people want to make their own decisions, even if they are the "wrong" decisions, they still want to make them.

Reagan formula? WTF was that, other than the beginning of the long con of trickle down economics?

I remember the slogans of the era, my fave being "Greed is Good!" It's been Repubs' slogan ever since... so here we are... where the greediest are the winners & ready to administer the coup de grace to the middle class as we know it.

 

[agent00f]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...to-ignore-reality_us_5906049fe4b03b105b44b983

What will it take for Democrats to wake. Looks like by digging their own grave.

Any liberals seeing the need for party revolution? Are we there yet, or is the CBD taken hold of liberals too?

The problem with this type of ideological analysis is that it ignores the practical realities of actually getting votes. Democrats have managed to win presidential elections with a difficult to hold coalition of disparate interests, which is why they've only managed to succeed as of late under talented centrists who promise a bit of everything to everyone incl labor / minorities / intelligentsia / etc.

Contrast that to the much smaller tent of trash nationalism where someone just has to disparage lower status browns enough.

 

[Maxima1]

Why? I haven't heard a single argument as to why that comparison is bad other than it tells people uncomfortable facts.

WTF Why would I look at approval ratings, especially in a position as Sec of state and people's expectations in the future? Dubya's approval was high, yet Jeb!'s defeat was the most humiliating in political history.

Wait, what? I'm from the planet where people don't try to compare the standard bearer of a political party with a failed candidate in popularity in a highly partisan environment.

I agree that the connection is tenuous, but it still shows a split in the party. And if you look at the issues polled, voters are more liberal than the platform the corporate Democrats push. They don't push what their voters want because they are still beholden to their donors as the GOP is.

Not only is that not a better indicator, it's about the worst and most misleading indicator I can think of. Clinton's popularity, especially among republicans, tracked almost perfectly with how likely they thought she was to become president. Saying that wouldn't have happened to Sanders is magical thinking.

You're really stupid if you think approval ratings are better than match-ups and that's not even considering that one's during the election campaign and another is not. Good grief. I have no idea what you're referring to about her pop being "tracked almost perfectly with how they thought she was to become president". Sanders would have had to lose about 10 points right after the primaries to garner the same 2% win she got.

I don't see how hypothetical Clinton matchups against Ted Cruz are at all relevant.

A lot of the Republican candidates in general election match-ups did better than Trump. The Republican primary didn't pick the Condorcet winner. That was someone else. Trump wasn't the best they could have fielded, and if you want to go with what Republicans thought themselves, then how can you deny that?

 

[fskimospy]

WTF Why would I look at approval ratings, especially in a position as Sec of state and people's expectations in the future? Dubya's approval was high, yet Jeb!'s defeat was the most humiliating in political history.

Because that's exactly the situation Sanders is in now and that's what people were using as evidence of his electoral viability. Did you read the thread?

I agree that the connection is tenuous, but it still shows a split in the party. And if you look at the issues polled, voters are more liberal than the platform the corporate Democrats push. They don't push what their voters want because they are still beholden to their donors as the GOP is.

Voters don't vote based on policy though, or at least infrequently do.

You're really stupid if you think approval ratings are better than match-ups and that's not even considering that one's during the election campaign and another is not. Good grief.

Approval ratings are not actively misleading, unlike matchups between nominees and non-nominees. It's not that approval ratings are great, they just don't provide negative value like the thing you're trying to use.

I have no idea what you're referring to about her pop being "tracked almost perfectly with how they thought she was to become president". Sanders would have had to lose about 10 points right after the primaries to garner the same 2% win she got.

Oh it's likely he would have lost a lot more than 10%. Negative partisanship is the defining aspect of our elections right now. When someone is the nominee they are the enemy to be hated. When someone is not the nominee you can claim you would have supported them if only things had been different in order to signal your independence. It's related to why people who claim to be independent are almost never actually independent, they are just partisans who care about image.

A lot of the Republican candidates in general election match-ups did better than Trump. The Republican primary didn't pick the Condorcet winner. That was someone else. Trump wasn't the best they could have fielded, and if you want to go with what Republicans thought themselves, then how can you deny that?

See above, comparing non-nominees with nominees is a terrible idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why? I haven't heard a single argument as to why that comparison is bad other than it tells people uncomfortable facts.



Wait, what? I'm from the planet where people don't try to compare the standard bearer of a political party with a failed candidate in popularity in a highly partisan environment.

Not only is that not a better indicator, it's about the worst and most misleading indicator I can think of. Clinton's popularity, especially among republicans, tracked almost perfectly with how likely they thought she was to become president. Saying that wouldn't have happened to Sanders is magical thinking.



I don't see how hypothetical Clinton matchups against Ted Cruz are at all relevant.

I see no reason either why some of the effect you describe wouldn't have also happened to Sanders. My point is that with the right message to counteract it the attempt would be much less effective. The point is that Hillary and establishment liberals in their focus on raising the bottom of the bottom have given all of the people who feel abandoned exactly that feeling. People do feel abandoned. All Trump had to do was step into a pair of angry shoes and shout the same feelings, but while also proclaiming his power and greatness and intention to change all of that. I have no problem at all with your reasoning but it would be you that lives in a fantasy land if you think others aren't attracted by it. What would be the harm to couch a message of hope into an economic proposal that returns a voice to the people by getting money out of politics. Everything is possible if that one goal can be achieved.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Oh oh Hypocrisy alert! ! ! ! ! opsl...

If the Republicans would just get with the program and help Obama MAGA, they would be far better off. Instead they choose the roll of obstruction and self defeat.

Also the Program seems to be destroy America and maybe they don't want to do that.

Contrary to what people may think, I am NOT a fan of constant obstruction by EITHER party. I opposed the ACA (and still do) and we had to fight that, but in the end Bronco got his votes. I would prefer both parties work together for the benefit of America. That means both parties give and take.

This "our way or the highway" nonsense is old and tired and does not work.