Home | About | Donate

Democrats Need a Strategy and a Viable Candidate, Not More Excuses


#21

I think even little Norway has nine parties , and our country has two with Wall Street backing both. Of course we need more real parties.


#22

The census??? How about corruption at its finest!


#23

Sorry, I don’t understand the question.


#24

“Except that districts are drawn every ten years after the census”

Including the districts that determine who controls the state government. There are several states where Democratic candidates get more votes than Republicans overall, but where Republicans have control of the legislature, including some where they have super-majorities, due both to gerrymandered districts and the urban/rural split of party members.

I agree that Democrats need to turn out for ALL elections, not just the high-profile ones, but let’s not pretend gerrymandering is solely the fault of poor turnout in off years.


#25

Wisconsin is one such state. Actually, Democrats should’ve controlled Congress after 2012. If not for gerrymandering and garbage voting restrictions, they likely would have.


#26

Actually, it was a media consortium that sponsored the recount, not just Florida media. Also, it was the Supreme Court that stopped the final recount in a decision that was so awful the majority said that it sets no precedent and can’t be used in any other case.


#27

If you really think that Nader cost Gore the election, I suggest you do a little more research on the subject. You could start here:

Also, it’s striking that in 2000 mainstream Democrats didn’t jump all over voter suppression and they have repeated that today, preferring to blame Sanders (HE PROMISED US PONIES!!!) rather than looking at the effect of restrictive voting laws in, for example, Wisconsin (which largely affect minority voters).

The only way such bizarre behavior makes sense is if we realize that the Democrats want to shut down any drift toward the Left, which is echoed in the recent call for Sanders’ voters to stop “dividing” the party. Over and over, the blame is placed on progressives rather than right-wingers disenfranchising voters despite the mountain of evidence that this is happening.

The Left is not why Gore lost the election. It’s also not why Clinton lost the election. Blaming the Left has only one purpose: erasing the Left.


#28

I usually agree with you, but it’s simply not true Democrats are just sitting back, allowing the Republicans to to do what they want. The Obama DOJ worked hard to stem the rightwing anti-democratic tide we are witnessing. Here’s two key present examples:

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/08/542286043/justice-department-reverses-course-in-major-ohio-voting-rights-case

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/27/517558469/justice-department-reverses-position-on-texas-voter-id-law-case

The Right tried to make a big deal out of voting rights cases that were not specifically adjudicated in Court. Of course, the whole point was to keep cases out of unfavorable courts and settle them before major litigation.

On the VRA itself, 166 Democrats were cosponsors of its restoration in 2015, 11 were Republicans. I wrote about it here:

The problem is Republicans, not Democrats. Add to that, the role of the uncompromising Left, the one that went nuts over bot comments about Clinton- WWWIII and didn’t focus on what matters most for voting rights, the courts, this last election.

Also here’s a great read on the Clinton campaign’s efforts:

I repeat, the problem we face is Republicans, not Democrats.


#29

So just like God, gerrymandering always was and always will be? Or does gerrymandering sneak in in the middle of the night to Democrat controlled states and simply take over without warning?

Once again: For Republicans to gerrymander a state not previously gerrymandered requires them to be in control of the legislature. They gain control by electing more candidates to the state legislature than Democrats did.

Claiming that we have gerrymandered districts because of gerrymandering is a great example of circular logic.


#30

Actually, Democrats should’ve controlled Congress after 2012. If not for gerrymandering and garbage voting restrictions, they likely would have.

So do you also contend that gerrymandering elected Scott Walker in 2010, allowed him to survive a recall in 2012, and re-elected him in 2014?

You see, it appears to those us outside of Wisconsin that a majority of Wisconsin voters simply favor Republicans, unless you can explain how gerrymandering is able to elect a governor…


#31

I don’t contend that whatsoever. Why do you think that?


#32

I don’t think that. I asked a question.

You blamed gerrymandering and “garbage voting restrictions” for losing Congress. I wondered if you blamed them for losing to Walker in Wisconsin as well. (We were talking about Wisconsin.) I think more Republicans vote in Wisconsin than Democrats, or at least more people vote for Republicans…


#33

In 2012, Wisconsin went Democratic by over half (~53%) but Democrats only netted 39 Assembly seats of 99 and 5 out of 8 congressional seats. It was a very good partisan gerrymander.


#34

You do not seem to have read what I wrote. In any event, we do not have a parliamentary system that grants ruling power to interests and causes influencing outside one or other of two major parties. You may not see that, but I have definitely been around (like Sanders very) long enough to have. There may be other additional parties but they will usually amount to little if one is aiming at, most particularly, electing someone to the highest office in the land (an urgent goal for sooner than later, I think we may agree).

The progressive populist (truly democratic} wing of the Democratic Party, its base, a majority, will either force the currently long entrenched neoliberal corporatist leadership out of the way, or abandon the party to enable a coalition party of movements, including small parties, and (especially) independent voters as I indicated. Over American history the old coalitions that have long constituted major parties and national politics fall apart and new ones form to permit new parties - under the old name or a new one. (Frankly, I would not mind there always being a “Democratic”, and even a “Republican”, Party, for the two names together describe the type of polity, the constitutional governance, our country is supposed to have: a democratic republic. The aspiration is that if not the consistent reality throughout our history. Ultimately the names chosen, like the Federalist and Whig of yore, are not what’s essentially and ultimately important, of course.)