Home | About | Donate

New Polls Show Anti-Trump Isn’t Enough to Beat GOP


New Polls Show Anti-Trump Isn’t Enough to Beat GOP

Norman Solomon

With six months to go before the midterm election, new national polls are showing that the Democratic Party’s much-touted momentum to gain control of the House has stalled out. The latest numbers tell us a lot about the limits of denouncing Donald Trump without offering much more than a return to the old status quo.


Sad, but all too predictable, given the party elite’s stubbornness to maintain the neoliberal, big money status quo, despite the obvious lessons to be learned from all their losses. Moreover, even if the party had pushed for change since Trump took office, it would still need more than a simple majority to effectively stop Trump and the Republicans, thanks to the Republican voting members of the party, posing as Democrats. With six months to go, the party will be lucky to even get a Blue trickle.


Under Trump, much of the Republican Party has gone from extreme right to fascist. Rather than embracing a progressive platform many Democrats have moving further to the right in order to get the ‘Trump Democrats’ and independents. My guess is that the Democrats will do well, but not as well as they hope. Rather than recognize the need to embrace a more progressive platform, the Party power structure will, no doubt, blame its losses on Putin and progressives who fail to tow the party line. Get ready for the Democrat Party power structure to launch intense attacks against progressive critics.


I will make a really bold prediction, one that takes no guts. The Democrats in power, who are just horrible people, will say, “see, you lefties want us to be progressive, and the public is now supporting the right even more. If we want to stop this trajectory, we have to go more towards the center (which they won’t define, the center of what exactly?).” This is certain to be their take on this. The fact is that the public agrees with the left on policy, but those running that dying party have no interest in those policies because of their donors. And they haven’t spent any time on actual issues, and have spent tons of time on Russia, Stormy Daniels and the like. The right wing was at its lowest when they tried to sabotage the ACA, when the focus was on their policies and the impact they would have. What did the Democrats do after that failed at the time? Did they use that to go on the offensive policy wise, support a coherent alternative and run on that? No, they didn’t, and no one here or elsewhere could explain at all what the Democratic Party’s message and vision is on healthcare, or anything else. And the public can see the same exact corrupt people, deeply unpopular to a person, running the party, with their same shitty ideas and arguments. It isn’t possible to be a worst “opposition” party than the Democrats. They are cartoonishly inept.


The Democratic Party Establishment doesn’t want the current situation in our government to change.

Their inaction shows their complicity.


Exactly jneastra…all too predictable and very very sad.


Agreed up to that point. The best riders at the rodeo are usually the clowns, whose job is to look inept while staying alive and entertaining amid all those stomping half-ton animals.


Well, by that I mean that they think their strategies (Russia, Stormy Daniels, etc.) will get them votes and help them to get back into power. As far as their policies, whatever the hell they may be, it is obvious that the policy outcomes of what they do, their negotiating strategies, is something that benefits most of them economically (cause they are, to a person rich) and does benefit their donors.


This is why I will not give up being part of the effort to end the Democratic Party in favor of the only party that is truly a party of the common people - the Green Party. A party that is run from the bottom up, refuses to have anything to do with the rich, and actively seeks to end their influence in the system and tax away most of their power and influence. The Democrats only seek to hold onto their positions, not to do anything positive for the masses. Lesser evils are still evil, and the meme that voting Green helps Republicans is a BS lie, when a plurality of the electorate belongs to neither major party and does not bother to come out and vote. Apathy is the winner of our elections, and giving voters more party choices is the only cure. Hillary proved that you can’t force voters to vote for someone they truly hate and win an election. Enough voters in enough states said eff-you and did not vote for President at all to throw the election to Donnie, 100,000 alone in Michigan left the Presidency blank on their ballots - far more than the Trump margin of victory there.


I just don’t know. After the Clinton/Sanders debacle you would think anyone with eyes and a fucking brain would have thought that the Dems had to have an agenda for working people. The idiots seem like they really want to fuck up their chances in the mid terms.


I want the Democratic Party to banish ALL support from corporations!!! Then I’ll vote Democratic again. If the Democratic Party can announce that they are finished with accepting BRIBES from the Corporations, I will believe them again. Otherwise, I vote Green.


As resources on the planet continue to spiral into collapse, as the climate continues to disrupt agriculture and water supplies causing chaos in food systems, as the population grows at three additional people per second, people will revert to desperation and violence.

Call it fascism. Call it whatever.

The real question is this. At what point are you willing to kill someone for a resource? When you have no water? Or when your condominium raises it’s rates? How about when you want a new flat screen tv?

What about when you want to have another child but you can’t afford it? If only those Mexicans, Muslims, rich people, whatever, would stop hogging everything.

At what point does the desperation set in?


Rich people are just mean.

If only they would stop being mean we could all just have more kids and go shopping and everything would be fine.


I’ve been around rich people. They have a whole different perspective on life. For them, it’s all about their “hard earned money they earned,” and why should they share it with those who are lazy, good for nothing slugs who just want everything for nothing! They see the poor as “exploiting” the rich. They don’t see the lack of opportunity out there.


And morally bankrupt.


They will. The water is running out for everyone. The earth is heating up for everyone. The storms get worse for everyone. The droughts shut down agriculture for everyone.

The question then becomes, since you may not change the minds of rich people while this happens, what can you do to prevent further human misery?

Have more children?


How do you know they are morally bankrupt? Did they not share something that you want? Do you always share everything with those less fortunate?


This idea that because wealthy people are jerks, therefore everyone else is pure, is bizarre. If you give people more resources, generally they use them to have more children and go shopping for things they need and WANT.

When things are going well, they share. When things are going poorly they fight. In between they breed more children, both rich and poor.

This is fine as long as resources persist. Wars are awful, but people get by somehow. But now things are different. Resources, commodities, stuff, whatever you want to call it, are now quickly being disrupted.

So this endless war between battling family values has reached it’s logical conclusion.

Now, do you push it entirely over the edge, or question your paradigm?


I would assume the situation varies by district and state. Dennis Kusinich’s loss in the Ohio Democratic primary race seems to indicate in a divided state like Ohio a candidate can only go so far to the left and still win in the primary. If there is Democratic primary a candidate has to win that before having to face the party that goes along with white nationalism, fascism, and an utter contempt for truth based on evidence. So first things first and for many Democratic candidates what comes first is winning the primary. One thing I know is that there is no shortage of Democratic candidates this time around and there are particularly a lot of women running. It is rare that any Democratic candidate will run a solely negative campaign against a Republican. That simply is not how most campaigns are conducted. Essentially all Democratic candidates will run on a variety of issues. The idea that Democrats will run just anti-Trump campaigns defies all common sense. Even in a special election for the House in Pennsylvania a few months ago where the Republican candidate claimed he was Trump before the Trump the Democrat, who won, still ran on issues that resonated with many voters in a district that Trump won by 20 points.


Obviously not have more children! The earth is already overpopulated and her capacity to handle much more is very very slim. The rich will take the lions share of everything that is left and leave the poor to die. Who knows? Perhaps they have a planet B? I’ve read about underground bunkers, etc. So, it will be the poor who suffer most.