Home | About | Donate

Why the Democrats Keep Losing the Congress


Why the Democrats Keep Losing the Congress

Ralph Nader

Why isn’t the Democratic Party landsliding the worst and cruelest Republican Party in the past 162 years?

Just take a glance at their record votes and you’ll wonder why the Republican representatives don’t just incorporate themselves and be done with any pretense that they are real people.


Ralph: ALWAYS perceptive!


"Consequently, they [the Democrats] don’t make an effort to show the callousness and cruelty of the Republican Party."

They certainly don't. And they don't because their primary task is to safeguard the "two" party system.

If the Republicans were exposed as the party of the corporations only (which they are), against the people, the party would wither and die, leaving a vacuum to be filled by a party of the people.

The Republicans don't expose the Democrats for the same reason.

I think it was Ralph who told us long ago: we have a one party system with two faces.

A strong Green Party would represent the people against the corporatist duo.

A vote for Jill will help put the Greens on the US political map.


Go Iceland!


Political support for any major candidate in America is 3,000 miles wide and 1/2 inch deep. In any unstable dynamic situation Nature decrees anything can happen. Evolution works change like this when things get stuck in cross purposes.
Fortunately or unfortunately the "anything" can be very helpful or harmful to life on the planet. We need to put our hands on the wheel and steer this anger to the helpful side...using the crisis to make helpful change. Sort of the opposite of Disaster Capitalism, if you're familiar with that book. Or we can perish.


Yes, the republicans are bad, but I no longer trust the democrats either. It is all a show to divide the populace to fight against each other so they won't see they are being played by the two parties. The two parties are not working for us, not for this country, and not for the planet.


The Republicans are a political party with an agreed upon values system and beliefs that sound good to their "base". Democrats have too many factions and cannot get it together to present a program that the electorate could begin to buy in.to, If only the liberals and progressives would break away from the Dems and form a separate party with Bernie Sanders and Eluzabeth Warren as its stars . . . That coukd work but it looks like that won't happen..

Maybe this election will wake the people from the delusion that the Two Party System is mandated by the Constitution and hat an inescapable unchangsble part of the system.


Or perhaps because the Democrats offer nothing to anyone not able to pay (a very great deal) for it.


For "group machoism." perhaps read "group masochism."?


There is hardly any difference between the D's and the R's.
What Nader has been saying for the last 30 years.


The long slide back into an imperial system would be very clear to 18th century Americans. We might as well be the Holy Roman Empire, operating under the Golden Bull. No one asks why anyone is a Republican. There is no answer. It is like it once was to be a Swabian, or a Hessian, or a Pomeranian. Your Prince Elector speaks for you. Your voice is the same as the cows or chickens.


It's not so complicated. The Dem voting base had long consisted of the masses -- poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, for the common good. Bill Clinton split this base wide apart. The years of this administration confirmed that this split is permanent. Dems then picked the most anti-poor pol they had, to run for president. We're 20 years deep into one hell of a war on the poor, brought to fruition (and maintained) by the Democrats. As if to make very sure that we understand their priorities, Democrats in Congress kicked off the campaign season with voting to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled (cut from $115 per month, down to $10).

When you target a chunk of your own voting base, you lose elections.


Democrats, Republicans, the ruling class plays us like children:

Fear and insecurity are natural enough in ruling class society, but sometimes the masses become hardened to their effects simply because they have come to accept “the way it is”, or they have internalized tough society as reflected in the individual’s behavior and judgmentalism. This state of society must be diligently maintained.

A loss of fear among the masses scares the daylights out of the ruling class. At these times a ruling class society needs a good dose of fear-mongering. Like unnecessary booms and busts of the economy, fear-mongering is a manufactured periodic and needless pretext to further the ruling class agenda. Fear-mongering is an elixir to the hardening attitude toward authority, just as booms and busts are a transfer of wealth from the masses to the ruling class.


Because they want to!


No, Democrats have remained the same for the past 20 years. They stand with middle class campaign donors.

Warren and Sanders, both former advocates for the poor, dumped the poor to market to the middle class. At the least, our own modern history shows why it's impossible to save/rebuild the middle class without shoring up the poor. We don't want to. This is why the US middle class has continued to shrink and grow poorer.


Actually, the Clinton wing have implemented more oif the right wing agenda than Republicans could have ever dreamed possible -- all without ruffling the feathers of the liberal bourgeoisie. On core socioeconomic policies, the Clintons have been well to the right of Eisenhower, Nixon, even Reagan.


Good article by Ralph Nader as always, but his remark:

"Democratic incumbent candidates are ensconced in safe, non-competitive electoral districts (often because of their gerrymandering)"

suggests a misunderstanding of how gerrymandering works.

The key to gerrymandering is not to draw your own district boundaries is drawing your opponents district boundaries.

In my state the Democrats are imprisoned in convoluted districts that enclose poor and declining-populations with near 100% Democrat voter membership. The republicans than draw boundaries to enclose 60% Repub/40%Democrat districts - assuring Republican representation.

They did a good job. Pennsylvania's congressional delegation is 5 Democrats (28%) and 13 (72%) Republicans in a state whose overall population has a large democratic majority.

I suspect few poeple from the world's democracies really know how bad things are in the US. Does anything as idiotic as the ruling party's politicians drawing political boundaries, to assure they continue to rule, exist anywhere else in the world?


Government in exile


There are still significant differences between the two parties at the congressional level - particularly the House of Reps. Or do you never notice the substantial difference in voting of legislation between the party members?

At the state level it is even more dramatic. In New York, fracking is banned. In Pennsylvania it is not only drill-baby-drill but even local government or landowner-level banning was banned. Guess which state has a large democratic majority?


Democrats had little difficulty controlling Congress during most of the twentieth century until the 1985 formation of the Democratic leadership Council (DLC) in 1985. After the new DLC Democrats enabled the most regressive tax reform in history in 1986 and Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA through in 1994, the Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Just as Obama followed the DLC playbook by pushing Obamacare through in 2010 and losing control of Congress again, Hillary Clinton will shoot for GOP control of Congress during the 8 years as POTUS that she now has in the bag so she will have the same cover her husband and Obama had in delivering for the 1% at the expense of the 99% with most liberals not blinking an eye.