Home | About | Donate

With 3 Months To Go, Pundits and Democrats Still Clueless


With 3 Months To Go, Pundits and Democrats Still Clueless

John Atcheson

Democrats will win the House in 3 months, and they have an outside shot at the Senate. But it’s not because they’ve figured out how to win elections, it’s because Republicans have – once again -- handed it to them.


No surprise there. I’m sure Yunzer, LRX and KC will be here shortly to correct me, though.


Not “clueless”, just addicted to corporate money.

Perhaps a 12 step program to shake corporate money addiction will emerge before November ?


They have been clueless for fifty years. Why expect change now?


I hope people are paying attention----I can already hear pro Trump themes running through the business media—the rich just did another heist of the American people and they are not done -they want MORE!

Everything Trump is doing now is all geared to the Nov election. Putting off sanctions on Iran’s oil until after the election----throwing 12 billion to the farmers—

If a candidate wants to win----there is a winning issue conservative-moderate and progressive can agree on----get all the corrupt money out of the political sphere .

A national healthcare system should have happened in the US 20 yrs ago----this only speaks to the corruption of the media and both political parties.


There is only one centrist party and its got GOPer and Dems; it’s hard to tell them apart in their dedication to world wide killing and the military and the banks and Wall St.
The funny thing to me is that Hillary’s daughter had a husband who had a hedge fund—and he shut it down right before the election. I guess he was going for a big job in the government and LOL, look what we got instead, Jared and Ivanka------but hey, if it had been Chelsea and Hedge fun guy-----I wonder if we would have been able to tell them apart…nah.


You mean the “Russians” are coming?


Don’t worry; Be happy!

Everybody was sure that Hillary would win too two years ago.

Here’s some more realistic advice: Worry.


The type of candidate it takes to win a general election depends to a large extent on the demographics of the district or state. Sanders never ran against Trump so saying would have won is hypothetical nonsense, We will never know. In the special elections that have been held so far the Democrats have done very well, and those are actual election results, not hypothetical results. We know a candidate like Connor Lamb can win in a district that voted for Trump because he did. We know Doug Jones could win in Alabama because he did. Bernie Sanders runs in Vermont which is a very liberal state so he can win there. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is running in a district that is heavily Democrat so she should win easily. Sanders-backed candidates did not do well in 2016. I don’t think any of them including Zephyr Teachout won. I don’t think many political pundits will agree with Atcheson since the data do not support his conclusion. It is mostly wishful thinking.


About voting

Because I thought it was necessary (it isn’t) to register for a party preference instead of Independent I opted to make a temporary change and register for a political party. In Az it is easy send our vote by mail so I do, no hanging chads here. So far I’ve received two ballots. tee hee, should I give the second one to someone?


The Democrats have a mandate.

It’s called delivering whatever:

The war machine wants
Wall Street wants
AHIP wants
Big Oil wants
Big Pharma wants…


Actual election result: Trump beats Hillary.


Your triangles seem to be a bit skewed. Perhaps you should read this:

Democrats Must Reclaim the Center … by Moving Hard Left

This article nails the problem and the solution – it will set your triangles free!


They’re doing much better in 2018, though.

As for 2016, imagine the difference in results if the Democratic Party apparatchiks were enthusiastically supporting progressives, instead of throwing all of their energy into undermining them; you know, like you do. That progressives do as well as they have, in the face of (presumably) friendly fire, is a testament to their power and potential.


I think it’s great that your party’s candidates can run campaigns designed exclusively for their districts.

That way your party can pander constituency-by-constituency while standing for nothing, as usual.

Now what was Hillary again? A progressive? A moderate?
Oh, wait, now I remember. It depended on the audience…


But the corporate Democrats first have to admit that they have an addiction.


, , , it’s not because they’ve figured out how to win elections, it’s because Republicans have – once again – handed it to them.

So why this dichotomy? Why do we have to choose between two candidates, one from the Republican Party and the other from the Democratic Party. The two-party duopoly helps the elite and powerful remain elite and powerful while by limiting the choices available to the citizens to what often is between two awful alternatives selected by the elite and powerful.

Why can’t we have more choices?

Isn’t there something we could do about it?

Sure there is! We can, as Maine did recently, to turn to a better voting system. How we vote is a choice each state can make and there are better ways we could vote. Some approaches will lead to more choices for voters.


Vote for dems who reflect our values, then, however the election goes, switch to the Green Party. Give the traitor dem establishment something to worry about. And stand firm against their duplicity. They have and will continue to sell us out for the petrodollars. Make them regret it.


The surest way to get change is for the unDemocratic Party to lose and lose big as long as they stay with their NeoLiberal and Militaristic Imperialist ways, masking it all as liberal with Identity Politics.

The surest way to have these DLC types lose and lose big is to vote for the Republican alternative. That might seem attractive but it WON’T work. Yes, the unDemocratic Party will lose, but the message they’ll get is they lost because they weren’t conservative enough. It’ll have the exact opposite effect of promoting a move towards the Left or the rise of a real Leftist alternative party.

In my state with a top two primary that means having to write in a clear Progressive alternative. Luckily in our Congressional Race, establishment Rick Larsen’s opponent this year also is a Democrat- a Bernie Sanders one. But in every other race where we’ve got an establishment unDemocrat the race is always them versus a fire breathing ‘drown it in the bathtub’ Republican.

I’ll write in Eugene V. Debs before I vote for either one.


I vote in South Carolina. I’d buy someone a donut if they can give me a legitimate reason why my vote matters. It is a one party state where most offices have a single Republican candidate on the ballot.