What has happened to the Democratic party?

[BnG_Hevn]

Trump is a republican president, but he is more in the middle. Add in that he make the tough decisions b/c he is the only president aside from Reagan who actually cares about the country as opposed to having power.

And they were both pretty much outsiders to politics, makes you wonder why "politicians" are even elected.

California and NY tells you all you need to know about the democrats and their policies. If you can't see what they are about from looking at those two states, you are blind.

[JnK]

The disrespect shown to the office of the President of The United States during last night's SOTU address by one democrat in particular was deplorable. Irregardless of how she feels about him personally she made an absolute mockery of the office and made herself look even more like a total biotch.

[AtlantaDan]

Since the GOP nominee for President in 2012 has voted to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abusing the powers of his office during the Ukraine adventure consider the possibility a legitimate question as well may be what has happened to the Republican Party

The two party system appears to be intellectually bankrupt at the moment

If it is Trump versus Bernie I guess I will write in someone else again this November as I did in 2016 when I wrote in John Kasich rather than vote for Trump or Hillary

[silver & black]

I don't like Trump.... never have. I will vote for him again. I dislike the Left more than I dislike Trump. The left is off the hook. They have lost their way and are a non entity in today's America... IMO. I hold conservative values... I can't support anyone other than Trump at this point.

[st33lersguy]

This whole impeachment circus was an embarrassment for the Democratic party. "Star witnesses" were using 2nd and 3rd hand sources/he said she said in their testimony, a whistleblower who was a Democratic donor, all as a backup coup after the manufactured Russian Collusion story failed and an attempt to deflect the corruption of the Bidens. It's like the Democratic Party doesn't know how the legal system works. It's innocent until proven guilty, not innocent only if you agree with me

[GoSlash27]

The real key is the low turnout in the Dem caucus in Iowa coupled with Trump's highest approval rating ever. Dude is a shoe- in for four more years, and the Dem base isn't energized to get rid of him. Don't need a crystal ball to see where this is headed.

[st33lersguy]

The real key is the low turnout in the Dem caucus in Iowa coupled with Trump's highest approval rating ever. Dude is a shoe- in for four more years, and the Dem base isn't energized to get rid of him. Don't need a crystal ball to see where this is headed.

The fact that their "most electable" candidate who has a shot at winning is probably a 30 something year old mayor also doesn't help.

Neither is the fact that the Dems can't even run a primary without rigging it to the person they want or causing numerous problems that delay reporting

[Mojouw]

The real key is the low turnout in the Dem caucus in Iowa coupled with Trump's highest approval rating ever. Dude is a shoe- in for four more years, and the Dem base isn't energized to get rid of him. Don't need a crystal ball to see where this is headed.

Too true! I am astounded that the "best" candidates either party can put forth are a reality show charlatan and the clown car of nonsense.

So far most of this thread is not reasons why anyone is planning on voting for a specific candidate but rather that they can't bring themselves to vote for an alternative.

I don't agree with Trump or his policies. But I am far from excited to vote for the retreads and know nothing's the Dems are trotting out.

[AtlantaDan]

The real key is the low turnout in the Dem caucus in Iowa coupled with Trump's highest approval rating ever. Dude is a shoe- in for four more years, and the Dem base isn't energized to get rid of him. Don't need a crystal ball to see where this is headed.

His highest approval rating ever being the outlier Gallup poll with the 49% approve/50% disapproval rating? Not exactly beloved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

The Democrats could fuck up a one car funeral but this is not a Reagan v Mondale or Nixon v McGovern shoo in - most of the country is evenly split between Trump or anyone else the Dems put up and it will come down to the 5% of the voters in the half dozen swing states where votes actually matter that will decide the election

I hope Bloomberg hangs around since he clearly gets on Trump’s last nerve

[vader29]

[GoSlash27]

His highest approval rating ever being the outlier Gallup poll with the 49% approve/50% disapproval rating? Not exactly beloved.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284156/...onal-best.aspx

Anywhere over 35 or so is in the "easily re-electable" range, and he's been there for most of his Presidency. You'd be wise to not dismiss this "outlier". You'd also be wise to check my track record at calling this stuff correctly.

The Democrats could fuck up a one car funeral but this is not a Reagan v Mondale or Nixon v McGovern shoo in - most of the country is evenly split between Trump or anyone else the Dems put up and it will come down to the 5% of the voters in the half dozen swing states where votes actually matter that will decide the election

"Trump vs. Generic Dem" means nothing, and the national polls mean nothing. MoJoUW is absolutely correct: The only viable candidate the Dems have that can compete with Trump is Buttigieg, and that would be a tough sell.

I hope Bloomberg hangs around since he clearly gets on Trump’s last nerve

I suppose, for the entertainment value... But Bloomberg is DOA if he somehow wins the nomination, which seems extremely unlikely at this point.

[GoSlash27]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...list-candidate

If true, this would be the biggest landslide since Nixon/ McGovern.

[BnG_Hevn]

Since the GOP nominee for President in 2012 has voted to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abusing the powers of his office during the Ukraine adventure consider the possibility a legitimate question as well may be what has happened to the Republican Party

The two party system appears to be intellectually bankrupt at the moment

If it is Trump versus Bernie I guess I will write in someone else again this November as I did in 2016 when I wrote in John Kasich rather than vote for Trump or Hillary

it is not Trump vs Bernie. It is literally capitalism vs socialism. If Bernie were to get elected, just be sure not to complain about standing in that bread line. And before you start touting the "the sky is falling", if Bernie is elected it won't be long until this country mirrors Venezuela.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...list-candidate

If true, this would be the biggest landslide since Nixon/ McGovern.

Reagan took all states except Minnesota in '80 or '84, one or the other. Probably '80, with the country coming off the Jimmy Carter debacle.

[GoSlash27]

it is not Trump vs Bernie. It is literally capitalism vs socialism. If Bernie were to get elected, just be sure not to complain about standing in that bread line. And before you start touting the "the sky is falling", if Bernie is elected it won't be long until this country mirrors Venezuela.

- - - Updated - - -



Reagan took all states except Minnesota in '80 or '84, one or the other. Probably '80, with the country coming off the Jimmy Carter debacle.

You're thinking of '84; Reagan /Mondale. Minnesota and DC went for Mondale, everywhere else for Reagan. I use Nixon/ McGovern because that's the closest parallel to this cycle if Bernie gets the nomination; a Dem candidate who's way too far left to win.

But yeah, you're right. Reagan/ Mondale was a bigger whuppin'.

[st33lersguy]

The Democratic elites are now trying to push a Michael Bloomberg candidacy with (whaddaya know) Hilary as the VP candidate. Nope they still haven't learned from 2016

[ALLD]

I can't wait until Trump gets another SCOTUS and defunds all those government agencies that FDR created, but now make laws outside the Constitution.

[GoSlash27]

BTW, AtlantaDan... it is now confirmed that the Gallup poll was no "outlier".


Oh, and while we're on the subject... How 'bout that debate last night? Your boy Bloomberg got passed around like a doobie at a Foghat concert...

[Craic]

You're thinking of '84; Reagan /Mondale. Minnesota and DC went for Mondale, everywhere else for Reagan. I use Nixon/ McGovern because that's the closest parallel to this cycle if Bernie gets the nomination; a Dem candidate who's way too far left to win.

But yeah, you're right. Reagan/ Mondale was a bigger whuppin'.

Maybe true, but unfortunately, one thing the DNC learned from that election cycle is to avoid the in-party fighting at the convention that pushed the acceptance speech to 3 AM and also influenced the creation of the Super Delegates to counter the far-left swing (due to opening the doors to the public voting in primaries) that started with the McGovern commission in 69-70 and culminated in the debacle of the 72 DNC convention.

Then again, with the way this year is going, and the fact that after Hillary's election by the Super Delegates before she was ever selected in the primaries, they banned Super Delegates from voting in the first round, we just may see another implosion in at the convention.

[GoSlash27]

I'm expecting they will. It's still early, but I don't think any candidate will have a majority of delegates. Bloomberg is already starting his brokered convention strategy.
Me personally, I hope Bernie gets the nomination. Nothing like losing in an historic landslide to get a point across; socialism is a losing platform. Maybe the Dems will get their shit together after Bernie gets his ass thoroughly stomped.

[st33lersguy]

Sad thing is Bernie, the 79 year old socialist probably stands the best chance because he has a base and a legion of supporters. However, socialism is a losing platform and that needs to defeat it is effective messaging

[Shoes]

I think so many folks tie socialism to countries they know nothing about, they really don't know what socialism is. I've heard Bernie and Rush Limbaugh (for example) both say things about Sweden that were 100% wrong.

Pretty good article from a few years ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#bf26dc374ad3

[vader29]

[Mojouw]

I think so many folks tie socialism to countries they know nothing about, they really don't know what socialism is. I've heard Bernie and Rush Limbaugh (for example) both say things about Sweden that were 100% wrong.

Pretty good article from a few years ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#bf26dc374ad3

The intriguing thing is that EVERYONE that talks about this in the context of US politics is wrong. As the article correctly points out, almost no one on the American left is talking about nationalizing industries and many of the core elements of actual socialism. Government control over the means of production and all that. Yet both the American Left and Right continue to bang on about socialism or democratic socialism or what not.

To me, it seems that the author of the article nailed it. It is all still capitalism. It is just different flavors of capitalism. But since we are not ever, nor have we ever been, able to have honest, reasoned, and fact based debates about economic priorities in our political system -- we end up with the nonsense that passes for "analysis" and "debate" currently.

Maybe we should all just go back to dueling. Get some more Hamilton-Burr style economic dispute settling.

[Shoes]

The intriguing thing is that EVERYONE that talks about this in the context of US politics is wrong. As the article correctly points out, almost no one on the American left is talking about nationalizing industries and many of the core elements of actual socialism. Government control over the means of production and all that. Yet both the American Left and Right continue to bang on about socialism or democratic socialism or what not.

To me, it seems that the author of the article nailed it. It is all still capitalism. It is just different flavors of capitalism. But since we are not ever, nor have we ever been, able to have honest, reasoned, and fact based debates about economic priorities in our political system -- we end up with the nonsense that passes for "analysis" and "debate" currently.

Maybe we should all just go back to dueling. Get some more Hamilton-Burr style economic dispute settling.

Exactly, I've said to my wife over the 40 years (come August) we have been married that there really isn't much difference in working in Sweden Vs USA. The difference is the "compassion" Employers there do not drive employees into the ground, threaten, scream and raise hell to get something done, they also don't use healthcare to keep you under their thumb.

[Mojouw]

Exactly, I've said to my wife over the 40 years (come August) we have been married that there really isn't much difference in working in Sweden Vs USA. The difference is the "compassion" Employers there do not drive employees into the ground, threaten, scream and raise hell to get something done, they also don't use healthcare to keep you under their thumb.

The funny part is that the healthcare issue in the states is a self-inflicted wound that is all wrapped up in the second world war, taxes, labor shortages, and a whole mess of other stuff -- https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...224-story.html

Without some unintended consequences of (possibly) short-sighted war-time laws, we would probably have a European style national healthcare system.

I have heard from a few friends living in "nordic socialism" that one of the main drawbacks is how much the the tax man is into your pocket each check and how stagnant the labor market can be. But I have not really read up on or pursued the issue to see if this is broadly true or a "your experience may vary" kind of thing. I would also be very interested to know that once we back out all the stuff that we pay for as individuals in the States if it balances out the up-front taxation of wages that takes place (healthcare, education, insert variety of other social benefits here)?

[Craic]

The intriguing thing is that EVERYONE that talks about this in the context of US politics is wrong. As the article correctly points out, almost no one on the American left is talking about nationalizing industries and many of the core elements of actual socialism. Government control over the means of production and all that. Yet both the American Left and Right continue to bang on about socialism or democratic socialism or what not.

To me, it seems that the author of the article nailed it. It is all still capitalism. It is just different flavors of capitalism. But since we are not ever, nor have we ever been, able to have honest, reasoned, and fact based debates about economic priorities in our political system -- we end up with the nonsense that passes for "analysis" and "debate" currently.

Maybe we should all just go back to dueling. Get some more Hamilton-Burr style economic dispute settling.

Yes and no. When they start banging on about single-payer health care, they are talking about a true socialist system that is in government control. They may not know that's what they're talking about, that's the only way single-payer systems can work.

The funny part is that the healthcare issue in the states is a self-inflicted wound that is all wrapped up in the second world war, taxes, labor shortages, and a whole mess of other stuff -- https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...224-story.html

Without some unintended consequences of (possibly) short-sighted war-time laws, we would probably have a European style national healthcare system.

I have heard from a few friends living in "nordic socialism" that one of the main drawbacks is how much the the tax man is into your pocket each check and how stagnant the labor market can be. But I have not really read up on or pursued the issue to see if this is broadly true or a "your experience may vary" kind of thing. I would also be very interested to know that once we back out all the stuff that we pay for as individuals in the States if it balances out the up-front taxation of wages that takes place (healthcare, education, insert variety of other social benefits here)?

I would doubt we'd end up with a European style system. That's because there are too many variables here that European nations do not have to deal with. Population size is one of them. The overload on a single-payer system would crush it. A second one is land mass. What we see in Canada is that you must have regional hospitals to make it viable. However, regional hospitals might be hundreds of miles away or more. That could mean you can't get your thumb set after it was broken until you drive a few hundred miles to a larger city all because the system has designated that your smaller area doesn't need an anesthesiologist (Yeah, that's a bit specific. It's what happened to me in Canada when I was a kid).

I can't tell you how many times I've from someone in my family they're having to fly to Vancouver BC for medical reasons. Sad thing is, they're flying there from other small cities that in the US, the same sized cities would have multiple facilities for handling the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Sad thing is Bernie, the 79 year old socialist probably stands the best chance because he has a base and a legion of supporters. However, socialism is a losing platform and that needs to defeat it is effective messaging

Be careful of getting what you wish for. Jimmy Carter, in the 1980 election cycle was rooting for Ronald Reagan to get the nomination because he thought Reagan was too conservative and it would make the elections easier for Carter.

[Mojouw]

Yes and no. When they start banging on about single-payer health care, they are talking about a true socialist system that is in government control. They may not know that's what they're talking about, that's the only way single-payer systems can work.



I would doubt we'd end up with a European style system. That's because there are too many variables here that European nations do not have to deal with. Population size is one of them. The overload on a single-payer system would crush it. A second one is land mass. What we see in Canada is that you must have regional hospitals to make it viable. However, regional hospitals might be hundreds of miles away or more. That could mean you can't get your thumb set after it was broken until you drive a few hundred miles to a larger city all because the system has designated that your smaller area doesn't need an anesthesiologist (Yeah, that's a bit specific. It's what happened to me in Canada when I was a kid).

I can't tell you how many times I've from someone in my family they're having to fly to Vancouver BC for medical reasons. Sad thing is, they're flying there from other small cities that in the US, the same sized cities would have multiple facilities for handling the situation.

- - - Updated - - -



Be careful of getting what you wish for. Jimmy Carter, in the 1980 election cycle was rooting for Ronald Reagan to get the nomination because he thought Reagan was too conservative and it would make the elections easier for Carter.

I dunno. States are the size of countries that make it work. So string together a series of systems into a network or whatever. I'm sure their are pros and cons of it all.

I'm kinda confused about your definition of the world "socialism". Is any country that has national healthcare a socialist country? This is literally the first list I pulled up and I have not really considered it deeply (https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/all-...are-2017-03-07) but I struggle to call many, if not all, of the countries on that list "socialist". I get that the "nationalization" of an industry is kind of a hallmark of socialism, but we aren't talking about oil, natural gas, or durable goods manufacture here. My background on all this stuff is fuzzy because it has been so long since I studied it, but wouldn't shifting healthcare to a single payer system administered by the government not preclude a give country from being considered a capitalist enterprise?

Or is it that you are isolating things and any system where the government runs it is a socialist one? Because, yeah, I can see that. But currently the US Government runs/regulates/administers all kinds of stuff and nobody cries into their beer about the creeping socialist takeover or whatever (by no means is that what I think your post was doing). And that was kinda what my original thoughts were aimed at. Setting up a single payer national healthcare system is not really a trojan horse to overthrow capitalism or anything. Heck, it already exists for old people and veterans; and that hasn't ushered in a socialist hellscape. I realize you have not attempted to take up that line of thought, but it was a bit of a straw man that I was responding to. In general, American politics likes to set up binary debates between massive extremes with absolutely no room for context or nuance. I believe that there are plenty of points along the spectrum between "unrestrained capitalism" and "Venezuela style socialism"; but we tend to skip over all the stops along the way and contrast those two by yelling at one another instead of discussing actually useful points.

For instance, your thoughts on the scalar issues related to sheer geographic distance associated with a national healthcare system are really good ones and important to consider. Yet whenever I see the national not national health system debated on TV, the internet, podcasts, whatever -- no one talks about these actual issues it is all just random emotional buzzwords from both sides. I literally have no idea if single payer would be better or not, but I do know that the current system sucks for a staggering number of people and I truly believe having continued national conversations about how to improve it would be a great idea. Sad that never really takes place.

[Shoes]

Healthcare in this county is a money maker and that is why the cost is so high. Everyone has their hands in the pie and in our pockets. When I had my ankle replaced in 2018 the doctor was paid $14,000.00 for the surgery he performed. I stayed one night in the hospital and they received $82,000.00.

The Swedish healthcare system would never work here in the US. One reason is it's not a moneymaking machine. Everyone, rich included have the same care. Another reason is the people just have a different view on healthcare. They don't think about it because it's alway there and they don't use it unless they have to. They don't run the doctor if their child has a lowgrade fever for one day. Just a totally different mindset.

[GoSlash27]

Be careful of getting what you wish for. Jimmy Carter, in the 1980 election cycle was rooting for Ronald Reagan to get the nomination because he thought Reagan was too conservative and it would make the elections easier for Carter.

Different situation. The economy was trash, Carter was never known for his political acumen, and he grossly underestimated Reagan's oratory skills and stage presence. Plus that whole Iran hostage crisis thing...
I'm not losing any sleep over the idea of "President Sanders". Aside from him being too far left and Trump having the incumbent advantage, there's a whole laundry list of problems with him:
-His base is a tiny minority who make a lot of noise but don't vote.
-He's an economic change candidate during a good economy.
-He can't explain how he'd actually fulfill his promises.
-He's old.
-He has health problems.
-His own supporters keep making him look weak onstage.
-His own supporters keep making him look like a Marxist revolutionary offstage.
-His spokesperson is Alexandria Occasio Cortez.
-His spokesperson keeps going off script and saying loopy shit on his behalf.

[GoSlash27]

Oh, another one: He defended the Castro regime in Cuba. Pretty sure that takes Florida off the table.