Where are the Democrats?

[knapplc]

I've been asking this for a while, even considered (but was too lazy to do it) putting the Democrat donkey on a missing child milk carton as a joke.

 

I've been particularly interested in what the Democrats were going to do with themselves after backing a bad horse in the last presidential election and getting trounced by an orange buffoon. I was hoping to never hear from Hillary Clinton again, and that the Democrats would find someone not named Clinton, or Pelosi, or Sanders, in their ranks to try to reestablish some balance in this country.

 

I was hoping never to hear from Hillary Clinton again.

 

 

Oh, well. Looks like that was a false hope.

 

[RedDenver]

I've been asking this for a while, even considered (but was too lazy to do it) putting the Democrat donkey on a missing child milk carton as a joke.

 

I've been particularly interested in what the Democrats were going to do with themselves after backing a bad horse in the last presidential election and getting trounced by an orange buffoon. I was hoping to never hear from Hillary Clinton again, and that the Democrats would find someone not named Clinton, or Pelosi, or Sanders, in their ranks to try to reestablish some balance in this country.

 

I was hoping never to hear from Hillary Clinton again.

 

 

Oh, well. Looks like that was a false hope.

 

The Dems are spineless and pretty awful. The Repubs reminded us again today why they remain light-years worse.

 

The Dems might be able to make something out of this for the 2018 and 2020 elections, but I don't have any confidence in them to do so. I'm becoming more and more convinced that other political parties need to rise and wrest power from these imbeciles, or the US will fall.

[knapplc]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that other political parties need to rise and wrest power from these imbeciles, or the US will fall.

Yes, this. Definitely.

[zoogs]

The Democrats haven't been absent. But I wouldn't trust in their ability to resist. That's on us -- all of us -- the people. Both of these parties need to take new shape or we are in danger indeed.

 

Hillary can do what she likes. It seems to me like she's lost most of her influence within the party base and has been reduced to little more than trolling Trump. Good for her. Trump's an easy guy to troll, and as for which of them looks more ridiculous to be continuing the 2016 campaign, there's an easy answer to that.

[commando]

i think the dems are giving the republicans enough rope to hang themselves right now. not sure what their plans for the future are but right now they can let trump do as much damage as possible to the repubs and wrap things up later. not what i want to see but it seems to be the plan for now.

 

 

as far as a new party is concerned...sign me up . i don't care if it's the flying spaghetti monster party or something else...just bury these 2 stink bombs we have to choose from every election.

[TGHusker]

Someone, maybe zoogs mentioned the other day - a moderate party. I use to think moderate = mushy, no convictions. Now I'm beginning to think it means effective govt.

Here is a thought: Get Senator Rand Paul and Senator Booker from NJ run as a unification ticket. (yes far fetched but something radical has got to happen)

[RedDenver]

Someone, maybe zoogs mentioned the other day - a moderate party. I use to think moderate = mushy, no convictions. Now I'm beginning to think it means effective govt.

Here is a thought: Get Senator Rand Paul and Senator Booker from NJ run as a unification ticket. (yes far fetched but something radical has got to happen)

I think we need rank choice voting (aka instant-runoff voting). It was passed by Maine last year, so it can be done at the state level. Doesn't require moderate parties, since you could vote for individual candidates across party lines.

[Danny Bateman]

Did we not ask the same questions of the GOP circa 2009? They had forfeited control of both houses of Congress and the White House in historic fashion, and a reckoning was needed. Up sprung the Tea Party and the party has clawed it's way back into dominance. Now, I would argue they are incompetent, unreasonable gerrymandering and doing a poor job of representing people's interests, but electorally, they are in great shape.

 

The same could happen for the Democrats purely on the backs of this administration.

 

I don't know how likely other parties springing up are. Libertarianism appeals to too few people to form a legit third option. Likewise with the Greens. Perhaps Berniecrats rises up and form a true left-wing Tea Party?

I think far more likely is a political realignment coming soon. The fundamental question will be whether politicians have forgotten their first job is helping their constituents and not serving their party.

[RedDenver]

I've been thinking about a more radical idea that has some huge logistical challenges, but what about replacing the House of Representatives with a direct vote of the people? The three biggest pros are eliminating gerrymandering, eliminating lame duck bills, and eliminating votes that go against the will of the people. Certainly reduces the ability to buy votes and the power of the political parties as well. I know it's got lots of problems in regards to how we run votes for the whole country and that it needs a Constitutional Amendment to even get off the ground, but give it some thought before responding.

[TGHusker]

While the mantra is that we can 'term limit' these rascals with out with our votes, it never happens. I think it is time for term limits and the blocking of previous Congressmen from working in industries they formerly oversaw as a part of their responsibilities in Congress. Also ban them from becoming lobbyists.

[TGHusker]

 

Someone, maybe zoogs mentioned the other day - a moderate party. I use to think moderate = mushy, no convictions. Now I'm beginning to think it means effective govt.

Here is a thought: Get Senator Rand Paul and Senator Booker from NJ run as a unification ticket. (yes far fetched but something radical has got to happen)

I think we need rank choice voting (aka instant-runoff voting). It was passed by Maine last year, so it can be done at the state level. Doesn't require moderate parties, since you could vote for individual candidates across party lines.

 

If we had the instant runoff voting we would not have ended up wt Trump. Rubio was most peoples # 2 choice I think by a large margin. I also don't think you see Rand Paul leaving the race so early. Trump won those early primaries with cross over voters in the open primaries. If it was a Dem plan to rig the election by nominating the 'easiest' candidate for Hillary to beat, it sure backfired.

[Danny Bateman]

I've been thinking about a more radical idea that has some huge logistical challenges, but what about replacing the House of Representatives with a direct vote of the people? The three biggest pros are eliminating gerrymandering, eliminating lame duck bills, and eliminating votes that go against the will of the people. Certainly reduces the ability to buy votes and the power of the political parties as well. I know it's got lots of problems in regards to how we run votes for the whole country and that it needs a Constitutional Amendment to even get off the ground, but give it some thought before responding.

I would certainly at least consider something along these lines. Gerrymandering frustrates the hell out of me. Not just because the GOP are the ones using it currently, either. Regardless of party, vote rigging spits in the face of a fair representative democracy.

 

One of the biggest obstacles is getting everyone engaged in politics. Our voter turnout as a nation is pathetic. We average just over 50% turnout. We haven't scratched 60% since '68. The French had the first round election the other week, and their 2nd and final one this weekend. They average around 80% turnout.

 

Our elections being WAYYY too long is an issue for another day...

 

Getting people engaged in the day to day voting on tons of things they may not care about or understand would be a serious challenge.

[84HuskerLaw]

LOL The serious Dem money is now on Hillary to - yes you may have guessed it by now - run for Presiden once again in 2020. She certainly has the inside track and after hiding out for several months until, apparently, she thinks the coast is clear, all signs are pointing to this happening. The Dem party has been wandering rather aimlessly for a long time now and is the minority party based on the number of elective offices they hold across all levels of government (fed, state and local). There are about half dozen states where the Dems are in control but that's about it and the overall decline continues. 2018 looks pretty good for the GOP to hold and gain substantially in the Senate and hold the House yet again. State races are harder to predict but Trump won a lot of States and a few key ones that were essential for the Dems in past Presidential races are steadily moving Republican.

 

Not sure how the Dems get rid of Hillary but she needs to sail off into the sunset and never come back for about 10 years. Then the Dems need to run a candidate with some basic common sense and understanding of the economy and the plight of the working folks who have been devastated by liberalism and socialist policies. The family is a key fundamental economic unit necessary for a middle class to thrive. Single person households are simply much too expensive for large numbers of Americans to survive today, especially with the heavy tax burden and loss of purchasing power from declining wages (adjusted for inflation) and resultant living standard declines. Most Americans are hurting, living paycheck to paycheck and many are going backwards at that. This pain is real and widespread. Assuming Trump continues on the current course, he will have some very positive effects on manufacturing, jobs, reduced healthcare costs, etc. This will enhance his standing with his voters and attact millions more. He will be hard to beat next time and he has the potential for some big coat tails. The Dems doing nothing but screaming bloody murder and violent angry tantrums won't attract many voters as voters want to hear real, practical solutions to their problems, not crazy rants of name-calling, etc.

[Danny Bateman]

I love getting a rare glimpse into 84's version of reality.

[mrandyk]

The American voter, currently, is far too apathetic to allow for a third party to gain any momentum. You may have noticed in this past election cycle that most stated displeasure with the two major candidates, yet probably could not name any alternatives. Not even a debacle like Trump will bother the public to think critically or push voters away from strict partisanship. If this cycle changes nothing then I anticipate never knowing "leadership" dissimilar from what I've seen the past few administrations.