Sunday, February 26, 2017

The Democrats are in Trouble

Now the GOP may have problems, but I think the Democrats are really in trouble.
CNN Progressives Unhappy
CNN Sanders Not Impressed


If they are pushed to go even further Left than Hillary proposed, I am thinking they are going to be relegated to holding offices in the highly urban areas only. How do you think the Democrats can change to improve their standing and influence around the country?

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Indeed we are. It's pretty much a mess out there. For me, turning over the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary for the next generation, will be the real long term disaster.

--Hiram

John said...

I am not sure I agree... I can't see Conservative rulings being any worse than the Liberal ones we have had in the past.

Anonymous said...

In many respects, Donald was considerably to the left us. We didn't go to coal country or to the iron mining regions and tell them they would be keeping their jobs. Donald Trump promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and that's what we would demand from any left wing president. And if he fails to deliver on those promises, he will blame Democrats in Congress whose obstruction tactics aregn't being reported by the fake media.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I can't see Conservative rulings being any worse than the Liberal ones we have had in the past.

What really appalled me, what convinced me in fact that Marbury v. Madison must be overturned, was the legislative role the court took with regard to health care policy. The Supreme Court was quite clearly acting like a legislative branch. They were considering outside sources, they were, in effect, taking testimony. They somehow convinced themselves that 21st century health care policy was something that was discussed both at the constitutional convention in 1787 and in the aftermath of the Civil War when the 13, 14th, and 15th amendments were enacted. When that happened, I was really very comfortable when the checks and balances kicked in, the senate, weakened by partisanship, was unable to consider a replacement for Justice Scalia. I don't think the founders thought about health care, but I do think they understood that under a checks and balances system, when one branch fails, the other branches will step up and take it's place. That's what the balances in checks and balances means.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that you have a problem. Since moral and intellectual superiority is at the heart of who Democrats claim themselves to be, I don't see it happening until a few realists step in and take control. Who knows, maybe Democrats will go the way of the Whigs?

Anonymous said...

The first step in solving a probl.em is to recognize that you have a problem.

Do you really view superiority as a problem? I view it as our biggest asset. There is no point at all in being right on the issues if you don't believe you are right. The other side believes they are superior also. So that sort of thing is really a wash.

Republicans don't really believe in taking control. What they believe is letting things happen, and when things turn out badly, blaming someone else for them.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Let me put it this way. Donald Trump believed that President Obama was born outside the United States. That being the case, how is it possible not to feel superior to such a person. We can hide it, we can rationalize it, but let's face it, such efforts come off as condescending, and everyone knows it and feels it.

With respect to the leaks that worry control freak Donald so much, the advice I scream is that is that if you don't want embarrassing leaks don't do embarrassing things. If you don't want to read in the paper about your dealings with Russian spies, don't deal with Russian spies. And if you get aggravated that the majority of Americans who voted against a totally unfit man to be president feel superior to you, stop doing and believing inferior things.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I do believe the start of finding a solution is identifying the problem. It is however, the identification of the problem that is so difficult. I am currently reading a book about the Paris peace negotiations in 1919. One of the problems at the conference was the fate of the Saar, a coal mining region coveted by both France and Germany. The solution agreed to was that a plebiscite was to be held 15 years after the conclusion of the conference. The plebiscite was in fact held in 1935, when the Nazi's had been in power for two years, and the evil of their regime was manifest to all. At that plebiscite, 90% of the voters voted to unite with Nazi Germany. As far as I have been able to gather, the election was fair. How could this be? How could perfectly decent people as most people are, voted for evil? I just wonder if some of the same factors at play then are at play now. Were the residents of the Saar angry because they thought the French were condescending to them? Did the French, as ethnic stereotypes sometimes suggest, feel superior to them and make their feelings of superiority known? Did the residents of the Saar think that Hitlerism was a passing fad, something that in the words of modern talk radio, that they needed to get past, or that Hitler as the beneficiary of a democratic process, although like Trump, never elected by a plurality of the German people, deserved a chance to govern.

Or was it just a case where the few advocate of independence of Germany were unable to identify the problem?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"There is no point at all in being right on the issues if you don't believe you are right." That's quite a solipsism you have there. Suppose that your belief in being right on the issues stems from the innate assumption that you are always right about everything, and therefore anything you believe is right? Isn't that a bit different than deciding what is the right position on issues and believing it by virtue of having reasoned it out?

Here is the test: If you disagree with a liberal, do they reply with the facts and logic they used to arrive at that position, or do they dismiss you as being immoral or stupid or both? In my experience the majority of liberals have no idea why they believe as they do on the issues, other than that they are "better" than anybody that disagrees.

Anonymous said...

Suppose that your belief in being right on the issues stems from the innate assumption that you are always right about everything, and therefore anything you believe is right?

I do sort of assume that the things I believe are right. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe them. That seems pretty obvious to me, but I do sometimes wonder if Republicans share that view. When Trump was going across the country proclaiming his belief that Obama was born outside the United States, did he also at the same time believe he was wrong? What do you think?

" Isn't that a bit different than deciding what is the right position on issues and believing it by virtue of having reasoned it out?"

It's different, but not inconsistent. And there are many issues on which I and others hold views which are neither right nor wrong in any universal sense. On most issues, views that are different from mine aren't so much right or wrong as they are simply different.

" If you disagree with a liberal, do they reply with the facts and logic they used to arrive at that position, or do they dismiss you as being immoral or stupid or both?"

Let's put it in the terms of a specific issue. Trump believes Obama was born outside the US. Did we reply with facts? Yes. Did we employ logic? Yes. Do we dismiss people who believe to the contrary as stupid and/or immoral? In varying degrees, yes.

Let's move to a different area, health care. Do I believe the Republican health care plan is contrary to facts or logic? No, because it doesn't exist.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

With respect to moaralism, my own view is that I try to avoid moralistic arguments. As a moral relativist, moral arguments aren't terribly effective with me. I don't, for example, believe that those who have different views from me are immoral. To be perfectly honest, Obamacare which is essentially a Republican approach to health care issues, does have it's morally objectionable components, if you choose to look at it that way. But I don't, and I say that with an understanding that all conceivable health care plans are subject to moral objections to one degree or another. As President Trump seems to have just learned this morning, health care policy is complicated.

--Hiram

John said...

From Sean...

"yet the Dems are in disarray..."

Nonsense. Rank-and-file Democrats are more united than any time in recent memory, actually. And that has united Congressional Democrats more than could have been expected. Sure, the DNC chair election exposed there is still some sore feelings among party insiders over the primary, but that will quickly fade.

They've also been helped by Trump's tone-deaf strategy of playing a narrow Electoral College-only victory like a landslide. Just imagine if Trump had shown a modicum of humility since the election, nominated a center-right Justice instead of the second coming of Scalia, led with policy initiatives that could have garnered bipartisan support (like infrastructure), reached out to Democrats on Cabinet nominations, etc. He could have divided the opposition. Instead he has galvanized it, and he -- and the Republican Party in general -- are making the same mistakes Democrats made when underestimating the Tea Party movement.

That being said, the map works strongly against the idea of Democrats re-taking the Senate or the House in 2018, but they have a real chance to make major inroads at the state levels which is where they really need to rebuild their strength for the long-term battle.

John said...

Sean I am looking forward to see their platform... I think they are going to have a hard time...

John said...

I guess is that the map does not work against the Dems, I think it is their urban / public employee centric platform that does that.

Sean said...

"I guess is that the map does not work against the Dems,"

Sure, the map works against them. Several states have their House districts gerrymandered to protect the GOP majority, which makes a Democratic House majority unlikely until 2022 at the earliest. On the Senate side, only 9 GOP incumbents face re-election in 2018 -- from the states of Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Nevada, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Realistically, only Nevada is likely to be in play there while Democrats have to protect seats in typically Republican states like North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and Indiana plus swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

John said...

Oh come now gerrymandering is done by both sides and that is why it is so bad.

And please remember that moderates and even some Republicans can be wooed to vote for Democrats if the platform and person is right. But as long as the Democrats:
- keep demanding welfare for all poor, no matter their choices / effort
- keep demanding abortion rights for all 9 mths
- keep supporting public employee unions who fight against affectivity and efficiency improvements
- keep demanding ever increasing governmental control / cost
- etc

They will have a hard time getting the vote from the hard working rural and suburban folks.

Sean said...

"Oh come now gerrymandering is done by both sides and that is why it is so bad."

OK, show me a state where Dems have gerrymandered the map to give themselves a grossly disproportionate control of the House delegation in the same way that Republicans have in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

As for the rest of your post, you keep arguing against your typical strawman. I'm not going down that rabbit hole again.

John said...

It may be a straw man... But unfortunately it is a pretty sturdy one that is keeping the Dems from gaining political control...

Think of all the Liberal comments you have read that argue:

#1 That every person on American soil should be guaranteed an income, healthcare, food, housing, higher ed, etc. And how often Liberals accuse people of being judgmental when I question this.

#2 That 20+ week abortions should be legal, and the woman's choice.

#3 That Unions are good, Tenure is good and accountability measures /consequences are bad... Even as the unlucky kids and the tax payers pay the extra cost.

#4 That we need government to control healthcare like they control the Public schools, the VA system, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc... Now SS and Medicare may be okay, but I don't think the others are so great.

So please feel free to not look hard in the mirror, I am sure the GOP will appreciate it.

John said...

Regard #1

And don't forget the Liberal commenters who desire to leave the border open and start pardoning people who can make it across...

Seemingly hoping to encourage the unfortunates from all over the world to risk their lives running for the border...

Sean said...

"So please feel free to not look hard in the mirror"

That's pretty rich coming from you.

John said...

Ouch... Please remember that my positions are usually somewhere in the middle...

Well unless it comes to how society fails unlucky kids by not holding their Parents or the Public Schools accountable... I definitely have some strong feeling on that topic...