What is the party platform for the Democratic Party nowadays?

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,513
1,516
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
I am thoroughly convinced that the politicians (and I include both parties in this for sure) who seek the White House live in an alternative reality that makes sense only to the completely insane. And I include the media in this as well.


I suspect there will be a literal clown car of Democrats just as we had last time for the GOP. There will be folks absolutely convinced that the only thing they have to do is get in a 50/50 election chance with Trump as the only alternative and they'll win without offering anything substantial. The GOP thought this about Hillary in 2016....it's part of how we got Trump.

In 1991, GHW Bush was the most unbeatable candidate since Jesus conquered death or so went the story. His poll numbers absolutely terrified the big guns on the D side - Cuomo, Bill Bradley, Jay Rockefeller, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Lloyd Bentsen - that they all came up with excuses as to why they weren't going to run. The Democratic race featured Bill Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry Brown. ALL of them were considered second-tier candidates at best and basically fill-in names until Bush finished his second term in 1996.

Nixon, Reagan, Clinton....mid-term wipeouts and they were disasters who couldn't win again, right?

Bush 41 and LBJ couldn't possibly lose, either. Remember?


The truth almost seems always contrary to conventional wisdom (hence, Trump). The no-names heading to NH, well, that's fine, but do they have any actual proposals to make? Even HRC's own folks admitted that never at any time did she ever provide a coherent rationale for why she should be President. (Whether the slogan or proposal is ever actually adopted does not matter - that's AFTER the election). Dislike Trump all we want, but he's the one who repeated that slogan over and over just like Obama had two, "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In." (In the interest of fairness, HRC isn't the only losing candidate to do this. Ed Muskie couldn't explain it in 1972, Ted Kennedy imploded on that very question in 1980, and neither Bush in 88 when he won or 92 or Dole in 96 or Gore in 00 gave any coherence to their candidacies).

"At least I'm not Trump" is simply not going to win the election. On the other hand, the pilgrimage of no names does in a bizarre way give me at least a little bit of hope. Nobody outside the South in 1974 even knew who Jimmy Carter was. Clinton was known by political junkies but nobody else in 92.

I don't think Warren or Sanders can beat this guy, and I think Biden is too old as well. Their party really got held up by the Clintons in the sense that everyone else had to put their President plans on hold. It would not surprise me if the Democratic nominee is someone 90% of the country has not even heard of at this point.

That would not necessarily be a bad thing, either.
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
5,498
1,227
228
Tuscaloosa
It's pretty easy:

Democrats: Trump is an idiot and a liar. Anybody who supports him is not only an idiot, but a racist, sexist homophobe. You don't want anyone to think that about you, do you? Didn't think so. Vote for us or we'll call you bad names.

Republicans: The Democrats want to tear down everything decent about the country, reducing everyone to being employees of the government. They'll set up homeless shelters in your back yard, fund gay orgies in park, and kill as many unborn babies as possible. Their cronies, the mainstream press, will gleefully post the numbers on the nightly news. You don't want that, do you? Didn't think so. Vote for us.

Seriously, neither side will present an affirmative case. Both will try to make the opposition and its followers out to be subhuman.

The saddest thing is, a significant portion of both bases truly believes that they are.
 
Last edited:

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,941
3,194
178
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
Bill (Selma) makes some great points above of why the Dems are apt to fail again.

I will also add that (it's my opinion subject to debate of course) they rely on the minority vote so much, they probably feel they don't need as many votes from the flyover culture - hence - no significant 'theme' to their campaigns.

The problem with this (as I see it) is the minorities are wising up little by little and saying the heck with party line voting - we're voting for who we think will help us the most - or help the country the most - or both in most cases.

I also feel that they do not have very strong candidates. The same of course can be said for the Republican Party (roll out the clown car(s)).

The bottom line for me is I would love to see higher voter turnout and may the best candidate win. For me, what matters most is not which party is in office but which candidate can produce a candidate that truly has the counrtry's interest at heart.

The fact that we are not seeing any message from the Democratic Party right now other than "Trump is bad - we need someone else." is disappointing - and is one of the reasons I started this thread.

I'm not nearly as politically savvy as many here so excuse my ignorance on this subject. I'm sure I am leaving some important stuff out.
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
5,498
1,227
228
Tuscaloosa
Bill (Selma) makes some great points above of why the Dems are apt to fail again.

I will also add that (it's my opinion subject to debate of course) they rely on the minority vote so much, they probably feel they don't need as many votes from the flyover culture - hence - no significant 'theme' to their campaigns.

The problem with this (as I see it) is the minorities are wising up little by little and saying the heck with party line voting - we're voting for who we think will help us the most - or help the country the most - or both in most cases.

I also feel that they do not have very strong candidates. The same of course can be said for the Republican Party (roll out the clown car(s)).

The bottom line for me is I would love to see higher voter turnout and may the best candidate win. For me, what matters most is not which party is in office but which candidate can produce a candidate that truly has the counrtry's interest at heart.

The fact that we are not seeing any message from the Democratic Party right now other than "Trump is bad - we need someone else." is disappointing - and is one of the reasons I started this thread.

I'm not nearly as politically savvy as many here so excuse my ignorance on this subject. I'm sure I am leaving some important stuff out.
Those who anoint themselves "politically savvy" have gotten us where we are. So I think being "not-so-politically-savvy" is kind of along the lines of never having been a heroin addict.

They've gotten us into a situation where a refugee from Bevis and Butthead is in the Oval Office, having prevailed over an opponent who has at best a casual acquaintance with the truth, not to mention a sense of entitlement of Biblical proportions.

God save us from our "politically savvy" superiors who know better than we how to run our lives.
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,513
1,516
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
It's pretty easy:

Democrats: Trump is an idiot and a liar. Anybody who supports him is not only an idiot, but a racist, sexist homophobe. You don't want anyone to think that about you, do you? Didn't think so. Vote for us or we'll call you bad names.

Republicans: The Democrats want to tear down everything decent about the country, reducing everyone to being employees of the government. They'll set up homeless shelters in your back yard, fund gay orgies in park, and kill as many unborn babies as possible. Their cronies, the mainstream press, will gleefully post the numbers on the nightly news. You don't want that, do you? Didn't think so. Vote for us.

Seriously, neither side will present an affirmative case. Both will try to make the opposition and its followers out to be subhuman.

The saddest thing is, a significant portion of both bases truly believes that they are.

There's no doubt a core of voters for both parties that will support them regardless. That's true. I may be naive, but I question whether it's as many as everyone wants to assume - mostly because it's Side A thinking side Anti-A is evil and vice versa.

There are other voters who fall into the binary group - they realize that there's no way in the setup for a third party to win so they pick the lesser of what they deem two evils, sometimes the D one and sometimes the R one.

There are others who substitute the terms conservative and liberal and vote what they think is accordingly even when the evidence is that said candidate is not particularly con or lib but just running in the party associated with that name.

Most winners DO make an affirmative case of some sort. It's very rare when an affirmative case loses to a "well, I'm just here" candidate. If John Kerry could have just come out with SOMETHING in 2004, he would have won. The only thing I knew about Kerry in that entire race - and I watched the news every single day that year - was "I went to Vietnam." I kept wanting just SOMETHING from him that was even minimally coherent. But he bought into the "don't let anyone know what you really want to do because, you know, Bush" and lost.

On the flip side, I've yet to see a single candidate fulfill what he actually promised. The only question is which promises get tossed quickest.
 

gtowntide

All-American
Mar 1, 2011
3,826
234
73
Memphis,TN.
There's no doubt a core of voters for both parties that will support them regardless. That's true. I may be naive, but I question whether it's as many as everyone wants to assume - mostly because it's Side A thinking side Anti-A is evil and vice versa.

There are other voters who fall into the binary group - they realize that there's no way in the setup for a third party to win so they pick the lesser of what they deem two evils, sometimes the D one and sometimes the R one.

There are others who substitute the terms conservative and liberal and vote what they think is accordingly even when the evidence is that said candidate is not particularly con or lib but just running in the party associated with that name.

Most winners DO make an affirmative case of some sort. It's very rare when an affirmative case loses to a "well, I'm just here" candidate. If John Kerry could have just come out with SOMETHING in 2004, he would have won. The only thing I knew about Kerry in that entire race - and I watched the news every single day that year - was "I went to Vietnam." I kept wanting just SOMETHING from him that was even minimally coherent. But he bought into the "don't let anyone know what you really want to do because, you know, Bush" and lost.

On the flip side, I've yet to see a single candidate fulfill what he actually promised. The only question is which promises get tossed quickest.


Mexico will pay for the wall?
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,941
3,194
178
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
[/B]

Mexico will pay for the wall?
We cant expect them to pay for something that doesn't exist.

Someone wants to build a wall? Hmmm.....who wouldn't get on board with that idea?


Mexico is struggling to tackle a rising murder rate.

It experienced its most violent year in 2017 with more than 25,000 murders, according to official figures.
It is the highest annual tally since modern records began. Organised crime accounted for nearly three-quarters of those deaths.

Mexico says round-the-world cyclists were murdered

 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,513
1,516
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
[/B]

Mexico will pay for the wall?
Nobody with a brain believed that.

My bigger heartburn was one I suspected was a lie but hoped wasn't: "We should cut middle class taxes immediately by 10%" said Bill Clinton.

Unlike his "read my lips" predecessor, who at least waited until his second budget to raise them, this one was clear before he even took office that he had been lying all along. Then he tried to blame it on Bush running a bigger deficit than he had thought existed (this is only believable if anyone believes the $292B deficit for the year is higher than the $400B he was proclaiming existed when he made the promise).

Reagan's may have been the most famous: cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget. Well, two out of three wasn't bad.

Carter promised a balanced budget and his party had a filibuster proof Congress - he never got it.

FDR promised his New Deal programs wouldn't entail budget deficits. Go look at the data. We ran budget surpluses except for WW1 from around the time of Taft until 1930. We then had small deficits (the result of the market crash) every single year until 1947. We then had four surpluses in five years and then came Korea. We then had 3 more and small deficits. And then the Vietnam War happened.

(And while it's fashionable for whichever partisans to argue/blame whoever, there really is no consistent pattern after 1929. The GOP had early deficits in the Depression, the Democrats throughout the Depression and the end of WW2, both parties managed to balance the budget between WW2 and Korea, etc.).

Truth? Nobody really gives a damn about the deficit save for the abstract. No President ever got elected or re-elected on the basis of "but he balanced the budget" or even on the basis of "he will balance the budget."

Want proof? Go in tomorrow and say that the way we're going to balance the budget by reducing EVERY expenditure by 3% across the board and watch the whining.
"But I need that for my medicine, my whatever blah blah." Given a choice between balancing the budget across the board and EVERYONE taking the same personal hit.....you have folks that will scream bloody murder if you reduced their Social Security check a total of $2.50 every single month. They'd never miss that tiny amount but the moment they hear the words "cut benefits" on the news, guess what?

But back to promises. The verbal promises aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
 

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
22,165
1,646
173
Jacksonville, Md USA
Nobody with a brain believed that.

My bigger heartburn was one I suspected was a lie but hoped wasn't: "We should cut middle class taxes immediately by 10%" said Bill Clinton.

Unlike his "read my lips" predecessor, who at least waited until his second budget to raise them, this one was clear before he even took office that he had been lying all along. Then he tried to blame it on Bush running a bigger deficit than he had thought existed (this is only believable if anyone believes the $292B deficit for the year is higher than the $400B he was proclaiming existed when he made the promise).

Reagan's may have been the most famous: cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget. Well, two out of three wasn't bad.

Carter promised a balanced budget and his party had a filibuster proof Congress - he never got it.

FDR promised his New Deal programs wouldn't entail budget deficits. Go look at the data. We ran budget surpluses except for WW1 from around the time of Taft until 1930. We then had small deficits (the result of the market crash) every single year until 1947. We then had four surpluses in five years and then came Korea. We then had 3 more and small deficits. And then the Vietnam War happened.

(And while it's fashionable for whichever partisans to argue/blame whoever, there really is no consistent pattern after 1929. The GOP had early deficits in the Depression, the Democrats throughout the Depression and the end of WW2, both parties managed to balance the budget between WW2 and Korea, etc.).

Truth? Nobody really gives a damn about the deficit save for the abstract. No President ever got elected or re-elected on the basis of "but he balanced the budget" or even on the basis of "he will balance the budget."

Want proof? Go in tomorrow and say that the way we're going to balance the budget by reducing EVERY expenditure by 3% across the board and watch the whining.
"But I need that for my medicine, my whatever blah blah." Given a choice between balancing the budget across the board and EVERYONE taking the same personal hit.....you have folks that will scream bloody murder if you reduced their Social Security check a total of $2.50 every single month. They'd never miss that tiny amount but the moment they hear the words "cut benefits" on the news, guess what?

But back to promises. The verbal promises aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
The problem always comes back to greed. Most people would like to see the deficit/debt eliminated but there is a personal cost to doing that, either from increased taxes or reduced spending/services (or combination). People are always looking for the 'free lunch'.
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,941
3,194
178
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
The problem always comes back to greed. Most people would like to see the deficit/debt eliminated but there is a personal cost to doing that, either from increased taxes or reduced spending/services (or combination). People are always looking for the 'free lunch'.
The problem is the deficit gets almost zero coverage in the media.

In other words...it's not "sexy' enough to get ratings.

Humans are for the most part pretty simple minded and mostly only focus on things that are put right in front of them.

Throw in all the time and space needed for advertising and the media has no choice - they can't do much for us on stuff like this. We're on our own. And you know what that means....:eek2:
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,072
979
128
The problem is the deficit gets almost zero coverage in the media.
This was actually covered everyday while the GOP tax bill was being constructed in the shadows of D.C. Probably not on Fox News, though. But you're right that it's at the periphery of discussion now.

America’s Treasury ramps up borrowing to finance the Republican tax cuts

We're borrowing like we're already in a deep recession, and only the experts (now apparently shunned by the political right) are pointing out the approaching cliff. We couldn't afford the GOP's tax gift to the 1%, plain and simple. That bill will hit us with the next recession sooner and harder than had it never passed, and it's all of us normal folk who will suffer while the 1% stay cloistered in Prospero's castle, attempting to weather the suffering and the Red Death outside its doors.

"And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all."
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
14,607
3,271
178
Sylacauga,AL
80% of the country are party hardliners that will never vote against their party. The other 20% votes mostly on coincidence or humor.

But if I was to label each of the party’s I would say:

Democrats: an unachievable utopian welfare state
Republicans: an oligarchical buisness state.

Any other PAC that supports this that and the other (gun activists, religious groups, etc.) falls someway into feeding into those platforms and poor and middle class people are left picking who they are less embarrassed voting for.

The age of neo lib and neo cons is drawing to a close and we are probably going to have cults of personalities from both sides running the country more often. The trumpers and the Bernie or busters have spoken.
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,587
810
123
43
Huntsville, AL
The pillars of the modern Democrat party essentially are variations on the same theme. They see the disease as victimhood and the cure as wealth redistribution via bigger and bigger government.
Technically, based upon the last tax cut by the Republicans, they have shown they believe in wealth redistribution as well. It's just in a different direction.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.