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.
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.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.
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.
We cant expect them to pay for something that doesn't exist.
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.
Nobody with a brain believed that.
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'.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 is the deficit gets almost zero coverage in the media.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'.
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.The problem is the deficit gets almost zero coverage in the media.
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.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.
I wonder why Mexico doesn’t ban handguns?
Someone wants to build a wall? Hmmm.....who wouldn't get on board with that idea?