Are the Democrats back on track?

The problem is that the US is stuck with a two party system and traditionally the right are more tribal than the left meaning they seem more likely to hold their nose and vote for a bad candidate (although Trump is pushing that to its limit).

If you want that to change you will probably get more joy from supporting groups promoting electoral change than third party political parties.

First would be to stop and correct gerrymandering and voter suppression (difficult in a right wing dominated Supreme Court).

But the big push for the future would be for Proportional Representation.

*

Here are examples from America’s past on how the power of the two could be lessened to the point where they could be broken.

Proportional Representation could change the political landscape, it did before when it was used in the US.

Here are extracts from - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States, [by bold]

“The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.

Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.

Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.”

What scuppered PR movement was money and fear - doesn’t that sound familiar in todays America.

“In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.

Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR... They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a "Negro mayor." Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin..

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as "the political importation from the Kremlin," "the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country," and "an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This "red scare" campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.”

As the piece concludes -

“While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system”

 

Latest Congressional Poll numbers 8/16/18

There’s a strong chance the Dems will take over the House in November

Democrats now lead Republicans by 52% to 41% in a nationwide generic Congressional ballot according to a new poll conducted by SSRS and released Tuesday.
The blue lead has increased slightly from eight percentage points in June of this year to an 11 percentage point difference in the most recent poll.

 

Read the link, genius.. Regardless of how many hundreds of thousands (actually millions) voted (more voted for Gore than Bush) it came down to hanging chads in Florida and if Nader voters had voted for Gore instead of throwing their votes away, we probably wouldn't have had the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party | HuffPost
Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

 

Yes, I did. The 2000 election, the year of the hanging chads. https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h916.html

 

One of the problems blocking effective change is that a majority of voters get active too late in the game. They focus on the Presidential election and wait until the parties announce their candidates, at which point it often is a cholce between Kang and Kodos. The mid-term elections are critical. So are state elections that determine governorships. In our system, it's the state governments that do the gerrymandering. It's also the state governments that determine whether or not electors are chosen on a winner take all basis. All but two currently do it that way, and that's the big factor inhibiting third parties. Ideally, to really influence the process, voters need to get active early on at the precinct level, and make sure they participate in the primaries and caucuses.

 

Democrats will be back on track when they stop being complacent and get on board with what Americans want. Someone who is self funded and connected with the desires of the American people instead of big corporations. They had their chance with Bernie Sanders, who polled better in a one on one match up against Trump, but were overconfident after 8 years of Obama and decided to resist him. I predict another self funded outsider will come in for the 2020 race (Tulsi Gabbard) and will be able to beat Trump. It's really up to the Democratic party to humble themselves and not block her.

 

You don't have to be a dick. The hanging chads are nothing compared to the Democrat votes that went to Bush instead of Gore, so sorry, your theory holds no water. It's just another way for the media to try and trick people into thinking they have to vote for one of the lesser of two evils.

We were going to have the wars anyway, because the powers that be wanted them, one way or another, Bush or Gore. They'd been talking about them for years. You're very naive if you think otherwise. You think Gore wouldn't have gone to war if 9/11 happened under his watch? But, of course, under his watch maybe the military could have responded in less than two hours. (Probably not, since the entire thing was orchestrated.)

So, according to you, there should be no third party candidates and, if there are, people shouldn't vote for them. Just vote for the lesser of two evils. It makes no difference. If a war is desired, then a terrorist attack occurs and we go to war. Christ, Obama was the longest wartime president in history. It makes no difference.

Next election is gonna be great. So many still pissed off Berners and you guys are all blissfully unaware, like we've all just joined in your trivial crusade against Trump. Election night was so much fun, when after all of your pompous grandstanding Clinton lost to Trump. I was laughing my ass off. In two years you guys still won't listen to reason. You know everything. So it'll be four more years of Trump and I'll be laughing my ass off once again. We told you last time: Either support a decent, truly progressive candidate, or LOSE. It was your choice last time -- you are the reason Trump is in office -- and you failed to listen to our warnings. We said NEVER HILLARY and we meant it. And we'll mean it about any other corporate crony you try to hoist in front of us.

 

What about the Republican votes that went to Gore? The bottom line is that Gore got more votes than Bush, but they were about tied for electoral votes and if Nader voters had voted for Gore, Gore would have won. If you want Trump for another term, vote for a third party in 2020. You can hold your breath until you turn blue, and it won't change that reality: the worst of evils. And you'll be part of the problem and suffer the consequences

 

I...definitely will vote for a third party. Almost definitely. Unless the Democrats run someone non-evil that I can actually vote for.

Bottom line is that people do vote third party. You can cry about it all you want. But it happens time and time again. Run someone worth a damn and people will vote for them. It's that simple. And if you back the Democrat candidates that the people have no faith in, that's on you, not us. People like you are the problem.

In Florida, Bush won the votes of 308,000 Democrats, that is 12 times more Democrats than Nader’s mere 24,000. Gore also lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother voting. For about one million Florida Democrats it was: Vote Bush or don’t vote. If one percent of any of those categories had voted for Gore he would have easily won Florida.

 

Toast

‘What ifs’ are difficult but that seems a very incorrect reading, especially in regard to Iraq.

Remember that Gore was not as close to Saudi Arabia as Bush Jr and the neo-cons so that connection might have been more emphasised rather than the complete lie that Saddam Hussain was involved.*

Yes it’s very possible that the US might have attacked Afghanistan BUT since the neo-con desire to invade Iraq wouldn’t have been on the cards and the distraction it became then the US might and probably would have done a better job in Afghanistan.

Because Bush and the neo-con’s completely fucked up the Afghan war because they really only wanted to go into Iraq.

It is less likely that the war lords would have been used, they would not have been starved of resource at critical times and the Afghan war would have had the total focus of the US military.

It would aslo have been given the money it needed.**

It is very likely that without the Iraq war (and fucked up occupation) that the US would not still be fighting the war in Afghanistan.

*******

*PS a nice ‘what if’ in connection to this is – given worsening relationships with Saudi Arabia and Gore's connection to green policies it’s likely that a lot more government investment would have gone into sustainable energy. The manufacture of the equipment is likely to have happened in those areas Hillary Clinton indicated, in the old coal and steel areas of the country. So not only would the US be a leader in green energy but those disaffected voters that became Trumpets wouldn’t have existed.

**Also without the huge amount of money lost on the Iraq war it’s likely the US would have much more easily have weathered the financial crash of 2008. Both of these would mean that the likely debt of the US would be a lot lower today. There would have been less disaffection in the country and so less likelihood of their arising a populist Trump figure.

 

I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to tolerate those who wouldn't tolerate them anyway. But if someone is riding high and mighty on their high horse of tolerance and open-mindedness, they've got big shoes to fill. The biggest flaw of multiculturalism, is that it has to embrace certain cultures that do not tolerate coexisting with other cultures they do not approve of. Should we be inclusive to cultures that despise western culture, and all the liberal freedoms it has to offer women, gays, Jews, and plain old diversity?

I have put some more thought into it. And I can actually see what you are trying to argue in regards to shaming the overweight. I can agree that shaming is not the surefire method that will work on everyone with a weight problem. However, I still believe it might be a motivator for some, but not for all. I also heard that Milo cheated and got liposuction. As much as I like Milo, he deserves to be fat shamed.

What it really comes down to, is that obesity should not be seen as a virtue, and a fatness empowerment movement is definitely a swing in the wrong direction. For example, fat lobby groups have campaigned for widening and reducing the amount of airplane seats. Meaning more fossil fuels burned for fewer passengers. This is what the body positivity movement is all about, and it's wrong.

 

I call it "Body-Prepping". I'll live for weeks beyond most of the skinny fuckers when the food supply is exhausted. But I still go to the gym every other day, just in case I have to run from people planning to serve me up for dinner!

 

Are you talking about the South? Yes, I know we are a pretty intolerant bunch, but the Union forced us back in, so you're suck with us. A law making sodomy a felony is still on the books in Oklahoma and eight other southern states, just waiting for the day when the Supreme Court reconsiders its opinion on the subject; and if Trump makes many more Court appointments, that day may not be far off. Its not just the South. In a recent scientific poll over half of Republican voters said they’d be willing to postpone voting in the 2020 election if President Trump said it was necessary to make sure only eligible voters participated. That shows a certain amount of ignorance of, or contempt for, a basic principle of American democracy. In fact, we even have self-styled "libertarians" who strike me as pretty illiberal--condemning broad categories of humanity, not on the basis of the views of individuals in those categories but on the basis of stereotypical ideas about the cultures that they come from. They are the modern equivalent of the "Know Nothings" of the 1850s, with their "Katie Bar the Door" attitude toward those "authoritarian" Irish Catholic immigrants. Trivia question: What country was the first in the world officially to legalize homosexuality? Not the United States, certainly. It was Muslim Ottoman Turkey in 1858. Homosexuality is still legal there, albeit LGBTs are subject to informal discrimination. Likewise, homosexulaity is legal in Jordan, although gays experience informal social pressure. The worst offenders are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Trump's travel ban extends to Iran, but not to Saudi Arabia, which adheres to the repressive Wahabi/Salfi brand of Islam. How exactly do you propose to structure your antipathy toward Islam within the framework of U.S. constitutional culture? We've just been through a legal go around over the travel ban leading to the conclusion that a blanket Muslim ban isn't allowed. How then do you identify the unacceptable Muslims? One reason the U.S. has enjoyed better relations with domestic Muslims than European countries have is our tradition of tolerance. Muslims enjoy the protection of our Bill of Rights, and are not as ghettoized as they tend to be in Europe. Do you think that needs to be changed? What cultures are we letting in that despise western culture? Seems to me the Muslims have been much more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators. I'm not an "open borders" man. The current travel ban focuses on the prevalence of terrorism in the home countries, which makes sense. I do agree that we need to be careful not to take in hordes of immigrants from countries whose political cultures are radically incompatible with the U.S. I think the current policy focusing on excluding immigrants from countries plagued by terrorism may be the best we can do. I think claims to refugee status should pass a rigorous test of individual persecution, and immigration should not burden social resources nor exceed the country's capacity for assimilation.

I generally reject paternalism and follow J.S. Mill's "harm principle" on these kinds of issues. The only legitimate reason for interfering with a person's right to do what (s)he wants is to prevent harm to others. It isn't enough that restricting the right would make a person better, wiser, prettier, healthier, etc. I don't think we need to regard obesity as a virtue. I tend to regard is as a health problem. But I resist the paternalistic urge to step in. Fat shaming can be cruel and counterproductive, causing depression and suicide. If you must butt in, straightforward criticism of the policy instead of the individual would be the better course. "And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?" Matthew, 7:3; Luke 6:41.

 

TYPO: the word in the second sentence should be "stuck" instead of suck, although "suck" is more colorful. And fifth sentence from first paragraph should read "Muslims In the United States have been more often the victims..
"Hate Crimes Against American Muslims Most Since Post-9/11 Era
Hate Attacks On Muslims in U.S. Spike
The Violence We Don’t See

More terrorists in the U.S. have been white non-Muslim men than Muslims.
Majority of terrorists who have attacked America are not Muslim, new study finds
White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners
Most Of America’s Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim | HuffPost

I wrote the original post 434 at 1;00 a.m., right before going to bed, so I suppose a couple of typos are understandable.

 

Do you think that individuals will embrace societies that openly reject certain cultures? And since when has a multicultural society embraced radical Islam?

 

What I'm saying is the goalpost was moved since I posted that. Alt-right meant one thing in 2016, it meant something else a bit later on.

Every group has its assholes, and its bigots. To deny that racism doesn't exist on the left wing at all is painfully naive. Take Sara Jeong for example.

But as I already mentioned in post #350:

And I'm all outta fucks to give.

Well they don't have much ties to fiscal policy either. And I'm pretty sure that my individualistic laissez faire fiscal policies would put me in the more right leaning spectrum.

Yes there are some left wingers who are pro-life as well. Often they get kicked out of left wing organizations for holding that belief. Same is true for pro-choice rightists.

But all in all, it's really hard to deny that pro-choice and pro-life positions have been divided into left and right thinking groups. The fact that I'm pro-choice, brings me closer to the center.

There are some pro-life democrats serving in the US congress right now as we speak. One can still be a leftist, and have some right-leaning opinions, and vice versa. Some opinions certain people have can draw people closer to the center.

You'd be surprised how many righties support GMO foods. I suppose they see labeling or banning GMOs as a new big government regulation that they are trying to fight. But when corporations like Dow are polluting the ecosystems with their mutant crops, that is violating the non-aggression principle for everyone. When my state had a measure to label GMO foods, all of the conservative leaning counties voted NO except for 2. But sadly, due to the left wingers who don't oppose GMOs, the measure didn't pass. When I participated with the anti-GMO activists, I was mostly accompanied by people as left leaning as you.

Meaning that I am in favor of publicly owned spaces like parks and town squares where protesters and activists can organize and demonstrate. Try holding a Trump protest rally in a Tesco parking lot (or car park as you call it), the owners would kick you out for trespassing very quickly. Some libertarians are in favor of privatizing everything, I am not.

And again, those views would bring those right-wingers closer to the center.

OK, but more on the left seem to be in favor of legalization of drugs. The nice thing about the old-school left is that they've been more lax about how people live their lives, and are more likely to have a live-and-let-live philosophy than the right.

Military is part of society, and the impacts it has on the societies of foreign nations as well as our own

Because it seems to me that those of the furthest-right are in favor of closing borders entirely for new citizenship.

I think that the immigration policy of my country, and even your country, can be made more efficient and less time consuming to those who are serious about becoming citizens. My brother-in-law is a Chilean American. He acquired citizenship after marrying my sister. But man oh man was it a tedious process.

Interesting... Some of these sound more like fiscal policies more than social policies to me. As they are mostly about taxing and redistributing wealth. I'll address them for you though.

1. Welfare State:

Abolish it. That's my take. It disincentivizes the poor from bettering themselves.
However, I am willing to make a compromise with those who advocate it: welfare checks are allowed, but the income must be a diminishing asset. Meaning that the weekly/bi-weekly checks that come in, keep getting smaller and smaller. Thereby incentivizing the recipient to search for a job, or open their own sole proprietorship.

2. Social Services:

Examples?

3. Criminal Justice:

You would have to be more specific. I see the current criminal justice system is broken and unjust. We've all heard of horror stories where murders and pedophiles have gotten lighter sentences than personal drug users, accidental trespassers, and other victimless crimes. I also think the sentencing gap between male and female criminals needs to be discussed as well. The fact that well-known terrorists get welcomed into countries with ease, whereas conservative journalists getting banned from entry is also an injustice.

4. Inequality

So? What about it? Not everyone is born equal. Some are born beautiful, some are born ugly. Some people are entrepreneurs who are willing to work 18 hours a day, 7-days a week. Others are happy scraping by with modest income, as they spend their time binging on Netflix and video games. Some people are born geniuses; other people are retarded. Some are willing to work hard and play hard; others don't want to get caught up in the rat race of life and be chill. The government can try to enforce prosperous equality through the barrel of a gun, but they will never succeed. And even if they did succeed in leveling out the society, everyone will SUFFER equally.

5. Education

It's a mess. The public school system takes 12 years of a person's life away, and often they finish school being valueless to society. 12 years is a long time. And in that time, we should be turning out people who are ready for the work force with career goals. But some graduate without a well-rounded education, and are unable to think for themselves. I'm in favor of trying out the voucher system.

6. Public Healthcare

Better left to the free market. Universality increases costs and lowers quality and availability.

7. Public Housing

Not a fan of it, but I can sympathize with the arguments for it. Maybe compromises can be made.

8. Unemployment benefits

I have no problem with unemployment insurance.

 

Why is that?

 

Because he's using it right now lol

:runs away quickly:

(Just messing with you, ol' 6)

This isnt true at all. The US has the most expensive healthcare in the first world and we're the only first world nation without universal healthcare. There is plenty of quantifiable evidence that indicates a single payer system reduces costs and a for profit system raises them...by astronomical levels, judging by the US

 

Damn!!