DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Complicit Dems

Party Outlook

I didn't want to create a new thread, and felt this was the best place to put this. Nothing particularly earth-shattering about these results. The title specifically highlights DNC, but article talks a little about everyone.

Cliff's Notes
1. Dem voters are very unhappy with DNC, leadership
2. GOP voters still savoring win, but outlook only got a bump up from pre-election poll
3. USA, overall, not happy with state of political system

Amen on country not happy with political parties- Reps and Trump face huge problems- lied about inflation, lied about huge fraud and saving in institutions- all those the disgraced Musk would fix ( what a JOKE), end the Ukraine war in a day---WHAT?.....but, huge problems for Democrats- they let the borders stay open, they lied about Biden's mental status- retain power at any cost--- lastly, who is Democatic leader---NONE.....we have a void and a liar.....lousy choices.

Let Independents vote in the primaries….

What good would that do? I think they already do. They pick the ticket they feel has the best chance against the person they hope to elect, and vote for the undercard candidate on the ticket.

The problem is 2 parties offers some order. You start getting a 3rd involved and you end up with even further divide in the country. You could have winners getting 40% of the vote and depending on the split you could have 60% of the country voting for people other than the actual winner of the election.

The electoral college wins could produce some wild results with even bigger disparities.

So what are you saying? Republicans need to help remove the President or things get bloody?

Two representatives from the Problem Solving Caucus, one is a Republican in a blue district, and the other is a Democrat in a red district, gave a compelling interview on why this is the problem. Suozzi and Fitzpatrick. Both were great to listen to. Everything - especially at the Representative level, with all the gerrymandering - comes down the primaries. Politicians are more worried about getting primaried nowadays than they are losing the general election. Closed primaries are allowing fringe candidates to occupy more spots, yet maintain an approval rating that is abysmal. Here is an example of what I am talking about.

https://www.uniteamerica.org/articl...-23-5m-independents-to-vote-in-primaries

You and I have been at odds for a while about the number of parties. I think we flat out need more. The way multi-party systems run in other countries is superior to ours, not even to mention the fact that politicians actually resign when their approval ratings get egregiously low, or if one of their party leaders actually does something they disagree with.

A big part of why we're as bad as we are, is because we've had two parties duopolize complete political control with competing self interests operating as the engine of dysfunction and decline.

I believe expanding parties is a wonderful idea. Those who oppose it seem to think when you go to the store you should only have two brands to choose from. That's why we are where we are now. From an idea standpoint I like it. But putting it in practice the way the system is now would be damned near impossible.

So many special interests funnel so much money into both of the current parties sometimes even a judgeship can cost a fortune to run in and compete. Millions upon millions were spent in the Arizona Supreme Court race just last year. A third party would need to have a coalition of wealthy donors and supporters to ever compete. Which would seem they would have just as many wealthy people and special interests they would be indebted to and owe favors to in return.

In the end it seems a third party would turn out to be no different than the other two parties we currently have. If we expect to have a third choice that might be different the entire campaign finance structure would have to change IMO

One could make the argument that adding the independent vote would make for a more palatable nominee in the election. I believe those registered as Independent make up roughly half of the total voting population (please correct me if I'm wrong on that last part).

The big example that comes to mind is Kasich potentially having a much better chance vs Trump in that first nomination.

Most of the independent voters lean left or right, they simply do not wish to declare a party.

In an open primary state it is not a big deal. In a closed primary state it is a huge deal and that is how and why we get extreme (on both ends) candidates in the general election.

Amen.

Discussion on multiple political parties is baloney-- we already have that system- I left the Republican Party because of Trump- signed up as Independent in Fl- I'm in Independent Party- we have Libertarian, Progressive, Green, on and on.....we have plenty of parties-- none are organized and monied like the Republican or Democratic Parties-- JMHO, we have got to figure out what are MOST important issues and compromise on some issues to get the most of what we want.

Look at Rubio- he has claimed Trump is morally a disaster, yet now he's working hard for him/us as Secretary of State-- JMHO- doing mostly a great job. Work for the better good from the inside-- I'm rethinking several issues. Demos lied about capability of Biden for YEARS- our foreign aid DID desperately needed fixing. Maybe Rubio will run after Trump.....he'd be a much better President. Peace.

50% seems high to me, but I don't know either. You and I could spend days researching that and both come up with a multitude of answers. I think those numbers can flip flop fairly often and are often behind the current climate with those voters.

As to some other comments, I don't want to be like Europe. Those countries a F'ed up.

A person can write in anybody they want. Consolidate your independents and start a write up campaign.

Two is the number. The more people you have in the meeting, the more chaotic the meeting.

Nobody wants to be EXACTLY like Europe. However, there are things we could and should take note of and perhaps incorporate. Western European countries and Canada have significantly less issues than we do when it comes to money in politics and career politicians. I don’t think anyone would would dispute both of those are a huge problem in our system.

The number I saw was 43%, which seems high to me as well, but my overall point is that IND is a very significant portion of the voting population. It makes sense that including them in the nomination should result in a better candidate for the election.

This is exactly what I referenced earlier. Yes we have several parties. But only two of them have any real chance to win election with the exception of very few Independent candidates. And even those independents caucus with either the Dems or GOP. So I imagine the proper way to phrase it is that we have only two legitimate parties.

Agree, because otherwise we are left with a possibility of several bad scenarios, including:

1. Fringe Candidate A vs Fringe Candidate B

2. Guys like our dude, Warren Davidson, who are absolutely useless, if not destructive, but don't care because they are 30+% margin. Gerrymandering dovetails with this issue as well.

Anything to promote that new book!

Keep it up!

Morons....

The fringe does say some silly and stupid things.

I think it's wonderful how a top rated "left wing liberal news media" personality brought this all to light. Showing what "fair and balanced" actually looks like.

He was chased out by capitalism, not democracy. If democracy had any say, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. He "served" for 130 days and abruptly quit long before DOGE's clearly skewed results hit anywhere near any of their stated goals... coincidentally while his largest company was in complete chaos.

... but yes, all is as planned.

DOGE was an abject failure and Elon really screwed up and became nuclear to just about everyone, both in the admin and on the left, leaving him rather isolated from all angles. That’s not really arguable at this point.

It's astounding MSM and the left are still going hard in the paint on this issue.

Sadly the GOP thinks this is a top issue of discussion and concern while they cut cancer research money and food to poor people across America. I guess in the end it really is all about priorities.

Where are you guys at on this? Keep that same energy for this version.

Oh, memories....

Are you honestly asking, or do you still have everyone who might respond to this on ignore?

Not sure where to put this, but....ouch!

Did literal Nazi's think he did a Nazi salute? Did Booker follow up by being the keynote speaker at the Far-Right German political party and basically saying that Holocaust wasn't a big deal and everyone just needs to get over it?


I know you're just flooding certain threads with snippets from your favorite Twitter trash accounts and won't engage in any actual debate, but I'm going to keep responding on the off-chance any of the MAGA on here want to have an honest convo.

You did something they hate. You added context to the topic.

I'll respond to you because I think I have my answer from Memphis. I think P was right when he mentioned that I probably wouldn't get the answer I was looking for before, but I stupidly keep asking the question.

Anyhow, I think it was stupid for Booker to have done that. He has to be aware that people will jump all over something like that, but yeah, surrounding context is everything, like you inferred. I originally thought Elon was just being Elon when I saw the initial incident, but given everything that has happened in the aftermath of that moment, I'm not so sure anymore. He has put his tail somewhat between his legs because he's pretty much nuclear, like I said in another thread, but I don't think he can keep himself humbled and quiet for long.

Reminds me of someone.......

I was trying to find a longer video. It looks like he's trying to correct himself but the video cuts off. He also does a little wave instead of a solid hand at the end.

It’s amazing that the low brow right ever made it such a huge issue to begin with… but hey, it drummed up a lot of hate, huh? I for one am glad those 11 players who dared try to compete as WHO THE WERE got put in their place. Now, can we do that with people who think they have the right to tell others how to live? #MagaPurge

No need to be offended, it’s only a matter of time until they turn on everybody else.

#disraction

I do think Bernie has a point here. Dems really need to get back to their roots.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...717b335919404b8bb78c60d7a3bcdd&ei=15

Bernie Sanders Offers Blunt Breakdown Of Why Kamala Harris Lost

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is getting blunt about why Kamala Harris lost the 2024 presidential election.

While speaking to BBC Radio 4 during the London leg of his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, the two-time presidential candidate said it was wrong to pin Harris’ defeat on then-President Joe Biden’s late retreat from the race.

“It was the fault of Kamala Harris and her consultants,” he said plainly, before laying out how Democrats failed to “run a campaign designed to speak to the American working class.”

Sanders told the station that while President Donald Trump may be “reasonably popular,” Democrats could have beaten him if they addressed the struggles everyday Americans face during the campaign.

“I ran all over the country trying to elect Kamala Harris and begged them: Talk to the needs of the working class. Talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage,” he continued. “Talk about real health care reform. Talk about building the kinds of massive amounts of housing that we need, and putting checks on landlords’ greed on housing.”

But instead of listening to Sanders, the Harris campaign decided to rely on “billionaire friends” and anti-Trump Republicans like former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.).

“Kamala spent more time with Liz Cheney almost than with anybody else. What is that message out to working-class people?” he asked.

Sanders added that using billionaire “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban as a surrogate was also a major misstep for Democrats.

“To my mind that was a campaign that absolutely should have been winnable,” but consultants and the 1% led them astray, he said.

“The bottom line here is the Democrats have to answer a very simple question: Which side are you on?”

Talking about the party’s current strategy in an interview with The Washington Post published last week, the senator had a similar message.

“Do Democrats do enough?” he asked himself. “No.”

“The difference that I have with the Democratic leadership is not in the need to vigorously oppose Trump,” he explained. “It’s to bring forth an agenda that resonates with working-class families. And I think there are a number of Trump people who will support that agenda.”

Even before ballots were cast, observers were wary about Democrats’ decision to bank on big-name supporters like Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, George Clooney, Jennifer Lopez and more, wondering whether it would pay off.

And in the fallout from the 2024 election, politics insiders were even more critical.

“Celebrity endorsements say a lot: they say you’re a liberal, an elitist, and a cultural progressive. An Oprah or Clooney endorsement is the kiss of death in large swaths of the country now,” Republican strategist William F.B. O’Reilly told The New York Times in a postmortem election analysis.

Bernie Sanders Fiercely Rejects 1 Notion About Trump-Era Democrats: 'Have The Courage'

Blaming it on everything else but themselves and making crap up in the process. This guy continues to prove how little background work the democrats did on this clown before picking him as the running mate.