I blame.......for our present shit show.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Flint

Is there a different perspective than this?

"McGovern lost in 1972" --48 years ago?

tw seems to think so?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The time of reformation is at hand. There is no longer a center to aim for. The battle is for how the parties will be defined, to see whether their new form will hold.

Absolutely, there is a great re-sorting. It can't hold where it is.

Originally Posted by Flint

Maybe "center" isn't the right word.
The question is, "is the system, as it is, basically okay" or "do we need to change anything we're doing"?

Trump has succeeded at doing a whole new thing, by just saying, "I'm different!" People WANTED that.

The DNC response is to put things exactly the way they were before Trump.

But then, why did Trump get elected? If everyone thought "the system is basically okay" ??

...


eta: how did Obama win? By promising "CHANGE." People WANTED that.

Yep. The DNC actively opposes the challenge of change because the system works for $ome.

[sexobon]

You can get change from them, chump change.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

Interesting perspective.

Big letters do not quantify knowledge or honesty. Since it is a soundbyte, then it is probably a lie.

Facts: Gore lost to another candidate also campaigning as a centrist - barely. So that proves centrists can win.

Kerry lost to an incumbent president who used war to be even more popular. And became a victim of something new - numerous internet lies - ie swift boating. Kerry lost by a small margin.

Obama ran as a centrist. And successfully recruited left wing extremist support to his campaign. He defeated another centrist - McCain. Proving your point? McCain could not win because he was a centrist? But Obama won because he was a centrist.

Obama did same in the next election to defeat another centrist - Romney. So Romney lost because he was a centrist?

Only relevant is who is presidential material. Centrist or not is clearly irrelevant.

Relevant are facts that define a responsible president. Facts (demonstrated in his book before he was elected) said George Jr would not be. So he was not.

One need only view over 3500 contractors that Trump stiffed to know he would be the crappy lying asshole that he is. Then view lies even in the Cellar that deny such facts. Even his supporters will lie - because that is the man he really is. Not only is Trump a bad president. His history said he would be. His supporters even lie about how he stiffs contractors, employees, and bankers.

Bernie hypes solutions that ignore the problem AND that will not work. He is also lying.

Relevant is only how a presidential candidate thinks. An honest man defines a problem long before hyping solutions. Sanders solutions do not solve problems; may make things worse; and exist by completely ignoring what the problem really is. Defines a bad leader.

Meanwhile, everyone can see that the American economy is going into recession - because of Trump. Tax cuts for the rich were a first destructive blow. The Fed, for the fourth time, has been forced to lower rates. This time, even before their usual meeting. And by twice as much as all other rate cuts. After three rate cuts, things were still getting worse.

The Fed sees a recession that may cause major job losses in four years.

A recession created by someone with only a 30 second attention span.
Using defective reasoning similar to what Sanders demonstrates. Neither man demonstrates enough integrity to be a responsible leader. Well, at least Sanders has more than a 30 second attention span.

Only relevant question. Which one identifies a problem BEFORE advocating a solution? Neither.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

… Only relevant question. Which one identifies a problem BEFORE advocating a solution? Neither.

Even the best Democratic presidential candidate can identify only one perceived problem … having a Republican President. So it comes down to proposed solutions. MAGA wins.

[Luce]

I blame the system as a whole. This sorry state of affairs was inevitable. It was on rails.

This is why it's funny when people say we need to return to constitutional values. These are constitutional values.

[Griff]

I look at it this way, The Dems have grabbed the Center and Moderate Right. This leaves the GOP with the Right, Hard Right, and Right Populists. This means without control of 2 Houses and the Presidency Every compromise will be to the right from a starting position of Center Right, while the Left and Left Populists have no seat at the table. This is not a stable situation. This assumes that any of these labels still function. It would be kinda cool to sit and watch if I hadn't brought children into this world.

[Undertoad]

We shall wait for the next survey to show that, but, from the highly respected Pew organization:

https://www.people-press.org/interac...ion-1994-2017/

Please click on "Animate data from 1994-2017". In 2011 the Rs move right; in 2017 the Ds match and move left. We wind up with partisan polarization.

If you click on "Overall" and "General public" and animate, you see that polarization is happening, but there is still a big middle. There is an overall trend towards liberalism (which we should expect over generations) but also, a bubble developing near the "consistently liberal". I believe that bubble reflects progressivism, and in particular, the intersectionality/political correctness mind virus*, a wildly fast cultural swing, as seen in this NY Times word frequency chart:



(click here for a really big version.)

Part of the Trump phenomenon is a rejection of this virus and this is what Jonathan Pie pointed out 3.5 years ago.

*Yeah it is

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Please click on "Animate data from 1994-2017". In 2011 the Rs move right; in 2017 the Ds match and move left. We wind up with partisan polarization.

As you noted in a previous post, number of moderates was decreasing. Number of extreme left and right was increasing.

Sociologists suggest why. With a wider diversity of choices, many are only listening to what their emotions want to believe. They no longer learn multiple viewpoints and perspectives. That, for example, explains Rush Limbaugh.

Rush, in his earliest days in Pittsburgh, said the news to too complicated. And that he would tell us what to believe. That works on people who do not want to first learn facts. And who know only what their reptilian brain likes. Moving on the WABC in New York made his "we are the central committee of the communist party" propaganda popular. Many only want to be told what to believe - by one source.

Extremism became especially obvious during the Mission Accomplished war. When honest facts were more often replaced by diatribes, lies, and hate.

That tribal attitude has increased, in part, because so many can now hear what their emotions (repitlian brain) want to hear. And no longer need hear other perspectives.

We know from history, for example, that same resulted in a Nazi power grab. Suddenly, that was almost all that could be learned. Even news from outside Germany (ie international broadcasters - BBC) was only new and almost never heard. So Nazi propaganda was only what so many in 1930s Germany heard.