2/3 of Americans say the Democrats are out of touch

From the Wash Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/04/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-that-the-democratic-party-is-out-of-touch-with-the-country/?utm_term=.763201ff87f9

The DNC is in court arguing that they don't need to provide a fair election process.

Hillary still blames Comey and the Russians.

How can they be out of touch...?

Seriously Dems, fix your shit if you don't want 8 years of this idiot.

Griff;987939 wrote:

The DNC is in court arguing that they don't need to provide a fair election process.

That's bad optics, but I do have some sympathy there. I supported Bernie in the primary, but he's not a member of the Democratic Party, and I don't really fault them for supporting the candidate who is actually a member.

Hillary still blames Comey and the Russians.

"Still"? That's history. It doesn't become less true over time. In the same interview where she blamed Comey and the Russians, she blamed herself as well. All three were and are to blame.

Though I will say, I suspect that all three were operating under the assumption that Hillary would win, rather than actively supporting Trump per se. Comey wanted to protect himself against Chaffetz' 4-8 years of Hillary investigations, Russia wanted to delegitimize democratic elections in general, and Hillary's status in particular, and Clinton was overconfident.

Happy Monkey;987942 wrote:

That's bad optics, but I do have some sympathy there. I supported Bernie in the primary, but he's not a member of the Democratic Party, and I don't really fault them for supporting the candidate who is actually a member."Still"? That's history. It doesn't become less true over time. In the same interview where she blamed Comey and the Russians, she blamed herself as well. All three were and are to blame.

Though I will say, I suspect that all three were operating under the assumption that Hillary would win, rather than actively supporting Trump per se. Comey wanted to protect himself against Chaffetz' 4-8 years of Hillary investigations, Russia wanted to delegitimize democratic elections in general, and Hillary's status in particular, and Clinton was overconfident.

Although I agree with you, I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for Hillary C. I really feel we need to be able to vote No Confidence and have a genuine third party.

I expect our country is in the beginnings of a huge correction that will only become clear when reviewed in a century or so.

I have to leave this discussion before I further catastrophize.

I would put "correction" in quotes. The word implies improvement, but I think in reality it just means a change. Not necessarily a good one.

glatt;987945 wrote:

I would put "correction" in quotes. The word implies improvement, but I think in reality it just means a change. Not necessarily a good one.

Yes. Might be good, might not, but in either case it won't be pleasant while we undergo it.

footfootfoot;987944 wrote:

Although I agree with you, I can't bring myself to feel sympathy for Hillary C.

I was expressing sympathy for DNC officials who supported her in the primary; I don't think they should face any legal liability (absent actual fraud, I don't know details of the case) for supporting the actual Democrat in the Democratic primary.

Especially since I wish the RNC had been as successful as the DNC were in their efforts on that front.

Though I do have some sympathy for Clinton as well. She's an above-average (especially these days) politician who was subject to decades of FUD, where she was personally made the poster child of every problem that people have with all politicians, plus a side order of murder accusations.

Happy Monkey;987948 wrote:

I was expressing sympathy for DNC officials who supported her in the primary; I don't think they should face any legal liability (absent actual fraud, I don't know details of the case) for supporting the actual Democrat in the Democratic primary.

Especially since I wish the RNC had been as successful as the DNC were in their efforts on that front.

Though I do have some sympathy for Clinton as well. She's an above-average (especially these days) politician who was subject to decades of FUD, where she was personally made the poster child of every problem that people have with all politicians, plus a side order of murder accusations.

That's fair.

[morning ramble]


Weird thing I noticed when we were in the DC area for the memorial service, Hillary bumper stickers. Seriously, nobody has them here. any archeologist digging around here would have concluded Bernie vs Trump.

We were bitching about Trump at the trailhead Sunday morning before riding. The guys I ride with were both union members, one retired one moved into management. We're all pretty scorched about the threats to the National Parks and the planet generally. They're both Democrats and both have pretty conservative values, in the sense that they want to conserve the good but are willing to discuss change in a way that doesn't further degrade society. They are very much the guys who Hillary can't reach. They don't cling to bibles but are strong on family and support the 2nd Amendment more than Cuomo and less than the NRA.

Sounds like they're what I would picture as average guys, so I'm probably out of touch too. :o

I've said over and over the Washington DC dog and pony show is a distraction. The ultra rich right wingers are spending vast sums of money to place their hand picked people in state governments. They still pour money into the Federal elections starting at primary level, but can make shadier deals at state level.

xoxoxoBruce;991730 wrote:

I've said over and over the Washington DC dog and pony show is a distraction. The ultra rich right wingers are spending vast sums of money to place their hand picked people in state governments. They still pour money into the Federal elections starting at primary level, but can make shadier deals at state level.

agree

I've said over and over the Washington DC dog and pony show is a distraction. The ultra rich right and left wingers are spending vast sums of money to place their hand picked people in state governments. They still pour money into the Federal elections starting at primary level, but can make shadier deals at state level.

Dems could stand to figure out why the term "fake news" resonates so well--because the news IS fake. Not, as in factually untrue, but as in harping on over-dramaticized storylines, making an effort to force public opinion against dis-favored political figures.

Remember when Bernie supporters were violent sexists? That was fake news. Not that there isn't one single person who supports Bernie who fits that description, but the big, over-arching storyline that Bernie had a violent, sexist BASE. That was FAKE f*cking news. And you know who knows that? The most energized, progressive, demographically dominant group of LEFT leaning voters. The voters the Democrats need.

Notice I'm conflating the democrats and the mainstream media. Yeah, we know that.

It's all fun and games while we're making fun of a comically inept president, and imaging the slack-jawed yokels who voted for him howling with indignation while they lose their Obamacare and get stuck on the other side of a border wall--STUPID Republican idiots!!--but when the same FAKE NEWS media bares its fangs against the true progressive movement gunning to overturn income inequality in America, what then?

I read in the paper today that "centrist" democrats are worried that the Bernie democrats are going to ruin it for everyone in the next election and that if the Bernie democrats would just join the "centrists" then everything would be OK.

glatt;993821 wrote:

I read in the paper today that "centrist" democrats are worried that the Bernie democrats are going to ruin it for everyone in the next election and that if the Bernie democrats would just join the "centrists" then everything would be OK.

Of course! They're gunning for 2020 already. How about the big story that the fake scandal about Bernie's wife was started by hearsay from a GOP politician--SEE of course it's the bad Republicans trying to smear Bernie, not US the Centrist-Democrat, Corporate-owned media. WE wouldn't do that :while running the story hard enough to hit the top Google searches for the term 'Sanders' every day for the last few months:

...


Also, we're all racist AND sexist if we don't immediately support Kamala Harris for an election in three years--even though the only thing we know about her is we all saw the viral video of her griping out a Republican in a hearing--and that's the first time anybody ever learned her name! They're running "a black, female, viral video" for President. L I T E R A L L Y

But if I'm against Kamala Harris, Trump will win because of me.

No one had ever heard of Obama before he gave an off-hours speech at the DNC, either. No one's ever heard of any of the guys who end up running until a year before it happens. The only ones you've heard of are Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, and that's the opposite of what you want.

Not everyone is happy.

"Have mixed feelings about" = 46% of Republicans experiencing cognitive dissonance?

There is nothing positive to hang our hats on right now, even the Houston situation is being twisted into everyone's favorite Bacefook narrative.