Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Winning

Which is to say that the election of Bernie Sanders would have been a totally useless endeavor. Naive at best to think he could affect the power arrangement in this country.

Different faces, different attitudes, different priorities. Different policies.

Even Our Corporate Overlordsâ„¢ have to roll with the punches and adjust to market forces and reality.

You're a guy who wants radical change, but you seem to accept the reality that nothing is liable to change much at all. But things change every day. Some for the better some for the worse. I think once Millenials start taking control there will be some necessary structural changes made.

I agree, no one wins without the consent of the ruling class or the moneyed elites. They’re pouring billions into our election system. 14 billion for 2020 not counting the billion plus for Georgia’s two runoff senate races in January 2021.

It’s rhetoric that is the difference between the two major parties, not so much how each governs. As Ross Perot once said, if you stick cotton in your ears, earplugs and just watch how the two major parties govern, you’ll not see much if any difference. Not his exact words, but close.

I’ll repeat my take on the 2020 election, it was nothing more than a total rejection of Donald Trump and his obnoxious ways. It wasn’t an endorsement for change or new legislation outside of getting rid of Trump. Biden happened to be Trump’s opponent so he would do. Biden did win by 7 million plus votes, but Republican candidates won the congressional vote, the senate vote in November 2020, the governor’s vote along with the state legislature’s votes. All in the same election.

The down ballot results showed 2020 wasn’t an election for defunding the police or for the protesters. It was for business as usual. Self-preservation has always been an elected official first priority, from the many articles I’ve read on the down ballot results, even stated it here on this site, the total election wasn’t for police reform, etc. I think way too many read into Biden’s 7 million plus victory as a mandate which it wasn’t in my opinion. It was simply an election to get rid of Trump. The Democrats could have run Gaylord Cumquat for president and he’d probably have won. The people simply wanted to get rid of the uncouth, raunchy, spoiled brat child in a man’s body, Trump.

LOL .... you really didn't type that did you? It is equivalent to saying a coin has memory of previous tosses ... all I can say is you would not do well in a probability/statistics course, if you believe that to be a meaningful statement.

I don't guess people will come to their senses and properly describe Trump for what he is .... a narcissist. He is not a rational person. He is delusional and a part of that complex personality disorder is uncouth, spoiled, etc. When people describe him as childlike, they leave the impression he is otherwise a rational person, and nothing can be further from the truth.

History has shown it to be true. I gave you examples of a sitting president, Truman, LBJ, who withdrew due to being challenged, Carter and Bush who lost in the general election after fending off challengers in their own party. All 4 were challenged in their respective party's primaries. For Truman, Stevenson lost to Eisenhower, Humphrey lost to Nixon, Carter to Reagan and Bush to Clinton.

This is why the party of a sitting president goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid any one challenging their sitting president. Will that always hold true, who knows. But history hasn't been kind when a challenger challenges a sitting president in their party's primary.

I’ll have to turn your attention to the full mobilization of Dem Corp to undermine and subvert their own primary to get rid of the threat on their left flank.

While I agree that they succeeded in running a restoration campaign with a deteriorating rightwing Senator by not being Trump, the in tra party fight between the left and right was real. Dem Corp succeeded in stopping the left and was able to complete the play they started in 2016. Raising Trump as the opposition candidate so they could beat him with their lousy one, HRC.

Podesta emails…

Many got behind the candidate who stood for something in the primaries. Someone who understood class and material condition matters. By many, I mean millions. Dem Corp consolidated the field and made it all about Trump. Barely. As a numerologist I’m surprised you don’t bring up the matchups between Dem candidates and Trump? There was a clear leader in those numbers.

Trump raised his numbers from 2016 IIRC.

Of course I’d like to see radical change. What I’d like to see and what the current reality allows are two different things.

I never expected radical change from a Sanders administration. The same media machine that cranked up Russia hysteria was doing the same hysteria over a Sanders admin possibility. What a Sanders admin could have done was refocus politics over class and material conditions. Create a beach head for further efforts to move a political party to the left. A semblance of opposition to our dominant rightwing political factions.

Yes, the Democrats main worry for 2020 was defeating Trump. Biden was a safe candidate to do so. Trump was the great equalizer for intra-party disputes. All factions of the Democratic Party wanted him gone. Yes, I would say the Democratic Primaries and debates started off about ideas, then after South Carolina became all about defeating Trump.

One could say the Democrats won their big, main battle, but lost a lot of little battles down ballot. They pulled off the big victory but were considerably weaken by the down ballot battles they lost. Thus, causing the intra-party fighting as their numbers dwindled to a bare majority. One expects when a presidential candidate wins by 7 million plus votes, he brings along a lot of other democrats with him. Obama brought in 23 new democratic representatives and 8 senators in his 8 million vote win over McCain. Reagan brought in 34 new Republican representatives and 12 senators. Biden lost 13 democratic house members.

The thing is with intraparty in-fighting has always gone on. But usually there’s been a lot bigger margin in the house and in the senate to paper over that in-fighting which can’t be done with just a 9-seat majority in the house and a tie in the senate. Take Obama and the ACA, the Democrats had a 256-178 advantage, so when 34 house democrats voted against it, it still passed with votes to spare. I’m sure there was in-fighting back then also, but with a 78-seat majority, no one noticed. It didn’t matter but does with just a 9-seat majority 222-213.

LOL

Yes one time I threw 27 heads in a row .... that is a historical record .... do you believe that would imply the next throw will be a head???? If you do are you willing to bet the ranch on it????

Your explanation why incumbents don't want challengers is like a pundit in search of a justification of an opinion. While a campaign is not a simplistic coin toss, it is a dynamic system with a set of complex variables, it would imply reduction to previous outcomes doesn't make sense. Every election cycle is different.

And every election cycle is the same. You can't count on history repeating itself, but not learning the lessons of history dooms you to repeating mistakes.

Democrats failed to put competent leadership in place when they had the chance. They chose old Joe Biden instead. Who selected a weak vice-president, then appointed a weak cabinet.

Everything about this government exudes weakness and ineptitude. All three branches.

Every leaf and twig.

I don't need history or polls to tell me that unless something mighty good happens, Democrats are toast.