dissension still brewing within the DNC

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

There is not a single Eisenhower Republican in Congress, and very few exist in the populace.

Trump represented zero policy change. The GOP is the same as it was before, only now with some vaguely protectionist flavor.



There will never be a shortage of Republicans who can be elected. Rubio and Kasich would have beaten Clinton much more thoroughly than Trump did.

I don't think either beats Clinton to be honest. I don't think either are liked enough to do so.

Personally I think Rubio comes off as an empty suit most of the time.

Why do you think he would beat her? Do you think he wouldve swayed younger voters and Spanish voters?mayeb even first time voters

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Unless you had a parliamentary system and got rid of the Senate you would never, ever get anything passed in congress.

I disagree. The two party system lends itself to a black/white, good/evil, red sox/ yankee mentality. More diversity dilutes that partisanship and dilutes the effectiveness of lobbying.

 

[Broken arrow]

I can’t wait for these aspies to run Pelosi in the next election. The laughs will be endless

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Nationally I don't think they have any viable candidates outside of trump for the White House. Who do you think is electable on the national stage? They usually trot out a bunch of stooges and this session we got trump. Other than him I don't see much nationally

Locally sure I can see things your way.

I'm not sure who is and isn't electable anymore, because Trump seemed obviously unelectable to me. I think his win over the Republican field pushed a lot of them out of the limelight.

The GOP has a much deeper pool of experienced pols to choose candidates from than the Dems do right now. That's no guarantee that they will find good national level candidates nor is the thinness of the Dem bench a guarantee that they won't find another relative unknown like Obama with charisma and a good instinct for campaigning.

But my point is that the RNC, for better or worse, seems to be in much better shape than the DNC right now.

 

[m52nickerson]

Longtime DNC officials frustrated with delegate shake-up

"Some prominent members of the the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) are frustrated with the party's new slate of at-large delegates.

The moves have drawn criticism the progressive-leaning Democrats who feel the staff shakeup is retribution for their opposition to its new ChairmanTom Perez during February's chairman race.

NBC News first reported the grumblings over Perez's slate of at-large members on Wednesday night.

Perez made his picks for the DNC's at-large positions ahead of this week's fall meeting in Las Vegas. In some cases, Perez tapped those who had supported Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who ran against Perez in the DNC race earlier this year. But in others, prominent members who supported Ellison during the chair race or Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) during the presidential race, saw themselves demoted.

Those DNC members include Ray Buckley, James Zogby, Alice Germond and Barbra Casbar Siperstein, who supported Ellison, who ran against Perez for the chairmanship, or Sanders..."

...But critics charge that the at-large slate and committee appointments are a step backward in the push to unify the party after a contentious primary.

The announcement came on the heels of news that some DNC members are promoting a resolution that would urge Sanders to register as a Democrat, a proposal Sanders supporters dismissed as a distraction.

Spoiler

----------------------------------------------

Seems like the DNC is still dealing with internal dissension from those comical progressives by ousting large number of them from at-large delegation spots. The trend also seems to point that the division within the DNC that plagued them during the primaries culminating at the coventition with the Bernie bots showing their ire -- still remains a large factor in the divide among democrats.

Equally as funny is how the DNC is spinning the switch up by saying it leaves room for millennials, gays/trannies and POC's to obtain prominent positions -- in an obvious attempt to catch progressives in a SJW logic loop.

So, what say you WR, will the DNC "unify" by 2018/20 or will the seeds of division planted in 2016 continue to grow?

Will the progressives finally try to branch off into their own party?

Will this divide lead to the GOP holding on to legislative and executive?

Well good. While it will cause turmoil the DNC has to get rid of the SJW nutjobs as they would kill the party.

 

[Chromosome47]

This is such a spectacularly stupid statement, normatively speaking.

The Democrats suck, but the modern GOP is the most corrupt and homogeneously unscrupulous major party in the world. Literally every single one of their policies and every single attempt at legislation is geared toward giving money and power to the ultra-rich, to the detriment of anyone else. Accordingly, they're a fundraising juggernaut, and with modern campaign finance apparatuses, the Democratic Party had to build their own sleaziness to hang. And its combating that sleaziness that is causing its current divisions.

Lmao, put a sock in it you communist.

 

[Trotsky]

Lmao, put a sock in it you communist.

Brilliant rebuttal

 

[Trotsky]

I don't think either beats Clinton to be honest. I don't think either are liked enough to do so.

Both beat her handily in head-to-head polls. The same polls which had her narrowly beating Trump.

Personally I think Rubio comes off as an empty suit most of the time.

Why do you think he would beat her? Do you think he wouldve swayed younger voters and Spanish voters?mayeb even first time voters

He is an empty suit, but that doesn't turn off Republican voters. They would vote for Romney over Hillary too, I would wager. Republicans really don't have to worry about low voter turnout from their core base like Democrats do. Republican demographics (senior citizens, affluent uneducated whites) will always show up and vote for the Republican to beat the scary Democrat.

Meanwhile, Rubio and Kasich would both get a lot of centrist votes, and Rubio I expect would bring in a fair amount of Hispanic votes and seal Florida.

 

[Denter]

We need viable third party options.
A genuine Eisenhower era conservative party should break off from the GOP and Sanders should start a new third party .

We need a viable fascist party as well.

 

[kpt018]

Yes, at this point in time the Republicans are actually the less sucky party. And they are pretty damn sucktacular.

Curious, what is the rationale? It's not even close in my view.

 

[Trotsky]

We need a viable fascist party as well.

I mean, if the few semi-principled Republicans like McCain, Collins, Murkowski, Corker, and Paul left the GOP, it would be extremely close to a fascist party, doctrinally.

But I agree that donning the name would be helpful for everyone, and allow an actual Republican Party to perhaps regenerate some day in the future.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Curious, what is the rationale? It's not even close in my view.

To me the most prominent part of the Dem platform is divisive identity politics.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

it would be extremely close to a fascist party, doctrinally.

Loool. They are a center right liberal party.

 

[kpt018]

To me the most prominent part of the Dem platform is divisive identity politics.

I think identity politics from either side it totally toxic but the right is far more engaged in that sort of thing. They've been tapping into racism, hatred of coastal elites, etc. for a long time now. It's a big part of how Trump won. And quite frankly I don't see it being played out on the same level as the left. They do it, but it's much less common IMO.

And if we talk about policy the right isn't even in the same league as the left. They have to lie and win majorities in the House and win the presidency to get their unpopular policy passed.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

I think identity politics from either side it totally toxic but the right is far more engaged in that sort of thing. They've been tapping into racism, hatred of coastal elites, etc. for a long time now. It's a big part of how Trump won. And quite frankly I don't see it being played out on the same level as the left. They do it, but it's much less common IMO.

And if we talk about policy the right isn't even in the same league as the left. They have to lie and win majorities in the House and win the presidency to get their unpopular policy passed.

Are you fucking insane?

All the left talks about is race, religion, xenophobia, the war on women, ect. It is precisely why they lose.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

but the right is far more engaged in that sort of thing. They've been tapping into racism, hatred of coastal elites, etc. for a long time now.

It's not the Republicans who make every single issue about race.

I mean, just look at the opposing presidential campaign slogans:
I'm With Her.
Make America Great Again.

One literally conveys no meaning except that you support a female. It is focused on the identity of the candidate and expects voters to identify with her gender.

 

[kpt018]

Are you fucking insane?

All the left talks about is race, religion, xenophobia, the war on women, ect. It is precisely why they lose.

No, all YOU hear is the left talking about that stuff but if you stepped outside your bubble you'd realize it is not nearly done as often as you think.

They've been non stop working to stop ACA repeal and slamming the current framework for tax cuts this year.

 

[kpt018]

It's not the Republicans who make every single issue about race.

I mean, just look at the opposing presidential campaign slogans:
I'm With Her.
Make America Great Again.

One literally conveys no meaning except that you support a female. It is focused on the identity of the candidate and expects voters to identify with her gender.

One, campaign slogans are just about meaningless but second, your interpretation of her slogan is really bad. Of course the slogan mentions her gender but to add "no meaning except you support a female" is just your bias.

And more on point since I have zero interest in discussing slogans, Republicans are entirely about identity politics. The main point here that needs to be addressed is their policies are really unpopular even among Republicans that are regular people. The only way to win is to engage in culture issues. Democrats are flat out better on policy.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

One, campaign slogans are just about meaningless but second, your interpretation of her slogan is really bad. Of course the slogan mentions her gender but to add "no meaning except you support a female" is just your bias.

What literal meaning does it convey other than you support a female? Saying that it mentions her gender is your bias. It is the only thing that it mentions.

 

[kpt018]

What literal meaning does it convey other than you support a female? Saying that it mentions her gender is your bias. It is the only thing that it mentions.

It obviously means you support Hillary (not just the gender of a woman). It does not say you support any female that runs for president.

Like I said, it is entirely uninteresting to argue about campaign slogans, which are essentially branding. You cut off the substantive part of my post, so I guess you're not interested in that discussion (Republicans are all identity politics and have bad policy, and Dems engage in some identity politics and are much better on policy).