Dems Should Move to the Left

[kalm]

Interesting article with interesting numbers. Running as the Republican Lite party does not gain ground and America continuously polls more progressive than either party governs.

The far more important — and largely untold — story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates than the number who supported Mr. Trump. That is the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House. The way to win them back is by being more progressive, not less.

Hillary Clinton lost the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,744 votes; the number of Democratic votes dropped significantly from 2012 levels, and the Republican total increased by about 440,000 votes. The third- and fourth-party surge, however, was larger than the Republican growth, with 503,000 more people choosing the Libertarian or the Green candidate than had done so in 2012. When you look at the white vote in those states, the picture is even more stark.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/o ... crats.html

[Pwns]

And in spite of the fact that there's fairly broad support for raising the minimum wage and support for not repealing Obamacare without some palatable replacement that won't leave lots of people without insurance, donks still lost the white house and don't have either chamber of congress.

And they won't figure out why that happened

[Baldy]

Interesting article with interesting numbers. Running as the Republican Lite party does not gain ground and America continuously polls more progressive than either party governs.

The far more important — and largely untold — story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates than the number who supported Mr. Trump. That is the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House. The way to win them back is by being more progressive, not less.

Hillary Clinton lost the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,744 votes; the number of Democratic votes dropped significantly from 2012 levels, and the Republican total increased by about 440,000 votes. The third- and fourth-party surge, however, was larger than the Republican growth, with 503,000 more people choosing the Libertarian or the Green candidate than had done so in 2012. When you look at the white vote in those states, the picture is even more stark.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/o ... crats.html

Yes, please do.

[Ivytalk]

I still predict the end of the USA as we know it within 25 years. This is the same JSO-style "demographics expert" who seems to say that EVERY third-party white voter was a Donk defector, and whipping up the blacks and Browns will give the White House and Congress to the Liz Warrens and Tom Perezes for generations. This approach by the Donk whiz kids would just accelerate the process of national dissolution. It may start today with the elevation of Ellison to DNC chair.

[CID1990]

Interesting article with interesting numbers. Running as the Republican Lite party does not gain ground and America continuously polls more progressive than either party governs.

The far more important — and largely untold — story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates than the number who supported Mr. Trump. That is the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House. The way to win them back is by being more progressive, not less.

Hillary Clinton lost the decisive states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by 77,744 votes; the number of Democratic votes dropped significantly from 2012 levels, and the Republican total increased by about 440,000 votes. The third- and fourth-party surge, however, was larger than the Republican growth, with 503,000 more people choosing the Libertarian or the Green candidate than had done so in 2012. When you look at the white vote in those states, the picture is even more stark.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/o ... crats.html

I REALLY REALLY hope the Democratic Party takes the advice of the NYT on this - as it is based on a couple of serious miscalculations

Those Dem voters who went Libertarian and Green went that way not because the Dem party isn't progressive enough- they left because of a combination of factors that came together in precisely the right time to have the effect it did-

Clinton was a neocon. Period. She was also completely untrustworthy and had proven herself over and over to be so.

White Dem voters who left were also economic voters - they were tired of the Dem platform emphasizing identity politics over the economy. This, and Clinton, landed Trump in the White House.

The Democratic Party needs to do two things to cement the white votes they need: be about economic equality of OPPORTUNITY, and get off the racial/gender/sexual obsessed issues that thrive at the expense of everything else.

I can understand the temptation to think that was this writer does, but if the data supported his argument then Clinton never would have been nominated - regardless of the efforts of the DNC.

If the DNC takes the advice of this editorialist they'll be in the wilderness again after 2020.

If they adopt a coherent, non-populist platform on the economy, and drop the identity politics, they could even poach me as a voter.

[kalm]

Interesting article with interesting numbers. Running as the Republican Lite party does not gain ground and America continuously polls more progressive than either party governs.

I REALLY REALLY hope the Democratic Party takes the advice of the NYT on this - as it is based on a couple of serious miscalculations

Those Dem voters who went Libertarian and Green went that way not because the Dem party isn't progressive enough- they left because of a combination of factors that came together in precisely the right time to have the effect it did-

Clinton was a neocon. Period. She was also completely untrustworthy and had proven herself over and over to be so.

White Dem voters who left were also economic voters - they were tired of the Dem platform emphasizing identity politics over the economy. This, and Clinton, landed Trump in the White House.

The Democratic Party needs to do two things to cement the white votes they need: be about economic equality of OPPORTUNITY, and get off the racial/gender/sexual obsessed issues that thrive at the expense of everything else.

I can understand the temptation to think that was this writer does, but if the data supported his argument then Clinton never would have been nominated - regardless of the efforts of the DNC.

If the DNC takes the advice of this editorialist they'll be in the wilderness again after 2020.

If they adopt a coherent, non-populist platform on the economy, and drop the identity politics, they could even poach me as a voter.

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

[CID1990]

I REALLY REALLY hope the Democratic Party takes the advice of the NYT on this - as it is based on a couple of serious miscalculations

Those Dem voters who went Libertarian and Green went that way not because the Dem party isn't progressive enough- they left because of a combination of factors that came together in precisely the right time to have the effect it did-

Clinton was a neocon. Period. She was also completely untrustworthy and had proven herself over and over to be so.

White Dem voters who left were also economic voters - they were tired of the Dem platform emphasizing identity politics over the economy. This, and Clinton, landed Trump in the White House.

The Democratic Party needs to do two things to cement the white votes they need: be about economic equality of OPPORTUNITY, and get off the racial/gender/sexual obsessed issues that thrive at the expense of everything else.

I can understand the temptation to think that was this writer does, but if the data supported his argument then Clinton never would have been nominated - regardless of the efforts of the DNC.

If the DNC takes the advice of this editorialist they'll be in the wilderness again after 2020.

If they adopt a coherent, non-populist platform on the economy, and drop the identity politics, they could even poach me as a voter.

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

1. Why don't you look closely at what neoconservatism really is (hint: it is purely a foreign policy movement and nothing else) and then look at Hillary's behavior and influence (Balkans, Iraq, Libya, Syria) and tell me she is any less a neoconservative than Norman Podhoretz himself.

Progressivism isn't obsession with social retribution, and that's the underlying motivation behind the identity politics.

2. The Dem party doesn't need the Jill Stein voters, first of all. They were also the Nader voters and will continue to vote for extreme left candidates (unless the mainstream Dem candidate checks all the boxes, which will turn off the liberal Johnson voters and the ones that are normally inclined to just stay home).

A non-populist economic policy won't attract all the fringe knuckleheads but it would attract people like me - and it would be a moderate mix of things - it is easier to name what it ISN'T - like guaranteed salaries or free tuition, and trade agreements that reward countries that pay a dollar an hour to thirteen year olds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

1. Why don't you look closely at what neoconservatism really is (hint: it is purely a foreign policy movement and nothing else) and then look at Hillary's behavior and influence (Balkans, Iraq, Libya, Syria) and tell me she is any less a neoconservative than Norman Podhoretz himself.

Progressivism isn't obsession with social retribution, and that's the underlying motivation behind the identity politics.

2. The Dem party doesn't need the Jill Stein voters, first of all. They were also the Nader voters and will continue to vote for extreme left candidates (unless the mainstream Dem candidate checks all the boxes, which will turn off the liberal Johnson voters and the ones that are normally inclined to just stay home).

A non-populist economic policy won't attract all the fringe knuckleheads but it would attract people like me - and it would be a moderate mix of things - it is easier to name what it ISN'T - like guaranteed salaries or free tuition, and trade agreements that reward countries that pay a dollar an hour to thirteen year olds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"A neo-conservative is a liberal mugged by reality"

- Irving Kristol



I like this conversation. I'll reply further later on.

[Chizzang]

It won't matter in 4 years... The pendulum will have swung back
Regardless of shifts in rhetoric, blather and word wars

Just sit back...It'll swing hard the other way

[UNI88]

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

Kalm, how do you define progressive? To me a progressive is someone who is open-minded, respectful of other opinions, champions new ideas and generally tries to make things better for all. The so-called progressive faction of the Democratic Party fails to meet many of those standards:
- They're not open-minded, they believe they are right and all conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are wrong. They decry "bigoted" Christians for their attitudes toward gays and others but will overlook Islamic attitudes toward gays, women, etc. to prove that they are open-minded.
- Not only do they not respect the opinions of the right but they have a hard time respecting the opinions of establishment Democrats.
- They don't champion new ideas - they're essentially promoting a state managed economy with a goal of equal outcomes; i.e. a soviet model which is a proven failure.
- They're not trying to make things better for all, they would prefer to pull the top end back down toward the middle in order to achieve equal outcomes even if the resulting average is lower than it is now. They're also willing to demonize the white male as the root cause of all of our woes. Many of them are also willing to throw Israel under the bus in their support of the Palestinian cause.

Those are some of my issues with Bernie, Warren, Ellison and the like. Bottom line, these so called progressives aren't really very progressive.

[JohnStOnge]

I dunno. I think way to much is being made of stuff like that. Yes, it's true that it was more a matter of Clinton NOT getting votes than Trump getting votes. As noted in other posts, Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than Romney did. He also got fewer votes in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida than Obama did. It wasn't a "pro Trump" type of thing as much as it was lack of enthusiasm for Clinton.

But I think that if Obama had been able to run for a third term he'd have blown Trump out. The Party would not have had to move farther to the left or anything like that.

What happened this last time on the Presidential election level is that the Democrats managed to pick a candidate so bad that she lost to the REALLY bad candidate the Republicans picked.

Yes I think Sanders would also have blown Trump out so maybe one could say that kind of plays into the argument. But I think CLINTON would've blown Trump out if she hadn't made that fateful decision to use a private e mail server to handle State Department e mails.

[Skjellyfetti]

Democrats don't need to move any direction on the political spectrum. They need to broaden their appeal. There aren't as many "Blue Dog" Democrats anymore, and I think that's a problem. They need to put up candidates that can win in every state. They need to take back state houses, governorships, etc. The same way Republicans prepared for the 2010 census... Democrats need to start preparing for the 2020 census.

Use Trump as a lightning rod and start making progress in 2018 and complete turnaround in 2020.

[CID1990]

All the Democrats need to do is avoid the temptation to nominate Hillary in 2020

Jim Webb would have beaten Trump like the family mule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

All the Democrats need to do is avoid the temptation to nominate Hillary in 2020

Jim Webb would have beaten Trump like the family mule

I don't know about Jim Webb but they really don't need to do much of anything as long as the Republicans don't find a way to do better with non White voters. If that's the scenario all they need to do is be patient.

[YoUDeeMan]

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

Kalm, how do you define progressive? To me a progressive is someone who is open-minded, respectful of other opinions, champions new ideas and generally tries to make things better for all. The so-called progressive faction of the Democratic Party fails to meet many of those standards:
- They're not open-minded, they believe they are right and all conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are wrong. They decry "bigoted" Christians for their attitudes toward gays and others but will overlook Islamic attitudes toward gays, women, etc. to prove that they are open-minded.
- Not only do they not respect the opinions of the right but they have a hard time respecting the opinions of establishment Democrats.
- They don't champion new ideas - they're essentially promoting a state managed economy with a goal of equal outcomes; i.e. a soviet model which is a proven failure.
- They're not trying to make things better for all, they would prefer to pull the top end back down toward the middle in order to achieve equal outcomes even if the resulting average is lower than it is now. They're also willing to demonize the white male as the root cause of all of our woes. Many of them are also willing to throw Israel under the bus in their support of the Palestinian cause.

Those are some of my issues with Bernie, Warren, Ellison and the like. Bottom line, these so called progressives aren't really very progressive.

THIS.

And Clinton and the Dems didn't REALLY want to hang with the unwashed masses, but she tried to fake her support for their causes. Problem was, the unwashed masses saw through her lies and hated the DNC for cheating against Bernie...so those voters stayed home or went third party. In the meantime, Clinton and the DNC's unholy allience with the fringe freaks, and their attempt to destroy the White man, caused middle folks to run towards Trump. Thank goodness all of those good-hearted county woman stood by their man.

phpBB [video]

[kalm]

1). Agree there are multiple factors, but Hillary is a neo-con and the Democratic Party is progressive enough?

2). What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

Kalm, how do you define progressive? To me a progressive is someone who is open-minded, respectful of other opinions, champions new ideas and generally tries to make things better for all. The so-called progressive faction of the Democratic Party fails to meet many of those standards:
- They're not open-minded, they believe they are right and all conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are wrong. They decry "bigoted" Christians for their attitudes toward gays and others but will overlook Islamic attitudes toward gays, women, etc. to prove that they are open-minded.
- Not only do they not respect the opinions of the right but they have a hard time respecting the opinions of establishment Democrats.
- They don't champion new ideas - they're essentially promoting a state managed economy with a goal of equal outcomes; i.e. a soviet model which is a proven failure.
- They're not trying to make things better for all, they would prefer to pull the top end back down toward the middle in order to achieve equal outcomes even if the resulting average is lower than it is now. They're also willing to demonize the white male as the root cause of all of our woes. Many of them are also willing to throw Israel under the bus in their support of the Palestinian cause.

Those are some of my issues with Bernie, Warren, Ellison and the like. Bottom line, these so called progressives aren't really very progressive.

Well that's certainly a fair assessment... Can I now paint unrealistic, selfish, tin foil hat wearing libertarians with the same brush strokes? Hey, I kind of like Rand Paul, but he once took medicare payments as an optometrist! Reagan hated government so much he decided to raise taxes 11 times and increase spending more than all presidents before him combined!

Labels are a tricky thing. Ideologies change, and definitions get co-opted. Some of your accusations are fair points but some are hair-on-fire hyperbole. Hint: I'm guessing Bernie's goal is less the Five Year Plans and more the Square Deal.

Both Obama and Hillary have rhetorically claimed progressivism while clinging to the status quo from a policy standpoint.

As Ganny likes to point out, I'm a hopeless romantic for the bygone years of Midwest chataquas and hard working farmers rising up to fight the monied interests of East Coast bankers and entrenched power of the robber barons. When progressives believed in a system that, as you say, improved things for all while preserving our national heritage, and laying a solid groundwork for future generations. (If I were mimicking you here, which I swear I'm not, this would be the point where I'd say small l libertarians won't be happy until 99% of the wealth is consolidated into the hands of small few and we're all living in company towns. )

But I won't hold my breath under the current duopoly and pay to play system that the Democratic Party is going to produce anything close to that. That's why I no longer vote for them.

To me, progressive simply means improvement as a society. Liberal means open mindedness. I will continue to be hopeful in those two ideals while remaining heavily cynical about the entire deal.

So back to my questions.

The Democratic Party is progressive enough? It has drifted away from concerns for Main Street, middle America, and the plight of the middle class. CID has written extensively on this elitism and he's spot on.

What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

[kalm]

Kalm, how do you define progressive? To me a progressive is someone who is open-minded, respectful of other opinions, champions new ideas and generally tries to make things better for all. The so-called progressive faction of the Democratic Party fails to meet many of those standards:
- They're not open-minded, they believe they are right and all conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are wrong. They decry "bigoted" Christians for their attitudes toward gays and others but will overlook Islamic attitudes toward gays, women, etc. to prove that they are open-minded.
- Not only do they not respect the opinions of the right but they have a hard time respecting the opinions of establishment Democrats.
- They don't champion new ideas - they're essentially promoting a state managed economy with a goal of equal outcomes; i.e. a soviet model which is a proven failure.
- They're not trying to make things better for all, they would prefer to pull the top end back down toward the middle in order to achieve equal outcomes even if the resulting average is lower than it is now. They're also willing to demonize the white male as the root cause of all of our woes. Many of them are also willing to throw Israel under the bus in their support of the Palestinian cause.

Those are some of my issues with Bernie, Warren, Ellison and the like. Bottom line, these so called progressives aren't really very progressive.

THIS.

And Clinton and the Dems didn't REALLY want to hang with the unwashed masses, but she tried to fake her support for their causes. Problem was, the unwashed masses saw through her lies and hated the DNC for cheating against Bernie...so those voters stayed home or went third party. In the meantime, Clinton and the DNC's unholy allience with the fringe freaks, and their attempt to destroy the White man, caused middle folks to run towards Trump. Thank goodness all of those good-hearted county woman stood by their man.

phpBB [video]

Good post, Clucky.

[Gil Dobie]

Kalm, how do you define progressive? To me a progressive is someone who is open-minded, respectful of other opinions, champions new ideas and generally tries to make things better for all. The so-called progressive faction of the Democratic Party fails to meet many of those standards:
- They're not open-minded, they believe they are right and all conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, etc. are wrong. They decry "bigoted" Christians for their attitudes toward gays and others but will overlook Islamic attitudes toward gays, women, etc. to prove that they are open-minded.
- Not only do they not respect the opinions of the right but they have a hard time respecting the opinions of establishment Democrats.
- They don't champion new ideas - they're essentially promoting a state managed economy with a goal of equal outcomes; i.e. a soviet model which is a proven failure.
- They're not trying to make things better for all, they would prefer to pull the top end back down toward the middle in order to achieve equal outcomes even if the resulting average is lower than it is now. They're also willing to demonize the white male as the root cause of all of our woes. Many of them are also willing to throw Israel under the bus in their support of the Palestinian cause.

Those are some of my issues with Bernie, Warren, Ellison and the like. Bottom line, these so called progressives aren't really very progressive.

Well that's certainly a fair assessment... Can I now paint unrealistic, selfish, tin foil hat wearing libertarians with the same brush strokes? Hey, I kind of like Rand Paul, but he once took medicare payments as an optometrist! Reagan hated government so much he decided to raise taxes 11 times and increase spending more than all presidents before him combined!

Labels are a tricky thing. Ideologies change, and definitions get co-opted. Some of your accusations are fair points but some are hair-on-fire hyperbole. Hint: I'm guessing Bernie's goal is less the Five Year Plans and more the Square Deal.

Both Obama and Hillary have rhetorically claimed progressivism while clinging to the status quo from a policy standpoint.

As Ganny likes to point out, I'm a hopeless romantic for the bygone years of Midwest chataquas and hard working farmers rising up to fight the monied interests of East Coast bankers and entrenched power of the robber barons. When progressives believed in a system that, as you say, improved things for all while preserving our national heritage, and laying a solid groundwork for future generations. (If I were mimicking you here, which I swear I'm not, this would be the point where I'd say small l libertarians won't be happy until 99% of the wealth is consolidated into the hands of small few and we're all living in company towns. )

But I won't hold my breath under the current duopoly and pay to play system that the Democratic Party is going to produce anything close to that. That's why I no longer vote for them.

To me, progressive simply means improvement as a society. Liberal means open mindedness. I will continue to be hopeful in those two ideals while remaining heavily cynical about the entire deal.

So back to my questions.

The Democratic Party is progressive enough? It has drifted away from concerns for Main Street, middle America, and the plight of the middle class. CID has written extensively on this elitism and he's spot on.

What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

From what I'm seeing the Democratic party has moved left of liberalism. The open minded, progressive, Democratic Politician is not the norm. Today's Democratic Politician is very much the same as a Republican Politician. The both have the "my way or the highway attitude", with very little give on either side.

[kalm]

Well that's certainly a fair assessment... Can I now paint unrealistic, selfish, tin foil hat wearing libertarians with the same brush strokes? Hey, I kind of like Rand Paul, but he once took medicare payments as an optometrist! Reagan hated government so much he decided to raise taxes 11 times and increase spending more than all presidents before him combined!

Labels are a tricky thing. Ideologies change, and definitions get co-opted. Some of your accusations are fair points but some are hair-on-fire hyperbole. Hint: I'm guessing Bernie's goal is less the Five Year Plans and more the Square Deal.

Both Obama and Hillary have rhetorically claimed progressivism while clinging to the status quo from a policy standpoint.

As Ganny likes to point out, I'm a hopeless romantic for the bygone years of Midwest chataquas and hard working farmers rising up to fight the monied interests of East Coast bankers and entrenched power of the robber barons. When progressives believed in a system that, as you say, improved things for all while preserving our national heritage, and laying a solid groundwork for future generations. (If I were mimicking you here, which I swear I'm not, this would be the point where I'd say small l libertarians won't be happy until 99% of the wealth is consolidated into the hands of small few and we're all living in company towns. )

But I won't hold my breath under the current duopoly and pay to play system that the Democratic Party is going to produce anything close to that. That's why I no longer vote for them.

To me, progressive simply means improvement as a society. Liberal means open mindedness. I will continue to be hopeful in those two ideals while remaining heavily cynical about the entire deal.

So back to my questions.

The Democratic Party is progressive enough? It has drifted away from concerns for Main Street, middle America, and the plight of the middle class. CID has written extensively on this elitism and he's spot on.

What does a non-populist economic policy that appeals to independent working class or Jill Stein voters look like?

From what I'm seeing the Democratic party has moved left of liberalism. The open minded, progressive, Democratic Politician is not the norm. Today's Democratic Politician is very much the same as a Republican Politician. The both have the "my way or the highway attitude", with very little give on either side.

That's true to an extent but some of it is a product of the two party system. Don't claim anything the other side values, don't give an inch.

That's why it warms my heart when things like Sanders and Ron Paul co-sponsoring an audit of the Fed occur, or when Gary Johnson takes an on-line test to show which candidate you're most closely aligned to and admits it's Bernie.

There's still some hope, right?

BTW, what in the hell does "left of liberalism" even mean?

[Ivytalk]

From what I'm seeing the Democratic party has moved left of liberalism. The open minded, progressive, Democratic Politician is not the norm. Today's Democratic Politician is very much the same as a Republican Politician. The both have the "my way or the highway attitude", with very little give on either side.

That's true to an extent but some of it is a product of the two party system. Don't claim anything the other side values, don't give an inch.

That's why it warms my heart when things like Sanders and Ron Paul co-sponsoring an audit of the Fed occur, or when Gary Johnson takes an on-line test to show which candidate you're most closely aligned to and admits it's Bernie.

There's still some hope, right?

None. The duopoly will persist. Trumpism won't lead to a realigned party system with flourishing Greens and Libertarians (which actually have little in common, by the way). It will either be more of the same, or Italy.

[kalm]

That's true to an extent but some of it is a product of the two party system. Don't claim anything the other side values, don't give an inch.

That's why it warms my heart when things like Sanders and Ron Paul co-sponsoring an audit of the Fed occur, or when Gary Johnson takes an on-line test to show which candidate you're most closely aligned to and admits it's Bernie.

There's still some hope, right?

None. The duopoly will persist. Trumpism won't lead to a realigned party system with flourishing Greens and Libertarians (which actually have little in common, by the way). It will either be more of the same, or Italy.

Man...what a killjoy you are... Don't you have some kids to go shake your fist at?

[Ivytalk]

None. The duopoly will persist. Trumpism won't lead to a realigned party system with flourishing Greens and Libertarians (which actually have little in common, by the way). It will either be more of the same, or Italy.

Man...what a killjoy you are... Don't you have some kids to go shake your fist at?

In retirement, some days it's Grumpy Old Men, some days it's Hangover!

[Gil Dobie]

From what I'm seeing the Democratic party has moved left of liberalism. The open minded, progressive, Democratic Politician is not the norm. Today's Democratic Politician is very much the same as a Republican Politician. The both have the "my way or the highway attitude", with very little give on either side.

That's true to an extent but some of it is a product of the two party system. Don't claim anything the other side values, don't give an inch.

That's why it warms my heart when things like Sanders and Ron Paul co-sponsoring an audit of the Fed occur, or when Gary Johnson takes an on-line test to show which candidate you're most closely aligned to and admits it's Bernie.

There's still some hope, right?

BTW, what in the hell does "left of liberalism" even mean?

When I think of liberal, I think of being open to the views of others, peaceful, freedom of individuals, free from prejudice or bigotry, tolerance. Left of liberal would be not listening to views of others, violence, prejudice or intolerance towards people with other views. I know, getting into Socialism, Communism etc.

[kalm]

That's true to an extent but some of it is a product of the two party system. Don't claim anything the other side values, don't give an inch.

That's why it warms my heart when things like Sanders and Ron Paul co-sponsoring an audit of the Fed occur, or when Gary Johnson takes an on-line test to show which candidate you're most closely aligned to and admits it's Bernie.

There's still some hope, right?

BTW, what in the hell does "left of liberalism" even mean?

When I think of liberal, I think of being open to the views of others, peaceful, freedom of individuals, free from prejudice or bigotry, tolerance. Left of liberal would be not listening to views of others, violence, prejudice or intolerance towards people with other views. I know, getting into Socialism, Communism etc.

That sounds more "right" of liberal.

[Ivytalk]

When I think of liberal, I think of being open to the views of others, peaceful, freedom of individuals, free from prejudice or bigotry, tolerance. Left of liberal would be not listening to views of others, violence, prejudice or intolerance towards people with other views. I know, getting into Socialism, Communism etc.

That sounds more "right" of liberal.

Alt-right of liberal...