Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?

post · May 15, 2021

Perotista said:
Perhaps, but most federal judges outside of the SCOTUS are approved or confirmed by 80-90 senators. It wouldn't hurt to give it a try. Even some of the SCOTUS nominees received 67 or more votes. Sotomayor 69, Roberts 78, Beyer 87, Ginsberg 96, Souter 90, Kennedy 97, Scalia 98, O'Conner 99 and on back.

post said:
How Harry Reid Changed the Federal Courts

Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, who announced today that he will not run for reëlection in 2016, leaves an imposing legacy.

www.newyorker.com

"..appointments to the district court, which had been routine and uncontroversial under earlier Presidents. Reid fought back, and kept pushing the President’s nominees. In time, though, Reid came to a crossroads.
.....

You cannot actually support that claim unless you present votes of another, now irrelevant time. And that is my issue with you and why you must ignore my posts!

Cardinal · May 15, 2021

Perotista said:
It is this modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship that really peeves me off. I'm totally disgusted with it, disgusted with both major parties that promote it and let it rule them. I've never been a partisan, never belong to either major party. So I'm sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything democratic and democrats automatically opposing anything Republican.

That's nice, but for all practical considerations this has the value of the bumper sticker that says "Imagine Whirled Peas."

Perotista said:
I firmly believe that this modern era of our politics will eventually destroy this nation if let to continue. I also think it's this modern era that has led to the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 41% today as both major parties shrink. I think most Americans want the two major parties to work together whenever possible, to compromise and play the old game of give and take. Not to view the other party as this nation's number one enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist, etc.

Perotista said:
I know a lot of democrats blame Trump for our current state of political affairs. But I think Trump was an end product of our modern era, not the cause. The beginning goes back further. Remember McConnell stating he would make Obama a one term president? Then the GOP automatically opposing every thing Obama. You had Schumer in 2007 stating a full year and a half before Bush II presidency was over that the Democratic senate wouldn't take up any Bush II's SCOTUS nominees if an opening occurred. I'd take it back even further to the Hastert Rule once Hastert replaced the GOP fired Gingrich. Perhaps the beginning goes back even further. With the cooperation and working together of Tip O'Neal and Reagan, they being willing to compromise, I'd say it has to be after that. Their working relation was stuff of legends.

Okay now we're getting somewhere. If you're working back in time to Reagan in a good faith attempt to understand the problem then you're closer to understanding why your solutions won't work and why your warnings to Democrats (such as eliminating the filibuster) aren't changing any minds.

In order to solidify the conservative base Reagan married the Republican Party to the Christian Right and the NEA, thereby starting the culture wars. Then Rush Limbaugh picked that baton up and started telling conservatives that liberals were a domestic enemy that needed to destroyed. If you're a conservative adult, then you've grown up listening to tv political pundits and radio talk show hosts tell you that liberals hate you, are laughing at you, and only want to destroy you and your way of life. Forty years and two generations later, Republicans absolutely believe that the greatest threat to America isn't nuclear war, plague, a meteor, China, North Korea or Russia, but Democrats. And they absolutely believe that Democrats have always seen them the same way. It's what they've been told for forty years, and now they "know" it to be true.

The final and total culmination of this is that Republicans have decided that destroying democracy was necessary if it meant destroying the enemy within. After all, if you're at war with an enemy, you don't play nice, and it makes perfect sense to suspend common democratic norms and institutions until that enemy is eliminated.

This is why your warnings aren't finding a receptive audience. You want us to adhere to traditions and norms that one side doesn't follow, and to sit idly by while an entire party has declared all out war on democracy rather than do everything we can to protect and strengthen democracy.

Let me put it more directly: your demand means the end of democracy, pure and simple.

Perotista said:
This is how it should be. This is what I long for. I realize I peeve off the die hards of both parties. So be it. I really don't see any difference at least it their hard core, party first attitude of this modern political era. I'm afraid I'm just a relic from the past. I just don't fit in today's modern political era at all.

There are a great many differences between the two parties, but I won't bore you with a long list and instead tell you the only difference that matters right now: Democrats believe in democracy and want to strengthen it, and Republicans have given up on democracy. That is, right now, the only argument that matters.

post · May 15, 2021

Cardinal said:
That's nice, but for all practical considerations this has the value of the bumper sticker that says "Imagine Whirled Peas."

Okay now we're getting somewhere. If you're working back in time to Reagan in a good faith attempt to understand the problem then you're closer to understanding why your solutions won't work and why your warnings to Democrats (such as eliminating the filibuster) aren't changing any minds.

In order to solidify the conservative base Reagan married the Republican Party to the Christian Right and the NEA, thereby starting the culture wars. Then Rush Limbaugh picked that baton up and started telling conservatives that liberals were a domestic enemy that needed to destroyed. If you're a conservative adult, then you've grown up listening to tv political pundits and radio talk show hosts tell you that liberals hate you, are laughing at you, and only want to destroy you and your way of life. Forty years and two generations later, Republicans absolutely believe that the greatest threat to America isn't nuclear war, plague, a meteor, China, North Korea or Russia, but Democrats. And they absolutely believe that Democrats have always seen them the same way. It's what they've been told for forty years, and now they "know" it to be true.

The final and total culmination of this is that Republicans have decided that destroying democracy was necessary if it meant destroying the enemy within. After all, if you're at war with an enemy, you don't play nice, and it makes perfect sense to suspend common democratic norms and institutions until that enemy is eliminated.

This is why your warnings aren't finding a receptive audience. You want us to adhere to traditions and norms that one side doesn't follow, and to sit idly by while an entire party has declared all out war on democracy rather than do everything we can to protect and strengthen democracy.

Let me put it more directly: your demand means the end of democracy, pure and simple.

There are a great many differences between the two parties, but I won't bore you with a long list and instead tell you the only difference that matters right now: Democrats believe in democracy and want to strengthen it, and Republicans have given up on democracy. That is, right now, the only argument that matters.

Perotista said:
Perhaps, but most federal judges outside of the SCOTUS are approved or confirmed by 80-90 senators. It wouldn't hurt to give it a try. Even some of the SCOTUS nominees received 67 or more votes. Sotomayor 69, Roberts 78, Beyer 87, Ginsberg 96, Souter 90, Kennedy 97, Scalia 98, O'Conner 99 and on back.

You've more than confirmed no coherent debate with you is possible. Why assert what is so easily refuted?

This Congress filled the fewest judgeships since 1952. That leaves a big opening for Trump

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

www.latimes.com

By David G. Savage Staff Writer
Dec. 31, 2016 6 AM PT

Reporting from Washington —
"President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.
By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed..."
More than twice as many vacancies, 107, exist on federal benches than when Bush left office...

post · May 15, 2021

Is it unreasonable to believe Perotista's blog post is grossly misinformed or for the purpose of trolling?

May 21, 2019., updated October 16, 2020 :

How McConnell's Bid to Reshape the Federal Judiciary ...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...elped-trump-set-records-in-appointing-judges/
"McConnell was exposed to the machinations of judicial appointments early in his career, when he worked for Marlow Cook, a U.S. senator from Kentucky who sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee....
...
McConnell himself took credit for the strategy in a December 2019 interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News. When Hannity wondered why President Obama left so many vacancies, McConnell said: “I’ll tell you why. I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.”
McConnell “completely changed the nature of congressional warfare against Obama and Democratic judicial nominees,” Norman Ornstein, a political scientist at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, told FRONTLINE in 2019...
...GOP senators also withheld “blue slips,” which were traditionally given to the two senators from the home state of a judicial nominee for their approval or rejection..."

PolitiFact - Fact-check: Why Barack Obama failed to fill over 100 judgeships

President Donald Trump often celebrates the large number of judicial appointments he’s been able to make. Federal judges

www.politifact.com

"...Sheldon Goldman, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said geography played a big role.

"A large number of vacancies were from states with two Republican senators or one Republican and one Democrat," Goldman explained. "Until McConnell and the Republicans upended the practice of senatorial courtesy, both senators had to sign off on the recommended judicial nominees. Republican senators did their best to delay the process. As we now know, that tactic of obstruct and delay was successful."

Not only could individual Republicans block nominees to courts in their states, there was always the threat of a filibuster.

That lasted until 2013, when Democratic Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked what is called the "nuclear option." For district and circuit court appointments, debate was limited to 30 hours and after that, a simple majority would carry the day.

The nuclear option opened up the second phase that lasted from 2013 to 2014, when nearly 90% of nominations sailed through. Even with that, Ostrander said there was only so much Democrats could do, because of the backlog created during the previous four years..."

Chomsky · May 15, 2021

Perotista said:
It is this modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship that really peeves me off. I'm totally disgusted with it, disgusted with both major parties that promote it and let it rule them. I've never been a partisan, never belong to either major party. So I'm sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything democratic and democrats automatically opposing anything Republican.

I firmly believe that this modern era of our politics will eventually destroy this nation if let to continue. I also think it's this modern era that has led to the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 41% today as both major parties shrink. I think most Americans want the two major parties to work together whenever possible, to compromise and play the old game of give and take. Not to view the other party as this nation's number one enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist, etc.

Americans Favor Compromise to Get Things Done in Washington

Fewer than one in five Americans say political leaders in Washington should stick to their beliefs even if little gets done, while 54% favor compromise.

news.gallup.com

Voters See Each Other as America’s Enemy

U.S. voters now regard each other as a bigger enemy than Russia or North Korea and just as dangerous as China.

www.rasmussenreports.com

I know a lot of democrats blame Trump for our current state of political affairs. But I think Trump was an end product of our modern era, not the cause. The beginning goes back further. Remember McConnell stating he would make Obama a one term president? Then the GOP automatically opposing every thing Obama. You had Schumer in 2007 stating a full year and a half before Bush II presidency was over that the Democratic senate wouldn't take up any Bush II's SCOTUS nominees if an opening occurred. I'd take it back even further to the Hastert Rule once Hastert replaced the GOP fired Gingrich. Perhaps the beginning goes back even further. With the cooperation and working together of Tip O'Neal and Reagan, they being willing to compromise, I'd say it has to be after that. Their working relation was stuff of legends.

Reagan and O’Neill: A political friendship worth recalling

Reagan and O’Neill: A political friendship worth recalling

www.ajc.com

This is how it should be. This is what I long for. I realize I peeve off the die hards of both parties. So be it. I really don't see any difference at least it their hard core, party first attitude of this modern political era. I'm afraid I'm just a relic from the past. I just don't fit in today's modern political era at all.

Actually, I'll opine the beginning of this era started with Gingrich.

Perotista · May 15, 2021

Cardinal said:
That's nice, but for all practical considerations this has the value of the bumper sticker that says "Imagine Whirled Peas."

Okay now we're getting somewhere. If you're working back in time to Reagan in a good faith attempt to understand the problem then you're closer to understanding why your solutions won't work and why your warnings to Democrats (such as eliminating the filibuster) aren't changing any minds.

In order to solidify the conservative base Reagan married the Republican Party to the Christian Right and the NEA, thereby starting the culture wars. Then Rush Limbaugh picked that baton up and started telling conservatives that liberals were a domestic enemy that needed to destroyed. If you're a conservative adult, then you've grown up listening to tv political pundits and radio talk show hosts tell you that liberals hate you, are laughing at you, and only want to destroy you and your way of life. Forty years and two generations later, Republicans absolutely believe that the greatest threat to America isn't nuclear war, plague, a meteor, China, North Korea or Russia, but Democrats. And they absolutely believe that Democrats have always seen them the same way. It's what they've been told for forty years, and now they "know" it to be true.

The final and total culmination of this is that Republicans have decided that destroying democracy was necessary if it meant destroying the enemy within. After all, if you're at war with an enemy, you don't play nice, and it makes perfect sense to suspend common democratic norms and institutions until that enemy is eliminated.

This is why your warnings aren't finding a receptive audience. You want us to adhere to traditions and norms that one side doesn't follow, and to sit idly by while an entire party has declared all out war on democracy rather than do everything we can to protect and strengthen democracy.

Let me put it more directly: your demand means the end of democracy, pure and simple.

There are a great many differences between the two parties, but I won't bore you with a long list and instead tell you the only difference that matters right now: Democrats believe in democracy and want to strengthen it, and Republicans have given up on democracy. That is, right now, the only argument that matters.

That's fine. Hard core partisans want to remain hard core. I understand that. It's impossible to change hard core partisans minds. But perhaps the growing number of independents, swing voters like myself at sometime in the future can step in and say, enough.

Perotista · May 15, 2021

Chomsky said:
Actually, I'll opine the beginning of this era started with Gingrich.

Everyone has different ideas when all of this modern political era began. Which is fine. For me it was the hard core Hastert rule. Gingrich never went that far. But he's as good a starting point as any. We both go back to the 1990's, we're in the same ball park. But Gingrich was fired for not being partisan enough. Just something to think about. Up till the 90's most presidents had folks across the aisle they could work with. That ceased in the 1990's. I think Bill Clinton would have welcomed some republicans to work with. He's my type of guy, more ways than one. At least in my younger days.

IKE had LBJ, then the senate majority leader over to the White House once a week to discuss how to get IKE's agenda through congress. JFK and LBJ both had very close working relationships with Everit Dirksen, the Republican minority leader. You had relationships like this all the way through Reagan with Tip O'Neal and Bush the elder with Rostinkowski until evil befell old Ros. Even Nixon had Monahan from New York. that's all changed.

Cardinal · May 15, 2021

Perotista said:
That's fine. Hard core partisans want to remain hard core. I understand that. It's impossible to change hard core partisans minds. But perhaps the growing number of independents, swing voters like myself at sometime in the future can step in and say, enough.

"Imagine whirled peas."

Cardinal · May 15, 2021

Chomsky said:
Actually, I'll opine the beginning of this era started with Gingrich.

Gingrich was the start of the sickness in Congress, but that had to be the culmination of a grass roots effort, and that effort was the start of the culture wars and the demagoguery of right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh. Without that preliminary foundation, what Gingrich did wouldn't have been tolerated.

Chomsky · May 15, 2021

Cardinal said:
Gingrich was the start of the sickness in Congress, but that had to be the culmination of a grass roots effort, and that effort was the start of the culture wars and the demagoguery of right wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh. Without that preliminary foundation, what Gingrich did wouldn't have been tolerated.

Yep. Limbaugh, the Religious Right, and all the A.M. talk-radio they spawned. Of course the Right Wing are often Religious Right, and vice a versa. So though their religious affiliation, they and their listeners have a born-into divisional mindset, to the point where they may discredit others with being 'unworthy'. Once you remove the others from their full embodiment, it's then easy to treat them as a different class not entitled to equality with yourself.

And that is why they use terms like, 'real Americans', 'true patriots', etc. The implication is that others are not Americans or patriots, therefore you are not entitled to full enfranchisement. It's dangerous stuff.

Perotista · May 15, 2021

Cardinal said:
"Imagine whirled peas."

LOL, good one. Perhaps all we can do, swing voters that is, is to vote for one party one election, then the other the next. If we can keep doing this, put one party into power, take them out two years later, on into infinity. Possibilities exist. Probably real low on the totem poll in probabilities. But we can hope.

I do think it is impossible to convince any partisan or either party that their share of America may amount to only a third of America as a whole. That this country is made up of Democrats, Republicans, independents and a bunch who don't give a coyote's howl about politics or who's in charge or in power. Yeah, I live in a dream world, but I dream of what could be, not what is. Perhaps that the difference between us. Then again, you may be reality where I, fantasy.

But you're always interesting to talk to.

Perotista · May 15, 2021

Chomsky said:
Yep. Limbaugh, the Religious Right, and all the A.M. talk-radio they spawned. Of course the Right Wing are often Religious Right, and vice a versa. So though their religious affiliation, they and their listeners have a born-into divisional mindset, to the point where they may discredit others with being 'unworthy'. Once you remove the others from their full embodiment, it's then easy to treat them as a different class not entitled to equality with yourself.

And that is why they use terms like, 'real Americans', 'true patriots', etc. The implication is that others are not Americans or patriots, therefore you are not entitled to full enfranchisement. It's dangerous stuff.

When it comes to political beliefs, I don't think there's such a thing as a true patriot. A patriot will do what he thinks best for America. At times that may mean defending her in what she's doing and at other times opposing her or at least those in charge.

I'd say one's actions determines who is or isn't a patriot. I'd also say those who say they are true patriots because of their political beliefs, aren't. Then again, who is and isn't patriotic is very subjective. Perhaps the old saying of one's man terrorist maybe another man's freedom fighter applies here. Let's put it this way, one's voting habits doesn't make him a patriot or an enemy.

Cardinal · May 15, 2021

Perotista said:
LOL, good one. Perhaps all we can do, swing voters that is, is to vote for one party one election, then the other the next. If we can keep doing this, put one party into power, take them out two years later, on into infinity. Possibilities exist. Probably real low on the totem poll in probabilities. But we can hope.

I do think it is impossible to convince any partisan or either party that their share of America may amount to only a third of America as a whole. That this country is made up of Democrats, Republicans, independents and a bunch who don't give a coyote's howl about politics or who's in charge or in power. Yeah, I live in a dream world, but I dream of what could be, not what is. Perhaps that the difference between us. Then again, you may be reality where I, fantasy.

But you're always interesting to talk to.

Thank you, but I think your problem is that you focus on the desired positive feeling of a successful outcome (or the negative feeling of an undesirable situation) rather than the mechanism required to arrive at that outcome (or the foundational cause of a problem).

For example...

1)You treat the two parties as the same, yet ignore that one of those parties has quite literally given up on democracy. Until you factor that into your problem solving, you're never going to get anywhere.

2)You don't like how parties are binary, yet haven't done the homework of figuring out why that even is. The answer is that it's effectively built into the nature of majoritarian elections.

If you haven't seen this video already, it explains Duverger's Law, why it always results in a two party system, and the kind of election you'd need to break out of that system.

Chomsky · May 16, 2021

Perotista said:
When it comes to political beliefs, I don't think there's such a thing as a true patriot. A patriot will do what he thinks best for America. At times that may mean defending her in what she's doing and at other times opposing her or at least those in charge.

I'd say one's actions determines who is or isn't a patriot. I'd also say those who say they are true patriots because of their political beliefs, aren't. Then again, who is and isn't patriotic is very subjective. Perhaps the old saying of one's man terrorist maybe another man's freedom fighter applies here. Let's put it this way, one's voting habits doesn't make him a patriot or an enemy.

Agreed. But that was not my point. We know there's no 'real', 'true', etc. But it's being used to divide & marginalize us.

Tbird · May 16, 2021

Chomsky said:
I have no problem ditching the filibuster. If there's a leadership flip, then good - it shows the other guys have better ideas. Having no filibuster would allow the easier implementation of policy, allowing Congress to be more attentive & reactive to the electorate. I support that. I couldn't care less if good policy come from those with a 'R' or a 'D' by their name, as long as it comes!

If ya can't win change the rules. Dems used filibuster over 300 times last year whats up with that?

Cardinal · May 16, 2021

Tbird said:
If ya can't win change the rules. Dems used filibuster over 300 times last year whats up with that?

Source?

Tbird · May 16, 2021

Cardinal said:
Source?

Dems admitted it. Look it up.

Cardinal · May 16, 2021

Tbird said:
Dems admitted it. Look it up.

Where did you see that?

Luther · May 16, 2021

Perotista said:
with Trump as the party's head, I'd say you're right about the GOP being off the rails. Now as a non-partisan, a swing voter, I've come to the conclusion that all three cable news networks are nothing more than propaganda wings for whichever party they support or back. There, I have to disagree. That's a problem with most of the media today, they've taken sides in our political battles. Which has led to distrust of the media as a whole. No more straight news, no more reporting the news fully, accurately and fair. It's all done with the intent of keeping their viewership happy by giving them the news in the manner, slanted in the way they want to receive or hear the news.

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media

A steady 40% of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust in the mass media when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly.

news.gallup.com

and

56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."

58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.

Trust in media hits new crisis low

Fewer than half of all Americans trust traditional media.

www.axios.com

I wager to say, most of this distrust has been brought about by cable news where Fox is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the GOP while MSNBC and CNN are the propaganda wings of the democratic Party.

While Democrats trust the media, 73%, Republicans distrust the media, 10% do. They're very partisan. I think one needs to look at how independents view this and not either major party with all their partisanship and biases. 36% of all independents, the less to non-partisans, the non-affiliated, trust the media to report the news fully, fairly and accurately. Why, they see how the news is spun, slanted etc. in favor of either whichever news network supports.

but be poisonous long term.

The Democrats are winning the "Long term"

Besides, "Elections matter less, liberals are winning the culture wars"

Perotista · May 16, 2021

Chomsky said:
Agreed. But that was not my point. We know there's no 'real', 'true', etc. But it's being used to divide & marginalize us.

I seen that thrown around by both sides. More from the GOP side for sure. But come to think of it, most coming from the Democrats were on the negative side of patriot whereas patriot was used mostly by Republicans. Examples ranged from if you don't vote for Trump, you're not a true patriot or American, etc. Then there have been many who said if you voted for Trump you're a traitor, a NAZI, a fascist and more.

If you're on one side or the other, you only notice the name calling from the other side, you ignore the name calling from your side or you think name calling is okay because in your mind you think it's true. This isn't to excuse any or all of this. It happens, the sad thing is a lot of these name callers, maybe most actually believe it.

So in many posters here, if you a Trump supporter, you're a traitor and NAZI and if you're against Trump, you're not a patriot, true or real and anti-America. To see this one just has to scroll through all the post on any Trump related thread. Just think about it or try scrolling the different threads.

Perotista · May 16, 2021

Luther said:
The Democrats are winning the "Long term"

Besides, "Elections matter less, liberals are winning the culture wars"

Maybe they are. But the GOP choose a candidate that drove independents into the Democratic column, thus giving them an advantage in the culture wars. From 2010 through 2016 a majority of independents were voting Republican. 2018 that changed. Not that independents all of a sudden took sides in the culture wars, most probably don't know what a culture war was. But they took sides against Trump, someone they really disliked for his childish antics of name calling, throwing temper tantrums, his 3rd grade schoolyard bullying tactics and plain unpresidential behavior.

Their votes in 2018 and 2020 were against Trump, not necessarily for the Democrats. This is something all the numbers and exit polls show, but something the Republicans won't admit. The GOP wants to remain the party of Trump, their choice for sure. Perhaps by nominating Trump and having him as your champion, you gave the democrats a huge leg up in the culture wars.

Luther · May 16, 2021

Perotista said:
Maybe they are. But the GOP choose a candidate that drove independents into the Democratic column, thus giving them an advantage in the culture wars. From 2010 through 2016 a majority of independents were voting Republican. 2018 that changed. Not that independents all of a sudden took sides in the culture wars, most probably don't know what a culture war was. But they took sides against Trump, someone they really disliked for his childish antics of name calling, throwing temper tantrums, his 3rd grade schoolyard bullying tactics and plain unpresidential behavior.

Their votes in 2018 and 2020 were against Trump, not necessarily for the Democrats. This is something all the numbers and exit polls show, but something the Republicans won't admit. The GOP wants to remain the party of Trump, their choice for sure. Perhaps by nominating Trump and having him as your champion, you gave the democrats a huge leg up in the culture wars.

But the GOP choose a candidate that drove independents into the Democratic column, thus giving them an advantage in the culture wars

Again "Elections matter less, liberals are winning the CULTURE WARS"

Helix · May 16, 2021

Democrats are not good at prioritization, and they seem to always underestimate their political opponents. they also don't understand it when their opponents are playing win at any and all costs. it is happening now, and they are preventing themselves from doing anything about it because they refuse to understand the lack of rules. if i were sitting in any Democratic leadership meeting, i would be sounding every alarm available to me until they dragged me out of the room.

Luther · May 16, 2021

Perotista said:
Maybe they are. But the GOP choose a candidate that drove independents into the Democratic column, thus giving them an advantage in the culture wars. From 2010 through 2016 a majority of independents were voting Republican. 2018 that changed. Not that independents all of a sudden took sides in the culture wars, most probably don't know what a culture war was. But they took sides against Trump, someone they really disliked for his childish antics of name calling, throwing temper tantrums, his 3rd grade schoolyard bullying tactics and plain unpresidential behavior.

Their votes in 2018 and 2020 were against Trump, not necessarily for the Democrats. This is something all the numbers and exit polls show, but something the Republicans won't admit. The GOP wants to remain the party of Trump, their choice for sure. Perhaps by nominating Trump and having him as your champion, you gave the democrats a huge leg up in the culture wars.

But the GOP choose a candidate that drove independents into the Democratic column,

That was also largely due to our weak citizenry falling for all the COVID rhetoric

yep

Perotista · May 16, 2021

Luther said:
That was also largely due to our weak citizenry falling for all the COVID rhetoric

yep

Independents had departed Trump way before the Pandemic. If anything, the pandemic just reinforced their departure. Numbers 2016, independents went for Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against Trump and Clinton. That's still 54% of all independents voting against Trump, Clinton's 42% plus the 12% who voted against both. 2018, independents voted for democratic congressional candidates 54-42. In 2020, independents voted for Biden 54-41. Strange how that 54% keeps coming up. The fact is approximately 54% of all independents didn't like Trump from the beginning. This doesn't have a thing to do with the culture wars, but it does show one's party champion as being the weak link in those culture wars.

For your information, independents in Nov 2020, Trump received 41% of their vote, Republican congressional candidate received 48.1% of the independents vote, Republican senate candidates 51.4% of the independents vote. Seems a lot of independents voted Biden, then Republican down ballot. It's hard for me to see independents coming back to the Republican Party as long as Trump is the head or face of it. Time will tell. Perhaps the culture wars are lost, but if so, Trump sped up that loss, he didn't even slow it down.

Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop

Respected On All Sides

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop

How McConnell's Bid to Reshape the Federal Judiciary ...​

Social Democrat

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides

Social Democrat

Respected On All Sides

Social Democrat

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides

Another California Refugee

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media​

Another California Refugee

Another California Refugee

How McConnell's Bid to Reshape the Federal Judiciary ...

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media