The House Is Burning Down In Democratic Party, ‘We’re Going to Cease Being a National Party’

a reply to: ketsuko
Okay.....
Can't argue with that.

originally posted by: xuenchen
we better get our act together or we’re going to cease being a national party. We’re going to be a regional party that fails to get into the majority, and fails to do things on behalf of those working class people that were the backbone of the Democratic Party for so long. we better get our stuff together.”

I've been hearing that a lot. In fact, I've been hearing a lot of Dems spouting almost identical talking points other Republicans have themselves for quite some time, including Trump. I read the DNC party objectives the other day and there was a lot in there about jobs but I didn't hear HRC touting that much at all. The DNC may say they want to encourage job growth but their actions don't back up their words.

When any party fails to connect with the working class people, they have failed....period. It's just a matter of time before the elected appointments reflect the disenchanted voters. The Dems should have never left the working class, no party should. But I am worried that the people may be so jaded at this point, it may take quite a while to recover. But one bad move by Trump or the Rep party could set things on the level again. Who knows.

Democratic party is in ruins. Should have never pushed the ACA. It was a Trojan Horse. Nobody can fix healthcare. Poor people die. That is the way it has always been and always will be. If you can't afford something you can't have it and you can't force other people to pay for something you did not earn. Try to make others pay for it and they will revolt.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
The Democratic party of old is not the party today. It has turned in to a socialist party and if you look at Bernie Sanders popularity that has support. Hitler's Nazi party were Democratic Socialist. That and what is going on in the streets should concern everyone about where they are headed.

It was the communist/socialist plan from way back to infiltrate the education system and influence young minds to turn to socialism. Not Capitalist Socialism, but the socialism of former communist countries. The thing about that is that now we know socialism and central planning doesn't work, unless you want to end up like Venezuela or what the soviet union used to be.

The Republican party is now where the Democratic party of old was.

Yet if you ask a socialist, they will tell you that the Democratic Party politically is now where the Republican Party used to be. How can one call the present Democratic Party socialist when the party structure is decidedly pro-banking system and pro-wall street. These were two of the major complaints by Republicans during this election. Socialists by definition want to do away with the central banking system and eschew Wall street.

Oh, and by the way. Hitler's National Socialist Party had nothing to do with socialism. They took that name because of their fear that the German people would take up the reigns of socialism so they named themselves 'socialist' to present themselves as such, but in reality were nothing like socialism at all.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
The Democratic party of old is not the party today. It has turned in to a socialist party and if you look at Bernie Sanders popularity that has support. Hitler's Nazi party were Democratic Socialist. That and what is going on in the streets should concern everyone about where they are headed.

It was the communist/socialist plan from way back to infiltrate the education system and influence young minds to turn to socialism. Not Capitalist Socialism, but the socialism of former communist countries. The thing about that is that now we know socialism and central planning doesn't work, unless you want to end up like Venezuela or what the soviet union used to be.

The Republican party is now where the Democratic party of old was.

Actually, the Democrat Party has shifted RIGHT since Bill Clinton. The old school Democrats were more left, by far. Hillary Clinton is a war monger and neo liberal shill on economics, both right wing attributes..

Also, most historians and political scientists put fascism as a squarely far right wing phenomenon, not left... Ignore "national socialism." It wasn't socialist, nor communist. As Mussolini stated, fascism was the merger of corporations and government.

But it's also hyper nationalism, traditionalism, authoritarianism, often racism and anti immigrant. These too are considered RIGHT WING attributes.

Ignore your American debates. Look at the actual definitions globally. You can't define things based on just American politics.

For example, on a global scale the Republicans are pretty far right wing, and current Democrats are center at best and more realistically center right.

a reply to: StoutBroux

The thinking I kept hearing from the liberal voter I interacted with was that the white working class was just getting old and would die off so they could basically ignore it. If that's really what the Democrat leadership thought or thinks, they were premature.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What do you think Obamacare was if not a "merger of corporations and government"?

Looks like he is already...

"Making America Great Again".

Is it too soon for the Nobel ?

If Obama would have been 100% against the bailouts I would have switched sides. The bailouts did nothing but enrich the same people that caused the problem. Many solvent banks and companies could have absorbed the business and not only thrived, but made the markets better. My bank has always been in the black. Never took a handout. Car companies in the black would have done even better. Obama had the chance to change the game. He kept it the same.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: spirit_horse
The Democratic party of old is not the party today. It has turned in to a socialist party and if you look at Bernie Sanders popularity that has support. Hitler's Nazi party were Democratic Socialist. That and what is going on in the streets should concern everyone about where they are headed.

It was the communist/socialist plan from way back to infiltrate the education system and influence young minds to turn to socialism. Not Capitalist Socialism, but the socialism of former communist countries. The thing about that is that now we know socialism and central planning doesn't work, unless you want to end up like Venezuela or what the soviet union used to be.

The Republican party is now where the Democratic party of old was.

Yet if you ask a socialist, they will tell you that the Democratic Party politically is now where the Republican Party used to be. How can one call the present Democratic Party socialist when the party structure is decidedly pro-banking system and pro-wall street. These were two of the major complaints by Republicans during this election. Socialists by definition want to do away with the central banking system and eschew Wall street.

Oh, and by the way. Hitler's National Socialist Party had nothing to do with socialism. They took that name because of their fear that the German people would take up the reigns of socialism so they named themselves 'socialist' to present themselves as such, but in reality were nothing like socialism at all.

Amen. A lot of US conservatives don't really understand what left versus right means.

a reply to: ketsuko

Trump got more latino and black votes than Romney. There are some glaring red flags right there. It's not just white honkey folks who are sick of them.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What do you think Obamacare was if not a "merger of corporations and government"?

I think you misunderstand. I've already stated that both parties are basically right wing.. Hence, yes, I accuse establishment Democrats like Obama and Clinton of being, just like Bush, right wing pro-corporate, pro oligarchy shills...

Yes, Obamacare has its issues.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: StoutBroux

The thinking I kept hearing from the liberal voter I interacted with was that the white working class was just getting old and would die off so they could basically ignore it. If that's really what the Democrat leadership thought or thinks, they were premature.

You are thinking mainline faux-liberals, i.e. your average democrat. That's not really real progressives though, agreed?

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes and no... the republicans have such a massive level of control at all levels of goverment from the state legislature, governors, congress... and now the oval office.

The democrats are in grave danger of becoming irrelevent, they need to get back to speaking to all americans, rather than pandering to the big cities.

a reply to: ketsuko

premature indeed, the baby boomers are old but there`s a lot of them,many of them are past retirement age but still working because they can`t afford to retire, so when Hillary started talking about FREE college educations that didn`t sit well with the boomers. nothing is free and the boomers who have to work past retirement age didn`t want any part of paying higher taxes so Hillary could give away free college educations.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Everyone thought the Republicans were dead after Obama was elected too.

Fortunes can rise and fall pretty quickly in American politics. If Trump doesn't deliver or the Democrats find a way to get their act together, they can turn it around just as quickly, and in eight years, we'll all be sitting around drinking heavily while they get ready to swear in some bright young socialist phenom.

I agree with this, although Trump can make a lot of lasting changes by appointing people to the supreme court and working with a House and Senate that are overloaded with Republicans. There were a lot of Republican governors elected as well, and they will be redistricting in 2020 - this process, if done by a biased party (let's take Republicans for example), can break up Democratic neighborhoods into different shards, each paired with a Republican majority in order to make it harder for Democrats to get elected.

However, if his policies fail and end up hurting a lot of Americans, I'm sure there will be a counter-movement with a lot of great reasons to be against Trump and the ridiculously extreme Republicans he's buddying up with.

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: ketsuko

Trump got more latino and black votes than Romney. There are some glaring red flags right there. It's not just white honkey folks who are sick of them.

It's also a lie that educated women didn't vote for him, too.

I certainly was in good company there.

a reply to: darkbake

It can, but if you look at a county but county electoral map, there really aren't a lot of truly Democrat neighborhoods to break up.

a reply to: ketsuko

Trump got 29% of the Latino vote, 6% of the black vote, and 53% of the white women vote. He also got 63% of the white male voters. I think we can see who likes him and who doesn't from this data.

Democrats ran a bad candidate, that was the only problem in this election.