Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Monday, February 10, 2020

The Clinton-era expert speaks out

Sporting a new bow tie but brandishing the same political philosophy as earlier, this liberal icon of American political commentary is fired up and telling the Democrat Party off. “We’re losing our damn minds,” he exclaims, with the urgency of someone about to be pushed over the edge. Carville is the epitome of strategists, making Republicans look like crooks in a mediocre way by keeping his tactics, and those around him, principled and honorable.

He says the Dems must be "Majoritarian," a word I have missed, if a part of the current liberal jargon. Here's the definition...
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Majoritarian democracy, as opposed to constitutional democracy, refers to democracy based upon majority rule of a society's citizens. Majoritarian democracy is the conventional form of democracy used as a political system in many countries."
What worries me most is his opinion of the current tribe of 2020 Democratic candidates; he's not impressed with any of them, including Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg. All this amid a chaotic Iowa Caucus that it isn't clear is settled yet. In the middle of this article, there is another piece, "Bernie Sanders leads Donald Trump in polls, even when you remind people he’s a socialist," and Carville has this comment...
"But back to Sanders — what I’m saying is the Democratic Party isn’t Bernie Sanders, whatever you think about Sanders."
And he's right, Bernie Sanders is where the liberals, call them Progressives or Democrats, are going for the future. Hillary Clinton screwed up 2016, ably assisted by the conniving of then DNC head, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leading to an Electoral loss but a huge margin in the popular vote winning by over 3-million. Carville thinks Bernie could win the electoral--and I believe the popular vote in larger numbers than Clinton--but we won't regain the Senate.

And, of course, there is no way a Democrat/Progressive would get anything done in the White House with Moscow Mitch McConnell heading up the Senate, even though the Bern would probably hold on to the House. David Faris outlines his plan to fix all this in his book, "It's Time to Fight Dirty." This is how James Carville would fix it...
"The Democratic Party is the party of African Americans. It’s becoming a party of educated suburbanites, particularly women. It’s the party of Latinos. We’re a party of immigrants. Most of the people aren’t into all this distracting shit about open borders and letting prisoners vote. They don’t care. They have lives to lead. They have kids. They have parents that are sick. That’s what we have to talk about. That’s all we should talk about."
But when you look at the other Democratic candidates, it is clear that their focus is on those people above with programs like Sanders' fight against inequality, Bloomberg's gun control, Biden's appeal to the blacks, to name a few. James is right on racism; the only one in the campaign who really emphasized this issue was Corey Booker, and he is no longer running. And surprisingly, the ragin Cajun doesn't support free education for fear of pisssing off those who had to work their way through school.

Another thing I don't understand is his inability to grasp the fact that liberals are, in fact, slowly moving farther to the left and there is a quiet revolution of those of us who are fed up with the overall inequities between the elite wealthy and us normal folks. James Carville is looking for a "winning message," as he describes it, and I am not sure his reasoning here when Bernie Sanders has a hold on millennials numbering 71 million; that's a hell of a base to start with.

Carville closes with...
"I think the other side wants us to think there are no swing voters, that we’re doomed and it doesn’t even matter if you have a message because you can’t reach anyone. I think that’s bullshit. I think that’s a wholly incorrect view of American politics. But look, if no one’s persuadable, then let’s just have the revolution.
"Falling into despair won’t help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle. I’m getting a fucking welding torch. Okay?"
You have to give the ragin Cajun his due, successfully steering Bill Clinton to wins in two presidential campaigns. I think the point here is to temper what he has said with the solid push to the left, which long time Democrats can't seem to get their minds around and come up with the winning combination. Not only to just win big in 2020, but to carry the left ahead in the future with solid issues there affect not only the left, but the right as well.   A MUST READ HERE!

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Republicans win by gerrymandering

Don't think so and Republican gerrymandering (manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class) will do exactly that. The GOP is expert at this illegal tactic, snowing Dems for years. Now, a Michigan grassroots group, opposed by Republicans, is petitioning for an independent commission to redraw political maps. NBC News believes it is a disgraceful national tradition with major effects on communities of color. But, the Dems and the GOP both do it, with humans drawing the lines, which basically removes all subjectivity.

Gerrymandering is illegal...

Case making gerrymandering illegal...

Gerrymandering hurts needy most...

Both Parties gerrymander...

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

OK 2017 is almost here-What do we do with it?

As a passionate Progressive, I would still welcome a loophole in the Donald Trump presidency, but until that happens, the left must look ahead to what we have to work with. Right now the Democrats are in something of a shambles, with Hillary Clinton no longer able to lead the Party and a new leader not yet even emerging. My choice, of course, is Bernie Sanders, and also the choice of most other Progressives, but the legions of politicians has grown quiet, until we are able to swallow the inauguration of Donald John Trump. That will be hard to do for many.

For the new DC chairman, the early choice, Keith Ellison, Minnesota congressman and ally of Bernie Sanders, has run into trouble. Politico reports...
"On the heels of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s troubled tenure as DNC chief, the issue of whether Ellison will commit full-time to the job poses a threat to his candidacy..."
My guess is that Wasserman-Schultz had the time but she just wasn't competent enough for the job. CNN says that, "...2017 will be a year for the history books." We knew that the day the Electoral College met and made its grim decision. That quiet you hear out there across the country are those voters of sound mind who didn't vote for Trump, and who are holding their breath in fear of the future. Most individuals are capable of handling most challenges sent their way, but the worst thing to confront is the unknown. Donald Trump is the epitome of the unknown.

Celebrities shun Donald Trump like the plague video...

With GOP control of both Houses of Congress, and a Republican in the White House, the outlook is fairly dim for the left, particularly for Progressives. Democrats have steadily moved to the center, which is one goo reason the Party is losing so many elections. Republicans have staunchly maintained their conservative positions on issues, establishing an identity that supporters can follow. The Dems are fractured with no single ideology to look up to, nor any individual to carry the torch. Until they find that, there could be even more Donald Trumps. God forbid.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

What do Republicans have that Democrats don't?

PASSION. It's very simple, you can see it in all factions of the conservatives; when the vote is critical, they turn out. The Democrats, or at least most of them, put their tails between their legs and just stay home when the heat is on. it's pathetic and God knows how many elections we've lost in the last few years. On the bright side, Bernie Sanders brought out the Progressives, and think they did their part in the primaries but Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee had the whole thing rigged from the start. Bernie should have won.

On the other hand, President Obama said on Monday that the reason for Democratic voters not showing up was the fault of the Clinton campaign for not hitting the Dems' strongholds. He cited an instance where, in his support of Clinton, he wanted to go to Iowa where he had won handily but the Clinton people felt he was better needed elsewhere. He also added, "...candidates in the future should ignore at their own peril the places Democrats haven't traditionally performed well." Further...
"...some Democrats have accused Clinton of maintaining a relaxed campaign schedule, bypassing states like Wisconsin and Iowa where Obama won in 2012."
The blame game is, of course, easy to play with hindsight, but the real question here is what brought out more Republican voters than Democrats? We know there was a huge wave of demand for change, to get rid of the Washington that has only performed for the politicians and given us the same crap year after year. Donald Trump seemed to fill that bill and was elected, but we still have a Congress that has an approval rating of 13% and can't seem to get rid of them. Much of this can be attributed to the GOP gerrymandering that Wasserman and the DNC saw fit to do nothing about over the years.

Reports are that the Republican turnout surged this year while Democrats were just dormant. With Obama the Dems' stronghold was the college educated, young and non-white. Bernie Sanders had two of these categories, could have possibly gotten the other, and one must wonder, if he had won the primary, would the election outcome have been different. There is one bit of difference in Democrats that is recently becoming obvious; the Progressive faction of the party...Bernie's people. I am a Progressive, passionate about those beliefs and a firm supporter of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't even consider not voting and frankly don't understand those who stayed home from the polls on November 8, and let what happened come about. Donald Trump. Here's the kicker, Gallup reports that as of October 2014, polling found that 43% of Americans identified as Democrats and 39% as Republicans. There are 4% more of us than them and we still can't win an election. It's a disgrace and something that should make those slackers sit up and take notice. The big question is, can we expect them to turn out in 2018.

Saturday, May 16, 2015


At first there was an agreement that online voting was a good thing for both parties until...Republicans did their research. Now they're getting cold feet; Florida is backing out due to "outlandish claims opposing an online registration measure." Texas GOP lawmakers are afraid of fraud; this coming from the party of fraud. But Pew Research found "that 22 states plus the District of Columbia, representing more than half of all eligible voters, will offer the chance to register online for the 2016 election." The hard facts are that blacks and Hispanics, traditionally voting democrat, have more computers and smart phones than they have in the past. Today, 80% of blacks are internet users compared to 83% of Hispanics. It has become clear that Republicans will fight any form of voting that does not favor their party and that illustrates the desperation of the GOP for votes.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015


Republicans say the priority of Congress is national security and terrorism. The Dems say it's jobs creation and economic growth. As far as I know we are doing everything possible to prevent a terrorist threat, as evidenced by some recent captures of bad guys before they had the chance to act. We can't possibly know everything that's going on but Homeland Security seems to be doing its job. What we do know is that the GOP throws out the terrorism threat for basically two reasons. One, keep their electorate scared so they can drum up the issue during elections for votes. Two, if they can keep the American public anxious, they can pass more defense spending that goes right in the pockets of their supporters. For Republicans, terrorism was followed by the deficit and government spending, job creation and economic growth and religious and moral values. For the Dems, second was health care, climate change and then national security and terrorism. Take your pick but I would much rather live in a country of full employment, with the sick and needy taken care of and breathe air that won't asphyxiate me. Any of the three would probably kill me before any terrorist threat.

Friday, April 10, 2015


Political researchers have said, “When uninformed citizens receive political information, they systematically shift their political preferences away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats," according to Aljazeera America. That says mountains about Republican voters who depend on the negativity of the GOP, accompanied by Fox (faux) News, and the Tea Party to make their decisions. If putting down their opponents isn't enough, Republicans resort to hate for their message. It is what I call trickle down abomination and seems to be a formula that has worked for the GOP.

Because there is no opposition from Progressives, 

Wednesday, April 8, 2015


The Pew Research Center has found that 39% of Americans consider themselves Independent voters, having left the two major parties in frustration. I am one of them. But the balance is aligned as follows: Democrats 32%; Republicans 23%. But around 90% of Independents do lean either left or right. Of these leaners 48% are Democrats, 39% are Republicans. Among the registered voters of this group, 48% are Democratic, 43% Republican. So how have we lost so many elections to the GOP recently? Because you Progressives are sitting on your butts and not voting.

Monday, March 30, 2015


A 2007 Study found that non-voters are more economically liberal, preferring Barack over Mitt Romney 59% to 24%. Marginal voters, those affected by weather or election timing, are liberal. Among the 34 million registered to vote in 2010 midterms, 63.1% were Democrats. Liberals do benefit from high voter turnout, which can also be volatile. So, from this should we assume that liberals are lazy couch potatoes afraid of the rain who vote only when they see a crowd collecting at the polls?

Wednesday, March 25, 2015


Aljazeera America says, "The best way to create a progressive America is voting reform." We need "...
 to invest in unleashing the disgruntled progressive majority. A longer-term strategy for progressives should be to strengthen unions and boost turnout among politically marginalized populations."

"If everybody in this country voted,” the economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, “the Democrats would be in for the next 100 years.” Pew Research found "Nonvoters preferred Barack Obama to Mitt Romney by 59 percent to 24 percent..."

Obviously you are there, you progressives I mean, so when election day comes you're just sitting there on your butt? Too damn lazy to go vote and bring this country back to a sane political state. Don't you see what you've done, just look at the Republican Congress. That should shame even the worst of couch potatoes.

Think about it!

Tuesday, November 4, 2014


If you are of a mind, go to the polls and vote DEMOCRAT! if you aren't of a mind, at least go to the polls and vote!

Friday, October 31, 2014


A CNN poll says 70% of the U.S. is angry at the direction of the country. The question is what percentage of that group is registered voters? Let's just hypothetically guess that all of the 70% are and they are mad enough to vote all the deadbeats in Washington out of office. I'm talking both parties, although the expunction would naturally apply mostly to the GOP. Yes, we have arrived at that point. But it probably won't happen because so many voters out there are simply unconscious and have no idea who or what they are voting for. The only thing they know for sure is what the negative advertising tells them and their decisions depend, for the most part, on which politician or political group spend the most money. Pathetic but true.

36% of Republican voters are extremely angry, compared to on 26% of Democrats. It makes sense that the GOP turnout would be higher because they have the Senate to gain. But what baffles me is why Dems don't understand that, while they do hold a majority in the Senate, they could lose it if they don't vote. Duh?

Tuesday, October 21, 2014


The Gallup Poll reports that Independent voters dropped from 47% in early September to 42% three weeks later. There was a similar drop in July/August. The question is whether they have made up their minds which way they will cast their ballots or is the glut of negative advertising just causing a seesaw effect? In another finding Gallup says Democrats, including their "leaners" total 48% compared to Republicans 44% in the same September period. Progressives will need Independents in November, but, then so will the GOP.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

You will vote in November how your TV tells you to

Well, that’s not all of us.  There are still some thinking individuals out there that will examine the issues and closely evaluate the candidates, then cast their votes in an intelligent way.  Sure, they also watch the television ads but most of them just laugh off the sheer stupidity of two sides trying to make each other look like idiots, socialists, lovers of money, suckers for the needy, the list goes on and on.  That’s the reason most of us have to go to the trenches for our information. 

The GOP is best at the attack and hate ads, created and nurtured to this day by GWB’s top henchman, Karl Rove.  In his latest, “President Barack Obama wears shades, sings Al Green, dances with Ellen DeGeneres, quaffs a Guinness, calls hip-hop megastar Kanye West a ‘jackass,’ and "slow jams the news with Jimmy Fallon.” He is being portrayed as a “rock star,” according to Oliver Knox of Yahoo News.  A dangerous point being made is that popularity is bad.

My headline is based on an article on CNN by Julian Zelizer, “How political ads can elect a president,” that illustrates the issue by documenting some current and past political advertising.  He starts with Rove’s American Crossroads group in an ad claiming that President Obama has “failed to help American families.”  Although the fact that the President hasn’t been able to help these folks is true, the blame lies entirely with Republicans that block everything he does.

You might remember Roger Ailes, Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign consultant who said, “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it."  Nixon didn’t and he lost the election to John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes.  It was Dwight Eisenhower, who Nixon served with as VP, who took the advice of Rosser Reeves who thought it the best way to reach the voters.  He was right.

President Obama

On the other hand, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, a statesman, not a politician, said, "The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process." Eisenhower won that election and the process of “merchandising” a candidate was here to stay.  What is so pathetic is the fact that treating candidates like a commodity has taken away the public’s ability to know just what they stand for…only against.

If you want to see what the old political ads on television looked like, Zelizer suggests a site called Living Room Candidate, which lists them from 1952 to 2008.  The latter an election of both parties offering change instead of more of the same.  An African-American President was elected for the first time over an old warhorse that should have quit long ago, Arizona Senator John McCain.  Well what we did get was change but in the form of a divisive GOP against Obama.

Media doesn't believe in transparency of political ads video:

Zelizer illustrates what types of spots will dictate how your decision will be made in voting for President in November.  First there is the “character assassination spot,” designed to show “perceived weakness of their opponent.”  Lyndon Johnson used this in his “Daisy ad” which was supposed to portray Barry Goldwater with his finger on the nuclear button.  It did and Johnson won.  Eisenhower utilized ads like “High Prices” affecting voters at the time.

GOP, the party of NO
In 1972, Richard Nixon used how Democrats would cut the defense budget, thus, weakening the security of the U.S. to beat George McGovern.  Then in 1988 there was George H. W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad to show Michael Dukakis was weak on law and order.  Bush won.  As an example of the ludicrousness of these ads, the prison furlough program, involving Willie Horton, wasn’t even signed into law by Dukakis.  But the oblivious bunch didn’t bother to find that out.

Zelizer leaves us with the “I am good and you should elect me” spot.  {My terminology}  He says the candidates boast of either what they have accomplished or what they will accomplish.  Jimmy Carter used this in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1984, and Barack Obama with his “Change” slogan in 2008.  All three were elected, although some negativity crept in on both sides.  But it was clearly refreshing while it lasted.

The author warns that Obama and Romney must be careful of the spots they run, as well as those run by Super Pacs that seem to have created a life of their own.  The Pacs are almost completely uncontrolled in the money they can raise and the people they get it from, particularly when it comes to identifying amounts and the donors.  And this is where most of the dirt and hate originates from.  It’ll be interesting to see just how many “positive” messages we get leading up to Nov.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

It’s the jobs…stupid

President Obama didn’t say that.  I did, with no remorse for the comment.  It was directed at Rpublicans in Congress who are keeping more people from going back to work and preventing those already jobless from getting the benefits necessary to find work by opposing the President’s Jobs legislation.  We are in this situation because GOP policies don’t work, having had 8 years under George W. Bush to force them down the throats of the American public.

The White House has provided some interesting material to bloggers and other media nationwide designed to get the President’s jobs bill before the American public so they can dare Republicans and some reluctant Democrats not to back it.  If I were jobless, or had a relative or even knew someone who was jobless—and I do—I would tell my congressional representative to pass this bill…or else.  And I will.

Yes.  Enough is enough!  It’s time to back the “no-sayers” into a corner and make them accountable for not supporting Obama in his drive to put folks back to work.  And here’s how he’ll do it:

·       Tax cuts for small business
·       Putting workers back to work while rebuilding America
·       Extension of unemployment insurance
·       Tax relief for the American family
·       Fully paid for by Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan

Go to the White House page and see how The American Jobs Act affects your state.  You can also see what the Act means to schools and download fact sheets: Comprehensive, Short.  There is an overview on the major points of the bill including, Tax Cuts, Rebuilding America, Pathways to work, Tax Relief and Method of paying for the program.  If you are up to it, you can read the entire 199 pages of the Act at this site.

The President says his jobs act will create 1.9 million jobs which should be music to the ears of the jobless.  That crescendo you hear building from the working class should resonate with the obstructionists in the GOP as a warning that, come 2012, they are the people who will most likely go to the polls.  But this isn’t about an election or politics at all, this is about survival.

MR. PRESIDENT: If you look frail, if you talk frail, and if you walk frail, you must be frail...

      ...too frail to lead this country for another four years. I know, we all know, what you are afraid of; the lunatic who could win the ...