2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: What does "looking Presidential" mean anyway? [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)Where all the front runners are either fucking barking mad and/or outright theocrats (many both).
And meanwhile, this same GOP has not only a majority in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, but also a majority in governorships and state legislatures!
So, by all means, let's all continue to make infantile arguments about Bernie vs Hillary (like the White House alone makes political reality). My question is, under the US Constitution, what good is the White House when one has nothing else? that is right, nothing.
And why is that? It is simple. In spite of the partisan demographics, Republicans vote and Democrats don't. Fuck the GOP voter suppression tactics. The Democrats have been doing the GOP work for years.
The extent to which Democrats do not vote is the extent to which they lose. And in case nobody has been paying attention, we are losing everywhere. We are hanging by fingernails by a White House. If we lose that, we are all lost.
Vote! Vote Democratic! Or we may be lost. It is that simple. Our opponents have nearly everything. To deny that is to deny reality. Meanwhile two year old DUers here fight over Bernie vs Hillary months before any election. Typical US focus; ignore the big picture.
The UK and Canada have national elections, often with a few weeks notice. The US seems to be in perpetual national elections. Who does that serve? And what good does that do? I would argue nobody and nothing.
Some here are arguing for more Democratic debates a whole year before the election and months before any primary. Rubbish! I want US presidential campaigns to be six months long (at most -- UK and Canada often do it six weeks) between declaration and the November election.
Either that, or maybe we could turn the debates into a kind of "Survivor" episode, where the participants can vote somebody off the island. Given the ignorance of the US public it would make good TV, and it would make a lot of money for the sponsoring networks, but I do not think the public would be well served.
Which brings one back to what is happening here. Who does all this sturm und drang here serve? I argue that is not the Democratic Party, nor any principles on which it is based.
And BTW, I am utterly disgusted that there are so many DUers who apparently do not understand this.