Cal88 said:
heartofthebear said:
bearlyamazing said:
sycasey said:
Let's also take a moment to note how sad your situation is if you have to trumpet a poll that still shows you below 50%.
Sixty-three percent approving of his handling of the economy, which Gallup said, "is the highest economic approval rating not only for Trump, but for any president since George W. Bush enjoyed stratospheric job approval ratings in the first few months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
That's a good comparison. Bush's popularity was based on lies and, by the end of his presidency, his party was in shambles. In fact his party is still in shambles, and that is what allowed a guy like Trump to emerge. There just wasn't anybody else with any life to provide America.
Well now we have a similar situation. Trump's popularity is based on lies. And, once that is exposed, and it will be because he opens his mouth and admits most of it, the party will descend back down to the level from whence it came.
There really is no future for a party that is 100% self servicing and 100% about money. There are other things, like reality, that will inevitably seep into the political arena. Global climate change is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the warning signs that the Republic party is not prepared to deal with the future. You can stick your head in the sand about reality, but eventually someone is going to come along and kick your A while you do it.
Bold part is true, but really, the same applies to the Democrats today, who have become the political establishment and the billionaires' party. There is very little difference in the foreign policy of Bush and that pursued by Obama and his SoS Hilary.
The DNC is crushing its anti-establishment wing and shafting Bernie right off the starting gate this time around, at least they were more subtle about it in 2016.
I agree
The Democrats have a legitimate dilemma. They, as a party, really aren't popular enough to win. They need the help of non Dems. But, if they go left to get them, they lose the right, if they go right to get them, they lose the left. If they stay in the center, not enough folks will come out to vote because they aren't extreme enough to ignite passion. The democrats say that they want unity and to move forward in this country. But we cannot even get bills passed because of the division. And the division is real and has really existed for over a hundred years going back to the civil war days.
The division is between 2 basic world views.
- The world is a game of survival of the fittest. It is a zero sum game to be awarded to the strongest. The winners get the spoils and get to keep them. Economic systems should reflect this fundamental truth and capitalism is the best at doing that. No winner should be responsible for the plight of the loser.
- All are created equal and the role of government is to assure that this basic truth gets enforced and administered through law and economic justice.
There are plenty of folks that fit in the middle between these two basic views. They feel either is too extreme and they struggle to find a consistent way of voting. These "persuadables" are what has been at stake in recent elections. But, because of my above analysis on the dilemma that the democrats have, most of these "persuadables" will vote for Trump because his message is stronger and can penetrate an undecided's vote better.
Sadly, a party that is diverse is a party that is fractured until a strong personality can unify them. Kennedy and Obama are really the only Democrats that have had strong enough personalities to compete. Clinton was elected and re-elected during a rare period where the Republicans did not have a strong leader. Actually that was true with Obama as well, although Obama does have a strong personality.
In any event, right now the Dems do not have anybody with the type of personality strong enough to pull voters. Sanders is probably the closest. But, as mentioned above, he will lose the conservative democrat vote. And they might end up voting for Trump instead.
This explains the Mike Bloomberg phenomenon. From within the void caused by a lack of a candidate with a strong personality comes a candidate with a strong pocketbook. And, in today's world of political advertising, Bloomberg can make himself look like a strong personality. I don't think he really is though.
It will probably come down to Bloomberg vs. Sanders. I don't think that Pete really has the popularity nationwide to beat Sanders. We will see.
Ironically, Klobuchar is probably the most "presidential" even though she is a woman. I can actually see her sitting at the desk in the oval office. I can't really see anybody else sitting there other than Trump, unfortunately.