• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Vox: Democrats are in Denial. Their Party is Actually in Deep Trouble

UNCG Deac

UNCG Deac

Member
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
175
Reaction score
22
The Democratic Party is in much greater peril than its leaders or supporters recognize, and it has no plan to save itself.

Yes, Barack Obama is taking a victory lap in his seventh year in office. Yes, Republicans can't find a credible candidate to so much as run for speaker of the House. Yes, the GOP presidential field is led by a megalomaniacal reality TV star. All this is true — but rather than lay the foundation for enduring Democratic success, all it's done is breed a wrongheaded atmosphere of complacence.

The presidency is extremely important, of course. But there are also thousands of critically important offices all the way down the ballot. And the vast majority — 70 percent of state legislatures, more than 60 percent of governors, 55 percent of attorneys general and secretaries of state — are in Republicans hands. And, of course, Republicans control both chambers of Congress. Indeed, even the House infighting reflects, in some ways, the health of the GOP coalition. Republicans are confident they won't lose power in the House and are hungry for a vigorous argument about how best to use the power they have.
Click to expand...




http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble
 
lol, nice. The bizarre tea party paralysis is actually a strength? Well played, sir
 
i think the article makes some very valid points. I have been saying for a long time that the coronation of HRC is way too early, and anyone who lives in a state like North Carolina or Wisconsin should know firsthand what has happened since 2010 - GOP control leading directly to further entrenchment of GOP control through gerrymandering and voter restrictions. That's all Yglesias is saying, that the Dems have no plan to roll back GOP control of the states. That's very evident. The only thing going on in the NC Dem party is Roy Cooper, who is by no means a rising star. There is no other recognizable Democratic party leadership in NC, and no plan to even attempt to recover control of the legislature. The Dems can't even find anyone to run against Burr, who has not exactly covered himself in glory as a senator.
 
I don't think that article is a revelation for Dems who follow politics on the ground. I think party leaders and such get focused on the game of politics. Democrats have more confidence in federal government and big ideas, so they're more concerned with winning the presidency and SCOTUS. Republicans are more about what government can do for them, so they focus on local issues. There isn't really a viable Dem equivalent to the local businessman who wants as many tax breaks and as few regulations as possible.

Edit to respond to 923: Florida has similar problems with a short Dem bench. You'd think the party of big government would have plenty of people interested in running it, but instead Republicans at all levels are more into running for office. I think some of it may have to do with the process and the role of money in running.
 
I passed on commenting on the thread praising the Dems debate. The post claiming they were talking about real issues and platforms was mind boggling. lol That so called debate was little more than a pep rally.

Hillary was next in line for the party the day she lost to Obama. He gave her a high profile job to keep her in the public eye. She resigned to distant herself from a failing administration. She is running on being a Clinton, and being the first woman President. She has never done anything to deserve her status. Her only victory pretty much was unchallenged. Someone please give me a single reason to vote for this woman other then that she is not a Republican....technically anyway.
 
aceeight said:
I passed on commenting on the thread praising the Dems debate. The post claiming they were talking about real issues and platforms was mind boggling. lol That so called debate was little more than a pep rally.

Hillary was next in line for the party the day she lost to Obama. He gave her a high profile job to keep her in the public eye. She resigned to distant herself from a failing administration. She is running on being a Clinton, and being the first woman President. She has never done anything to deserve her status. Her only victory pretty much was unchallenged. Someone please give me a single reason to vote for this woman other then that she is not a Republican....technically anyway.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS.
 
That's covered by "not a Republican."
 
I think the article makes some very good points, especially the fact that beyond SCOTUS, it doesn't really matter if Dems win the presidency as far as pushing their agenda as long as the Pubs have the House. Which they will have because they control all the state legislatures.
 
MysteryMen said:
I think the article makes some very good points, especially the fact that beyond SCOTUS, it doesn't really matter if Dems win the presidency as far as pushing their agenda as long as the Pubs have the House. Which they will have because they control all the state legislatures.
Click to expand...

"But beyond the body that determines whether partisan gerrymanders are allowable, it doesn't really matter unless they can stop the gerrymanders"
 
This article on Bernie made a similar point.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._serious_the_vermont_senator_s_political.html

It got me thinking that we may be witnessing a fundamental shift in check and balances. The article points out that conservative Democrats in the Senate made it difficult for Obama to exercise his agenda even with a super majority and far right Republicans in the House makes things difficult for the rest of the party. Take that a step further with the gridlock sure to exist in Congress and the fact that demographics favor a Democrat in the White House and a significant Republican majority in House. It seems like there is little chance of Congress accomplishing anything. Instead of the President working with Congress, we will likely see the President "working with" the Supreme Court and using executive orders as deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS. This means nominations will become that much more divisive and any chance of a Democrat agenda relies on getting a majority of justices.

It's kind of a doomsday theory but it's hard to see Congress working for either side going forward.
 
aceeight said:
I passed on commenting on the thread praising the Dems debate. The post claiming they were talking about real issues and platforms was mind boggling. lol That so called debate was little more than a pep rally.

Hillary was next in line for the party the day she lost to Obama. He gave her a high profile job to keep her in the public eye. She resigned to distant herself from a failing administration. She is running on being a Clinton, and being the first woman President. She has never done anything to deserve her status. Her only victory pretty much was unchallenged. Someone please give me a single reason to vote for this woman other then that she is not a Republican....technically anyway.
Click to expand...


She's ok with her man getting some strange occasionally, makes cattle futures investments like a boss, got Vince Foster wacked in public, and knows how to scrub a server. What's not to like?
 
ONW said:
She's ok with her man getting some strange occasionally, makes cattle futures investments like a boss, got Vince Foster wacked in public, and knows how to scrub a server. What's not to like?
Click to expand...

Good job summing up her qualifications to be president.
 
PhDeac said:
This article on Bernie made a similar point.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._serious_the_vermont_senator_s_political.html

It got me thinking that we may be witnessing a fundamental shift in check and balances. The article points out that conservative Democrats in the Senate made it difficult for Obama to exercise his agenda even with a super majority and far right Republicans in the House makes things difficult for the rest of the party. Take that a step further with the gridlock sure to exist in Congress and the fact that demographics favor a Democrat in the White House and a significant Republican majority in House. It seems like there is little chance of Congress accomplishing anything. Instead of the President working with Congress, we will likely see the President "working with" the Supreme Court and using executive orders as deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS. This means nominations will become that much more divisive and any chance of a Democrat agenda relies on getting a majority of justices.

It's kind of a doomsday theory but it's hard to see Congress working for either side going forward.
Click to expand...

Pres. Obama had incredible support but he was willing to sacrifice all of that on a very divisive health care plan that was not supported by the majority of people. Had he not done this but used his political capital on an agenda that had the support of the people, there is a good chance the house and senate do not flip and he might have accomplished much more.

The US government is set up to change very slowly. Going the executive order route will just further distrust in government and set up the orders to be overturned by the next president. I still think you have to build consensus where you can and live with incremental changes. Otherwise, there will likely be a backlash that will wipe out changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top