Why don't Democrats want to start winning in the midterms?

[JVV]

As long as Democrats keep choosing politicians who consider lobbyists their constituency, they'll keep failing to inspire people to get out and vote for them in the midterms.

Democrats do a good job with the ground game in presidential years, and Republicans help by having crazy candidates, but then once the Democrats get to Washington they go back to showing that they don't have any interest in partnering with the people. After the votes are tallied, the people can go sit in the corner like children while the grown-ups talk.

And the Democratic primary voters are saying they like this state of affairs. They're purposely choosing Hillary instead of someone who could actually get people to feel like part of the process.


So ... what is it that Democrats have against getting support from the people during midterms?

[Ethereal]

The Democrat party is just big patronage system where various special interest groups jockey for position at the trough as they gorge themselves on tax dollars.

The most powerful and influential special interest groups - Wall Street banks, industrialists, arms manufactures, public sector employees, etc. - don't want to invite anymore people to the table, and Clinton will make sure that happens.

You have to understand that the DNC elites and Clinton supporters generally have no real principles or moral sentiments. All they care about is extorting taxpayers and lining their own pockets with the proceeds, and they will support whoever they think can plunder others the most effectively. They think Clinton is that person.

[JVV]

The Democrat party is just big patronage system where various special interest groups jockey for position at the trough as they gorge themselves on tax dollars.

The most powerful and influential special interest groups - Wall Street banks, industrialists, arms manufactures, public sector employees, etc. - don't want to invite anymore people to the table, and Clinton will make sure that happens.

You have to understand that the DNC elites and Clinton supporters generally have no real principles or moral sentiments. All they care about is extorting taxpayers and lining their own pockets with the proceeds, and they will support whoever they think can plunder others the most effectively. They think Clinton is that person.


I don't believe that about most Clinton supporters, or even most of the elites. Heck, most Clinton supporters won't get anything out of supporting her. Just like most Obama supporters didn't get anything out of supporting him. Monetarily speaking. And most of the elites have convinced themselves that they are what the country needs.

I think they mean well.

They just seem clueless about how they're blocking their own agenda by not having faith in their own principles and in the people. Total disconnect about why they were shellacked in 2010 and why they lost the Senate so soundly in 2014 and how they are on track for a repeat performance in 2018.

[Ethereal]

I don't believe that about most Clinton supporters, or even most of the elites. Heck, most Clinton supporters won't get anything out of supporting her. Just like most Obama supporters didn't get anything out of supporting him. Monetarily speaking. And most of the elites have convinced themselves that they are what the country needs.

I think they mean well.

They just seem clueless about how they're blocking their own agenda by not having faith in their own principles and in the people. Total disconnect about why they were shellacked in 2010 and why they lost the Senate so soundly in 2014 and how they are on track for a repeat performance in 2018.

I admire your optimism, but virtually everyone in America is feeding at the trough somehow. Perhaps on the surface these people have convinced themselves that their support for XYZ is based on altruism or intellectualism, but on a subconscious level they are typically looking to plunder the treasury. Their true motives are evinced by their inconsistency. That is usually how you can tell the difference between a genuine believer in something and a rank opportunist. The former remains consistent because they're operating from some kind of first principles, whereas the latter will often hold contradictory viewpoints based on how the particular situation effects their material circumstances. Because at the end the day, Hillary Clinton does not offer any kind of consistent belief system. She will say and do whatever she thinks will get her into a position of power where she can most effectively raid the treasury. Just my opinion, of course, but I think it's well supported by evidence and logic.

[Quicksilver]

As long as Democrats keep choosing politicians who consider lobbyists their constituency, they'll keep failing to inspire people to get out and vote for them in the midterms.

Democrats do a good job with the ground game in presidential years, and Republicans help by having crazy candidates, but then once the Democrats get to Washington they go back to showing that they don't have any interest in partnering with the people. After the votes are tallied, the people can go sit in the corner like children while the grown-ups talk.


And the Democratic primary voters are saying they like this state of affairs. They're purposely choosing Hillary instead of someone who could actually get people to feel like part of the process.


So ... what is it that Democrats have against getting support from the people during midterms?

That has ALWAYS been a problem for Democrats. They really don't turn out in any numbers in midterm years.. Not sure why.. and not sure how it can be addressed.. They saw what their midterm apathy did in 2010 and yet they sat on their hands in 2014 and lost the Senate..

[Peter1469]

Well put. I chalk democrats up as a loosely knit group of victims. But you are correct to note that they are raiding the public treasury like Visigoths.
The Democrat party is just big patronage system where various special interest groups jockey for position at the trough as they gorge themselves on tax dollars.

The most powerful and influential special interest groups - Wall Street banks, industrialists, arms manufactures, public sector employees, etc. - don't want to invite anymore people to the table, and Clinton will make sure that happens.

You have to understand that the DNC elites and Clinton supporters generally have no real principles or moral sentiments. All they care about is extorting taxpayers and lining their own pockets with the proceeds, and they will support whoever they think can plunder others the most effectively. They think Clinton is that person.

[Crepitus]

DAmn guys, leave some kool-aide for the rest of the conservatives.

Sheesh.

[Green Arrow]

We need the Eugene V. Debs, Robert M. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette, and Joseph Folk of today to rise up and demand change. I believe Bernie is today's Debs, but we still need the others.

[PolWatch]

The Democrat party is just big patronage system where various special interest groups jockey for position at the trough as they gorge themselves on tax dollars.

The most powerful and influential special interest groups - Wall Street banks, industrialists, arms manufactures, public sector employees, etc. - don't want to invite anymore people to the table, and Clinton will make sure that happens.

You have to understand that the DNC elites and Clinton supporters generally have no real principles or moral sentiments. All they care about is extorting taxpayers and lining their own pockets with the proceeds, and they will support whoever they think can plunder others the most effectively. They think Clinton is that person.

and the republican party is different...how?

[Green Arrow]

and the republican party is different...how?

They aren't, but they also don't try to pretend they are for the most part. The Democrats do, therein lies the difference.

[Safety]

and the republican party is different...how?

Interesting question, especially when they have the same special interest groups, and claim to have morals about family and religion that liberals don't have, that is, until they get caught shown otherwise.

[JVV]

and the republican party is different...how?



Democrats are supposed to be different.

A "but Republicans" chant is being used as a shield to stop Democrats from having to look at why they're failing to able to build or maintain support for their legislative agenda.

[JVV]

It's a good thing that Hillary is going to be able to win in November without the help of Bernie supporters.

Coz if Hillary needed our help then she and her supporters should probably have approached things differently, preferably starting back in October when she thought it would be cute to insinuate that he was being sexist. But at least by this month.

But that's okay, since she doesn't need us.

[Ethereal]

and the republican party is different...how?

It's not. But the OP asked about the Democrat party, so I concentrated my efforts on bashing them. You know I don't give Republicans (or politicians in general) a pass. There are plenty of posts where I bash Republicans without with mentioning the equivalency between them and Democrats. Sometimes I enjoy bashing the Democrat party; sometimes I enjoy bashing the Republican party; but I always enjoys bashing both parties. You know I agree about that. And you agree (you do, don't you?) with what I said about the Democrat party's main motive being plunder. I'm perfectly fine with saying the Republican party's main motive is also plunder if that's what's needed. I mean, if the implied point you're making is that the political system in general is designed for plundering, then I'm very glad of it, because at least you are not in denial of the truth like so many party loyalists are.

[Ethereal]

They aren't, but they also don't try to pretend they are for the most part. The Democrats do, therein lies the difference.

That's a good point. Democrat party elites and loyalists love to pretend like they are the sole legitimate arbiters of the working class American's interests. God forbid if you're working class and you don't agree with them! Then you're a dumb simpleton, a rube who desperately needs to be credentialed by one of their beloved indoctrination centers (AKA government schools).

And look at the results. They have effective political monopolies on virtually every "large" city in America and that is where all the things they complain about (gun crime, poor education, wealth inequality, racial segregation, mass incarceration, corporate welfare cases, etc.) are typically worst in the country. They've destroyed massive subsections of America's urban communities with their local policies, yet they claim to represent the interests of black America. Yea, maybe the small subsection of black America on Wall Street.

The Republican party elites and loyalists, on the other hand, are typically not shy about liking big corporations and aggressive militarism (do I repeat myself?). But they pretend to be the party of "limited government" (ha!), so that's where they are able to match (even exceed) the Democrat party on hypocrisy.

[Ethereal]

Interesting question, especially when they have the same special interest groups, and claim to have morals about family and religion that liberals don't have, that is, until they get caught shown otherwise.

The Democrat party and Republican party are both about plunder. The US political system is about plundering in general, so it should not come as a surprise when the major political parties share that in common. Does that mean you agree with me about Democrats (and Republicans) having the motive of plundering people on behalf of powerful special interest groups?

[Ethereal]

Democrats are supposed to be different.

It's interesting I didn't think of that answer. It's not that I was unaware of it (I faintly remember making the same point years ago), it's just that it totally stopped occurring to me that there were still lots of people who took what politicians said seriously as a matter of course. I sometimes find it pretty amazing how far our thinking has departed from the liberal spirit of 1776. Thomas Paine said government was, at best, a necessary evil. A very healthy dose of skepticism towards political power was perfectly normal and acceptable for someone like him. But nowadays, that same healthy dose of skepticism is treated like a mental disease by party elites and loyalists, especially Democrats.


A "but Republicans" chant is being used as a shield to stop Democrats from having to look at why they're failing to able to build or maintain support for their legislative agenda.

I was on record supporting Sanders' campaign to beat Clinton. I may not agree with his entire ideology, but there is at least some consistency and honesty to it, and it's always preferable to negotiate with someone who is operating from consistency and honesty than it is a conniving opportunist like Clinton. And if Sanders supporters are wondering why Sanders hasn't performed better (although his performance has been nonetheless impressive), it's because he has been taking it way too easy on Clinton. That doesn't mean he has to go after her personally. He just has to really savage her bad record and ideas. To be sure, he's done some of that, but not with the kind of urgency it really deserves. Clinton is an empty vessel for the corporate plutocracy. All she cares about is power and wealth. And her record shows that. But Sanders fell into a typical Democrat elite trap. He simply accepted that certain issues (Benghazi, her email server, etc.) were totally off the table as rational criticisms of her record simply because the Democrat elites said they were off the table, and that kind of submissive mindset inhibits his ability to really discredit Clinton as a good option for rank and file Democrats. Most Democrat voters still think Hillary Clinton is some kind of imperfect but ultimately harmless "moderate" who will handle working class concerns in a pragmatic, sincere manner. And unless Sanders discredits that perception, he probably won't win. And for anyone hoping to pressure Clinton into making her policies more progressive by challenging her nomination, good luck with that. If something progressive happens, it will likely be in spite of her, not because of her.

[Ethereal]

It's a good thing that Hillary is going to be able to win in November without the help of Bernie supporters.

Coz if Hillary needed our help then she and her supporters should probably have approached things differently, preferably starting back in October when she thought it would be cute to insinuate that he was being sexist. But at least by this month.

But that's okay, since she doesn't need us.

Sanders supporters got a good taste of the Democrat elites playbook on politics. The Sanders supporters are sexists meme is just one of the tools in their bag. The basic gist of it is this: Discredit your opponent by any means necessary. And it is VERY effective. Notice how the Sanders supporters suddenly became pie-in-the-sky socialists simply because they were advocating for more health and education subsidies. How the Democrat elites and loyalists can attack more health and education subsidies and still look in the mirror at the end of the day is a mystery to me. I guess it's easier to look in the mirror at night when your pockets are full of other people's money?

[Boris The Animal]

That has ALWAYS been a problem for Democrats. They really don't turn out in any numbers in midterm years.. Not sure why.. and not sure how it can be addressed.. They saw what their midterm apathy did in 2010 and yet they sat on their hands in 2014 and lost the Senate..
Good! The Demoturd party and Liberalism need to be destroyed!

[AZ Jim]

Democrats work to put a President in place, then they fall for that "good ole boy" at home who is a Representative or senator when he comes around telling you what great things he's done or is going to do for your home state, so you put him back in DC by either voting for him or not voting. Then we approval rate the actions of Congress below 5% and sit back and observe those same congressmen blocking the President we elected.