Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 2

How the Democratic Party Could Lose in 2020 Elections and Beyond: 2

In the previous part of this series, I pointed out that the biggest difference between democratic and republican party comes down to how they perceive their voters. While both are beholden to their corporate owners and incapable of doing anything other than fucking over their voters, democrats treat most of theirs with far more derision, disdain and contempt than republicans. It is this factor, more than any other, which explains the decline of the democratic party in most states since the early-1990s. Things have gotten so bad that it took the failed occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, gross incompetence in aftermath of hurricane Katrina, Bush43’s failed attempt at privatizing social security and global financial crisis by republicans for democrats to finally win the trifecta of house, senate and presidency in 2008. It also helped that Obama and Biden were running against loser such as McCain and Palin.

In other words, democrats have shown themselves to be incapable of winning national elections unless their opponents literally screwed the pooch and then some more. Let us now talk about a couple of issues which have repeatedly hurt the ability of democrats to consistently win elections at the national and state level in past two decades. As many of you know, pundits on the payroll of democratic party have repeatedly floated a hilarious wet-dream which centered around how the so-called “coalition of the ascendant” would inevitably deliver them lasting electoral victories at the national level. The only problem with this theory is that it sorta worked just once- in 2008. At least two large states in USA (Florida and Texas) should have been democratic strongholds by now, if the theory held any water. Also, a few more such as Georgia, Virginia and Arizona would be consistently “blue” nor “purple” or “red” on the electoral map.

Some of you (MikeCA?) will try to tell me that this is all because of those dastardly republicans suppressing democratic leaning voters. Ok.. let us assume that this is the case. Now tell me what have the democrats done to fix this issue for the past twenty years? How about fuck all? That is right.. the democratic party has done little, let alone anything serious and sustained, to combat voter suppression. I would go further and say that neither party wants a high electoral turnout because then voters might actually demand their elected representatives start delivering on their electoral promises. Liberal “democracies”, you see, love low electoral turnouts since it lets them pretend that the system is democratic even thought it is (for all practical purposes) an oligarchy or kleptocracy, in all but name. Now you know why things are the way they are in this country.

And this brings us to the real reason why all these “social” issues (abortion, “gun control”, “tough on crime” etc) came to dominate american electoral politics since the 1980s. Some of you might, once again, attribute this to the racially charged politics pioneered by Nixon or Reagan- and there is a bit of truth to that view. However, democratic politicians were frequently as hawkish on these issues as their republican counterparts. If you don’t believe me, search the internet for speeches, campaign platforms and interviews of most democratic politicians from between 1982 to 2008. The idea that democrats were somehow less center-right than republicans is a self-delusion that only hardcore partisan democrats believe. Perhaps the only difference between the two was that republicans were openly racist while democrats tried to cover it with by using “proper language” and maintaining a few token colored faces within their ranks.

There is a reason why the largest increase in mass incarceration occurred under a democratic president known as Bill Clinton, who also made sure that voters knew he was in favor of treating all black men like animals and criminals. A lot of the other fun stuff such as almost complete deregulation of financial sector, gutting of anti-trust rules and laws, implementation of NAFTA and many other “free trade” agreements, the gutting of social safety net aka “welfare reform” and many other similar and ultimately disastrous decisions were made under multiple democratic administrations. Did I mention the part where large cities run by democratic party were among the most aggressive and punitive in their failed war on drugs? My point is, let us not pretend that the democratic party was any more progressive in its policies than the republican party.

Which brings us to how “cultural issues” became so important in contemporary electoral politics. The thing is.. by now, both parties have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that they are totally incapable of effecting any real improvement in the lives of most voters. Consequently, a majority of people in many states no longer participate or even care about the electoral process. The only people voting with any regularity are those who benefited from the neoliberalization of system (professional class, petit bourgeoisie etc), believe they are dependent on continued political patronage (older black people) and those driven by single issues (abortion, gun, LGBT rights etc). Are you starting to see the problem? And it gets worse..

A few months ago, I wrote a series of posts about why the Obama presidency was a disaster for democratic party. Yet, even today nobody in the current clown car of democratic presidential candidates had dared to even acknowledge the obvious fact that Obama’s presidency created the socio-economic conditions which led to rise of the orange buffoon aka Trump. There is a reason why HRC lost states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and almost lost Minnesota, in addition to losing Florida and Ohio. And ya.. black turnout was low, even in states without any worthwhile attempts by republicans at suppressing votes. But there is something even more peculiar that most pundits do not talk about.. a rather high percentage of working class people (whites, blacks etc) did not vote. But why not?

Let me put it this way.. why should people who have repeatedly seen elected politicians from both parties renege on their major electoral promises maintain faith in the electoral process and system? The vast majority of people are not retarded. Why would you expect people to have faith in a “bipartisan” system which has not delivered for them in over 40 years. Why would you trust politicians who spend hours talking about gun control but don’t give a shit about far more pressing problems such as the absurd and still rising cost of “healthcare”? Almost everyone of you knows somebody who was immiserated or bankrupted by the “healthcare” system in america, but very few know a victim of “gun violence” especially mass shootings. Almost everybody knows somebody stuck with tens of thousands in nondischargeable student debt but few know (or care about) a “trans person” inconvenienced by public bathroom policy.

However, democratic politicians cannot seem to stop talking about how they want to ban and confiscate “assault weapons”, try to outdo each other at being “woke” and do meaningless token bullshit such as banning plastic straws and passing stupid car emission laws which simply shift the market share of automobiles from cars towards crossovers. Almost nobody (except Bernie Sanders) is credibly talking about solving real problems such as implementing a truly universal healthcare system, discharging student loans, lowering cost of post-secondary education, making housing more affordable etc. You know.. stuff that most voters actually care about. And no.. Elizabeth Warren is not a credible progressive politician.

In the next part, I will go into more detail about why certain democratic party fetishes such as “gun control” , LGBT related “wokeness” and harping on the bullshit of “man-made climate change” actively reduces number of people willing to vote for them in real life aka elections.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. Jack Donovan
    September 5, 2019 at 12:26 pm

    y’know, it’ll really suck if the Democrats lose 2020. The Democrats woulda got us in a war with Syria by now. Bill Clinto locked up a bunch of you hindu muffins on trumped up charges. The Democrats pretend to be anti-racist, but in reality, they promote our ideology. In fact Richard Spencer is the embodiment of a Southern Gentleman/Democrat. (Loose rectum, y’all!!!!)

    See Hayle !!!

    14 88 !!!

    Gay Pride and White Power !!!!

  2. Yusef
    September 5, 2019 at 3:32 pm

    “There is a reason why the largest increase in mass incarceration occurred under a democratic president known as Bill Clinton, who also made sure that voters knew he was in favor of treating all black men like animals and criminals. A lot of the other fun stuff such as almost complete deregulation of financial sector, gutting of anti-trust rules and laws, implementation of NAFTA and many other “free trade” agreements, the gutting of social safety net aka “welfare reform” and many other similar and ultimately disastrous decisions were made under multiple democratic administrations. Did I mention the part where large cities run by democratic party were among the most aggressive and punitive in their failed war on drugs? My point is, let us not pretend that the democratic party was any more progressive in its policies than the republican party.”

    I don’t agree these changes happened under “multiple” democratic administrations. It is clear most of these changes were initiated and implemented under Bill Clinton during his two terms of office.

    There is an element you omit so far, and that’s the disastrous successive losses of democrats from 1980 to 1992. These losses were directly responsible for the rise of Bill Clinton to national prominence following Bill’s involvement in an organization known as the Democratic Leadership Council:

    1) “The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation founded in 1985 that, upon its formation, argued the United States Democratic Party should shift away from the leftward turn it took in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. One of its main purposes was to win back white middle class voters with ideas that addressed their concerns.The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of Third Way politicians and as a DLC success story.

    The DLC’s affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC’s philosophy often call themselves New Democrats. This term is also used by other groups who have similar views on where the party should go in the future, like NDN[3] and Third Way.”

    2) The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale’s landslide defeat by incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).

    The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. Founded by “Scoop” Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern’s massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization’s goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years. Although Senator Jackson declined to endorse the organization, believing the timing was inappropriate,future DLC founders and early members were involved, such as Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Charles S. Robb.

    In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus’ Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party. The CPE has been called “the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats

    3) It is the opinion of the DLC that economic populism is not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984.[citation needed] The DLC states that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions.”

    The DLC has supported welfare reform, such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,[12] President Clinton’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the creation of AmeriCorps. The DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC supports universal access to preschool, charter schools, and measures to allow a greater degree of choice in schooling (though not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

    The DLC has both supported and criticized the policies of President George W. Bush.

    4) The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    5) The DLC has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Democracy for America, and the blog MyDD.

    Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy has resulted in concession after concession to the opposition and promotion of a free-market economic agenda favorable to corporations and entrepreneurs, including those seeking to privatize public services, while alienating traditionally-allied voters and working-class people.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

    It is all right there. See, Walter Mondale, the last somewhat democratic democratic party candidate for President, was trounced by Ronald Reagan in 1984. (You continue to maintain the dems were doing “okay” for twenty years after civil rights enactment in 1965. It isn’t really true.) After Mondale’s defeat, many people wondered if the democratic party was any longer viable. (Mondale lost in every state but his home state of Minnesota.) Basically the DLC was the instrument to remake the democratic party into something much closer to the republican party– and that’s the way it went down, too. But as the democratic party shifted more to the right, the republican party shifted yet further and further to the right. It is almost as if the way the parties compete for votes nowadays is to see who can be furthest to the right. Problem is, though, the democrats ultimately cannot win such a contest.

    Mondale was a weak-tea version of Reagan. Only a idiot or propagandist would try to portray him as progressive. Democrats lost the presidency in 1984 because their candidate was basically the mediocre generic version of coca-cola. Who wants to buy the generic knock-off when you can get the real thing.

    Since 1968, the democratic party has not been able to put forth a vision that is distinct and more populist than republicans. And yes.. it has everything to do its upper ranks getting infiltrated by coastal professionals.

    • Yusef
      September 6, 2019 at 11:09 am

      I think you’re right to object to calling Mondale a progressive, and in fact I never said he was. I would claim he was at least a remnant of the New Deal Democrat, somewhat along the lines of Hubert Humphrey, also a senator of Minnesota. (Minnesota had a reputation for a good long time as a relatively more “progressive” state, as did Wisconsin. I wouldn’t exactly call Hubert Humphrey a “progressive” either. He was New Deal, though, as was Lyndon Johnson.)

      It is more absurd to say Mondale was weak tea Ronald Reagan than it would have been to have labeled him progressive, if I had. There was some degree of choice in that election in terms of which direction the country would be heading as it moved into the future, basically whether large sections of the New Deal would be kept in place or dismantled. When Mondale lost it was clear that most of the New Deal would be rendered more or less defunct. This was acknowledged in the founding of the DLC and live-stamped into plank and policy with the ascendancy of Clinton’s form of democratic policy and such choice pieces of legislation as 1996’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which either fulfills Reagan’s vision or even goes beyond it. For a democrat to ever have been responsible for such legislation is attributable to the repudiation of Mondale in 1984.

  3. dafix
    September 5, 2019 at 10:51 pm

    “Almost nobody (except Bernie Sanders) is credibly talking about solving real problems such as implementing a truly universal healthcare system, discharging student loans, lowering cost of post-secondary education, making housing more affordable etc. You know.. stuff that most voters actually care about.”

    Yang (although he obviously has no chance of winning) does want to implement Medicare for All and reduce student loan debt/education costs.

    • Morpheus
      September 6, 2019 at 12:11 am

      Yang is a beta male who probably would have a panic attack if things took a turn to the worse (terrorist attack, war, economy crumbles). He’s just part of the Woke left brigade, and has no clue how to even run anything. He’s also another open border shill.

      Yang is also a silly valley idiot.

  4. Joe
    September 6, 2019 at 12:09 am

    Do you really think that Bernie Sanders is that credible in implementing any utopian policies he keeps pulling out of his ass? Haven’t you seen Bernie now pandering to the Woke left and pushing that fraudulent “Green New Deal” propaganda BS? Did you not see the latest Jimmy Dore video of how Bernie Sanders starting pushing Russia Gate? Did you forget that Bernie Sanders supported Hillary Clinton and keeps supporting the DNC and not acknowledging that he was cheated by his own party? The game is truly a beta male dude looking to please feminists, and the woke left.

    He is, by far, the most likely to actually try pushing them if elected.

  5. Gern Blanderson
    September 6, 2019 at 6:32 am

    Joe Biden could so easily win the nomination and the Presidency if would do four things: 1) Support the building of the walls and reduce illegal immigration. 2) Support universal healthcare 3) Support climate carbon reduction by promoting nuclear plants and natural gas drilling. 4) Support gun rights and drop the silly gun control rhetoric. #1. Remember that years ago, Joe and Obama supported reduced immigration and all the wealthy white liberals where okay with it. The liberals are all racist hypocrites who live within their gated communities and segregated schools. #2. The universal healthcare wins with all of middle America too. #3. Joe was at least the most moderate in the recent CNN climate debates. Yang was reasonable too, but Yang is a weak looking man. The other candidates all want to turn middle America into vegetarians who drive small electric cars and force them all to get sterilized to reduce our population. Joe just needs to stop the insulting middle America on climate change and instead support nuclear plants and fracking as a “pro-jobs” agenda.
    #4. The gun control issue is obvious to anyone, enuff said on that.

    All of the other candidates continue to insult middle America and the climate change CNN debate showed how insulting and condescending they are to middle America, Bernie is too.

  6. MikeCA
    September 6, 2019 at 4:26 pm

    This post if full of propaganda and misinformation, but let me focus on this:

    “There is a reason why the largest increase in mass incarceration occurred under a democratic president known as Bill Clinton,…”

    Many young liberals have been attacking people like Bidden for voting for the 1993 crime act that they claim caused mass incarceration. This is nonsense and shows they don’t understand the mass incarceration issue.

    The most important fact that is entirely left out of this discussion is that the violent crime rate in the US almost doubled between the early 1960s and 1992. It peaked in 1992 and has declined since and is now back to the levels of the early 1960s. What caused this large increase in violent crime and what caused it to decline again is a subject of debate. From the 1970s into the 1990s saw the rise of the “tough on crime” politicians, because voters were scared by this rise in violent crime. This was not confined to just white politicians. Black communities were more likely to be the victims of this increase in crime and black politicians responded to those concerns.

    Ever read my post..

    https://dissention.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/the-connection-between-crime-and-hope/

    Starting in the 1970s states began changing their laws to be tougher. This caused the incarceration rate to go up faster than the crime rate. The 1993 federal crime bill was actually passed just as the violent crime rate peaked, although no one knew that at the time. Everyone in 1993 expected the violent crime rate to keep going up. The 1993 crime bill was intended to be bipartisan. The worst parts of the bill were added at Republican insistence to make it bipartisan. In spite of that, the majority of Congressional Black Caucus voted for the 1993 crime bill.

    Most incarcerations are at the state level. The 1993 federal crime act was a minor part of the mass incarceration problem and focusing on it as the cause of mas incarcerations is ridiculous.

    Today the violent crime rate has declined back to the levels of the early 1960s, but the incarceration rate is far higher. This is because of all those tough on crime laws in all 50 states as well as federal laws like the 1993 crime bill. In California the state government has realized they cannot afford to build and operate any more prisons and they are slowly relaxing the tough on crime laws a bit.

    Ending the mass incarceration will not be easy. No one really understands why the violent crime rate declined starting in 1992, and the modern version of tough on crime politicians will claim that all those tough on crime laws are what caused it and if you repeal them the crime rate will go back up.

    As for me, I believe in the lead-crime hypothesis. The rise in violent crime was caused by the use of leaded gasoline and the decline was because leaded gasoline was banned in the US starting in the early 1970s. Lead mainly effects children between 0-5 years. It can reduce the IQ and cause behavioural control issues. When children that suffered from lead poisoning as young children reach late teens is when they are more likely to become violent criminals. Thus the 20 year delay between leaded gasoline was banned and when the violent crime rate started to decline.

    The connection between lead exposure in childhood and crime is reasonable, but let us not also forget that those who were exposed in that manner were also disproportionately poor, black and living in older urban areas.

    • dafix
      September 6, 2019 at 5:42 pm

      OK so the 1993 bill didn’t “cause” mass incarceration, but it obviously made it much worse. The inflection point of mass incarceration is obviously somewhere around Reagan, but let’s not pretend Clinton or Biden truly gave a shit about black victims of crime.

      As for the lead-crime hypothesis, the abortion-crime hypothesis is probably more likely.

      I’m not sure what propaganda you think is in this post. AD basically does not agree with anything along the lines of typical right-wing propaganda mills like PragerU, and his audience doesn’t reach many people so this whole “AD is a Russian Propagandist(TM)” theory is really retarded.

  7. dafix
  1. September 8, 2019 at 11:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: