Sanders: Democratic Party's model is 'failing'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Apr 23, 2017.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    Bernie is spot on in his assessment of the continuing demise of the Democratic party. Their message, what there is of it, must radically change if they ever want to become relevant again and actually win elections. Many of their core issues are going to have to be abandoned and they're going to have to grab issues from their opponents and make them their own. Gun control will have to be abandoned, it has proven to be a loser for every candidate who has embraced it. Bigger/Nanny-ish government will have to be set aside, the American people have said, time and again that they don't want an overbearing state monster. Sadly, I do not think that the Democrats will embrace Bernie's suggestions. They have been stuck on stupid for quite a while and their leadership has continually doubled down on the worst of their issues. Until they can purge the Pelosi's and Schumer's out of the party they will continue to lose and we will continue to be saddled with the TEAvangelicals and the loony Right.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/330123-sanders-democratic-party-model-is-failing


     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    To be fair arn't the Republicans asking for a bigger nanny state? War on drugs, war on abortion, war on consumers. Just look at Sessions agenda alone. He wants a huge nanny state.
     
  3. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #3
    Both are in favour of bigger government. The Democrats want a nanny state and the Republicans want an authoritarian state. One wants to be your mommy and the other wants to be your abusive daddy.
     
  4. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #4
    Given that Sanders is not a Democrat, I've gotta wonder about where he gets off criticizing the party. If you want to fix the party, you should participate in it, not just complain from the outside.
     
  5. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #5
    Maybe you missed about a year span where he ran for the presidency under the Democrat party banner?

    Seems like the biggest attempt to fix the party using the most involved participation possible.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Couldn't we have a government which supports when required but gets out the way when it isn't?.
     
  7. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #7
    That's the problem, they always think they are required. They think we work for them not the other way around.
     
  8. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #8
    Ah, sort of like that other guy Trump, a guy who was for most of his life not a member of the Republican party, but also joined temporarily to allow a run for the presidency.

    Kinda fickle in my book, on both sides. If Sanders had a reason to avoid the Democratic party for the first seven decades of his life, does it make sense to give up on those principles in order to become president? Would he have really made a good president, being so willing to do so?

    And what does it say about the Democratic party that they are desperate enough to allow non-members to run? They really don't have enough qualified candidates available within the party itself?

    Bah. You fix a party that needs more members by expanding involvement in the party. If you find that your party doesn't have enough members to successfully participate in an election, hiring a ringer is not the solution. As the Republicans are now discovering.
     
  9. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    I would not want to be a part of either party. They both suck. But if you want to get anywhere in politics you have to either try to run independent and get screwed over or buddy up with one of the two evils.
     
  10. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #10

    I suppose it depends on what the government is nannying. So far as I can tell, for the GOP it's rich people and corporations. Maybe that's true of the more cynical Democrats as well, but it has to change.
     
  11. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #11
    This is the problem with the American system -- federal power is indeed split between three branches of government, but the branches themselves do not provide much internal structure to contain power. The executive branch is controlled by a single man, the judicial branch is run strictly by the majority, as is the House in Congress. Only in the Senate does the minority have any significant power, and that (mainly, the Fillibuster) is now being eroded quickly.

    So any group which can take the White House or set up a majority in the other branches gets all the power of that branch. There is very little scope for negotiation inside government.

    Therefore, all negotiation today must necessarily occur mainly outside of government. To pass significant legislation, you must first acquire a majority. To acquire a majority, you must form a party that can receive a majority of votes. And, to form a party that can receive a majority of votes, you must come up with a platform of policies that a majority of voters can accept. And so, it is inside the parties where negotiations and compromise must ultimately be achieved.

    I do agree that both parties seem no longer able to achieve this feat. Thus, both are looking to outside actors (Sanders, Trump) to gain more support from groups who feel alienated from the major parties. The problem is, this is not compromise; this is simply moving both parties further away from the center.

    As the government begins to represent fewer and fewer of the citizens, more and more problems are going to pop up. Hopefully, the parties will reorganize themselves back into a form that can represent a majority of voters, or some new party can be formed to do that.
     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    I wonder what party will eventually fade away or change so much that it doesn't represent it's founding principals. I guess you could say the parties already flipped in the 60's. Will one or both parties dissolve in the future or can a viable third and forth party gain enough traction to shift power. Both parties bases have shrunk to just the diehards and the fringes have shifted from the outside to the center. The republicans now are only about money and power. The democrats lost their fight for the little guy. There is no party for the middle class anymore.
     
  13. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #13
    This! Both parties have been embracing the activists, Right and Left, thus we get fringe-supported candidates like Trump and Sanders taking over the parties. Both parties are running away from the center.

    Most of the current "third" parties (e.g. the Green party, the Libertarian party) don't really seem to understand how the American system works. A group which does not represent many voters will, by design, have exactly zero power in Washington. To be a party with power, you have to aim to be the majority party. You have to get more votes than any other party. Anything less is pointless.

    And so, to do that, you have to be a "big tent" party. A party that can attract the majority of Americans, not one that simply represents a philosophy that just a few people accept...
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    The problem is the majority don't support either and choose not to vote. So we get the fringe in charge. Also having 2 polarizing candidates that didn't speak for the majority of america didn't help.
     
  15. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #15
    What this means is that there's a rich crop of unhappy American citizens just ripe for the picking by a savvy political party. It's a fine time for a new "third" party to appear, which can appeal to the broad middle of the country. Or for the Republicans or Democrats to get their heads out of their buttocks and see that their parties are falling apart... ;)
     
  16. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #16
  17. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #17
    I think it is different in terms of the "nanny" part. The left wants to be the nanny that cares for everyone from birth to death and as a result, the electorate is dependent on the "nanny".

    The right wants to be the controlling nanny, but leave it up to everyone to make their own way.

    Edit: Looks like @RootBeerMan beat me to it.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 23, 2017 ---
    They do. Actually had a few that would have thumped Trump, but with the machine favoring Hillary they knew they would never get the chance. The democratic primary in 2020 will be interesting.
     
  18. mac_in_tosh macrumors regular

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #18
    First of all, as Hillary won about 3 million more votes in total than Trump, and as Trump won some key states by very narrow margins, it's not all gloom and doom for the Democrats.

    Second, while I believe Bernie is honest and ran because he genuinely wanted to improve the country, in the end his campaign ended up weakening Hillary. I think if he hadn't run, Hillary would be president today.
     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    I have said this before and yes gotten some blowback, but I think the Democratic party is in more trouble than the GOP. The GOP has 2 main factions, the fiscal conservatives and Christian right. Maybe the NRA crowd, but they are actually pretty small even though the wield considerable power.

    But the Dems have so many small factions, if they lose one they lose elections. This cycle they lost their formerly reliable union voters in 3 states and it cost Hillary the election. If they every lose a significant portion of the African-American vote they are done. Also, their factions seem to be a bit less loyal. For example, I am sure many Bernie supporters didn't show up on election day because they lost the primary, but a lot of Cruz, Kasich, Bush and Rubio supporters did show up. Maybe it is because the GOP tends to have older voters who see the long game a bit better.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 23, 2017 ---
    But we don't run elections like that. The Dems have too many voters concentrated in the same areas. So while they win those big, they lose everywhere else. Hillary could have won by 50M votes, but if they all came from NY and CA it doesn't matter.


    Without a doubt he was the most honest about his vision and what he wanted to do. He did not back away from being called a socialist. Kind of refreshing actually from Hillary who parsed every statement so it could be taken multiple ways.
     
  20. mac_in_tosh macrumors regular

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #20
    The vote margins in states like Michigan were very close. I think traditional Dem states went for Trump because (a) they were fed up with what they viewed as routine politics and thought, mistakenly, that Trump was the answer, (b) they believed the demonizing verbiage about Hillary ("She looks sick," "corrupt Clinton Foundation" etc.) and (c) Trump is a consummate con artist. It could go very differently next time.
     
  21. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #21
    How about d) they knew Hillary was NOT the answer?
     
  22. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #22
    She was if your answer to the question do you want more of the same was yes.
    Even aside from that I gather americans generally don't like giving the same party the presidency 3 times in a row.
     
  23. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #23
    I believe that is true as it has only happened once in my lifetime (Reagan x2, Bush x1). And have only had 1 termers twice (Carter & Bush 41) Don't count Nixon as he was elected twice.

    Did anyone know that Ford is the only President that was never elected?
     
  24. mac_in_tosh macrumors regular

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #24
    Fine, but they should have also known that neither was Trump.
     
  25. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #25
    I understand it has the Democrats are becoming like the Republicans when it comes to money, going after big downers and not the harder to do grassroots lots of small downers campaign.

    And their message is not clear, forcing legislation without first making people understand the benefits (and realize some policies, despite clear benefits, will not be accepted in America).
     

Share This Page