CNN's Data Guru Reveals How the Far-Left Is Devouring Democratic Party

Always in His Presence said:

Just one - which election are you denying?

Click to expand...

Of the two elections in which Trump ascended to the High Office, (the latest one), he garnered 49.8% of the vote, not a “majority”. The other one he won, he got less votes overall.

Always in His Presence said:

See the EC is what determines the election - but you can be an election denier - Hillary still is today.

Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing, to be an election denier?

GoldenBoy89 said:

Is that a bad thing, to be an election denier?

Click to expand...

Only when Republicans do it

A2SG said:

Matter of opinion, and you are certainly entitled to that.


Enjoy the leopards, I guess.


You need evidence that people sometimes change their minds about things, given enough time? Besides, I was speculating about what a man who died almost 40 years ago might think today, what kind of evidence would I even try to bring to that?


It's all speculative. Humphrey ain't done much since 1978.


Point for you, I guess. Still, because of those who did, we're all stuck with him. January 20, 2029 can't come fast enough for me.


I'm not entirely sure if those would all have been described as "leftist," but I suppose a lot would depend on how one defines what is left vs. right. Still, an authoritarian leader is far more a right-wing thing, moreso than left-wing, and Trump has certainly espoused right-wing ideals, straight from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. Regardless, at this point in history, in the US, it is the right that has embraced an authoritarian standard-bearer, not the left.


Not exactly trying to hide it.


One thing that has always been true about the Democratic party is we don't agree about everything. There has always been a wide variety of views within the party, and we often fight with ourselves just as much as we fight with the opposition party. I contend that the leadership of the party has moved marginally to the right in many ways; adopting a Heritage Foundation plan as a health care solution is just one example, but there does exist within the party a faction that has espoused more left-leaning ideas. However, that branch of the party has proven ineffective in just about every way, so any fears mongered about regarding a far-left takeover seem baseless and completely imaginary. Good for fundraising though, I guess.

For those middle-ground Democrats (by that, I suppose you mean more conservative minded Democrats), I somehow doubt many of those would be fleeing toward Trump in sufficient numbers to make a major difference in the party. I suspect we'll still be just as contentious and disorganized as we've been since at least the days of Will Rogers.

-- A2SG, boy did he call it like it still is.....

Click to expand...

Having been a low level jack in the Democratic Party, running for district delegate positions and sometimes getting elected to those positions I saw how de-diversifying the Democrats were. They wanted to know if you were pro-life so they could be sure to exclude you. There were some rules to protect minorities in the party and we used them to try to get just one pro-life person from our district to the state convention. But we were heretical to those in power and we were excluded. So don’t talk to me about how Democrats are so open to a wide variety of views. When I took up with the Republicans I said I was pro-union and pro-environment and nobody blinked. I was elected a district delegate a few times and got to two state conventions and was briefly on the state central committee. They (the pre-Trump party) were much more open to diversity of person and opinion than the 1980’s Democrats ever were. I left after Trump got nominated, and I was not alone. I organized for the futile Evan McMullen campaign and then discovered the American Solidarity Party.

Having left both parties I think there needs to be something for the rest of us. I do see lots of people fed up with their own party but feel stuck because they are so afraid of the other party winning. They often say to themselves that they will vote for their guys while plugging their noses just one last time and then dump them and build a new an honorable party after that.

Always in His Presence said:

@chevyontheriver what do you find laughable about my post?

Click to expand...

That the Democrats thought SO highly of Hillary. That to me is still funny.

chevyontheriver said:

They wanted to know if you were pro-life so they could be sure to exclude you.

Click to expand...

Why would they push an unpopular position like that? I know the Dems can be dumb politically, but they aren't that foolish.

chevyontheriver said:

Having been a low level jack in the Democratic Party, running for district delegate positions and sometimes getting elected to those positions I saw how de-diversifying the Democrats were. They wanted to know if you were pro-life so they could be sure to exclude you. There were some rules to protect minorities in the party and we used them to try to get just one pro-life person from our district to the state convention. But we were heretical to those in power and we were excluded. So don’t talk to me about how Democrats are so open to a wide variety of views.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure there are many Democrats within the party who seek to further one agenda or another, that's just politics SOP. Republicans do it too, of course. But, and this is coming from someone from about as blue a state as there is, Massachusetts, there are a wide variety of views held by Democrats. On the national level, as I've stated, the adoption of a health care plan devised by the not even slightly leftist Heritage Foundation demonstrates the party's move to the right, and the lack of any meaningful attempt to even bring a single player plan to a vote shows the fecklessness of the leftmost faction. But both sides still exist within the party, from Bernie Sanders and AOC to the Blue Dogs.

chevyontheriver said:

When I took up with the Republicans I said I was pro-union and pro-environment and nobody blinked.

Click to expand...

And yet, that party has done severe damage to both unions and the environment. Go figure.

BTW, I'm firmly pro-union as well, and wish that Democrats would again embrace unionization and firmly commit to fighting vehemently for working folks. If we ever hope to again have a prosperous and even functional economy, bolstering the middle class is a necessity, and unions are critical for that. But Democrats have done little to stop the GOP war on unions and unionization, and that's just another example of the fecklessness of the more left-leaning faction of the party.

chevyontheriver said:

I was elected a district delegate a few times and got to two state conventions and was briefly on the state central committee. They (the pre-Trump party) were much more open to diversity of person and opinion than the 1980’s Democrats ever were. I left after Trump got nominated, and I was not alone. I organized for the futile Evan McMullen campaign and then discovered the American Solidarity Party.

Having left both parties I think there needs to be something for the rest of us. I do see lots of people fed up with their own party but feel stuck because they are so afraid of the other party winning. They often say to themselves that they will vote for their guys while plugging their noses just one last time and then dump them and build a new an honorable party after that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the problem with a two-party system. I have no problem with any and all serious attempts to form a third (or fourth or fifth) party, and envy all those countries that have a wide variety of political parties. Still, independents exist, and they are a significant voting bloc. Hopefully, that will only increase over time.

But, as it stands, while I may not agree with everything the Democratic party does or has done, I simply cannot find any policies coming from the Republican party that align with my principles or my interests, so joining that party is pretty much a non-starter for me. But your mileage may vary, of course.

-- A2SG, and as for Trump specifically, well...no. Just no.

A2SG said:

Oh, I'm sure there are many Democrats within the party who seek to further one agenda or another, that's just politics SOP. Republicans do it too, of course. But, and this is coming from someone from about as blue a state as there is, Massachusetts, there are a wide variety of views held by Democrats. On the national level, as I've stated, the adoption of a health care plan devised by the not even slightly leftist Heritage Foundation demonstrates the party's move to the right, and the lack of any meaningful attempt to even bring a single player plan to a vote shows the fecklessness of the leftmost faction. But both sides still exist within the party, from Bernie Sanders and AOC to the Blue Dogs.


And yet, that party has done severe damage to both unions and the environment. Go figure.

BTW, I'm firmly pro-union as well, and wish that Democrats would again embrace unionization and firmly commit to fighting vehemently for working folks. If we ever hope to again have a prosperous and even functional economy, bolstering the middle class is a necessity, and unions are critical for that. But Democrats have done little to stop the GOP war on unions and unionization, and that's just another example of the fecklessness of the more left-leaning faction of the party.


Yeah, that's the problem with a two-party system. I have no problem with any and all serious attempts to form a third (or fourth or fifth) party, and envy all those countries that have a wide variety of political parties. Still, independents exist, and they are a significant voting bloc. Hopefully, that will only increase over time.

But, as it stands, while I may not agree with everything the Democratic party does or has done, I simply cannot find any policies coming from the Republican party that align with my principles or my interests, so joining that party is pretty much a non-starter for me. But your mileage may vary, of course.

-- A2SG, and as for Trump specifically, well...no. Just no.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you, almost, except that I see that the Democrats have betrayed so much of what I thought good about them from the past. they seem to use union phone banks for elections but don't seem to give a hoot about the rank and file. I was a union steward and I saw a real disconnect between the rank and file on the one hand and the national level bosses on the other. The Democrats are in tight with the bosses but Joe Six-pack they could care less about except they still expect his vote.

Republicans have their issues too with expecting votes but doing nothing for those voters.That's sort of been the story on abortion. The party says it's against abortion but the did so little to actually make any changes, just stringing the voters along so we would keep voting for them and some nebulous promise for the future. Trump actually did more than most all of the rest of the Republicans combined in that regard.

My opinion of both big parties is pretty bad. Time for something better. But party building is crazy difficult stuff and launching a serious contender party isn't something that happens every generation. Discontent with the two big parties is high, but that does not turn into automatic victory for a new party.

As for Trump, I do think he was marginally better than the alternatives the Democrats proposed but I could not bring myself to vote for him. I see the Democrats still lurching to the left, and would not be surprised at all if AOC became their candidate. If and when that happens I expect lots of moderate Democrats will have to make some very hard decisions. I hope a credible third party is ready. I remember when Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman were running for Governor in Minnesota. Skip Humphrey was the heavy favorite. I had encouraged Norm Coleman to run anyway and he was gaining traction. Humphrey was running on his daddies name but without his daddies conviction. Coleman was an ex-Democrat and a popular mayor of St. Paul. But up pops Jesse the Body Ventura. He was dismissed by both Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman. But he showed up at the union halls and the debates. Final ranking was Ventura won handily, Coleman in a respectable second place and Skip Humphrey humiliated with the last place finish. Not that I liked the Ventura administration, but it wan't that bad. Skip Humphrey was never heard from again. Norm Coleman went on to be a US senator but was later defeated by Al Franken the comic in a nail-biter election complete with a recount. And Al Franken resigned later on. I wonder if his name popped up in the Epstein files. He was that sort of guy.

chevyontheriver said:

I would agree with you, almost, except that I see that the Democrats have betrayed so much of what I thought good about them from the past. they seem to use union phone banks for elections but don't seem to give a hoot about the rank and file. I was a union steward and I saw a real disconnect between the rank and file on the one hand and the national level bosses on the other. The Democrats are in tight with the bosses but Joe Six-pack they could care less about except they still expect his vote.

Click to expand...

On this, we agree. Democrats really have ignored the real needs of actual working people in general, and unions in particular. But, by comparison, the GOP is pretty firmly against unions, period, so I don't see an alternative there. Better to stick with the Dems and try to bolster the pro-union faction, for my money.

chevyontheriver said:

Republicans have their issues too with expecting votes but doing nothing for those voters.That's sort of been the story on abortion. The party says it's against abortion but the did so little to actually make any changes, just stringing the voters along so we would keep voting for them and some nebulous promise for the future. Trump actually did more than most all of the rest of the Republicans combined in that regard.

Click to expand...

We're probably going to disagree on this, but I honestly have never figured out why certain people have such a bug up their nethers about abortion anyway. It's a medical procedure, sometimes a necessary one; any and all decisions regarding that medical procedure should be left to the patient and her doctor. Period. No politicians need to be involved, at any point.

chevyontheriver said:

My opinion of both big parties is pretty bad. Time for something better. But party building is crazy difficult stuff and launching a serious contender party isn't something that happens every generation. Discontent with the two big parties is high, but that does not turn into automatic victory for a new party.

Click to expand...

True enough. So far, the best alternative is to vote Independent, but that's not really a third party, it's just either one or the other for the primaries. Ross Perot was, I believe, the first major candidate who actually ran on an Independent Party ticket, with an actual platform and all, but even that seemed half-hearted at the time. Maybe someday they'll actually build a real party, but it will be slow going, and probably won't have a major impact for another generation or two. The Green Party is pretty small and insignificant, and would need massive, major support to be anything close to viable, and the less said about the libertarians, the better. Basically, it's an ideology that only works if you're rich, period.

chevyontheriver said:

As for Trump, I do think he was marginally better than the alternatives the Democrats proposed but I could not bring myself to vote for him.

Click to expand...

I can't agree here. Trump isn't marginally better than anyone, in any regard. He's a narcissist, he's committed fraud on multiple occasions, he lies like it's his first language and doesn't seem to even care what the truth might be....and that's not even touching on his policies, which don't even come from him (I doubt he even has any, other than to increase his personal net worth), but come direct from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. Oh, and he seems to think tariffs will fix everything...for some reason. Certainly, no rational one that has anything to do with economics.

I honestly believe Kamala Harris would have been a better president than Trump, but she did herself few favors on the campaign trail. Maybe some of that had to do with the short time she had to campaign, but that wasn't her only problem. But, putting that aside, she was a prosecutor, an attorney general and a senator, and as such was vastly more qualified than Trump in every possible way. But she spoke funny, so that tanked her. Hillary Clinton, I feel, was even more qualified when she ran, and more voters agreed, but the vagaries of the electoral college decided otherwise. President Biden, I will agree, was too old for the office but he was still better at the job than Trump was in either in this terms.

chevyontheriver said:

I see the Democrats still lurching to the left, and would not be surprised at all if AOC became their candidate.

Click to expand...

I would firmly support that. I'd also be fine with Newsome or Mark Kelly, but in a primary, would probably vote for Ocasio-Cortez. I think she's firmly in support of working class issues, and would actually actively work to bolster the middle class.

chevyontheriver said:

If and when that happens I expect lots of moderate Democrats will have to make some very hard decisions. I hope a credible third party is ready. I remember when Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman were running for Governor in Minnesota. Skip Humphrey was the heavy favorite. I had encouraged Norm Coleman to run anyway and he was gaining traction. Humphrey was running on his daddies name but without his daddies conviction. Coleman was an ex-Democrat and a popular mayor of St. Paul. But up pops Jesse the Body Ventura. He was dismissed by both Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman. But he showed up at the union halls and the debates. Final ranking was Ventura won handily, Coleman in a respectable second place and Skip Humphrey humiliated with the last place finish. Not that I liked the Ventura administration, but it wan't that bad. Skip Humphrey was never heard from again. Norm Coleman went on to be a US senator but was later defeated by Al Franken the comic in a nail-biter election complete with a recount. And Al Franken resigned later on. I wonder if his name popped up in the Epstein files. He was that sort of guy.

Click to expand...

I'm not too familiar with Minnesota politics, but I think Ventura had the same thing Trump had when he ran: name recognition. Qualifications be damned when people know who you are, it seems. Franken seemed to have something of that too, but he wasn't anywhere near as famous as those other two. Still, from what I know, he seemed to be doing a decent job...until the other stuff came out.

-- A2SG, then again, I'm from the state that elected Ted Kennedy over and over again...I'm hardly in a position to talk....

A2SG said:

-- A2SG, then again, I'm from the state that elected Ted Kennedy over and over again...I'm hardly in a position to talk....

Click to expand...

Too many Kennedys, and too many Bushes, and too many Clintons. We do seem to love our dynasties. Except for me. Another of the Walz family is running for governor of Nebraska. So too many Walses. And don't even get me started if some other Trump has political aspirations.

chevyontheriver said:

Too many Kennedys, and too many Bushes, and too many Clintons. We do seem to love our dynasties. Except for me. Another of the Walz family is running for governor of Nebraska. So too many Walses. And don't even get me started if some other Trump has political aspirations.

Click to expand...

I think we may be safe in that regard. I don't see a drop of charisma in Junior. Ivanka, maybe...but she doesn't seem interested.

-- A2SG, and the less said about her hubby, the better.....

A2SG said:

I think we may be safe in that regard. I don't see a drop of charisma in Junior. Ivanka, maybe...but she doesn't seem interested.

-- A2SG, and the less said about her hubby, the better.....

Click to expand...

The hubby and a (the) current senior advisor, oh the sparks that would fly!

Pommer said:

The hubby and a (the) current senior advisor, oh the sparks that would fly!

Click to expand...

Sounds more like a bad sitcom on CBS, lasts about a season, last few unaired episodes available online.

-- A2SG, featuring Judy Greer as the wacky next door neighbor.....

A2SG said:

Sounds more like a bad sitcom on CBS, lasts about a season, last few unaired episodes available online.

-- A2SG, featuring Judy Greer as the wacky next door neighbor.....

Click to expand...

I would watch that!

Hans Blaster said:

Why would they push an unpopular position like that? I know the Dems can be dumb politically, but they aren't that foolish.

Click to expand...

Their dogma lives loud in them. In my old precinct it was about 60% for abortion and 40% against it among Democrats who showed up at the precinct caucuses. That 60% did all the could to exclude us. If we could squeak by with token representation it was just as bad at the district and city conventions. They wanted that one particular viewpoint excluded. That was in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It was passionate anti-diverse politicking. The same sort of politicking that removed Representative Dan Lipinski, a Democrat, just because he was against abortion. Intolerable for the Democrats.

chevyontheriver said:

Their dogma lives loud in them. In my old precinct it was about 60% for abortion and 40% against it among Democrats who showed up at the precinct caucuses. That 60% did all the could to exclude us. If we could squeak by with token representation it was just as bad at the district and city conventions. They wanted that one particular viewpoint excluded. That was in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It was passionate anti-diverse politicking. The same sort of politicking that removed Representative Dan Lipinski, a Democrat, just because he was against abortion. Intolerable for the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Some politicians can get away with being on the wrong side of a 60/40 issue, but not too many. It would be foolish to succumb to this abortion obsession.

Pommer said:

She had been a Senator, Secretary of State and before that she was First Lady for eight years and witnessed the White House workings.
That’s pretty darned qualified.
You’re allowed to agree with that and still think that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t have had any chance at the White House.
That’s allowed.

Click to expand...

I was against Hillary for president myself simply because I'm against political dynasties. Same reason I wouldn't want another Bush or Trump as president. Well in Trumps case that would have been correct the first time already. Trump/Hillary was the first US election where I went "I don't want either!"

Hans Blaster said:

Some politicians can get away with being on the wrong side of a 60/40 issue, but not too many. It would be foolish to succumb to this abortion obsession.

Click to expand...

Best to be on the right side of a 60/40 issue even if that puts you in the minority. And if the 60% doesn't like you for it it's best to leave them behind and find a different political party.