Progressives (Liberals)

. Most of us understand this quandary, and his base at about 30% who doesn't seem to care what he says or does. I wonder how many are in the 800,000 group not having income?

I don't know. I just know he will be the #1 topic of conversation for now.

He doesn't have to be. If people pay him No mind, he gets far less in the way of attention. People respond to his every word and move. To all of his Twitter stuff. Enough already! If he's certifiably insane, then treat him the same as an institutionalized individual. Regular, but, limited contact. He thrives on all the attention, you and others responding to or continuously talking about him, only makes him feel more important and leads him to believe he is loved by everyone.

Are you serious, or just misinformed at a level that is hard to imagine?

That's what I have been trying to say.

Understood.

I think the media would be all over a challenger to trump. Everybody loves to hate trump. People would suck up the news and polling daily. (I know I’d be getting up early every day to see the latest numbers and commentary.)

If they primaried Jimmy Carter, it seems obvious that Trump would be primaried. They all have hemorrhoids every day, trying to come up with responses to what Trump said the day before. If the Republicans want to be relevant post/Trump, I think they’d better find someone presidential to try to erase this nutty era.

Might be wishful thinking.

. That applies to both parties; too many candidates on the democrat's side, and too few on the republican's side.

So let me ask you — if the Democratic Party had a real progressive platform in '16, with lots of input from Sanders supporters, but Clinton was still the choice of the primary voters, would you have voted for her? Would you choose party over personality if you trusted the party to faithfully represent your interests? The party system, as much as I dislike it, is really important as far as making lasting change in Washington goes. We could elect the most progressive politician alive — but without a substantial majority in Congress we're not going to see wholesale changes in the economic system, not with such a closely-divided electorate. We'd need favorable courts, too. So we elect our progressive administration that can't put any of its campaign promises into law because McConnell still runs the Senate and the courts strike everything down — well we'd be pissed, right? But if there were a strong Democratic Party to field and support local candidates, a strong national committee that could raise money without Wall Street, big oil, and big pharma bankrolling the party, smart capable spokespeople showing up on news shows...****, people might actually believe the party stood for something and they'd keep voting Democratic. It like Sullivan pointed out — Clinton was popular but Gore just couldn't manage to beat GWB in a convincing way at all. People should have voted for the party in that election. Would've saved us the Iraq War.

. That's a mouthful, and I'll add, it would have saved a lot of lives from that unnecessary war. It still galls me that Diane Feinstein refused to listen to my plea that the war was unnecessary, and the US chased out the UN Weapons Inspectors was the fraud perpetrated by our country for that illegal war.

It was always about policy with me. Which is why I quit supporting Clinton, after once being an ardent supporter. If she had been liberal Sanders would not have even declared a candidacy.

there were 2 people who could have become president in 2016 - it doesn't matter how many ran - there were 2 people who could have become president

you had 2 policy choices - Clinton and #45

__

that's what's in front of you again - 2 choices. the next US president will be a Democrat or a Republican

keep your eye on the prize

distraction by the Russians worked in 2016

I sure hope US voters are smarter next time round

You people will never accept any blame for your own failure.

The Democrats lead us downhill for thirty years. Both of the Clintons are more Republican than Democrat, in belief and policy. If I wanted a third Bush presidency I would have become a Republican. I voted for the only non Republican I could, which was Stein. Nobody in the world predicted the calamity that Trump has wrought.

I don't think that you can count on the most liberal candidates always prevailing. So with a functioning party system, rather than having to vet the occasional Conor Lamb or Jared Golden (my newly-elected rep) it would be sufficient to know that yes, the candidate upheld the platform and would vote to implement any and all of it. Interestingly, we're watching the festering Republican Party implode right before our eyes — it's like a civics experiment in real life. Might be an opportune time for the Democratic Party to get its act together.

I see that poseur is still trying to pretend that everyone is making a fuss about her.

No they haven't. Rather, one poseur is pretending that the GOP are obsessed about her.

Oh come on now — it's been downhill since George Washington! That "shining city on the hill" is a steaming heap of ****. The Democrats didn't lead us anywhere. Any plans along the lines of the Great Society or New Deal were severely constrained by widespread resentment of taxes and public spending (everywhere but in one's home district) and deficits caused by the Vietnam conflict and military spending in general really shrank the available slice of pie.

I've got to disagree with you there.

what? where were you in 2016?