The Democrat Dilemma: A Palpable Party Rift

[TooTall]

Democrats let the Republicans dictate the message. Republicans were able to say "Obama bad" despite lower employment and gas prices, the Democrats did nothing of that, it was "despite" their efforts.

The Democrats were afraid to run on their record of more people uninsured, health care costs going down, better employment numbers and lower gas prices. Midterms are "all about that BASE" and rarely do independents vote. The Republicans were more motivated like the Democrats were in 2006. I doubt the Republicans will get close to the presidency in 2016.

I suggest that the more people uninsured was not making those whose healthcare premiums increased to pay for them interested in voting for the Democrats that forced the ACA through Congress. Health care costs are not going down. You sound like a Democrat. The healthcare rate of increase is less this year than it was last year. Gas prices are lower in spite of the best efforts of Obama to keep them high. The UE rate is down to almost as low as Bush's highest UE rate in eight years.

Not a lot for the Democrats to brag on that could not be immediately debunked, and I don't have a guess for what will happen in 2016.

 

[Silhouette]

I suggest that the more people uninsured was not making those whose healthcare premiums increased to pay for them interested in voting for the Democrats that forced the ACA through Congress. Health care costs are not going down. You sound like a Democrat. The healthcare rate of increase is less this year than it was last year. Gas prices are lower in spite of the best efforts of Obama to keep them high. The UE rate is down to almost as low as Bush's highest UE rate in eight years.

Not a lot for the Democrats to brag on that could not be immediately debunked, and I don't have a guess for what will happen in 2016.

If you think the middle bloc was "so disturbed by Obamacare that they voted en masse for the GOP", you are not playing with a full deck. Gas prices neither. None of the little pieces of buckshot could equal the cannon ball that drove so many dems to vote GOP this time..

 

[TooTall]

I suggest that the more people uninsured was not making those whose healthcare premiums increased to pay for them interested in voting for the Democrats that forced the ACA through Congress. Health care costs are not going down. You sound like a Democrat. The healthcare rate of increase is less this year than it was last year. Gas prices are lower in spite of the best efforts of Obama to keep them high. The UE rate is down to almost as low as Bush's highest UE rate in eight years.

Not a lot for the Democrats to brag on that could not be immediately debunked, and I don't have a guess for what will happen in 2016.

If you think the middle bloc was "so disturbed by Obamacare that they voted en masse for the GOP", you are not playing with a full deck. Gas prices neither. None of the little pieces of buckshot could equal the cannon ball that drove so many dems to vote GOP this time..

Since you think you are playing with a full deck, what do you think was the cannonball that drove so many dems to vote GOP this time?

I don't think many dems voted GOP this time. I think the Republicans and independents were the ones that voted AGAINST Obama's policies and the dems stayed home.

 

[Silhouette]

Since you think you are playing with a full deck, what do you think was the cannonball that drove so many dems to vote GOP this time?

I don't think many dems voted GOP this time. I think the Republicans and independents were the ones that voted AGAINST Obama's policies and the dems stayed home.

Yes, they didn't vote for the GOP. Correct. They voted against the dems. Check the picture in the OP for cannonball details. It should be fairly obvious.

Remember the insanity of an official in Texas just before the election trying to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay? That type of barb sinks straight into the bone marrow of people. The other issues are just petty buckshot..

 

[Freemason9]

Neither the democratic nor the republican schills want to touch this topic or talk about the picture in the OP. And each for their very different reasons.

The net result of democrats not talking about it, is the"unexplainable" loss of votes in 2016. The net result of the republicans not talking about it is the "unexplainable" gain of votes in 2016

Actually, the election's outcome was decided by voter participation. The Democratic candidates were cowardly and uninspiring; they ran from the successes of President Obama, embraced mediocrity, and stood for nothing. I'm glad they lost.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, the election's outcome was decided by voter participation. The Democratic candidates were cowardly and uninspiring; they ran from the successes of President Obama, embraced mediocrity, and stood for nothing. I'm glad they lost.

No, they stood for something all right. And that something was announced in Texas when the lesbian mayor tried to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay.

That was the sundae. The cherry on top was the portrayal of dems as foolish with respect to ebola.

 

[Freemason9]

Actually, the election's outcome was decided by voter participation. The Democratic candidates were cowardly and uninspiring; they ran from the successes of President Obama, embraced mediocrity, and stood for nothing. I'm glad they lost.

No, they stood for something all right. And that something was announced in Texas when the lesbian mayor tried to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay.

That was the sundae. The cherry on top was the portrayal of dems as foolish with respect to ebola.

I'll agree that having pro-gay positions doesn't bring voters to the polls. FEAR brings voters to the polls; that, and ANGER. The Democratic candidates inspired neither, and the Republicans are experts at Fear and Anger.

 

[g5000]

When specific liberal and conservative agenda items were on the ballot this election, the Left won and the Right lost. For example, "personhood" amendments failed in every state they were on the ballot. Gun control measures passed, as did every minimum wage increase that was on state ballots.

Since Democratic turnout was low, the success of specific liberal ballot measures, and the failure of conservative ballot measures, strongly suggests that some "liberal" agenda items have a lot of crossover with moderates and those who consider themselves to be conservatives, and that some conservative agenda items overreach and turn off voters.

This is why it is a mistake to conclude that the voters gave some kind of mandate to the GOP.

In a topic about the minimum wage a while ago, I pointed out that increasing the minimum wage had a lot of crossover and that the GOP was on the losing side. This past election proved that.


As for Obama and Hispanics, it is being reported the Hispanic community stayed home this election day because Obama has curtailed his executive abeyance of forced deportations. Obama is supposedly now supposed to choose between doing what the Hispanics want (stop forced deportations by Executive Order), or creating a legacy for himself by working with Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

It is assumed that if Obama chooses to work with Congress he will further alienate Hispanic voters, thus costing the 2016 Democratic nominee for President a lot of crucial votes.

If we stipulate this either/or scenario to be true, then the 2016 Democratic candidate is fucked. Because Obama serves only Obama. He will go the "personal legacy" route rather than the "what's best for the party" route.

Ironically, this may be the rare instance where Obama's ego actually ends up doing what is best for the country.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll agree that having pro-gay positions doesn't bring voters to the polls. FEAR brings voters to the polls; that, and ANGER. The Democratic candidates inspired neither, and the Republicans are experts at Fear and Anger.

Your spin is that dems voted against dems from the middle because of a LACK of fear of the homosexual culture overtaking even religion itself? Your spin is that that is an insipid point?

What was it like a week or maybe two tops before the election that this lesbian got it in her head (no doubt from consulting a well-meaning attorney/advisor) that she could lord over religion itself with the homosexual culture trying to force christianity into compliance with butt sex?

Au contraire mon ami. It is a sharp and barbed point instead. The association of the homosexual culture with the democratic label is what caused people to vote AGAINST democrats. Nobody in the middle has warm fuzzies for the GOP, trust me.. Check Congress' approval ratings from the years of "the party of no" for those numbers.

 

[Freemason9]

I'll agree that having pro-gay positions doesn't bring voters to the polls. FEAR brings voters to the polls; that, and ANGER. The Democratic candidates inspired neither, and the Republicans are experts at Fear and Anger.

Your spin is that dems voted against dems from the middle because of a LACK of fear of the homosexual culture overtaking even religion itself? Your spin is that that is an insipid point?

What was it like a week or maybe two tops before the election that this lesbian got it in her head (no doubt from consulting a well-meaning attorney/advisor) that she could lord over religion itself with the homosexual culture trying to force christianity into compliance with butt sex?

Au contraire mon ami. It is a sharp and barbed point instead. The association of the homosexual culture with the democratic label is what caused people to vote AGAINST democrats. Nobody in the middle has warm fuzzies for the GOP, trust me.. Check Congress' approval ratings from the years of "the party of no" for those numbers.

Well, you simply supported my point:

"The association of the homosexual culture with the democratic label is what caused people to vote AGAINST democrats."

Yes, indeed. I mentioned earlier that Republican voters react strongly to fear and anger. Fear of--and anger with--the gay population drove Republican voters to the polls. It's the same with gun ownership, foreigners, and science. Most Republican voters are voting AGAINST something, more than FOR anything.

Republican voters fear the changing world.

 

[TooTall]

Since you think you are playing with a full deck, what do you think was the cannonball that drove so many dems to vote GOP this time?

I don't think many dems voted GOP this time. I think the Republicans and independents were the ones that voted AGAINST Obama's policies and the dems stayed home.

Yes, they didn't vote for the GOP. Correct. They voted against the dems. Check the picture in the OP for cannonball details. It should be fairly obvious.

Remember the insanity of an official in Texas just before the election trying to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay? That type of barb sinks straight into the bone marrow of people. The other issues are just petty buckshot..

No argument from me there. When preachers can no longer preach what is in the Bible because it offends a gay person, it is time to realize that a gay person should not be put in a position of power. The word insanity that you used applies to the people of Houston that elected her.

 

[HenryBHough]

How many votes will the Democrat Party get from blacks when their nominee is discovered to be transgendered?

 

[TooTall]

I'll agree that having pro-gay positions doesn't bring voters to the polls. FEAR brings voters to the polls; that, and ANGER. The Democratic candidates inspired neither, and the Republicans are experts at Fear and Anger.

Your spin is that dems voted against dems from the middle because of a LACK of fear of the homosexual culture overtaking even religion itself? Your spin is that that is an insipid point?

What was it like a week or maybe two tops before the election that this lesbian got it in her head (no doubt from consulting a well-meaning attorney/advisor) that she could lord over religion itself with the homosexual culture trying to force christianity into compliance with butt sex?

Au contraire mon ami. It is a sharp and barbed point instead. The association of the homosexual culture with the democratic label is what caused people to vote AGAINST democrats. Nobody in the middle has warm fuzzies for the GOP, trust me.. Check Congress' approval ratings from the years of "the party of no" for those numbers.

Well, you simply supported my point:

"The association of the homosexual culture with the democratic label is what caused people to vote AGAINST democrats."

Yes, indeed. I mentioned earlier that Republican voters react strongly to fear and anger. Fear of--and anger with--the gay population drove Republican voters to the polls. It's the same with gun ownership, foreigners, and science. Most Republican voters are voting AGAINST something, more than FOR anything.

Republican voters fear the changing world.

I prefer to think that voting for freedom of religion is not driven by fear of homosexuals, especially when they harass preachers for preaching what is in the Bible. If the Mayor of Houston was a Republican I would make the same statement.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, they didn't vote for the GOP. Correct. They voted against the dems. Check the picture in the OP for cannonball details. It should be fairly obvious. Remember the insanity of an official in Texas just before the election trying to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay? That type of barb sinks straight into the bone marrow of people. The other issues are just petty buckshot..

No argument from me there. When preachers can no longer preach what is in the Bible because it offends a gay person, it is time to realize that a gay person should not be put in a position of power. The word insanity that you used applies to the people of Houston that elected her.

More to the point, the ASSOCIATION with a "powerful gay person" overstepping their authority has been surgically attached to the democratic party as a whole. THAT is the cause of the mass defection voting away from democrats, but not "for" republicans. But hey, the republicans are happy to reap the harvest of votes in the middle any way they can manuever them in..

 

[bendog]

There's a rift, but the OP has it wrong. The rift is that the potus has a different agenda than many democrat lawmakers.

 

[TooTall]

Yes, they didn't vote for the GOP. Correct. They voted against the dems. Check the picture in the OP for cannonball details. It should be fairly obvious. Remember the insanity of an official in Texas just before the election trying to censure pastors' sermons to be pro-gay? That type of barb sinks straight into the bone marrow of people. The other issues are just petty buckshot..

No argument from me there. When preachers can no longer preach what is in the Bible because it offends a gay person, it is time to realize that a gay person should not be put in a position of power. The word insanity that you used applies to the people of Houston that elected her.

More to the point, the ASSOCIATION with a "powerful gay person" overstepping their authority has been surgically attached to the democratic party as a whole. THAT is the cause of the mass defection voting away from democrats, but not "for" republicans. But hey, the republicans are happy to reap the harvest of votes in the middle any way they can manuever them in..

And the Democrats are happy to reap the harvest of votes and the large campaign contributions from the gay community.

 

[Silhouette]

There's a rift, but the OP has it wrong. The rift is that the potus has a different agenda than many democrat lawmakers.

Yeah, if you can dupe democratic strategists (an incredibly easy task given their penchant for clinging to denial) to believe that, they won't prepare for the LGBT axe you're going to fall late in September or October 2016. And man oh man alive! Do you EVER have an arsenal in that regard...providing their agenda hasn't become too normalized in the minds of just enough voters to make your ruse a bit more iffy than you bargained for..

If the LGBT cult succeeds in their "youth outreach" program for just a few more years, your "sure thing votes" will be indoctrinated out of existence. It's a training program for puppies. And when the puppy becomes a dog that votes, you know the old saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

 

[Silhouette]

I know the plan is to dupe the dems into thinking this issue didn't cost them, or won't cost them in a surprise attack in 2016. But by then if the issue is normalized, society and all the voters in it will be in a position of "well there are so many gay married couples for a couple years now, there's no turning back the tide even if we want to." It will generate an apathy that will dull the edge of any 11th-hour blade (like the Benghazi failure) they plan to bring forth then.

Far better would be a slow and steady march from the middle towards conservatives. Like the Colorado River cutting the Grand Canyon with bends and twists over a longer time. If the GOP has a hard stance NOW opposing the last advance of the LGBT cult into the fabric of society (gay marriage and forcing kids, churches and everyone else in between to participate in/promote them), it's not like the democratic party will "suddenly wake up" and see what's coming...oh my goodness...no way!

Instead what it will do is polarize a rift in the democratic party because upon the very moment the cult sees real teeth in opposition from the right, it will dig its spurs into the sides of the stumbling democratic pony and apply the whip twice as hard. That old nag will fall to its knees as the rift widens with every new public confrontation. It will cause the stain clinging to the democratic party to "set" with a mordant. And in two years time that stain will only deepen in color, not lessen. Sometimes 11th-hour strategies work to a small degree. Sometimes 1st hour strategies held sustained for two years cut a deep canyon that can never be filled.

Food for thought...

 

[Silhouette]

And the Democrats are happy to reap the harvest of votes and the large campaign contributions from the gay community.

You are only partially right. Wasn't quite a harvest of votes this time around the block now was it?

Nope. The large campaign contributions are the gays just pissing in the wind. You cannot buy people's visceral opposition to that deviant sex cult. They know what the democratic party stands for morally. And it is repugnant at its core. (See the OP picture for details)

 

[TooTall]

And the Democrats are happy to reap the harvest of votes and the large campaign contributions from the gay community.

You are only partially right. Wasn't quite a harvest of votes this time around the block now was it?

Nope. The large campaign contributions are the gays just pissing in the wind. You cannot buy people's visceral opposition to that deviant sex cult. They know what the democratic party stands for morally. And it is repugnant at its core. (See the OP picture for details)

I will comment on another day, and thanks.