I think that's why the democrats are struggling. The party has become too obsessed with the social issues. The economy. The debt. Jobs. Healthcare costs. Foreign policy. These are the issues that the majority of Americans prioritize. These are the issues that need to be addressed competently to make a strong nation. The democrats have stances on these issues, sometimes very good stances, but they are letting them slip out of the forefront. The social issues matter, but treating so much of the country like they have this fucking KKK/ancient patriarchy ideology is absurd, and doesn't resonate. The coastal liberals you're referencing are obsessed with defining people they know nothing about, it's a distorted perception from dramatized news networks and race/gender obsessed social theories that don't correlate with reality. Then, when a rejection of that horse shit reflects in the votes they double down and act like we're going back to the 1930s every time they lose and it is fucking embarrassing. The stance on immigration from the mainstream left is so unrealistic it's offensive. Calling someone a racist for wanting sensible regulations isn't progress, it's a childish tantrum. I know the right does this too, buying into caricatures from the news, but it's not just fox news, it's the message that's coming from the left wing networks. It's a message a lot of shit head liberals really believe in. When your own politicians start propagating that nonsense - that's when you're really in trouble. I think if the social issues message was towards 'ignorance' rather than towards 'racists' it would probably work a lot better. Not only because it's the method that isn't being an asshole; the majority of Americans aren't racists and misogynists and they need to get with the times and fucking realize that already. Seriously, what is the reason so many women don't want to identify as feminists? Is it because of the super scary patriarchy mis-characterizing the word, or is it the unappealing message from mainstream feminists themselves? I know I'm super harsh on the left, but the state of democratic party really is a mess at the moment, and I hope the mainstream democrats start easing up on this narrative that 'everyone who isn't a democrat is stupid.' It's not a particularly persuasive argument, and it's often used as a distraction from their own ignorance on a subject. There's a general disconnect with democrat campaigning where a lot of liberals are responding to their politicians with 'they're speaking the truth' and a lot of Americans are thinking 'this is so out of touch'.
I think the Democrats lose sight of the fact that they've already won most of the major social issues. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. It seems like the focus has gotten clouded. They don't have a platform that doesn't revolve around them like they've had for the last 40 years, so they are forced to make up new ones. Everyone wants to feel like they are fighting for something, but what if the battles have already been won? There was an inordinate amount of time spent on discussing topics like what bathrooms trannies can use, or cop violence, or dubious claims of racism, etc. The entire party platform needs to be revised from the ground up. And as someone who is an independent, I hope they do because Im not a big fan of the current Republican Party and I don't want them to control everything, but the Democrats need a renaissance.
This thinking is part of the problem. It's hard to view these issues as permanently "won" when their victories are under a relentless attack from the GOP. Abortion: Which party has been pushing Abortion related laws in the states for the past decade plus? Not the Democrats. Which party has been trying to enact "bathroom protection" bills? Not the Democrats. When the SCOTUS struck down portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which party immediately went to work trying to enact new ways to restrict voting - with North Carolina's attempt struck down explicitly for being racist? Not the Democrats. Which party has been trying to enact "Religious Freedom" bills whose sole purpose is to protect discrimination? Again, not the Democrats. I get it, as an independent you're sick of these issues being perpetually at the forefront. Well let me tell you as a Liberal who's always voted Democrat, I'm fucking sick of it too. But the GOP refuses to agree with your position that these issues have been "won" for the Democrats and keeps pushing back, so here we are.
I understand that too, is as well as the fact that the Republicans have to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity. But as far as the issues mentioned, they (including Trump) haven't largely vowed to overturn gay marriage, certain restrictions on abortion aren't the same as completely overturning Roe vs Wade (I know some of them do want that though) or illegitimate, and the Voting Rights Act wasn't exactly a Democrats vs Republicans issue as you suggest, and they would likely have the same opinion on their religious freedom laws as you do about some of the issues you care about. It's easy to just shrug something off, its harder to try earnestly grasp an alternative perspective. And that comment is meant for both parties. The whole system doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
To be fair, the VP Elect has said flat out that he will try to de-fund Planned Parenthood and reverse Roe v. Wade.
They have a hilarious tendency to eat their own which is always fun to watch, the religous right doesnt do that as much. Again it is the religous hardliners that really turn off just about everyone. Outside of Trump's black swan like win, where he really pulled a sliver of the right demogrpahics in a couple of key states, the Republican's are still precariously close to national election obscurity. Despite the bitching about the electoral college it still favors big cities/states since electors are based on.... population.
Is that true though? The democrats like to say it, but how accurate is that? The midwest is turning more and more red. Latinos seem to be warming to the GOP. Trump is actually pushing the republican party left on a lot of the social issues, even though he did pick Pence for VP. Trump, as well as a lot of establishment republicans have been entertaining the idea of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants after they strengthen border security (good chance this means applauding a total failure as a resounding success). Regardless, if that happens while the GOP has control of the presidency and so much of the government, it will be good for America, but could be very bad for democrats.
Not to generalize the left, as I'm sure a lot of democrats find this embarrassing, but the unwillingness to accept the election results has gotten disgraceful. A slew of celebrities and voters are urging the electors to not cast for Trump. Even if it did happen, which it won't, but even if electors cast neither 270 for Trump or Clinton it goes to the house and they... elect Trump. A GOP controlled house is not going to reject their voter base like that and put a democrat in Trump's place. They certainly aren't going to go for Johnson who looked more inept than anyone concerning his ability to govern. This is so pathetic. It's just one fucking reason after another they want to pretend they were cheated or that Americans can't decide for themselves who they wanted to vote for. Let's say I 100% believe that Russia sent all the DNC, Podesta e-mails, and wall-street speeches to wikileaks. Ok. Is this supposed to make me want to vote for Clinton? Why? Why would anyone decide to change their vote on that? Because they're more obsessed with being anti-Russia than choosing the candidate they prefer? This is fucking stupid. Not to mention the democrats were blaming Russia well before election day. Voters decided they didn't give a shit a chose Trump. Why would an inability to protect her information be a reason to vote for her? Besides, most of the stuff in the wikileaks was already obvious, it just confirmed what anyone not totally in denial about Hillary already knew. The democrats pushed that Putin's puppet shit all the way through September. It's a conspiracy theory without evidence. Especially after the way the DNC handled the primaries(which was shrugged off by most of the people who can't let Trump's win go 6 FUCKING WEEKS after the general election), the inability to accept these results looks really bad, and has been nothing but a black eye. Brazile, who was installed as the DNC chair immediately after demonstrating she is incapable of ethically performing the basic job function, is disputing Obama's statements and saying Russia continued hacking after his sidebar with Putin, whereas Obama seemed confident they stopped. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but clearly the democrats can't get even the most basic elements of their story straight. Wouldn't this information reach Obama? I assume the DNC and a democrat president would communicate. And wouldn't you report the hacking to the CIA, FBI, and whoever else throughout this process? Maybe claiming he made them stop was a little lie from Obama to protect political points, or maybe they're just really inept.
I fully agree with where you are coming from. But for just one second, think about if the election situation were completely reversed and Hillary won under the same circumstances with all the Russia shit and Trump claiming everything is rigged with wikileaks and the FBI and the CIA and whateverthefuckelse. I don't disagree with you on the efforts being pathetic, but please stop acting like the republicans are some beacon of maturity who wouldn't also being doing the exact same thing. In fact, they spent the last 8 years fighting against any kind of progress. So please, let them have their tantrum and then move on.
If you're honestly asking this question, here's your answer: They would take a step back and ask themselves why does Putin want Trump as president so badly and why is he willing to risk so much to get it? Any honest reading of the situation would reveal that Putin believes that Trump would be disastrous for the NATO alliance, would undermine the United States both domestically and on the international stage, and would give him a freer hand in establishing a Greater Russia. And Putin is correct. A vote for Trump is a vote for a weaker and lesser America.
Russia has bigger problems right this moment. Their ambassador to Turkey was just shot in Ankara, according to AP.
I tend to think that the desire for Russia to have Trump in office is less sinister than some people are claiming. In a game of high-stakes poker, do you want to invite the grizzled old veteran or the loud-mouthed newb to the table to play? I mean, right now China is probably wanting the same thing as Russia, especially after Trump's "they can keep it" underwater drone comment. It's hilarious how he's responding like he's still on The Apprentice.
If it was Russia, and they did want Trump to win, the reasons would be fairly obvious just from the campaign statements. Hillary wanted a continued escalation of conflict, Trump said he wanted to try to get along with Russia. After the Crimea crisis the Obama administration had to respond, but it's gone too far and really no one is benefiting. Not Europe, not the US, not Russia, and certainly not Syria. A lot of EU politicians have come out trying to get the two sides to come to the table. The lack of diplomacy and constant dick waving from both sides is getting out of control. Also, if Russia did push for Trump, I seriously doubt they actually changed the outcome of the election, or can all that well predict what Trump is going to do. I'm not sure Trump can really predict what Trump is going to do a lot of the time.
That's geopolitics through proxy states; it's a game both the US and Russia know they're playing, and neither side truly considers Syria worth the price of serious sacrifice. Interfering in a domestic election in contrast would have brought consequences directly to Moscow's doorstep.
Well, Obama still has time to pursue some of those consequences if he wants. I don't know the details of what all they have at their disposal, but I'm sure the senate has options to increase sanctions after Trump takes office. Right now the statements are all over the place, but Obama's recent speech had some not so veiled threats. Who knows if it's political barking or he's actually planning something substantial? The democrat establishment needs to reach a consensus on happened first, which they should have been able to do this long after the election. Edit: Not saying it's likely, but I still wouldn't be totally shocked if this whole thing was just using Russia as a scapegoat for how they perceive wikileaks embarrassed the party, and the government as a whole throughout it's existence. It would be very stupid to do that, but stupid is in vogue with our government these days. If Podesta really lost his e-mails to phishing that doesn't exactly require an operation from a major power.
There were also attempted incursions on the voting systems of various states. These attempts appear not to have been successful, so they have gotten comparatively little attention.
The DHS report from October says At the time they were not 100% able to tie it to the Russian Government, but it appears their analysis since then has made it fairly conclusive it was directed top down from the Kremlin.
So far, there have only been two attempts at faithless electors, in Minn. and Maine. Both of them refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The elector in Minn. was replaced, while the one in Maine switched his vote from Sanders to Clinton after being ruled improper.