Elections are won in the primaries

"Again, if the gerrymandering guarantees that a republican candidate wins the district,"Gerrymandering is an issue here. But a bigger issue is that Democrats do not show up to vote. The turnout for the last presidential election was over 65% in NC, but turnout for the prior election was in the low forties. In many districts, and interested democratic voting base could make some headway.

Rrhain writes: September 24, 2009, Paul G. Kirk, former Democratic National Committee chairman and former aide to Kennedy, was appointed to occupy the Senate seat until the completion of the special election. Of course he had no seniority and was only a vote. Deval Patrick had changed rules allowing the Governor to appoint Kirk. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the January 19, 2010 election, and Kirk was history, so another 4 months....Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, Obama did not choose to do make DC a state. DC is constitutionally barred from becoming a state. The constitution had to be amended just to give DC residents the right to vote. The president has no role in passing a constitutional amendment, other than asking for it.

​

Did you look into the facts before posting?

---

It is in no way certain that the Supreme Court would not allow Washington D.C. statehood.Kenneth Star says that it should be a state according to the constitution (though laws might be required to make the process enable the constitution to flicker).There are lots of arguments for it being constitutional, and it is based on many things stated in the past.

quote:

---

You need to rethink your title, there, LamarkNewAge.
It's a common complaint that "The Democrats had 60 votes!"

​

Really?

---

The fact that we have nationalists in congress dictated the (non) direction we went in.Some well placed moles can really stop something from even being whispered about.This should have been a front burner issue.And the GOP Congress has been stated to be the main decider on this issue.(take it from somebody who gets to read a ton of New York newspapers for free whenever I am back home - a friend on the dock even gives me the L A Times and Washington Post for free, I even had that June 21 single payer article that made a lot of news)I read enough on this issue (though I forget a lot and never knew enough) to know that the congress is the decision making body.The nationalistic moles have created a lot of trouble. Melissa Mark Viverito presents herself as very pro immigrant, so why the heck is she for closing borders (which independence would do)?Nydia Velazquez was so quick to dismiss the vote.Puerto Rico votes in favor of statehoodPuerto Rican Citizens Vote In Favor Of U.S. Statehood – VIBE.comWhy?Perhaps her whole purpose in getting elected in this ultra Democratic district (where a Democrat would always win anyway) is to be a nationalistic mole?Don't say I'm a "conspiracy theorist".RAZD already advocated the reverse in GOP primaries.(though RAZD didn't suggest secrecy and fakery, quite the contrary)

"It is in no way certain that the Supreme Court would not allow Washington D.C. statehood."Nothing is certain. However, the constitution is very clear on the issue."Kenneth Star says that it should be a state according to the constitution"Starr is correct slightly more often than you. Show me where you think that the constitution says that DC should be a state."There are lots of arguments for it being constitutional, and it is based on many things stated in the past."Make your best argument.ABE:I researched this a bit, and Ken Starr opined only on whether DC could be a Congression District with voting Congress folk and not on whether DC could be a state. The constitution, in addition to making DC not a state, says that representatives come from states.Starr argues that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws for DC, so they can do whatever they want regardless of the Constitution says. That argument fails to understand that what Congress does for DC affects the rest of us.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm curious.Why should Obama have wasted time on whether or not DC and Puerto Rico etc would be states,When there were things like healthcare, immigration and tax reform to deal with?Enjoy

That is a fair question. Over the years, lots of folks in Obama's coalition have asked why their specific needs were not first instead of healthcare. Promoters of gay rights, sound immigration policy, and yes of statehood have all asked the question.As ought to be evident now, healthcare is a fundamental concern to a far larger group of people than most people were willing to acknowledge at the time. That and the need to deal with a struggling economy easily explain why Obama made the choices he did.That's all logical. But you don't have to accept that. As one alternative, you can listen to yet another ridiculous conspiracy theory from LNA, the man who has had millions of conversations with Black people.

Which is a failure of the DNC and the neolib wing (Hillary etc) that refuses to take up issues of interest to the people that would bring them out to vote: living minimum wage, family leave, women's rights, voting rights, universal healthcare, right to organize, etc.Instead they seem to think that "republican lite" is the path to victory ... with corporate sponsors ...People hate corporate sponsorship of candidates because they see this as corruption.Enjoy

I know that you hate all things Hilary, but she is not responsible for folks not showing up to local elections for good candidates. The problem predates her run for president anyway. The problem dates back at least as far to when Republicans managed to bet enough seats to redraw the Congressional maps that we have to live with now. As if the Republicans are less corporate.

It dates to the DNC turning away from working people to suck up to corporate support/addiction.Hillary is just the latest most extreme example. What she promised was 4 more years of Obama deadlock corporatism and holding onto the status quo: you get that with or without democrats.Why should people vote for a candidate that does not promise anything more than what the republicans offer. Agreed. The difference between corporatist republicans and corporate appeasing DNC republican-lite DINO's is too small to ascertain any benefit to vote for as far as working people are concerned.Why was Bernie popular with independents and moderate republicans as well as progressive democrats?No corporate ties, issues for working people.Enjoy

You seem to be missing the point. "Corporateness" would not seem to the reason why republicans are kicking democrat booty in off cycle elections dating back for quite a bit. The republicans are just as corporate. I seem to recall Obama winning two presidential elections. You aren't making much sense with regards to explaining a long, pre Obama history of people not turning out to vote for Democrats in non-presidential elections. I would have much preferred more of the same over what we got. Rational democrats should have figured out the same.Sounds to me like you are just rehashing your issues with Bernie not getting the nomination. Again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because they use base core trigger issues (abortion, immigration, terrorist fear, etc) to get the gullible to vote for them.The democrats have, apparently, no idea of what a core issue is that is of concern to the voters. They put out ho-hum candidates and think you have to vote for them. Because he represented change in the first and keeping the wolves at bay in the second, when the republicans won state elections and the house and then the senate.They effectively hog-tied Obama's second term, and would have done the same to Hillary ... unless they could magically win house and senate seats, which Hillary was incapable of doing. It was -- and still is -- a(n increasing) failure to have and promote core issues that appeal to voters. Which only would have delayed the inevitable descent into the maelstrom. don't exist in the DNC. Look at Wasserman-Schultz for example, and Pelosi (who thinks we are doing fine), and the new imposed chairman of the DNC ... Except that it has been -- and was -- independent voters that elected the president. Except that it is about issues that get voters to the ballots, not Bernie. Bernie was popular because he had the issues that appealed to the voters."Elections are won in the primaries" (and lost) because of gerrymandering and also because of the way the primaries are run -- as if only their flavor of candidate matters.Bernie won the open primaries because the independents could vote. He lost the closed primaries because the independents couldn't vote.As long as dems ignore and belittle independent voters they will continue to lose. It's simple math.Enjoy

LamarkNewAge responds to me:

quote:

---

The fact that we have nationalists in congress dictated the (non) direction we went in.

---

So now you're changing your argument. First, you were saying it was Obama's fault because Congress didn't do it when they had their (microscopic) "filibuster-proof majority." Now you're blaming Congress.But you still haven't addressed the issue that the *territory* is the one that has to initiate it. Congress doesn't force statehood on a territory that doesn't want it. Puerto Rico has not been forthcoming. While it seems clear that most of the territory would like to become a state, they haven't done what they need to do to get it done.Should Congress help? That's a separate question, but it's something that Puerto Rico needs to manage. And given what just happened to the island due to Maria, the path to statehood just got more complicated. There's already a financial crisis in the territory. If they were to become a state right now, that would alter things quite a bit and shift responsibility such that Congress would have more to do to help the state.And none of that addresses the fact that DC is constitutionally mandated. If DC were to become a state, then some other area of the country would need to be carved out to be the new capitol and all governmental offices that currently exist in DC would need to move to the new district. That would be a massive blow to the newly created state of DC.

quote:

---

Some well placed moles can really stop something from even being whispered about.

---

You seem to have forgotten that there is a bill in Congress regarding statehood for PR.And "moles"? Really?

quote:

---

This should have been a front burner issue.

---

Why? Or, more importantly, what are you going to do about it? Who are you voting for to help make it a bigger issue?

quote:

---

I read enough on this issue (though I forget a lot and never knew enough) to know that the congress is the decision making body.

---

Well, since you didn't seem to know that PR needs to manage the call for statehood and didn't seem to understand that DC cannot become a state without a constitutional amendment, I think you need to read a bit more.

quote:

---

Why?

---

I thought you said you read. Didn't you read why? If you disagree with the conclusions, then now would be the time to come forth with your arguments. There is a legitimate argument to be made that a poll of such a small portion of the population isn't exactly "legitimate." That doesn't mean that the sentiment isn't there, but rather than it doesn't appear to be a genuine call. After all, Congress is the one that needs to vote on this. Do you really want to go with them saying that you only have less than a quarter of the population willing to stand up and say they want to be a state?

quote:

---

Perhaps her whole purpose in getting elected in this ultra Democratic district (where a Democrat would always win anyway) is to be a nationalistic mole?

---

There's that word "mole," again.

quote:

---

Don't say I'm a "conspiracy theorist".

---

If you don't want to be identified as a "conspiracy theorist," then stop acting like one."Mole"? Really?

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

the neolib wing (Hillary etc)

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Clinton..."neolib"...(*chortle*)Oh, it's precious that you think that. Tell us, RAZD, is Elizabeth Warren a "neolib"? Because she signed off on Clinton's Wall Street plan. Is Bernie Sanders a "neolib"? Because he and Clinton had a 93% concordance in their voting records in the Senate. What about Obama because the two of them were in agreement 94% of the time.Seems you've got a bit of CDS: Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Perhaps you might want to consider all that pontificating you do about "cognitive dissonance" and rethink what you know about Clinton and "neoliberalism."Neolibs wouldn't call for a raise in the minimum wage, but Clinton did.Neolibs wouldn't call for managers of financial institutions that cause disasters to be denied their bonuses and to be fired when they are in charge of systemic corruption, but Clinton did.Neolibs wouldn't call for the overturning of Citizens United, ending of superPAC secrecy, and disclosure of corporate donations to shareholders, but Clinton did.Clinton called for the ending of private prisons. Is that a neoliberal position?Is Clinton the biggest liberal we have? No. But to pretend that she is some sort of "neolib" is to deny reality.

quote:

---

that refuses to take up issues of interest to the people that would bring them out to vote: living minimum wage, family leave, women's rights, voting rights, universal healthcare, right to organize, etc.

---

You do realize that Clinton was championing many of those issues, yes?If not, why not? There's a reason that Clinton won the second largest number of votes for a presidential election. There's a reason that Clinton's speech regarding women's rights is considered one of the most important speeches made in history.

quote:

---

Instead they seem to think that "republican lite" is the path to victory ... with corporate sponsors ...

​

People hate corporate sponsorship of candidates because they see this as corruption.

---

No, they think that "Republican lite" isn't real. After all, if you're going to vote for Republican values, why not vote for the Republican? After all, they're not Democrats and we all know what being a Democrat means. Means yer one of them librul commies who hates Christmas and Murrika. Yeah, Ossoff made more headway than any other Democrat in that district, but he was still "Republican lite" and the voters decided to vote for the real Republican.

NoNukes writes:

quote:

---

Sounds to me like you are just rehashing your issues with Bernie not getting the nomination. Again

---

And let us not forget, not only did she beat Sanders, she beat him by a bigger margin than she beat Trump.And that was in RAW votes. In a smaller election, geared toward the more liberal population, Clinton beat Sanders by 4 million votes compared to the 3 million by which she beat Trump.So unless someone is arguing that the Democratic Party has become overwhelmingly "neolib," then Clinton is hardly the "Republican lite" that some would have us believe. Clinton Derangement Syndrome lives on.