Questions about the Democratic Party

[Tabby]

I'm curious as to what might happen now with Hillary being declared the nominee. According to what I've read, Bernie Saunders is not dropping from the race yet. Is there some strategy for him to continue on? Is there a chance he'll run as an independent?

Also, what do his supporters do now? I get the impression many don't like Hillary but could they seriously vote for Trump?

What if Hillary did something radical and named Saunders as her running mate? Would that appease or alienate his supporters? Has anything like that ever happened?

The past few months of political news has been dominated by the Republican party. Finally the Dems are getting interesting.

[WheresMyWhite]

I get the impression many don't like Hillary but could they seriously vote for Trump?

The rest I can't speak to but we'll have plenty of choices on the ballot come November besides the Republican and Democrat...

[Tabby]

Are there really a whole lot of independents WMW? Is there any point in voting someone who hasn't got a chance of getting in?

[WheresMyWhite]

Are there really a whole lot of independents WMW? Is there any point in voting someone who hasn't got a chance of getting in?

I wouldn't consider the non-Dem and non-Rep as "independent" as much as unaffiliated either of those two parties. For example, I don't think Libertarians would consider themselves independents (at least IMO).

One could say what is the point in voting for someone who doesn't really have a chance of being elected POTUS. I refuse to vote for people that I don't agree with their platforms. I also choose to vote non-Dem and non-Rep in the hope, however vain it may be, that some day we'll have choices other than those two parties.

I believe (no, I didn't do any research) that non-Dem and non-Rep individuals have been voted into offices other than POTUS (Senate, I'm not sure, Representative I think so plus other state and other local offices).

And a very late PS. I've been affiliated and am not not. One win in my book for being unaffiliated is that I won't get all those obnoxious phone calls and junk in the mail for all the candidates for the party I am affiliated with if I was affiliated

[Tabby]

I'm curious about the influence of non-Dem/Rep parties in these elections. Using your example - if the Libertarian POTUS candidate got a lot of votes - not enough to be considered a threat but enough to draw attention - would that influence the main parties as to how they develop future policies? I guess it goes back to my original question about Saunders - he's significantly further to the left than the traditional Democratic party and has rallied up quite a bit of support - not enough to win but enough to make people look seriously at his platform. Do the Dem insiders consider this when forming new policies/platforms etc. in the future? In many ways, the Republicans did this when the Tea Party movement began to gain momentum. It seems to have backfired for them, though the whole Trump thing throws such a big wrench into the issue we may never really know. But I can see how many of Bernie's ideals would be as offensive to hard core right wingers as the Tea Party ideals are to left wingers.

It's a very interesting swinging pendulum, isn't it?

[WheresMyWhite]

Good questions and ones I'm not sure I have the answers to

Based on my "I detest politics and avoid them at all costs" view and only from the anecdotal Republican view... I don't think the Republican "party" cares much about what others think about them or if they should alter their platform other than what party leaders think. And, again IMO, too many people vote party line without thinking about what that "party" stands for or represents. In my case, I won't vote for a party that doesn't pretty much represent most of how I feel and, individuals aside, neither major party can do that. Both sides have planks I can't support. I used to vote for "the lesser of two evils" and now I can't/won't even do that.

My hope in voting for "some else" is that, over time, whichever party/parties garner some amount of support that they become an effective third party rather than me thinking that either Dem or Rep will look at third parties that have support and capture some of their ideas.

And yes, interesting pendulum. The only part that scares me is that we are current on the high end of the swing on both sides (maybe a bit less on the Dem side than Rep) but 4 years is plenty of time to mess things up .

[Chisamba]

I am curious as to whether there polarity of the two parties ( they both seem to blame each other) is somewhat due to the massive media . There are so many newsies, tweets, pundits etc that " secret" collaboration may no longer be possible.

Every one is outed, as it were, politically. This seems to punish the logical middle ground.

Anyway I agree that the pendulums seem to have swung away from center on both sides.

Would I like history took be made and a moderate woman to be president,. Yes. This particular one,. No.

[Tuffytown]

I agree Chisamba. I don't think most of the voters are as polarized as the media purport but the sensationalism of the extremes is what pulls in the clicks and the views. I do think the parties capitalize on that to rally the troops and feed the paranoia of "the other" and prevent working together for middle ground.

The donators and lobbyists also promote it as it benefits their bottom line. Just look at all the money raked in by gun and ammo manufacturers helped by the NRA's touting of "obamas gonna take yur guns". Wasn't and isn't going to happen but the promoters of the idea are laughing all the way to the bank.

[WheresMyWhite]

Just look at all the money raked in by gun and ammo manufacturers helped by the NRA's touting of "obamas gonna take yur guns". Wasn't and isn't going to happen but the promoters of the idea are laughing all the way to the bank.

But it works... manufacturers are making $$.

As to wasn't and isn't going to happen, that I would disagree... owning firearms will continue to be nibbled away at (as they have for years) until one can't own them (or just celebs).

[Tuffytown]

Exactly, fearmongering works. Whenever I hear the drama du jour, and it is always a moving target to manipulate the public, my first reaction is to look downstream to see who is profiting monetarily. That probably going to be the real instigator of the issue.

[WheresMyWhite]

Exactly, fearmongering works. Whenever I hear the drama du jour, and it is always a moving target to manipulate the public, my first reaction is to look downstream to see who is profiting monetarily. That probably going to be the real instigator of the issue.

All one needs to do is look at how more and more legislation has been applied to gun owners over the years. It *will* happen... not today, not tomorrow and probably not even next week or the next 10 years but it *will* happen...

And no worries about fear mongering... I'll probably not even be around any longer when it happens

[ejm]

IMO one of the biggest problems our state and national lawmakers face is the rise of "gotcha" politics and short-term goals trumping what's best for our country. Again IMO this is tied in large part to the gigantic infusions of cash and negativity into political campaigns.

Congressional and state-level lawmakers can't spend 5 minutes working together across the aisle trying to form a workable consensus without some well-funded, well-publicized lobbying campaign vilifying them for "working with the enemy" and spending $$$ running a very ideological fringe candidate against them in the primary.

Reasonable, out of the box suggestions cannot be made or discussed without the same thing happening. Not saying by any means that every idea should become law, but discussion and attempts at consensus are bound to be better for our country in the long run than congressional "leadership" being sold on and then pushing lobbyist- and think tank-written legislation on their members.

And the ones doing the "gotcha" stuff are usually operating from a very narrow viewpoint, or doing the bidding of well-funded private citizens, who are looking after their own narrow ideology or business interests rather than the long-term effects on our country.

[piedmontfields]

I'm curious about the influence of non-Dem/Rep parties in these elections.

Below is my POV, which is shared by many educated, savvy pundits FWIW:

"Using your example - if the Libertarian POTUS candidate got a lot of votes - not enough to be considered a threat but enough to draw attention - would that influence the main parties as to how they develop future policies?"

-No. The Libertarian Party has very little traction in national politics, although interest in it does reflect some broader national trends in attitudes (ex. support of LGBT rights).

"I guess it goes back to my original question about Saunders - he's significantly further to the left than the traditional Democratic party and has rallied up quite a bit of support - not enough to win but enough to make people look seriously at his platform. Do the Dem insiders consider this when forming new policies/platforms etc. in the future? "

-They already are. Actually Sanders is a fairly traditional democrat in the FDR sense. He would not hold up that well as a Democratic Socialist in the EU! Hillary Clinton is a center-right candidate.

"But I can see how many of Bernie's ideals would be as offensive to hard core right wingers as the Tea Party ideals are to left wingers. "

-Hillary and Bernie share a lot of common ground. People who actually vote (which is a minority of the population) will see this. Virtually no Bernie supporters will vote for Trump.

-At the convention, you can expect Bernie to give a moving speech calling attention to key domestic issues around inequality and social justice. And you can expect him to soundly endorse Hillary Clinton for President as part of the effort to defeat Donald Trump.

-FYI, we are a long way from having a true multi-party system, where more than Dem/Rep have a chance at major elections. A lot of this is due to money/campaign financing.