The three popular vote winners in US history who were not elected President were all Democrats.

The first time this occurred was in 1876, when Democratic nominee Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but eventually conceded to Republican nominee Rutherford Hayes in exchange for the federal government pulling troops out of the South (and thus, ending Reconstruction and allowing the Southern Democrats to engage in their reign of racist terror against black people unencumbered). This was the only of these three elections in which the Republican Party was in any way, shape, or form more progressive than the Democrats were - specifically, on race and civil rights; consequently, the tragedy of 1876/1877 was not that the Republican nominee became President in spite of the Democrat receiving more votes, but rather that the Republicans BETRAYED a key constituency (and a very marginalized and vulnerable constituency, at that) so that their candidate could be President.

The other two times in which the popular vote winner (and Democratic nominee) didn't become President - those within living memory - were 2000 and 2016. I think that the circumstances surrounding those outcomes and their consequences for the country (and the world) speak for themselves.

This country wasn't built for persons of color. Keyword: FOR

As opposed to BY. This is an important distinction. One short word is replaced with another short word, and the meaning immediately becomes the polar opposite.

Who built the White House and the Capitol building again?

Whose brutally, cruelly, and horrifically exploited unpaid slave labor was the very FOUNDATION of the economy and society ("way of life&quot of the Southern United States even before they were States - not to mention, much of the rest of the country, and indirectly, the entire country?

Who contributed so much - one might argue, the lion's share - to the development of the popular culture of the United States?

And who, to this day, still hasn't been compensated for everything they've done for this country, everything they've literally sacrificed under what can only be described as conditions that are appallingly destructive to the body and the spirit - yet in spite of this, have achieved (and continue to achieve) utterly astounding things under those very conditions (conditions that again, continue in this day and age)?

This country wasn't built for persons of color. But in oh so many ways, it was built BY persons of color. Never forget that truth. No one can tell you otherwise - and if they do, they're bullshitting in the worst way possible.

Make no mistake - for Trump supporters, repealing "Obamacare" has nothing to do with health care.

Clue: the "Obama" in the term "Obamacare" from the school of Frank Luntz and similar focus-testing right-wing assholes.

Gee, I wonder why some of the people who directly benefit from "Obamacare" would want to see it destroyed. Real head-scratcher, that one.

Obviously the wealthy donors who bankroll the Republican Party (not the least of which include their elected officials - whom are aggressively lobbied by agents of the donor class on a daily basis) want this monstrous (even by Republican standards...) tax cut for the wealthy that is (pretty fucking transparently) wrapped up as a "health care bill." Their motivations, while certainly cruel and sociopathic, are more straightforward on this one. They want their taxes cut, and fuck everyone else. OK.

But when you turn to your typical middle or lower-middle income Trump voter and THEIR motivations for wanting "Obamacare" repealed...well, it gets more complicated, doesn't it? Because a lot of them like the Affordable Care Act, more or less. Many directly benefit from it, along with many of their family members. But when the orange-maned Dear Leader starts ranting and raving about repealing and replacing "Obamacare" with "something bigger and better, believe me"...well

Why do you all think I posted this in the African-American Group?

Trump doesn't give a fuck what's in AHCA so long as he can brag about "repealing Obamacare."

And you know what? His supporters will love him all the more for it.

Sure, repealing the ACA will directly lead to literally millions of deaths and millions more finding it increasingly impossible to deal with this country's astronomically high (and growing!) health care costs (along with the rest of the almost comically wasteful, complex, bureaucratic labyrinth that is the mostly for-profit US health care system - "greatest country in the world", right folks?), and sure, many of these millions will be Trump supporters, but hey, at least the guy destroyed the signature legislative achievement of the Black Muslim President from Kenya or whatever.

Demographics won't "do its thing" - at least, not for a long time.

White voters have only gotten MORE Republican overall, and the Democratic triumphalism regarding the changing demographics hasn't helped in that respect.

And note that voters of color (as opposed to people of color in general - lots of people can't vote i.e immigrants, people with criminal records, people disenfranchised by Republican gerrymandering, along with lots of people who aren't registered or simply don't vote - all of these being disproportionately, but by no means exclusively of course, people of color) are heavily concentrated in urban areas (a fact that has made the Republican gerrymandering easier) and in reliably Democratic states (like my own state, for example).

White voters will continue to play a disproportionate role in elections in the short term and in the medium term, and they aren't getting less Republican as a whole - quite the opposite. And this is especially true outside of, again, places that are already heavily Democratic. You may not like this reality (I certainly don't) but unfortunately, it IS the reality.

Wrong framing. It should be "How do the Democrats fail to stop the Republicans?"

I supported Ellison for Chair but Perez is fine. I do agree that Democrats need to be more united.

However, it's not enough to just unite around opposition to Trump. We need a POSITIVE vision of our own that is genuine, sincere, and that has emotional resonance for as many people as possible - both voters and nonvoters who just might start to come out to vote for Democrats if they become convinced that we can give them that. Above all, we need clear, no bullshit, easy-to-understand, and consistent MESSAGED DISCIPLINE. And we need to focus on local, state, and congressional elections, because the next presidential election is still three and a half years away.

"Poverty threads, for instance, are infamous for dropping like stones around here." Indeed.

Shows this site's priorities...

Republicans will never impeach Trump, and I'll tell you why.

1) They have no political incentive to impeach; have you noticed just how much of the government (federal, state, local) Republicans control right now?!

2) Most elected Republicans still fear the "deplorables" more than they fear any other group of voters.

3) Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell can still get most of what they want with President Trump even granting that he's far from their ideal President.

4) Trump's daily Twitter rants and all-around stunted, sadistic personality offer a convenient distraction for Congressional Republucans as they quietly yet hastily gut regulations on corporations, pass more tax cuts for rich people, dismantle the social safety net, and so on and so forth.

5) The entire Republican leadership - among others in the party - are likely just as up to their eyeballs in Russian connections as Trump and his administration.

6) The Republican Party is the party of and for sociopaths and con men. Birds of a feather, and all that...

I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm not holding my breath though...

"Women take it too seriously imo"

This is a forum for supporters of the pro-women's rights Democratic Party, not for people who trivialize and dismiss violent, often-specific and potentially credible threats against individual women. Ever heard of "doxxing?" Happens to women online on a regular basis - feminist women being the most common targets. What does THAT tell you about how safe the Internet is for women?

If women can't speak out against the very real and utterly pervasive violence, discrimination, and misogyny that occurs both online and offline without some pathetic asshole posting their personal information (including their home address and phone number) online for any stalker or predator to take advantage of, then how the hell are they supposed to participate in online discussions of political and social issues (particularly discussions of issues that directly and disproportionately affect women)? And you have the gall to complain about "censorship" and the Internet being "less free" for so-called "banter" that includes graphic, personal threats of rape and murder? Let me ask you this: have you ever considered how THAT censors and silences women, how that makes them "less free?" That's a rhetorical question, of course.