Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(151,457 posts)
33. I see 2016 as yet another transitional election.
Sun Nov 30, 2014, 02:07 PM
Nov 2014

I long for that transitional phase to be over, though. Until we are able to elect a President and Congress of the same party, we will be unable to make any significant progress on very important issues in this country.

Presidents have limited powers. Congress has limited powers. A standstill is often the result. We've been at the same standstill stage for far too long, but I don't see a sudden switch to a progressive President and Congress in the offing for 2016. I've been following electoral politics since the 1960s, and I'm not seeing any way to take any sudden turns right now.

Frankly, in 2016, the very best I hope for is a Democratic President and Democratic control of at least one house of Congress. If we can manage to gain control of both houses, then I could maybe see the end of this transitional phase coming. Right now, it's ugly as dog crap out there, politically.

We just lost control of the Senate, for pete's sake. Now, we have a Republican Congress. No progress is forseen, as far as I can tell. We have another chance in 2016. But we're still in transition. The GOP could be in its fading days, but you'd never know it from the 2014 election results.

I'd settle for a Democratic Congress and President in 2016. Any Democrats will do to attain that. With that, we can enact some actual legislation that actually moves things forward. With movement forward, we can expect a better response from voters. Right now, the political stage is boring and static. Not much reason for sluggish voters to show up. There's nothing going on.

We need to gain control by the Democratic Party so something can actually be done that's of interest to the population. Right now, I'm expecting two more years of stolid, non-functional government on the national level. Not very encouraging. I'm tired and sick of Democrats defeating themselves. It's boring.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'll take crap for this, but I think a good share of America wants a white man back in charge. CrispyQ Nov 2014 #1
I agree. That's part of what I meant by a reactionary electorate cali Nov 2014 #2
Romney , imho, only polls well because of buyers remorse DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2014 #3
possibly, but that doesn't mean that that itself couldn't be something that worked in his favor cali Nov 2014 #6
She is a turnoff to the younger 50% of voters. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #4
True - could mean a very low turnout if she's the nominee. polichick Nov 2014 #40
She loves war, and war criminals. Those are disqualifiers for me. Scuba Nov 2014 #5
In truth, so does every candidate for President. MineralMan Nov 2014 #7
I disagree. I think she has some unique challenges cali Nov 2014 #9
I know you disagree. You tell us so frequently. MineralMan Nov 2014 #13
True but since most of us vote, cali can sway people on DU so no this is a good place Rex Nov 2014 #14
Most DUers will vote for the Democratic nominee. MineralMan Nov 2014 #19
I'm not concerned at all, just pointing out that people can be swayed to vote Rex Nov 2014 #24
That's certainly true. As I have said a number of times, if Bernie Sanders or MineralMan Nov 2014 #28
True, I don't know if we will even have another viable candidate. Rex Nov 2014 #31
I see 2016 as yet another transitional election. MineralMan Nov 2014 #33
are you confused, MM? do you realize cali Nov 2014 #22
I'm not telling you what to post or not post, Cali. MineralMan Nov 2014 #27
See, you were very well reasoned until THAT comment wyldwolf Nov 2014 #36
Agree Bagsgroove Nov 2014 #12
Clinton fatique aspirant Nov 2014 #8
Though it is not we have already handed Hillary a victory it is really Hillary's to lose Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #10
reducing the damage and continuing threat of corporate influence and control cali Nov 2014 #17
cali, what I am trying to call your attention is the 90% dors not have the funds to Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #29
just because you benefited from a corporation, hardly makes the encroachment cali Nov 2014 #34
so you are saying Warren got campaign money from corporations and she does not have ties Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #35
absolutely. she does not have the history with corporations and Wall Street that Hillary does cali Nov 2014 #37
Okay, she admitted where she got money and she does have connections. Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #38
I agree. If it comes down to a fight for the "middle" she's in trouble. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #11
Nice! Bagsgroove Nov 2014 #23
Good defense, huh Thinkingabout Nov 2014 #32
She is not a shoe in, much to the chargin of some here. Rex Nov 2014 #15
Hillary's not stressin' nt BootinUp Nov 2014 #16
How do you know? cali Nov 2014 #18
Its a gift I have. BootinUp Nov 2014 #20
Agreed. And that white working class vote she needs sure as hell aren't living in 2008. hedda_foil Nov 2014 #21
Ensorcelled. One of my favorite words. cali Nov 2014 #26
Indeed, Warren can and probably will ensorcell a great many of them. NYC_SKP Nov 2014 #41
All your concerns are why I won't support her through the Cleita Nov 2014 #25
I'm going to disagree with you about one factor here. Savannahmann Nov 2014 #30
They talk about polls TBF Nov 2014 #39
Here's where you're mistaken Proud Public Servant Nov 2014 #42
NO.MORE.BOOMERS. GeorgeGist Nov 2014 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton has a ver...»Reply #33