What happens to the Democratic Party now? (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

I’m sure much of us are having 2016 flashbacks this morning with a sick feeling to our stomachs..

2 of the last 3 elections Democrats have lost to a far right demagogue

Harris didn’t get close in many states to even Biden’s performance. We could very well lose the Presidency, Senate AND House depending on results the next few days…..

What went wrong?
What could’ve been done better?
What can we change in the future to ensure voters are motivated like they were when Obama was elected?

Democrats have no choice but to admit there’s a huge problem with some aspect of their platform— and to do a deep introspection of what’s going wrong..

 

[Texan1211]

What does "some restrictions" mean?

I'm sorry, but is English your first language?
Some restrictions means that one would not be able to obtain an abortion for any reason at any time you choose. I would ask for a ban on them after the 5th month unless the mother's life is in danger or the pregnant person was raped.

I wouldn't call a six week restriction being "in the middle" or having one facility in the entire state being "in the middle"

Damn good thing I never suggested anything like that, huh?

You were the one being intentionally vague

Y'all are really cracking me up with this crap. Someone can write what they support in response to a particular question, and if you don't like what you read, you immediately switch to "What about".

 

[Texan1211]

I do not own a gun.

Me neither.

I posted this here before on guns
==================

It is 10am on the east coast right now

I do not own a gun. If I decide right now "I want to buy a gun" I don't think there should be anyway or any scenario that I should have a gun in my possession in my home by the time I go to bed tonight

Saying "I think I want to buy a gun" should be less like "I think I want to buy a new TV" and more like "I think I want to adopt a baby" - there should be a thorough process

There should be required training/safety/storage requirements (in fact there should be required before you're able to take possession of a gun)

If someone wants to own a hundred guns, they can own a hundred guns. But there should be a record of the 100 guns, exactly what the gun is, serial number, where you got it, and if you sell a gun, who did you sell it to, and that person need to register that they got it from you

And no one needs 100 guns for home defense or hunting, if you want that many guns fine, but once you get past X number of guns there should an extra fee/tax

I believe it's the same for cars, at some point a few cars turns into a fleet which I think there are costs past that threshold

Once the number of guns you have can be described as an arsenal - there should be extra costs involved

I don't think that background checks should be a one and done. That's fine for one handgun but for a certain number of guns or certain type there should be periodic checks

You pass the checks with flying colors today, great. 3 years from now you start tweeting out violent threats, that should show up on someone's radar and someone should show up on your doorstep (side question, why do so many of these shooters seem to post about it or general violent intentions beforehand?)

These are just some thoughts I've had, and I know they are inconvenient, especially for life long responsible gun owners, but I don't think there is any way to solve this issue without causing inconveniences

Nothing at all I really disagree with really except for the extra fees for having "too many" guns.
Now, is all you posted what you consider the middle position?

 

[Texan1211]

That's the Democrats' position

Correct, some Democrats hold that position. So do some independents and Republicans.

On guns, that is certainly up for debate.

I am for securing our borders as much as possible and ensuring we know who comes here and why they are coming here. If that isn't the middle, it should be.

That's (fairly close to) the Democrats' position.
Uh, NO.

So it looks like, for you, Democrats are the middle.

Nope.
While I can certainly agree with good ideas no matter where they come from, claiming the Democratic position is the middle is kind of crazy. Now that doesn't mean SOME of it isn't good and worth doing, for sure.

 

[Optimus Prime]

For decades, Black women have been the most ardent supporters of the Democratic party. Most recently, in the 2024 election, they voted for Kamala Harris at 92%.

Since 1972, Black people’s overall support for Democrats has stayed at about 90% during a presidential election, with Black women voting even more Democratic than Black men. No other demographic has maintained that level of voter loyalty for a political party.

Donald Trump’s victory over the vice-president, and success with certain voting blocs such as Latino men and white women, has drawn attention to just how differently situated Black women are when compared with other voters.

The Guardian spoke to two leading political experts on Black women’s voting behaviors to parse out why they continually participate in the US electorate and support Democrats.

What kept resurfacing was the idea that even amid shortcomings in the system – racism, a lack of solidarity with non-Black voting blocs – Democrats’ support of equitable programs and policies has driven Black women’s allegiance and likely will continue to for the foreseeable future.

“For years, Black women [have been] consistently the most Democratic sub group, [when] particularly broken down by race and gender in the US,” said Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University.

Black women’s decades-long support for the Democratic party mostly aligns with a larger realignment of Black voters in the mid-1960s, Gillespie continued.

Anywhere from 25% to 30% of Black people supported the Republican party prior to the 1960s as the party was largely associated with Abraham Lincoln’s abolishment of US chattel slavery in 1865.

But Black Republican support took a huge hit after Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for US president in 1964, opposed the Civil Rights Act for “libertarian reasons”, Gillespie said, basically “[guaranteeing] that Black people were not going to support him”.

Goldwater’s decision to vote against the Civil Rights Act also solidified perceptions that the Republican party was not sensitive to civil rights issues.

Democrats, on the other hand, supported such legislation, even at the risk of losing southern Democratic support. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were both eventually signed into law by the Democratic president Lyndon B Johnson, signaling to Black voters that Democrats took civil rights concerns more seriously……..

Why do Black women consistently vote Democrat?

No other demographic has maintained the level of voter loyalty for a party as Black women have – experts tell us why

www.theguardian.com

 

[brandon]

Correct, some Democrats hold that position. So do some independents and Republicans.

On guns, that is certainly up for debate.


That's (fairly close to) the Democrats' position.
Uh, NO.

Nope.
While I can certainly agree with good ideas no matter where they come from, claiming the Democratic position is the middle is kind of crazy. Now that doesn't mean SOME of it isn't good and worth doing, for sure.

Using the criteria you put forward, which party do you think most accurately represents the middle? Keeping in mind that in elections, you have to choose.

 

[Texan1211]

Using the criteria you put forward, which party do you think most accurately represents the middle? Keeping in mind that in elections, you have to choose.

Neither. Individuals in both parties certainly do, but the parties overall do not. The extremists get the soundbites, though!

 

[brandon]

Neither. Individuals in both parties certainly do, but the parties overall do not. The extremists get the soundbites, though!

That doesn't track with the criteria you posted. Here's what you said

I am all for abortion with some limits. I think the middle is my position.

I believe I can speak for the desired position for most Democrats as I consider myself a Democrat. Most Democrats would like to return to the pre-Dobbs era of Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade provided for abortion with some limits.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.

I am for strict enforcement of gun laws and would like to see some more laws passed and strictly enforced. Seems to be in the middle, too.

Democrats would certainly desire stricter enforcement of gun laws on the books.

Democrats would also like to see some more laws passed and strictly enforced.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.

I am for securing our borders as much as possible and ensuring we know who comes here and why they are coming here. If that isn't the middle, it should be.

Democrats are for securing our borders as much as possible.

Democrats would absolutely support ensuring we know who comes here and why they are coming here. Again, I am a Democrat, and I support these positions.

In support of this, they put forth the most comprehensive immigration plan in history.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.

While I can certainly agree with good ideas no matter where they come from, claiming the Democratic position is the middle is kind of crazy.

You posted the criteria for what "the middle" was. I can't help it if you defined "the middle" as the Democratic platform.

I think your actual problem is that you've been told what Democrats believe by people who aren't actually Democrats. Maybe you should listen to what actual Democrats say about what Democrats believe.

 

[Texan1211]

That doesn't track with the criteria you posted. Here's what you said


I believe I can speak for the desired position for most Democrats as I consider myself a Democrat. Most Democrats would like to return to the pre-Dobbs era of Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade provided for abortion with some limits.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.



Democrats would certainly desire stricter enforcement of gun laws on the books.

Democrats would also like to see some more laws passed and strictly enforced.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.



Democrats are for securing our borders as much as possible.

Democrats would absolutely support ensuring we know who comes here and why they are coming here. Again, I am a Democrat, and I support these positions.

In support of this, they put forth the most comprehensive immigration plan in history.

Ergo, per your definition, the Democrats' position is the middle.



You posted the criteria for what "the middle" was. I can't help it if you defined "the middle" as the Democratic platform.

I think your actual problem is that you've been told what Democrats believe by people who aren't actually Democrats. Maybe you should listen to what actual Democrats say about what Democrats believe.

You may very well support some or all Democratic Party positions. That doesn't equate to those being in the middle.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I think your actual problem is that you've been told what Democrats believe by people who aren't actually Democrats. Maybe you should listen to what actual Democrats say about what Democrats believe.

You may very well support some or all Democratic Party positions. That doesn't equate to those being in the middle.

This leads to an important question. Texan, what do you think are the Democratic Party's specific positions on abortion, guns, and the border?

 

[Texan1211]

This leads to an important question. Texan, what do you think are the Democratic Party's specific positions on abortion, guns, and the border?

Specific positions, like what may be posted on a website for a campaign, are often at odds with how members vote. Who really knows?
Some Democrats want America to be a sanctuary. Some don't.
Some Democrats want to legalize abortion at any time. At least n9ne states have no timeframe for when an abortion can occur, which means at any time up until birth. Many Democrats are more willing to accept some restrictions.
Just as some red states have gone bonkers in restricting abortion, Democrats go the other way.

 

[Dragon]

Specific positions, like what may be posted on a website for a campaign, are often at odds with how members vote. Who really knows?
Some Democrats want America to be a sanctuary. Some don't.
Some Democrats want to legalize abortion at any time. At least n9ne states have no timeframe for when an abortion can occur, which means at any time up until birth. Many Democrats are more willing to accept some restrictions.
Just as some red states have gone bonkers in restricting abortion, Democrats go the other way.

Nobody aborts a viable baby - Another MAGA lie.

• Most states restrict abortion after the point of fetal viability (around 24 weeks of pregnancy), except in cases where the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk or there are severe fetal anomalies.
• Abortions later in pregnancy (after viability) are exceedingly rare and account for less than 1% of all abortions. When they do occur, they are typically due to severe medical complications, either with the fetus or the pregnant person.
• Some states, like Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, have laws that do not specify a gestational limit for abortion. However, this does not mean that abortions occur "on demand" until birth. In practice, healthcare providers adhere to medical and ethical guidelines, and late-term abortions are only performed under exceptional circumstances. See the second point

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Specific positions, like what may be posted on a website for a campaign, are often at odds with how members vote. Who really knows?
Some Democrats want America to be a sanctuary. Some don't.
Some Democrats want to legalize abortion at any time. At least n9ne states have no timeframe for when an abortion can occur, which means at any time up until birth. Many Democrats are more willing to accept some restrictions.
Just as some red states have gone bonkers in restricting abortion, Democrats go the other way.

You said the Democratic Party as a whole, so let's go with that. What do you think the national platform says regarding abortion, guns, and the border?

 

[Texan1211]

Nobody aborts a viable baby - Another MAGA lie.

Shove your MAGA crap where the sun don't shine.
The following states have no restrictions on when an abortion can occur.
Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, and Oregon.
If the intent was to restrict in some way, why don't their laws state it? Does that make sense to you when other states do restrict by time?
I would like to see it codified by Congress that no late term abortion occurs unless the health of the mother is at stake, and that a woman can receive an abortion in any state instead of these piecemeal, state-by-state laws.

 

[Texan1211]

You said the Democratic Party as a whole, so let's go with that. What do you think the national platform says regarding abortion, guns, and the border?

Asked and answered, but you didn't like it, so you keep pestering me with this type crap. I said what is on a platform and how parties take action are often two different things.
Either accept it or not, it matters not to me.

 

[Dragon]

Shove your MAGA crap where the sun don't shine.
The following states have no restrictions on when an abortion can occur.
Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, and Oregon.
If the intent was to restrict in some way, why don't their laws state it? Does that make sense to you when other states do restrict by time?
I would like to see it codified by Congress that no late term abortion occurs unless the health of the mother is at stake, and that a woman can receive an abortion in any state instead of these piecemeal, state-by-state laws.

So you would force a woman to carry a child to births who will die a horrible painful death by suffocation due to not having any lungs? That is what happens in Texas today ?
If a child is not able to live outside the womb should it not be more merciful to terminate the pregnancy. Imagine being a parent having to watch you much wanted baby strugle and die in pain shortly after birth.

 

[Texan1211]

So you would force a woman to carry a child to births who will die a horrible painful death by suffocation due to not having any lungs?

Stop asking me such asinine questions.
Good God, have you read my posts supporting abortion or just pretending like I am against them?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Stop asking me such asinine questions.
Good God, have you read my posts supporting abortion or just pretending like I am against them?

You said no late-term abortions unless the health of the mother is at stake. A fetal abnormality that will kill the child doesn't necessarily put the life of the mother at risk. It's an important point to clarify.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Asked and answered, but you didn't like it, so you keep pestering me with this type crap. I said what is on a platform and how parties take action are often two different things.
Either accept it or not, it matters not to me.

It wasn't answered. The discussion was about the national parties and your answer was a vague "some Democrats do, some don't".