The Democratic Party after Obama

[Stavros]

As Barack Obama prepares to leave the White House, where will the Democrats go when they hand over the White House in January 2017?

On one level, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, so while the Democrats have lost the White House, their electoral base is still solid, and loyal, setting aside those 'floating voters' who voted Clinton because they could not vote for Trump. On another level, the two main candidates -Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders- were both from an older generation than Obama, Sanders was not even a Democrat, and for all her skills and experience, Clinton lacked vision, and had baggage that voters believed contained too many skeletons.
Could the Democrats have won with a different candidate? Is this the end of an era, or merely a rude interruption by people who feel left out of the benefits of living in a rich country?

Crucially, do the Democrats have a response to what is being called the 'Populist surge'?

The UK's exit from the European Union and the Trump victory are being seen as a trend next Spring that will send Marine le Pen to the Presidency of France, that will elect Geert Wilders as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, while the two centrist parties in Germany may see their vote eroded by the extremist Alternativ fur Deutschland. It is also being seen as a trend that opposes the 'mega-deals' on trade that are negotiated between states and blocs of states apparently for the benefit of 'corporate interests' rather than, as Trump might put it, 'the little guy'; it is being seen as a reaction against that element of globalisation that enabled industry to send its production lines from the US to China, and to bank its profits in Headquarters based in the lowest tax demanding state rather than back in the USA. It is also being seen as a 'resurgent' nationalism, an anti-immigrant movement that loathes 'political correctness' and multi-culturalism.

John Authers, writing in the Financial Times the day after Trump's electon victory, argued that the Obama presidency delayed popular reaction to the financial crash of 2008, and that what ended in 2008 was the neo-liberal consensus that had been shaped in the US by Ronald Reagan, and in Europe by Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl and Felipe Gonzalez.
One can argue that having failed to win more than two terms in the White House since the 1960s, with William Clinton the Democrats shifted to the 'centre ground' established by Reagan and Bush, and maintained the neo-liberal agenda, much as the British Labour Party to win an election under Tony Blair ditched all the policies, indeed the identity of the party so closely associated with failure, to become a clone of the Thatcher government.

But is it the case that the Clintons -William and Hillary- and their party are 'paying the price' for this neo-liberal agenda, given that since 1980 it is Conservatives not liberals who have presided over most of the globalisation being blamed for the de-industrialisation of America? I think there has been a profund misunderstanding of what has happened, crystallised in Trump's repetitive argument that it is the trade deals that have gone wrong and must be re-negotiated, for I would argue that it is technological change and the liberalisation of financial markets that has shredded jobs and led to a deep divide between the super-rich and everyone else. And I just don't see how Trump can 're-patriate' jobs from China to the USA, and certainly not in the volume he wants.

Does the Trump victory negate everything the Obama Presidency achieved and sought to achieve, demolishing the Democrats record on the economy, leaving them as the party of identity politics with the very agenda of immigration and multi-culturalism that the 'God, Family and Country' 'populists' despise? The irony here is that over the next 25 years the 'angry White Americans' who we are told are Trump's core supporters, will be eclipsed in numbers by the next wave of 'New Americans' who will be mostly Hispanic and Asian in origin, yet this does not guarantee a victory for the Democrats, who lost Florida it appears because Cuban Americans did not support Obama's policy on Cuba.

I don't think the Democrats are in a crisis in the way that the British Labour Party is. They are two very different parties anyway, and the Democrats have an electoral opportunity to pounce in the mid-terms in 2018 that Labour does not have, having been wiped out in Scotland. But I do worry that the Democrats will be seen as a party of identity politics rather than a party of economic sound management, and that unless a new generation steps forward to address the needs of the country and the major changes taking place, they could become the new 'left behinds' in American politics.

[flabbybody]

Good read Stavros. We're scared shitless in New York right about now. I'm pinning a lot of hope on our new Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He's not an obstructionist by nature, and has personally known Trump for years. But most of the sausage that becomes law will have to pass his potential filibuster.
There's also the hope that a President Trump will be a very different person than candidate Trump. No doubt deregulation, tax reform, and a better health care platform than Obamacare are issues that need attention.
It's worth noting that the financial markets' reaction to Trump's victory is closely mirroring BREXIT...initial panic followed by a broad based rally.
not moving to Canada just yet. My aunt in Toronto had to wait 34 months for her hip replacement. There are no easy answers.

[fred41]

It's probably way too early to tell where the Democratic Party should go because in politics, perception and reality are intertwined. A party can have an over-all platform/agenda...but in order to implement that, they still have to win elections.
...and so they will simply have to see what a Republican Party under Trump will bring...and, of course, what will happen around the world in the next four years during that tenure...in order to react to it.
President Obama won in direct response to the war exhaustion and failing economy at the end of the Bush era. His sea of Hope and Change rode right over candidate Clinton because she came out looking like an establishment candidate (another Clinton as opposed to another Bush), and as oft mentioned - a polarizing one, compared to a refreshing younger one with awesome rhetorical skills and a seeming sincerity.
The Democratic Party probably thought it was now safe to push an establishment candidate again in Hillary Clinton, especially since she has acquired even more experience after wearing some impressive government hats, but apparently that was a mistake...especially since the baggage (perceived or otherwise) didn't go away...it only got bigger. The party probably put too many of their eggs in the wrong basket, but honestly, I don't know who else they should've actually ran. Since the votes were often close, maybe she should've fiddled with who she picked as her running mate...I don't know, it's a lot of speculation.
...and a lot of all our speculating turned out to be wrong in the long run anyway. It seemed, at first, luck had turned her way when the angry masses on the right picked Trump (early polling indicated that he was the candidate she should be able to beat) over all the establishment candidates in the Republican Party.
But it isn't always the messenger, sometimes it's the message.
...and I think the new message apparently was "Fuck You !"
Now to see where, in answer to your question, the Democratic Party (but in reality the Republican Party also...since many there are shaking their heads) can go from here. With a President like this though, who seems to be very hard to control (put away the twitter Donald or no more video games...honestly, he seems like Billy Mummy in that Twilight Zone episode ), we might not have to wait to long to see. God I hope it works out though.

[trish]

I don’t think Trump is likely to become a different person than he has demonstrated himself to be. But as a politician, he is unformed. His policies are amorphous to non-existent. Were he surrounded by the right people he might be capable of making fair and reasoned decisions. But unfortunately he’s going to surround himself with the likes of Giuliani, Gingrich, Christie (if he’s not in jail), Carson and Palin.

I wrote a couple of papers a while ago with a colleague who reminds me of Trump. The trick to getting along with him was never to take credit for your own ideas. Let him think he came up with the solutions. The minute I tried to argue with him that we should do things this way or that way I’d get interminable resistance. But if I flattered him, and told him how clever it was of him to think along these lines he’d take the bait and the paper would finally get written. I'm pretty sure that’s one has to handle the Donald.

The agree with Stavros. Reneging on treaties is not going to bring jobs back to American shores. Perhaps if we start truly paying Americans the slave wages others are getting overseas for doing the mind numbing work (sewing, electronic assembly etc.) that feeds our economy, that will do it - but I don’t think that’s the solution we’re looking for. But the real problem is technology. Because robots are doing the jobs of assembly workers, welders, etc., factories that once hired thousands of people now only hire hundreds.

The jobs that we do have are service jobs: non-union, no pension, no health insurance, irregular hours. The Healthcare Savings Accounts (Trump’s replacement for Affordable Care) of people who can’t afford to put anything in them are going remain empty.

Nobody, left or right, yet as a solution to the problems posed by advancing technology. But the right doesn’t even recognize that having such a lopsided economy is a problem. They think if we worked hard enough and wanted it bad enough we could all join the top one percent of one percent - never mind the mathematical impossibility. Math and science can take a hike, and along with women, Muslims, blacks and Hispanics.

I thought I had something to say...but now I’m just ranting. Haven’t gotten over the fact that our president elect is a xenophobic, egocentric buffoon.

One word on the demonstrations against Trump. I don’t see the point of them. For an American citizen to say, “Trump’s not my president,” entails “That’s not my Constitution.” The demonstrators DO have every right to protest, but I just think they’re doing exactly what we criticized Trump and his supporters for threatening to do should they lose.

[broncofan]

I agree that we have to accept the result, but I think there is room to discuss what sorts of protests do not challenge the legitimacy of Donald's win but rather his proposed policies. I think many of the things he has proposed will violate people's civil liberties. So there is room to strongly indicate that he will be fought by the masses if he does not uphold our constitution. Donald Trump indicated that if he lost he would accuse Democrats of fraud and rigging, which is a very different sort of accusation and would be disastrous to the democratic process.

The loss to Donald Trump was a wake up call that there are a lot of people in swing states who feel alienated. But Donald Trump also risks further alienating people and his rule can mobilize the public. I think it was a perfect storm for Republicans, as we had a very divisive Democratic candidate, mostly due to misogyny, and a candidate who was able to exploit that sentiment because he had no shame and encouraged others not be ashamed of their prejudices either.

But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform. Republicans won by a small margin. Is there a way to win over some of the people in the midwest who would benefit from Democratic policies? I think there is...and I think people will be primed for that message if Donald fails to deliver. But we need to try to encourage people to focus on the issues that matter rather than being sucked into a cult of personality type of election.

There is a reason that it's difficult for either party to retain power for too long, as each new administration creates masses of disappointed people who feel their views are not adequately represented. The demographics in this country do not indicate that Donald can do what he pleases without mobilizing people who maybe weren't as engaged as they might have been. We take it on the chin, hope he doesn't do too much damage, and work on our presentation!

[broncofan]

I think there is a bit of a trap for us, because there are some on the far right who keep proclaiming that they're tired of us pretending to be morally superior and accusing them of bigotry. But we can only remedy that to the extend that we accuse people who aren't guilty of bigotry of being bigots. I'm not sure what else there is to do since we can't simply concede on some things. Hopefully there is a reasonable mass of people we can appeal to (by being less snide? I plead guilty and can make that effort) in the center, who feel left out but are ready to accept others and stand up for their rights.

[blackchubby38]

As the Florida results were coming in Tuesday night, something in the back of mind was telling me that Obama's decision on Cuba was coming into play. While I totally understand the suffering that the Cuban people (both here and in the country itself) have gone through, the time had come to normalize relations with Cuba. The over 50 year old policy that was in place had failed and probably did more harm to Cuba than good. So I don't what know Cuban Americans want the United States to do. We tried regime change there and it literally blew up in our faces.

Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.

[fred41]

Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.

Many think so...she lost her base in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (she didn't even bother campaigning in Wisconsin at all)...states that Trump actively courted and campaigned in.

Look how close those States came in between the two :
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

...usually a percentage point and even less than that in Michigan so far.

[blackchubby38]

Many think so...she lost her base in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (she didn't even bother campaigning in Wisconsin at all)...states that Trump actively courted and campaigned in.

Look how close those States came in between the two :
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

...usually a percentage point and even less than that in Michigan so far.

Now there are two reasons why she didn't bother campaigning in Wisconsin and doing more in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

1. Arrogance in thinking her base in those states were going to show up and vote for her. Which once again, she took an election for granted and thought her presidency was inevitable.

2. Her health was a lot worse than we all originally thought and she made a tactical decision to conserve her energy by not campaigning as much. If you look during the month of October, she took a few days off from the campaign trail here and there.


I think we are going have to wait a couple of years when people begin to write the postmortem on her campaign to find out what the answer is. The same goes for how the media and people like Nate Silver got it all wrong.

[Stavros]

Good read Stavros. We're scared shitless in New York right about now. I'm pinning a lot of hope on our new Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. He's not an obstructionist by nature, and has personally known Trump for years. But most of the sausage that becomes law will have to pass his potential filibuster.
There's also the hope that a President Trump will be a very different person than candidate Trump. No doubt deregulation, tax reform, and a better health care platform than Obamacare are issues that need attention.
It's worth noting that the financial markets' reaction to Trump's victory is closely mirroring BREXIT...initial panic followed by a broad based rally.
not moving to Canada just yet. My aunt in Toronto had to wait 34 months for her hip replacement. There are no easy answers.

A pragmatic post, and one that I cannot argue too much with because my weakness lies in not knowing who's who in Washington and thus who might be the most effective challengers to the Trump agenda. Politics now should probably be called the 'art of the deal' in which Trump finds that his challengers in Congress are harder to please because they are not necessarily focused on price and profit, but also principle. Right now it looks like Trump is out of his depth, he looked shell-shocked yesterday as if the responsibility of being 'the man' in the Oval Office was more than he anticipated. This also means he will, I think, be heavily reliant on his team, and thus there is a danger that 'politics as usual' will swamp the Trump and drain away his commitment to some of his policies. There is a reason why it is called the Beltway, and as long as Democrats and Republicans know how to make it work for them, the worst excesses of Trump can be shunted into the long grass. How, if at all, Trump can change it I do not know.

But, if the Democrats are as obstructive to a Trump administration as the Republicans were for Obama, does this not reinforce the 'populist' complaint that the politicians spend more time attacking each other than working for the good of the country? The party system itself has been the focus of much public anger in this election cycle, and I wonder how both Democrats and Republicans can restore the faith they want the people to have in them, in order to prevent another outsider from challenging their grip on power.

[Stavros]

As the Florida results were coming in Tuesday night, something in the back of mind was telling me that Obama's decision on Cuba was coming into play. While I totally understand the suffering that the Cuban people (both here and in the country itself) have gone through, the time had come to normalize relations with Cuba. The over 50 year old policy that was in place had failed and probably did more harm to Cuba than good. So I don't what know Cuban Americans want the United States to do. We tried regime change there and it literally blew up in our faces.

Having said that, while I think the Trump presidency was inevitable, I think Hillary could have probably done more to make sure she did win it.

I agree with this. In the UK there was a lot of coverage from Florida on both the main TV news feeds (BBC and ITN) and while they did not call the vote correctly this is because they remarked on the high volume of Hispanic voters without making a distinction between those of Cuban origin, and those from Mexico and other Latin American states. Yet we have known for years how arch conservative the Cuban Americans are, so I think the newsmen missed something here because Florida was such an important state to win. I don't recall the reporters interviewing any Cuban Americans. Too much of the focus was on 'angry White Americans'.

[Stavros]

I agree that we have to accept the result, but I think there is room to discuss what sorts of protests do not challenge the legitimacy of Donald's win but rather his proposed policies. I think many of the things he has proposed will violate people's civil liberties. So there is room to strongly indicate that he will be fought by the masses if he does not uphold our constitution. Donald Trump indicated that if he lost he would accuse Democrats of fraud and rigging, which is a very different sort of accusation and would be disastrous to the democratic process.

The loss to Donald Trump was a wake up call that there are a lot of people in swing states who feel alienated. But Donald Trump also risks further alienating people and his rule can mobilize the public. I think it was a perfect storm for Republicans, as we had a very divisive Democratic candidate, mostly due to misogyny, and a candidate who was able to exploit that sentiment because he had no shame and encouraged others not be ashamed of their prejudices either.

But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform. Republicans won by a small margin. Is there a way to win over some of the people in the midwest who would benefit from Democratic policies? I think there is...and I think people will be primed for that message if Donald fails to deliver. But we need to try to encourage people to focus on the issues that matter rather than being sucked into a cult of personality type of election.

There is a reason that it's difficult for either party to retain power for too long, as each new administration creates masses of disappointed people who feel their views are not adequately represented. The demographics in this country do not indicate that Donald can do what he pleases without mobilizing people who maybe weren't as engaged as they might have been. We take it on the chin, hope he doesn't do too much damage, and work on our presentation!

There is a fatal weakness in your post, Broncofan, and this is it:
But I don't think any of this indicates that the Democrats need to drastically re-vamp their platform.
Are you really saying that the Democrats, whose policy platform has not changed now for three decades, should just carry on as if nothing had happened? The Obama Presidency may have been, on balance, more of a success than a failure, but the success it achieved in stabilizing the banking and financial system was not due to some radical economic policy, a Republican admin could easily have done the same. Obama in effect, put stability before change, other than those changes in social policy which enrage the Moral Majority -same-sex marriage for example- but which by conferring rights on citizens makes it harder to roll back, and pointless as these are not 'bread and butter issues' for all but fanatics.

The challenges facing the US are tremendous, both at home and in the world. The New York Times has today defended the best aspects of the Trans Pacific Partnership while everyone else sees it as the symptom of America's woes. If Trump is to have a dominant voice, and if it is isolationist, protectionist and one that raises barriers to trade rather than tearing them down, the Democrats have to decide what they think is going to work -but I don't see how they can oppose international trade deals without accepting the Trump agenda, he is making it an 'either/or' choice, and it is ironic as in Europe the opposition to the other deal, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is based on the excess of power they claim it gives to US corporations although TTIP now seems to be heading for the graveyard.

But here is the point: in the 1990s the Clinton Presidency laid to rest the party of Roosevelt. The New Deal is dead and buried, the Unions are really not that important, Blue-collar workers are just one part of the natural constituency of the Democrat Party. But if the party succeeded when it appealed to disaffected Republicans and technocrats, public service workers and first time voters, what happens when those voters no longer feel the party belongs to them and they lose power? I don't have much of an answer, but I can't see how the Democrats can challenge Trump's Presidency of Change if they don't develop a new agenda of change of their own, because if Trump's changes do not materialise the electorate will lose faith in him, but still want change, and if the Democrats are the same in 2018 as they were in 2016, what would be the point?

[blackchubby38]

As for the answer to Starvos' question:

Unless someone from the party can come forward with a way to bring back Regan Democrats into the fold and at the same time address the concerns of minorities, women, and the LGBT community, the party is done. From what I can tell, Elizabeth Warren can do the latter. Her stance against corporations and big banks means she can tap into some of the populist anger that Trump did. But will that anger still be there in four years or will Warren's views be seen as typical liberal ideology attacking capitalism?

If Hillary Clinton couldn't appeal to rural blue collar workers, Warren isn't going stand a chance with them. I also think because of the rhetoric that Trump got away with during the campaign, Elizabeth Warren is probably going to double down on the identity politics.

The sense of dread and apprehension that many Hispanics have been feeling since Tuesday night is going to have them looking for a leader they can get behind. Someone that looks like them. So I can see Joaquin Castro trying to become the new leader of the Democratic Party. Once again, it just can't be about identity politics.

The one person I could see coming out to counter President Trump on the nights he gives his State of the Union Addresses, is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. While New York is indeed a blue state, there are regions of it that are red. So if he finds a way to take care of them over the next 3 years, I can see him running for president in 2020.

[Stavros]

On one level, Blackchubby, a rational assessment, but on another level it does not address the argument that Trump has broken the two party system and that the whole point of this 'populist revolt' is that they want radical changes to be made to system which they feel no longer works. Trump made a big issue out of 'Broken America' with the claims that decades of corruption and bad deals have shredded employment and production, that decades of liberal bias in the media and education have handed power to minority interests so that nobody can complain about queers and Muslims without being derided as a homomphobe and a racist. That there is in effect an 'original America' -the America of Madison and Adams, of 'God, Family and Country' that has been left behind.

However easily one can debunk many of the myths about 'Broken America', it remains to be seen if the Democrats can do what you suggest to replenish their vote, because it remains to be seen if the party has the policies and the personalities that can create the confidence in the electorate that they have moved on from the Clinton era.

Although the two parties are very different in origin and character, the British Labour Party has found that since the departure of Tony Blair, it is wounded by its failed (rather than its successful) policies, and has reacted by electing a leader whose policy platform could have been written, and probably was, in 1977, with the result that nobody outside the party has any confidence in Jeremy Corbyn, and nobody outside the party believes it has a bright future. I don't think the Democrats are in as bad a position as Labour, but the party in effect has to retain its loyal base while offering something new that taps into the next 25 years not the last 25. I have heard of the Castro twins but don't know much about them, but when there was immediate talk after the election of Michelle Obama emerging as the 2020 candidate you know desperation has set in.

Finally, if you compare the Republicans to the Conservative and Unionist Party in the UK, you find that not only do the Conservatives have their second Woman as leader of the party and Prime Minister (Theresa May), the Home Secretary is a woman (Amber Rudd), the Justice Secretary is a woman (Liz Truss), the Education Secretary is a woman and openly gay (Justine Greening). The Secretary of State in charge of Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid is a Muslim (by origin if not in practice) and Alan Duncan a Minister in the Foreign Office is openly gay. The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland is also openly gay. I don't see the Republican Party offering the US a cohort of senior politicians that looks like the USA and believe this is a major weakness and as long as they ridicule the Democrats as a party of 'identity interest groups' they run the risk of continuing to alienate an important part of the country, exposing hideous divisions that neither party seems able to heal.

[Stavros]

One word on the demonstrations against Trump. I don’t see the point of them. For an American citizen to say, “Trump’s not my president,” entails “That’s not my Constitution.” The demonstrators DO have every right to protest, but I just think they’re doing exactly what we criticized Trump and his supporters for threatening to do should they lose.

I agree, I think it is essential that a difference be drawn between what Trump said he was going to do, and how those changes translate into real policy, as he begins to 'amend' so many within a week of the election result. Although I think there is a danger that if Trump reverses position on too many policies his core voters will feel even more alienated from the process, it would weaken his authority and offer the Democrats a revival in the mid-terms in 2018.
One other indication that Trump might not be Top of the Pops was observed in his election night speech -he may be the first President(elect) since Jimmy Carter not to end a major speech with those three words God Bless America...

[broncofan]

But here is the point: in the 1990s the Clinton Presidency laid to rest the party of Roosevelt. The New Deal is dead and buried, the Unions are really not that important, Blue-collar workers are just one part of the natural constituency of the Democrat Party. But if the party succeeded when it appealed to disaffected Republicans and technocrats, public service workers and first time voters, what happens when those voters no longer feel the party belongs to them and they lose power? I don't have much of an answer, but I can't see how the Democrats can challenge Trump's Presidency of Change if they don't develop a new agenda of change of their own, because if Trump's changes do not materialise the electorate will lose faith in him, but still want change, and if the Democrats are the same in 2018 as they were in 2016, what would be the point?In several other threads, you've discussed the changing economy and how increasing use of automation changes the nature of work. While this can be ignored for a while, at some crucial point, it becomes important to discuss how increased production only increases well-being to the extent that the benefits are distributed reasonably. Someone with an economics background could make this point by talking about decreasing marginal utility; that two people who are moderately well off (without requiring strict egalitarianism) is a better state of affairs than to have one who is insanely wealthy and one person who can barely subsist. The replacement of people with machines is probably a driving force in creating gross disparities in wealth.

There must be a way to appeal to a subset of Trump voters, but this can only happen if people understand the need for government programs, including healthcare, benefits, labor laws, and other parts of the regulatory state. I believe that increasing divisiveness of the debate will always favor Republicans, because if the campaign is about terrorism, or so-called political correctness, or immigrants running wild, it's not about how we can improve the living conditions of the average person. I think you're right that democrats need to find solutions to modern problems, but I think we also need to do a better job of explaining how we can improve lives. I think it would be a mistake to consider the election a referendum on many of those policies (healthcare etc), since the campaign itself was so unusually volatile.

As for free trade v. protectionism, it's a very complex subject. I generally think protectionism is harmful in the long-run, unless it's a way of allowing American industries with better employment packages to compete with countries that do not have those standards.

[broncofan]

and it is ironic as in Europe the opposition to the other deal, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is based on the excess of power they claim it gives to US corporations although TTIP now seems to be heading for the graveyard.
?
This makes the point very well that opposition to trade deals is often based on paranoid, nativist sentiment than concern about fairness in implementing employment standards that ensure a level playing field for domestic businesses.

[blackchubby38]

Bernie Sanders OP-ED piece in the NYT:

http://nyti.ms/2epQ8Q8

[fred41]

Bernie Sanders OP-ED piece in the NYT:

http://nyti.ms/2epQ8Q8

who'd of thought at the onset of the Democratic primary that Bernie Sanders was eventually going to cause so many body blows to Hillary Clinton...there was the difference in their ideology, but I think what killed her was his apparent honesty.

There was an acting NYS Supreme Court Judge (appointed not elected) I knew for whom I had immense respect for. When asked why he wouldn't accept an offered Christmas gift from a clerk who he knew for a time, his answer was that he couldn't accept it ,not because it was improper, but he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety...
unfortunately that was something Mrs. Clinton (and of course far too many other politicians ) seems tone deaf towards.

[broncofan]

unfortunately that was something Mrs. Clinton (and of course far too many other politicians ) seems tone deaf towards.
She also was just generally lacking self-awareness for someone in politics. You expect people in politics to be hyper-aware of how they come across...she was only conscious about how she positioned herself with changing political winds, but not how that came across to others. I always considered it phony but relatively innocuous.

We've all worked with people who don't come across as especially genuine but are not out to dupe everyone and are good at understanding the details. All in all, I think she at least meant well...I recognize that could be my democratic stripes showing. But nothing takes place in a vacuum and I did at one point assume that whatever her flaws, they would be eclipsed by Trump's. It just didn't happen that way...I guess one response would be to look for someone beyond reproach, or with less public baggage.

[fred41]

...or with less public baggage.

That.
Very few, if any, politicians are going to be beyond reproach, but Mrs. Clinton's perfect day in the sun would've been before all the paid speeches, and the foundation ...and so on. I think that when it came to experience, she was eminently qualified.
...and let's face it...she should still have been able to beat Trump.
But I honestly don't think she would have beat 'some' of the other Republican candidates...early polling (yeah, I know...worth nothing really) bears that out.

[blackchubby38]

That.
Very few, if any, politicians are going to be beyond reproach, but Mrs. Clinton's perfect day in the sun would've been before all the paid speeches, and the foundation ...and so on. I think that when it came to experience, she was eminently qualified.
...and let's face it...she should still have been able to beat Trump.
But I honestly don't think she would have beat 'some' of the other Republican candidates...early polling (yeah, I know...worth nothing really) bears that out.

She probably could have survived the paid speeches and the foundation. But if she would have done the responsible thing and not what was convenient for her when it came to the her email server, it would have a made huge difference with many who didn't consider her trustworthy.

[fred41]

She probably could have survived the paid speeches and the foundation. But if she would have done the responsible thing and not what was convenient for her when it came to the her email server, it would have a made huge difference with many who didn't consider her trustworthy.

The stories making the internet news rounds about Top Aide Cheryl Mills not wanting her to run because of this, suggests you may be correct...but the reason we know about this is WikiLeaks...the same reason we have an idea of what she said at the paid speeches.
But she can't really blame WikiLeaks...she just shouldn't have done all those things if she knew she was going to run again.

[Stavros]

As for free trade v. protectionism, it's a very complex subject. I generally think protectionism is harmful in the long-run, unless it's a way of allowing American industries with better employment packages to compete with countries that do not have those standards.

Taking this in with your other comments, the Trans Pacific Partnership offers a good example of a trade deal that contains both positive and negative features in which, the fairly balanced analysis below argues-
Most of the gains in income would go to workers making more than $88,000 a year. Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries by promoting cheaper goods from low-wage countries.
That would be especially true of the TPP because it protects patents and copyrights. Therefore, the higher-paid owners of the intellectual property would receive more of the income gains.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-trans-pacific-partnership-3305581

But note too that TTP would protect in some cases improve workers rights, it would remove tariffs on exports that US producers would benefit from, and it would bind together countries with a market of 793 million people producing 40% of the world's GDP and 26% of its trade. It seems to me that what the Brexit fanatics want when they want an end to these deals so associated with globalization is a form of economic apartheid in which separate development -in which companies, entrepreneurs and corporations negotiate on their own- replaces state involvement. I think this is a mis-guided romantic view of the world economy where most capital assets and natural resources are owned by states and not private capital.

My point that I should have emphasised is that the Democrats have to offer more than a haven for minorities and offer a coherent alternative economic programme to the one we believe Trump with Republican backing will propose. In the short term, if the USA ditches TPP it means that TPP will just go ahead without the USA, which not only damages the economic prospects of Americans firms and workers, it damages the reputation of the USA which will not be part of a major trading bloc and potentially give China the very promotion in the Pacific you would think the USA would want to prevent. As the link shows, there are weaknesses in TPP which, as with the European TTIP contains the Investor-State Dispute Mechanism which enables corporations in TPP more rights to sue the government of another member than its own citizens have. To drop out of TPP would send a message to the whole of the Pacific region including China (which is not in TPP) that says - We don't care.

The longer term is harder, because if it is true that the 'neo-liberal' regime that held from the 1980s to 2008 has ended, what coherent alternative is there, and one which incorporates the challenges of automation and the 'smart economy' in which profits can be generated without manufacturing or traditional methods as with Amazon, the world's largest retailer without a shop -but which does have the internet?
In the UK the left in the form of the Labour Party has no coherent alternative, other than a return to the failed strategies of the past in which the state takes over industry and in effect, subsidises everything, and an obsession with anti-globalization which with Bernie Sanders lame vision offers workers a crucifixion when they need salvation without being strung up to die in pain. That the left is so opposed to a global economic expansion that has lifted millions out of poverty and put cheap clothes on their back is a mystery, not least because unless they are still wedded to Socialism in One Country the international character of socialism ought to lead to its embrace, as indeed at least one well-known European Trotskyist has argued (Toni Negri, in the book Empire [2000] co-written with Michael Hardt).
The political right appears to be confused with free market capitalists like Liam Fox arguing for the state to withdraw in favour of private capital, for the UK in this sense to 'go it alone' and take its chances in the global market, while Trump has threatened to use state power to shut the US out of the global economy raising tariff barriers and forcing US firms to produce at home. Neither can be right.

But, where we do agree is that income inequality is right there in the middle of this, but as Rawls argued for the fair re-distribution of wealth and profits, something that became anathema to the Reagan-Thatcher vision, so that essential concept of fairness needs to be restored, but finding the mechanism to achieve it will be hard, as it may require tax increases across the board, higher interest rates, and a stricter regulation of banking than has been put in place since 2008, though voters may not in fact object to such measures if they are explained properly.
And, the Democrats have to be united on the programme, and have someone who generates confidence in the future to win the votes they need.

[blackchubby38]

There were two shows that I wanted to check out after the events of last Tuesday night given the fact that both hosts spent the better part of a year ripping Trump. Real Time with Bill Maher and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

If anybody wants to know why Hillary lost the Election and why Democrats will lose again in 4 years if they continue to make the same mistakes, check out Real Time.

If anybody wants to know what they can do over the next 4 years, check out Last Week Tonight.

I also thought that former Pennsylvania governor Ed Randall did a very good job at explaining why the Democrats lost in an interview he gave on CNBC yesterday.

[Vladimir Putin]

The Democrats should try to win back working-class voters and not support trade deals that lead to jobs getting outsourced. I'm not keen on the party appealing to the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein wing. We're not Europe and the free tuition thing is a bad sell.

[blackchubby38]

The Democrats should try to win back working-class voters and not support trade deals that lead to jobs getting outsourced. I'm not keen on the party appealing to the Bernie Sanders/Jill Stein wing. We're not Europe and the free tuition thing is a bad sell.

I don't believe in the free tuition thing either. But something needs to be done to help make college more affordable for those who are interested in going.

[blackchubby38]

If the Democrats are serious about showing that they understand why they lost this election, they would make Rep. Tim Ryan (OH) the house minority leader over Nancy Pelosi. He is one of the few that I have seen that gets it.

[blackchubby38]

If the Democrats are serious about showing that they understand why they lost this election, they would make Rep. Tim Ryan (OH) the house minority leader over Nancy Pelosi. He is one of the few that I have seen that gets it.

And of course the Democrats don't do the right thing. Pelosi has been re-elected house minority leader. Have fun losing more seats in Congress idiots.

[Stavros]

The reports I have seen in the press urging Michelle Obama to run in 2020 are another sign of desperation. No reflection on her powers as a motivational speaker, but there must be other candidates, or we may end up in 2020 with Chelsea Clinton facing off Ivanka Trump. Are the best and brightest no longer entering politics?

[Stavros]

The Guardian today publishes a profile of Kamala Harris as a potential Democrat candidate in 2020. The article about her is positive, but many of the comments posted to the article are critical of her association with the Clintons, and her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin over (alleged) legal violations relating to One West, a bank that issued thousands of foreclosures on weak mortgages after the 2008 crash, and which you can read about below.

She comes across well on tv, but is she the right person for the Democrats as she could be seen as a female version of Obama?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/kamala-harris-democratic-candidate-for-2020

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/

[sukumvit boy]

The failure of the Trump administration to pass health care reform coincides with the success of LBJ , 52 years ago ,to pass Medicare .
Just heard an excellent interview on National Public Radio by Terry Gross with Bill Moyers who was white house press secretary for the Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967 .
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/03/541278161/bill-moyers-on-working-with-lbj-to-pass-medicare-52-years-ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers

[sukumvit boy]

The Guardian today publishes a profile of Kamala Harris as a potential Democrat candidate in 2020. The article about her is positive, but many of the comments posted to the article are critical of her association with the Clintons, and her decision not to prosecute Steve Mnuchin over (alleged) legal violations relating to One West, a bank that issued thousands of foreclosures on weak mortgages after the 2008 crash, and which you can read about below.

She comes across well on tv, but is she the right person for the Democrats as she could be seen as a female version of Obama?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/kamala-harris-democratic-candidate-for-2020

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/kamala-harris-fails-to-explain-why-she-didnt-prosecute-steven-mnuchins-bank/

As noted by fred41 earlier , "Few , if any , politicians are going to be beyond reproach". However , the Democrats are probably going to be looking for a 'squeaky clean' candidate and the Mnuchin baggage Harris is carrying will probably disqualify her.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/democratic-party-rift-sanders-supporters-do-not-like-rising-star-harris/

[Stavros]

As noted by fred41 earlier , "Few , if any , politicians are going to be beyond reproach". However , the Democrats are probably going to be looking for a 'squeaky clean' candidate and the Mnuchin baggage Harris is carrying will probably disqualify her.


An interesting article and I wonder if the Sanders Club is taking its cue from the 'surprising' vote for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour in our recent election to argue that the Democrats would also do better if they had a more 'radical' agenda? The two are not comparable, because as well as a larger than usual youth turn out, many voters chose Labour as a 'pro-EU' or 'wish I hadn't voted Leave' party rather then 'Out means out' Tories and in spite of Labour sharing the Tories' commitment to leave, albeit with an ambiguous position on the final terms and whether or not there will be a vote/second referendum.

'Squeaky clean' is, dare I say it, too much to ask of an American or most other politicians, who often stab someone in the back at some point in their careers in order to have one. Mnuchin may be a weakness, but is it fatal? The problem is not the instant revulsion at the words 'Wall Street' but the fact that the USA needs Wall St to invest in the economy and jobs as well as to pay pensions so rather than attack it, a Blairite 'work with them' position would make more sense, just as long as the Regulation of finances is not relaxed as it was on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1990s up to 2008.

The point is she comes across as intelligent, caring and politically capable, but as I have said before, I only know her because of the Senate hearings, and thus don't hear much from other potential candidates if they don't make it to UK media. And, notwithstanding Obama, is the Senate enough to be a launching pad for the Presidency?

Rational and costed policies that will encourage jobs and economic growth are more important than fabulous promises that fool no-one. The USA, like the UK also faces long term problems in skilled labour, which is why even the US, guided to eternal glory by its Pharaoh, is factoring into its immigration policy the option to 'allow in' skilled workers who will benefit the economy, raising the question why aren't your sons and daughters studying chemistry and engineering? How jobs that pay over the minimum wage in depressed areas of the country also poses a long-term problem but as in the UK I don't know what the solution to that is.

[sukumvit boy]

Here are some thoughts from the horse's mouth , from "The Democratic Strategist" .
http://thedemocraticstrategist.org/
Also a "Salon" article from Robert Reich who sees the American two party system as "finished".
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/robert_reich_this_is_a_working_class_revolt_partne r/

[Stavros]

Also a "Salon" article from Robert Reich who sees the American two party system as "finished".
/ (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/27/robert_reich_this_is_a_working_class_revolt_partne r/)

A fatuous article by Robert Reich who was an influential figure in that moment when the Democrats detached themselves from its core base, and who can't or won't take responsibility for it.

Third party politics in the USA has existed before -Presidents have represented five different political parties, and one merger between Democrats and Republicans (Jefferson) all in the 19th century- but has yet to become strong enough to break the duopoly.
https://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html

There is no parallel with the UK, because of the way our party politics developed after the Reform Act of 1832 and progressive reforms to the suffrage expanding the voter base. The emergence of the Labour Party in the first 25 years of the 20th century led to it becoming the major opposition party to the Tories because the Liberal Party contained within it people who were comfortable in either Labour or Conservative parties, and lost its identity at a time when socialism was popular. The Liberal's loss was Labour's gain. But, it was because socialism had existed before the creation of the Labour Party that the party was able to harness an existing base of support -and not just among industrial workers-and translate it into political success. Even when the party lost senior figures in 1981 when they broke away to form the Social Democratic Party, Labour retained its core base and survived while the SDP faded into history.

The one thing Labour could not do -and has never done- was prevent a mean 30% of working class voters choosing the Conservatives, mostly because Englsh nationalism is associated more with the Tories than Labour, and this is where I think third party politics in the USA has its most telling problem.

The Republican Party has become the party of American nationalism -but more specifically a 'nationalism' that appears to be biased toward a White and Christian America while the Democrats are now thought of as the MultiCulturalism Party.

There is here, a desperate contradiction, because while America remains more white and Christian than any other precise denomination, it has also always been multi-cultural, with a strong element that was neither White nor Christian -but White Christians have dominated the politics and economics of the USA and tended to impose their preferences on the rest of society whatever its colour or creed, indeed a sense that some White Christians have, that they may be losing their 'right' to control the agenda -or indeed, that they have already lost it- may explain the polarization that has resulted in the election of a man who simultaneously claims to be defending White Christian America, while attacking the system that maintains them.

It strikes me that what the recent elections suggest, taking in the TEA Party movement through to the 2016 election, is that resentment has become a powerful political tool, and that what 'White Christian' America both fears and resents, is the challenge to its hegemony that it perceives in the patterns of immigration that they believe is changing America. It is I suppose odd that most immigrants from the south are both White and Christian, almost all of them who are religious being Roman Catholic, like Stephen Bannon, so what is the 'threat'? A decline in English as the 'natural' language of the USA? As often happens when fear and resentment become convenient substitutes for genuine analysis, the privileged class believes that 'newcomers' who have not invested any time, effort or money into the USA are nevertheless instant beneficiaries of its housing, its welfare and its jobs, even if most new immigrants cannot afford a house, are on low-paid jobs the privileged will not do, and don't rely on welfare -regardless, the image takes hold and the fear that they are losing their precious America thus revives previous fears from the 19th and 20th centuries, that American is being taken over by the Chinese, the Irish and, of course, the Jews.

The Democrats praise what the Republicans condemn yet both are seen to have been the authors of the current problems in employment and wages. But, if there is some logic in the argument that if neither party is addressing the problem, then a new party can and should, that doesn't confront the organization and ideology issues that come with it. For a third party to emerge and to be a success, which means capturing Congress where real policy is made, it needs an organization -funded by substantial amounts of money- in 50 states, and a clearly stated set of policies and ideas that appeal to voters in 50 states. It also needs credible leaders and speakers who can transmit the message. You could think of a situation where well-known Democrats and Republicans disillusioned with the sectarian interests of their parties form the new party, but would they then be seen as promoting their own careers, as traitors for abandoning the parties that gave them a career?

It does not help if one party is seen as Nationalist and the other Multicultural, and these two divisions may be a superficial reading on my part, but what would a new party look and sound like, and who is to be part of it? It looks to me like you are stuck with a two party system unless this present administration succeeds in eroding the confidence in democratic politics to the extent that the divisions in America become consolidated geographically as well ideologically, producing permanent atrophy in Congress. The desire to break the system that has failed may be strong, but who can be confident that a better system will replace what you have now?

[Stavros]

I should have linked this article from The Hill which argues that neither Democrats or Republicans truly represent American voters but that the 'system' is rigged to prevent or make it hard for a third party to emerge and challenge the duopoly-

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/280045-an-independent-cant-be-president-heres-the-real

[filghy2]

Another factor the article doesn't mention that tends to preserve the existing duopoly is the nature of the voting system. For instance, the 'winner takes all' system that applies in the US electoral college (apart from a couple of states) means that a vote for a third party or independent candidate is not only likely to be wasted, but also makes it more likely that the candidate of the opposite political persuasion will win because it splits the left or right-leaning vote. The same applies to the 'first past the post' system in the UK parliament. I don't fully understand the voting systems used in the US HoR and Senate, but I believe it's generally either 'first past the post' or a two-round system where the two candidates with the most votes in the first round then have a second-round runoff election.

The voting system that is most favourable to independents and minor parties is proportional representation. For instance, this is used in the Australian Senate, where independents and minor parties almost always hold the balance of power. A common criticism of PR is that it leads to gridlock and minority views having disproportionate influence. Given recent history in the US, however, it's hard to see how things can get worse on that score. The upside is that the ruling party is forced to compromise to pass legislation and more extreme measures tend to get moderated.

[Stavros]

The voting system that is most favourable to independents and minor parties is proportional representation. For instance, this is used in the Australian Senate, where independents and minor parties almost always hold the balance of power. A common criticism of PR is that it leads to gridlock and minority views having disproportionate influence. Given recent history in the US, however, it's hard to see how things can get worse on that score. The upside is that the ruling party is forced to compromise to pass legislation and more extreme measures tend to get moderated.

Before the EU Referendum there was another one in the UK, in 2011, which rejected proposals to replace 'First past the post' (or Single Member Simple Plurality). The arguments you make on the power PR gives to small parties is the most potent because it raises the question why should a party with such little support across the country have so decisive an influence on policy? I understand the argument that PR is a more faithful representation of what voters want, but in most cases they end up with a party in government most of them did not vote for.
Compromise never used to be a problem, it was been a staple feature of US politics at one time. I think the deeper problem is that the divisions in US society have been reinforced by the increasingly sectarian nature of party politics, with the problem being that if this is a reflection of society at large it makes it harder to mend those divisions, particularly when parties exploit them.

At the moment the Republicans after barely six months are looking for a new candidate to run for them in 2020 which raises the question -which party actually supports this President? And, if he were to form a new party himself now, would that break the mould and re-elect him in 2020? I understand Reince Priebus on behalf of the Republican Party made the new President swear an oath of loyalty to the party either just before or just after the Inauguration, an extraordinary thing to have happened and one that the new President may have resented. But he did declare in the first tv debate in the party nomination phase that if not selected he would consider running as an independent against the party.

Your other remarks on the reason why third parties fail are spot on.

[filghy2]

The arguments you make on the power PR gives to small parties is the most potent because it raises the question why should a party with such little support across the country have so decisive an influence on policy? I understand the argument that PR is a more faithful representation of what voters want, but in most cases they end up with a party in government most of them did not vote for.


I know many people make this argument, but I'm not sure it's right. The point is that minor parties can only have influence when their vote is combined with one of the major parties. Under PR, this would signify that parties representing more than 50% of the electorate support that position.

Voting systems are a very tricky issue, however. The late economist Kenneth Arrow once demonstrated that, given a choice between 3 or more alternatives, it is impossible to devise any voting system that will simultaneously satisfy a set of basic criteria for fairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

[broncofan]

I know many people make this argument, but I'm not sure it's right. The point is that minor parties can only have influence when their vote is combined with one of the major parties. Under PR, this would signify that parties representing more than 50% of the electorate support that position.

They can influence policy when their vote is combined with a major party to get a majority of the vote but they can also withhold their vote on core policies to prevent legislation unless they get what they want on fringe ones. So let's say in the U.S. the green party prefers single payer healthcare and the democrats prefer something a bit more modest like ACA, the green party can hold the democrats hostage on healthcare for some other concession (if we had a pr system).

If you don't have pr, they are probably absorbed into a major party and they can still tug and pull but they are either constrained by their party's platform and/or put in check by the voters in their district since they must win a plurality or majority to be able to govern at all.

[broncofan]

The above process might take place if there is no in-between option and they are arguing over two discrete options. If there's a chance for compromise on a single issue, in a pr system the small party has out-sized leverage. If the large and small party are compromising the large party cannot really say the final bill should be closer to what we want because we have greater representation. If they did the small party could say, well you can do nothing without us and then make their demands on almost equal footing.

Now some of this same bartering can take place within parties in a non-pr system but it's more likely to be held in check either by conditional support from party leadership or the requirement that they get a plurality or majority (depending on the system) support from voters to become representatives.

[filghy2]

Much will depend on whether the minor party holding the balance of power has a position in between those of the major parties, or whether it is further out on the extremes. In the former case the negotiated outcome should be closer to that favoured by the median voter, which I take to be the desirable outcome in a democracy. In the latter case the outcome will move further away from the median voter's position.

Which of these outcomes is more likely will probably be influenced by the stance of the two major parties. If they are both competing for the middle ground then it is more likely that minor parties attracting votes will be on the extremes. However, these are also the circumstances in which the major parties are more likely to be able to reach a compromise, in which case the minor parties can have no influence. If the major parties are more polarised, as seems to have happened in the US, the minor parties that attract votes should be more likely to be positioned in the middle (though I'm not sure that has happened).

I'm probably assuming here that voters' preferences are normally distributed, with most clustered around the middle and less on the extremes. This obviously begs the question of why the major parties become polarised, given they should be able to gain more votes by moving back to the centre. One answer might be internal party dynamics; eg to get selected candidates need to appeal to the party base, which has more extreme views. Another possibility is that the electorate itself is becoming more polarised; ie rather than a normal distribution around the middle there is a bipolar distribution with the middle being hollowed out. Optional voting may also be relevant if people with strong views are more likely to vote than those with moderate views.

[Stavros]

Much will depend on whether the minor party holding the balance of power has a position in between those of the major parties, or whether it is further out on the extremes. In the former case the negotiated outcome should be closer to that favoured by the median voter, which I take to be the desirable outcome in a democracy. In the latter case the outcome will move further away from the median voter's position.
Which of these outcomes is more likely will probably be influenced by the stance of the two major parties. If they are both competing for the middle ground then it is more likely that minor parties attracting votes will be on the extremes. However, these are also the circumstances in which the major parties are more likely to be able to reach a compromise, in which case the minor parties can have no influence. If the major parties are more polarised, as seems to have happened in the US, the minor parties that attract votes should be more likely to be positioned in the middle (though I'm not sure that has happened).


Although not a consequence of PR, the UK Election this year resulted in the two major parties receiving 80% of the vote, but unwilling to compromise even on Brexit on which they share a broad agreement. Because the Conservatives are the largest party but do not have a working majority, they have reached a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland to support the government on key votes, in return for which they appear to have promised Northern Ireland an extra £1.5 billion of 'investment', the precise numbers and projects not yet stated.

The DUP is in your definition both an extremist party, yet one that has now become a key player in government even though it has no representation of any kind in England, Scotland and Wales. Moreover, in spite of being marginal to most of the UK, it does have influence over politics in Northern Ireland and is an example of how even a non-PR system can produce an outcome that gives extraordinary power to a minor party. On the one hand this means power for a party opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion (although many of its votes don't care about same-sex marriage), but crucially a party that resists every form of Irish nationalism on the grounds it and its supporters are British and may therefore also resist elements of the Brexit negotiations that relate to Anglo-Irish relations after the UK's exit from the EU.

On the other hand, because the DUP cannot reach an agreement with Sinn Fein over power-sharing, and the Sinn Fein claim that the DUP's arrangement with the Government is a clear violation of the Good Friday Agreement, the DUP may have to stand by as Westminster takes control of government in Northern Ireland, so that the DUP would be in the bizarre position of having no power in Northern Ireland outside local councils, while being the only guarantee of power for the same governing party in the UK that has replaced it in Belfast...

PR would merely have made this nonsense official, whereas at least we can under our present system wait for the Government to lose votes in the House of Commons, resign and have a new election -though there is no guarantee it will produce a clearer outcome. So you see, even First Past the Post does not guarantee the dominance of one of two major parties.

[filghy2]

The DUP received only 0.9% of the vote, so it's unlikely they would have that much influence under PR. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results Looking at the numbers it seems likely that the Liberal Democrats (7.4%) would have been the critical influence under PR. Incredibly, the LibDems won only two more seats than the DUP despite receiving 8 times as many votes. That sounds like a good argument for PR to me.

[Stavros]

The simple truth is that, as it stands, we do not have PR but have had coalition governments in the past because one party could not command a majority in the Commons, and Coalitions are built around compromise. I understand the PR argument that claims it reflects voters intentions more precisely, but PR leading to coalition governments may not be fair or balanced. People vote for a variety of reasons and I doubt they support every policy of the party they vote for, and there are voters who make their selection based on the personality and credibility of a party leader or local candidate. I don't think there is any one satisfactory system for all, and the weakness in PR is that it actually encourages extremist parties to enter the election gamble. In the case of UKIP, this did result in it becoming the largest UK party in the European Parliament in 2014, yet the party has been a shambles in terms of its organization, and although committed to removing the UK from the EU under Farage became an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party which for those reasons absorbed all but the most diehard neo-Nazis, indeed a few years ago Farage all but begged former members of the British National Party to vote for them. Under PR these parties would be making mischief in Parliament and diverting too much attention away from important issues to their pet hates. The further danger is that I don't know the Greens would benefit from PR. There was talk of the Labour Party splitting over the leftward trend of Jeremy Corbyn, but that seems to have passed, but who knows how Brexit will affect party politics?

[Stavros]

In spite of some headline victories for the Democrats in the US this month,

A new poll (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2017/images/11/07/rel11b_-_2018_and_taxes.pdf)suggests that the Democratic Party has hit its lowest approval rating in 25 years.

Conducted by the Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS) for CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-democrats-taxes/index.html), the poll showed that only 37 per cent of Americans saw the party as favourable while more than half of those surveyed - 54 per cent - did not.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/democratic-republican-party-lowest-favourable-rating-2018-election-a8042956.html

With speculation mounting the question is, will America's cuddly grandad, Joe Biden seek the nomination in 2020?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/13/joe-biden-never-replace-hillary-clinton-2016

[buttslinger]

For me, this is the heartbreak- Clinton could have given us back to back democratic presidencies for the first time since Kennedy/Johnson. Sixteen years of the best people in key positions.
Now that's shot to hell.