Democrats in disarray and rudderless

After their stunning loses on all fronts the Democrats are in a total disarray with no firm leadership and still hovering over the past failed leadership. Will anyone who can bring together a national front with candidates who can actually win come forth. Will the failed leadership finally be sent to pasture?

For Democrats, no clear leader

The Democratic Party has a leadership vacuum at the top, with many registered voters eager to see someone who is not currently on the scene become the party’s standard-bearer in 2020, according to a new Harvard-Harris Poll survey provided exclusively to The Hill.

When registered voters were asked whom they view as the leader of the Democratic Party, 40 percent said it has no leader.

Fifteen percent named former President Obama as the party’s leader. Twelve percent said Sen.
Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), who has gone out of his way not to join the Democratic Party despite running for the its presidential nomination last year.
Eleven percent view Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as the party’s leader, and 10 percent answered with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.

On the question of who should be a Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, Sanders led the field, at 14 percent, followed by former first lady Michelle Obama at 11 percent, Warren at 9 percent, Clinton at 8 percent, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo each at 4 percent, and television personality Oprah Winfrey and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) each at 3 percent.

Forty-five percent said they want to see someone not on the list of possible candidates in the survey.


“There is a vacuum now in the Democratic Party in terms of leadership and a 2020 candidate, so it’s the Democrats who might have a raft of candidates next time, especially if the voters are searching for someone new,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn.

When Clinton was taken out of the list of potential 2020 candidates, Sanders’s support went up to 18 percent, followed by Michelle Obama at 14 percent and Warren at 10 percent. No other candidate received more than 4 percent support, and 44 percent of respondents said they want someone not on the list.

“Michelle Obama has some potential as a future candidate if she was interested in politics,” Penn said.

Barack Obama has said his wife “will never run for office,” though she remains hugely popular among Democrats.

The party is in the midst of a full-scale rebuilding project after the 2016 elections, in which it lost control of the White House and failed to win majorities in either the House or Senate.

Democratic ranks have also faced serious defeats at the state level, where the party has lost about 1,000 legislative seats since Obama took office. Republicans control 69 of 99 legislative chambers across the country and 33 of 50 governor mansions.

Democrats took the first step in setting a new path forward last month when former Obama administration Labor Secretary Tom Perez defeated Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Sanders acolyte, to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Still, the party lacks a consensus leader at a time when there are deep and lingering divisions between grassroots liberals and mainstream establishment Democrats.

The partisan breakdown of the Harvard-Harris survey is 37 percent Democratic, 30 percent Republican, 28 percent independent and 5 percent other.

When only Democrats are taken into account, the figures shift slightly.

Thirty-five percent of Democrats said their party has no leader. Sixteen percent picked Barack Obama or Warren as the leader, followed by Sanders at 14 percent and Clinton at 8 percent.

Twenty-five percent of Democrats said they want someone not on the poll’s list of possibilities to be their presidential candidate in 2020. Twenty percent said Sanders should be the nominee, followed by Michelle Obama at 17 percent, Warren at 15 percent, Clinton at 10 percent, Cuomo and Booker each at 4 percent, Winfrey at 3 percent and Cuban at 2 percent.

Overall, 40 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 60 percent who viewed it negatively. Republicans were seen similarly, 41 percent favorable to 59 percent unfavorable.

But Republicans had a far more positive view of their own party, with 79 percent saying they had a favorable view of the GOP. Only 65 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of their own party.

Among all the registered voters surveyed, 46 percent said the Democratic Party is becoming more liberal, 43 percent said it is staying the same, and 11 percent said it is moving to the right. A majority of Democrats, 56 percent, said the party is staying the same, while 30 percent said it is becoming more liberal and 14 said it is becoming more conservative.

Forty-nine percent of all those surveyed said the GOP is becoming more conservative, while 36 percent said it is staying the same and 16 percent said it is becoming more liberal. Among just Republicans, 43 percent said their party is staying the same, 39 percent said it is becoming more conservative, and 19 said it is becoming more liberal.

The Harvard-Harris survey of 2,092 registered voters was conducted online between March 14 and 16.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/324903-for-democrats-no-clear-leader

If anyone can make a case for them to stay the course with the same failed leadership I'd like to hear it.

 

They have no time to consider what their own stupidity has done in making them irrelevant. They are only consumed with MSM in trying to get trump out of office, and there are no rules here, the end justifies the means. They want to remain the banking and corporate owned party, instead of representing the people, even as this has devastated them. And they will not change. Well, as an ex democrat, they got it coming. They refuse to represent these people economically who voted for trump. The basket of deplorable white working people, yet it is all working people they will not represent, just like the establishment GOP.

 

I agree with the comment. Believe The Democrats ran from their foundation after the 1960s when liberalism came under attack because of Vietnam and the social turmoil. Since the Reagan Revolution, they have been trying to become more an elite party.

 

What type of organization believes doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result works? Pretty much the same people who caused Trump to win are still doing the same thing. They are accomplishing nothing with their tactics of obstructionism, and trying to undo the last election. They're digging their hole deeper and deeper. Their continued protests, marches, and disruption do nothing but create more dislike for them.

 

I have consistently said that Michelle Obama will run in 2020, and everyone's laughed me down on it. Now she's leading the polls.

She has the "Ellen Effect". The media will felate Michelle from dawn till dusk. They adore her, they picture her as some variety of African goddess.

That can be very useful. She will be the nominee I have no doubt whatsoever.

 

I believe that you sir are 100% correct. And anyone that disagrees with anything the queen Obama says or does will be labeled any number of names! Whitey will be labeled evil.

 

"I do not belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers. (I think in the 1940s)

Not having a clear leader does not mean rudderless.

Unlike the GOP we don't goose-step.

 

Isn't that fake Indian lady your leader now ?

 

Yes it does and certainly it was the Democrat party that was marching in goose step and goose stepped over the cliff.

 

And you know it just would not shock me anymore if they did nominate her. Without any qualification, no record of leadership or accomplishment simply because she is Michelle Obama. Even after the failed presidency of her husband it is all about image. I'm no fan of Trump but at least he brings a record of leadership and accomplishment of huge task.

 

I think the main reason for any speculation involving a possible Dem nominee in 2020 (who previously hadn't served in elective office) whether it be Michelle, Oprah or Mark Cuban, etc.-- is this:

If a thoroughly unqualified, mentally unstable, conspiratorial, tinfoil hat wearing, imbecile like Trump can be elected President, anyone can.

 

Maybe you should run !

 

Obama set the bar low. He was never qualified. Went out of office not qualified.

 

Obama spent years studying progressive constitutional revisionism. So while he disagrees with the plain text of the constitution, at least he actually knew what was in it.

Michelle Obama is only black and female. One day they'll have a part black, part Jewish, part Hispanic transgendered, homosexual, disabled dwarf lady.

That'll really get those minority votes.

 

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...rmy-of-god-should_us_58b9b8dce4b0fa65b844b29e

Donna Kassin, Contributor
Political Writer and Commentator
Here’s Why Trump’s Evangelical “Army Of God” Should Matter To The DNC
03/20/2017 07:44 pm ET | Updated 3 hours ago
220
Many people may be uncomfortable, if not angry, by the end of this piece. However, I’ve already made peace with that. The political future and direction of this country are too important to sweep pivotal issues under the carpet of political correctness.

Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, Democrats have lost nearly 1,000 legislative seats to Republican control. Since 2008, in fact, Democrats have increasingly refused to show up at the polls, down from nearly 70 million in 2008 to 59 million in 2016. Meanwhile, Republican voters have shown up consistently through those years, between 59 million–61 million. What’s more, on Nov. 9, nearly half of the eligible pool of 230.6 million voters, 115.3 million, didn’t bother to show up at all. Another 7.8 million voted “Other” — just simply could not bring themselves to vote for either party. That’s 123.1 million American voters out in “no man’s land.”

If this trend continues, it seems likely that the Republican Party will win the midterm elections in 2018 and the White House, again, in 2020. The trend preceded Donald Trump, which means, should incriminating, irrefutable evidence prove that Trump colluded in acts of treason with Russia and he is, indeed, impeached or imprisoned, that may not necessarily favor the Democratic Party.

For those who need a poll, here’s one from Suffolk University worthy of note. It puts the Democratic Party’s favorable/unfavorable ratings at 36 percent/52 percent behind the media, the GOP, Trump, and Mike Pence — ahead only of Hillary Clinton and Congress.

Why has this happened? This is the fundamental question that must fuel Democratic strategy going forward. Indeed, it is the crux of the challenge for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) — an enormous undertaking that must incorporate radical grassroots marketing and political campaigns with measurable impact before Election Day.

Arguably, one of the most important questions for the DNC to answer is why 81 percent of white, born-again evangelical Christians voted for Trump. It is not a sufficient answer to write them all off as racists, or byproducts of white privilege lacking in empathy. Compare this figure with the fact that only 24 percent of Jews, the vast majority of whom would be considered “white” in America today, voted for Trump, compared to 71 percent for Hillary, and such arguments hold little water.

All of these facts suggest a more endemic issue within the Democratic Party — or among white evangelicals. More importantly, Democrats cannot ignore this Republican stronghold, which has given rise to George W. Bush, and now Trump. Indeed, whom may we see arise next from that end of the political spectrum?

Liberals may laugh at the trove of hilarious skits and memes about Trump. However, Democrats and, indeed, the DNC need to take some time away from the “choir” to examine what is happening in the “Cult of Trump.” It is eye opening — and shocking — because their “converts” are akin to religious converts in this evangelical “Army of God.”

To be sure, it would be patently false to claim that Trump has the support of all evangelicals. But overwhelmingly clear in the last election was the direct correlation between attendance at religious services and support of Trump vis-à-vis Clinton. The more people attended religious services is the more they backed Trump — by a whopping 31-point margin (62 percent to 31 percent).


PHOTO CREDIT: SALON
Such statistics suggest that the Democratic Party has an image problem with churchgoers, which needs to be rectified in any forward-thinking campaign by the DNC. However, is image the sole issue? Evangelical support of Trump — someone in whom “fruits of the Spirit” are patently void — is inconsistent with Christian theology. Assuredly, their doctrinal sidesteps and contortions to reconcile the dissonance make us feel as if we’re living in an alternate universe. So, what exactly is going on in evangelical circles?

For starters, it is their “prophets” who seemingly identify “The Chosen One” — “anointed and appointed” to be president by no less than God himself, always “for such a time as this.” They declared it so with George W. Bush. And they did so again with Trump. To trivialize such events within one of the foundational pillars of society would show demonstrable ignorance regarding who evangelicals are and their political clout. For a political party, it is political suicide.

Those unfamiliar with evangelical practices may well ask, “Who are these ‘prophets’?” Meet Kim Clement — in full action — who can be heard “prophesying” via a YouTube mash-up, ostensibly from 2007, about the rise of “the trump.”
There are three things worthy of note in that manipulative video.

First, when Clement alleges that God said, “Trump shall become a trumpet. I will raise up the trump to become a trumpet,” note that “God” never said a trumpet for what, or for whom. For evangelicals to assume “a trumpet” is a good sign defies logic. In Scripture, a trumpet is often a symbol of warning and impending judgment. Christian doctrine actually foretells God’s judgment of the Church — first. Therefore, it is the evangelical Church that should take heed. Certainly, it stands to lose credibility and influence because what is abominably clear is that their fervor for Trump has little to do with theology and is more about money and increased power.

Trump promised not just to protect their tax-free 501(c)(3) status — and by extension, the obscenely wealthy lifestyles it affords their ministers — but also to remove the restrictions that have previously limited the politicization of the Church. He also promised to name a Scalia-esque conservative justice to the Supreme Court. Clinton promised nothing. Nada. Zip. She was perceived as the enemy.

Second, the mashup is deceptively edited to manipulate thought, perhaps even to create self-fulfilling prophecy. Assuredly, it plants the seed for Trump to have two terms. After all, if “God” said... Apparently, “God” gets his kicks now from making “fools” of “sheeple.”

Third, note the strategic attack on the media. Political and religious charlatans despise transparency. However, the obligation of the media as a third pillar of a free society is not to the pillars of government and religion. It is to the public. A society in which government, religion, and media collude is no longer free, and atrocities like genocide, human rights abuses, and pedophilia scandals within the Church would never come to light.

Clement is not alone in this business of prophecy, nor in conveying allegations of God’s displeasure with the media. Before the election, retired firefighter Mark Taylor said God showed him in 2011 that Trump would become president and that “even mainstream news media will be captivated by this man and the abilities that I [God] have gifted him with, and they will even begin to agree with him.” Ha.

In a post-election radio interview, Taylor said something rather interesting as well.

“Trump had said at one point that we had three objectives that we needed to meet as the Army of God,” Taylor reminded his audience. “The first was to get Trump elected. The second one was to get him inaugurated...The third one was going to be the first four or five months that he was in office; that it would be a little bit rocky...Rest assured, none of that is going to succeed because this man has been anointed and appointed by God....God’s already spoken.”

Who gave the three objectives to be met? Trump.

It is crucial for the DNC to understand that, in their minds now, evangelicals represent God himself, and the war with liberal media is God’s holy war.

Judaism and Christianity have had a very controversial, often contentious, history regarding Biblical texts and prophets. Their most fundamental disagreement surrounds Jesus, embraced by Christians as the Messiah. Conversely, Judaism does not recognize Jesus in that light because the title, Jews say, is a gross misrepresentation based on mistranslations of Hebrew texts, Scripture-twisting, and a lack of real understanding of the very concept of the Jewish Messiah. They agree that prophets like Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah were legitimate prophets, but not Daniel.

Hebrew Scriptures also recognized “prophets-for-hire” — including Hananiah, a real player in Jeremiah’s controversy with Zedekiah, a king of Judah; and Balaam of the talking-donkey fame. There were also “false prophets” such as the 400 consulted by King Ahab in 1 Kings 22:6, whose role, essentially, was to tell the rulers what they wanted to hear. More importantly, in Judaism, upon which Christianity bases its understanding of prophets, the age of prophecy ended with Malachi, who prophesied circa 420 BCE.

All of which to say, when modern-day Christian “prophets” come along, claiming to speak for God, extreme caution should be exercised. What is the basis of their legitimacy?

There is an epidemic of Biblical illiteracy in the Church today. Most Christians depend upon the interpretations, apologetics, and eschatological teachings from their leaders in the pulpit, many of whom have little formal education or qualifications in Biblical scholarship.

Best-selling author Joel Osteen, for example, lead pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston — the largest megachurch in America with 55,000 regulars in weekly attendance and millions more tuning in around the world for Osteen’s sermons — has no formal seminary or theological training. Upon his father’s death in 1999, essentially through nepotism, Osteen inherited Lakewood — flock, stock and barrel. Which is likely why Osteen preaches feel-good “Christianity-Lite” sermons, typically sidetracking meaningful theological debate with tactics more reflective of a motivational coach.

Some in Christian circles consider Osteen’s accomplishments the result of a great “anointing from God.” Others credit a keen business sense and effective marketing skills that took full advantage of technology and social media. Neither has to do with Biblical scholarship.

What makes Osteen’s story relevant is two-fold. Firstly, nepotism is quite typical in religious organizations across America. Million-dollar and billion-dollar organizations like Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) — the world’s largest religious television network — while officially 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations, are largely “family businesses,” handed down generationally, not necessarily to the most theologically qualified. And family squabbles regarding sexual misconduct, power struggles for control and succession are legendary.

Secondly, these organizations encourage support for a Christian theocracy rather than a civic democracy, which is why Trump’s promise to close the gap between Church and State is such a lure. Osteen is an obsequious Trump fanatic, less forthright than Obama critic Franklin Graham — evangelical “royalty” as Billy Graham’s son — who used his Decision America Tours to mobilize voters. Some would argue that such religious leaders and Trump are “the same person,” just in different spheres of influence.

Which leads us to Trump and his “God-whisperer,” Paula White, whom Trump has seemingly been “grooming” since 2002. Reportedly, Trump cold-called her after watching her deliver a televised sermon. Whether that was a shrewd and calculated move to provide Trump with a viable gateway into Christendom is arguable. However, Trump had long had his eye on the presidency and seemingly understood the role of evangelical support in that kind of endeavor.

 

Probably true that the Dems are rudderless and disarray these days, but they aren't in charge right now.. The Mad Hatter is.

 

True!

And before that the Republicans were after end of Bush's presidency. And before that the Democrats were after end of Clintons presidency ... so what is now new and so interesting about this point again to post it as new thread?

 

I never saw evidence be knew what was is in the Constitution just look at how many times the courts rebuked his EO's.

 

That he disagrees with the constitution doesn't mean he didn't know what was in it.

 

Presidents are elected to uphold the constitution not to disagree with, something he didn't know about the Constitution.

 

Michelle isn't that bright. Not like the intelligent Melania that can speak 4 languages.

Michelle wouldn't be able to stand up to any political debate, unless it was staged by Hollywood.

 

Which world are you living in? It's all Hollywood.

 

Is upholding the Supreme Courts laughable interpretation of the constitution upholding the oath?

 

Just like having a Marine avatar doesn't mean that you are a real Marine, yet alone a Vietnam Veteran.

 

Better no leader than a crazy orange jerk, at least until 2020.