Discuss.....

[H2O Man]

84. Gracious!

The OP is good in illustrating why memes & bumper-stickers are often shallow and tell only the tip of the ice cube, reducing them in value from meaningful conversation. However, I do agree with you on one of the three.

The 1968 bit is silly, as anyone alive and conscious back then knows. Hopefully, no one mistakenly believes it was those darned anti-war activists. The Democratic Party was divided internally, starting at the top, from early 1968 on. One can only speculate, but RFK may have been the most likely candidate to beat Nixon. But, as educated people know, there were not primaries in every state back then, and a significant number of top Democrats favored the vice president. We'll never know what might have been had Robert lived.

The Democratic Convention was, of course, devisive. Yet the majority of the anti-war demonstrators outside the convention and victims of the police riot, were of draft age but not old enough to vote. So blaming them for not voting for HHH seems about as valid as saying the Chicago police riot would justify defunding the police today. Different sides of the same ignorant coin.

Had HHH broken with LBJ a week earlier before Election Day, all indications suggest he would have won. But he didn't. Nixon, of course, lied about his "secret plan" to end the war, and that plus his "law & order" stance got him the votes of the older, middle class Democrats that gave Nixon the victory. Hence, your first claim is at best nonsense.

Now let['s take a gander at 2000, shall we? At the time, Al Gore was the most popular national politic figure in America with environmental groups and their members. It would be more accurate, though equally foolish, to blame the Jewish voters in FL who mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan, due to the infamous "butterfly ballot." Neither deserve serious attention. What can be said is that the make-up of the US Supreme Court is mighty important, since their selection of Bush included several members voting for him, despite serious conflicts of interest.

The importance of the Supreme Court is obviously iimportant in considering 2016. The general election was the first time either major party nominated a candidate with an over-50% negative polling among the general public going in. The Democratic primaries were divisive, and you are correct that this division brought about a lack of support from groups -- such as white and black women -- on Election Day. I'm not sure either of those two groups could accurately be termed "Democratic Socialist activists," but I sure hope they are moving in that direction.

In the end, without question, the responsibility for either a win or loss belongs to the candidate. There is no advantage gained by blaming the very voters the Democratic Party needs to win, now is there? Perhaps it is a pot you should avoid stirring. We need to take the Obama-Biden approach instead, as that leads to victory. I, for one, prefer winning to carrying a chip on my shoulder. Maybe that's just me, though. I can only speculate.

The most important point you raise, and the only one that educated, well-informed people need to consider, is the "there's no difference between the parties" bit. We can be certain that our opposition will attempt to make Joe Manchin the poster child to promote this. Thus, we need to take a lesson from Malcolm X -- no chance I wouldn't mention Malcolm here today, as it is his birthday -- and set a glass of sparkling clean water next to a glass of filthy sludge, and trust a thirsty public to make the correct choice.