(You know it's bad when James Carville starts talking smack about his beloved party. )

From: https://tinyurl.com/25zvjvuj (thegatewaypundit.com)

===
James Carville Says Democrat Party Has Become `A Cracked-Out Clown Car'

by Mike LaChance Jul. 21, 2025 10:20 pm

Veteran Democrat strategist James Carville is proving that old saying
about how even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Carville wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times over the weekend
that described his own party as a `cracked-out clown car.' Who could
possibly disagree with his assessment?

A recent poll found that the approval rating for Democrats in Congress is
now a measly 19 percent. The party just nominated a communist for mayor of
New York City. They have no leader, no message, and offer no ideas to the
American people.

For once, Carville is right.

His piece is behind a paywall, but there are details at The Hill:

Carville: Democratic Party `a cracked-out clown car'

Democratic strategist James Carville said in a new opinion piece for The
New York Times that the current Democratic Party is "a cracked-out clown
car."

"Constipated. Leaderless. Confused. A cracked-out clown car. Divided.
These are the words I hear my fellow Democrats using to describe our
party as of late. The truth is they're not wrong: The Democratic Party
is in shambles," Carville said in the Times piece released Monday.

Carville pointed to the recent clinching of the Democratic nomination
for New York City mayor by Zohran Mamdani, which shocked many political
observers, saying it "wasn't an isolated event."

"It represents an undeniable fissure in our political soul. We are
divided along generational lines: Candidates like Mr. Mamdani are
impatient for an economic future that folks my age are skeptical can be
delivered," Carville added.

"We are divided along ideological lines: A party that is historically
allegiant to the state of Israel is at odds with a growing faction that
will not look past the abuses in Gaza and the West Bank," he continued.
"From Medicare for All purists to Affordable Care Act reformists, the
list goes on and on."

The list does go on and on, Mr. Carville. You're right.

We will leave you with this astute observation:

The biggest problem the Democrats face is their base is completely
insane.

- EducatedHillbilly(TM) (@RobProvince) July 20, 2025
===

-- Sean

... "The first man gets the oyster, the second man gets the shell." - Carnegie --- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)

Veteran Democrat strategist James Carville is proving that old saying
about how even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Carville wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times over the weekend
that described his own party as a `cracked-out clown car.' Who could
possibly disagree with his assessment?

A recent poll found that the approval rating for Democrats in Congress is
now a measly 19 percent. The party just nominated a communist for mayor of
New York City. They have no leader, no message, and offer no ideas to the
American people.

I have heard a lot of Democrats, including a young lady running for
congress in Illinois, claim that now is not the time for the Democrats to
try to appeal to the moderate/center voters but that instead they need to
go even "farther left." Some of them back these claims with poll data of registered Democrats.

My thinking is that those that are being polled are going to vote Democrat
no matter who is running, even if we were in an alternate universe where
Donald Trump was still a Democrat.

There has been some online speculation that Kentucky's governor could run
for President -- he is a two-term Democrat that wins in a state that is
mostly represented by Republicans in Congress, and a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in the last 3 elections. Lot of these
left-leaning Democrats poo-poo that idea because he is too moderate, he
works with Republicans to get things done, and he is from -- ick! --
Kentucky and not New York, Illinois, California, etc.

The Democrats are likely already pulling in most of the left voters -- they certainly aren't losing them to the Republicans -- so the "farther left" strategy sounds like a losing plan.

Jerking too far towards either side is what is breaking things. It is also what is causing so many people not to vote at all. They -- both parties -- need to figure out what it is that will attract those that are too turned
off to vote at all. My guess is that most of them are moderates.

Mike

* SLMR 2.1a * "Gasoline clears my sinuses!" - Fred G. Sanford
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Jerking too far towards either side is what is breaking things. It is also

>what is causing so many people not to vote at all. They -- both parties --
>need to figure out what it is that will attract those that are too turned
>off to vote at all. My guess is that most of them are moderates.

That is why we in Canada have 3 main parties, a strong Right, a strong Left
and a medium one, although the far left doesn't seem to get many of the
votes. They have lots of 'great' ideas, but they are always expensive to implement and most people figure they will either not manage to get those things done or they will be paid for with higher taxes which may drive
uber wealthy people and some businesses out of the country.

It tends to make that middle party more popular who, although named as
the Liberal party, usually aren't TOO Liberal. That's the party that is currently in power here and was Trudeau's party for the past 10 years.

What often works out best (IMHO) is when (frequently) we get a party
in power who didn't have a majority (50%+) so they need help to
vote most things through, which you don't get without giving someone
something in return. That swings the policies a little more one way
or the other than they would maybe prefer, but not radically so.

Since the extra votes often come from the far Left party, they agree
to vote with you if they can get a few things going through that often
help out low income people and seniors, moderately good dental covereage
being the last big one that came from one of those deals.

---
* SLMR Rob * So you're a feminist...Isn't that cute!
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

That is why we in Canada have 3 main parties, a strong Right, a strong Left and a medium one, although the far left doesn't seem to get many of the votes. They have lots of 'great' ideas, but they are always expensive to implement and most people figure they will either not manage to get those things done or they will be paid for with higher taxes which may drive
uber wealthy people and some businesses out of the country.

Unfortunately, our two main parties -- Republican and Democrat -- have
things under control in most states that make it very, very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot and/or to have access to public funds
and/or have access to debates and other "public access" that they have.

You usually have to have a lot of money and be able to get X% of the vote
in the state before you can be considered for any of those things. In some/many cases, just getting on the ballot requires you have a petition
turned in, with X number of registered voters signing, before you can even
get on a ballot and start trying for X% of the vote.

Just as an example, some of the folks "on the ballot" for the last three Presidential elections -- like Kanye West or RFK, Jr -- were only on the
ballot in some states. In a bit of irony, RFK, Jr won his fight to get on
the Kentucky ballot just in time to drop out, but not with enough time to
get himself removed.

The Democrat and Republican politicians want to make sure our choices are limited which, in turn, allows them to field candidates who very in their
level of "crapitude" and which causes some of their supporters to claim
that you need to vote for their candidate because they are "less evil than"
the other one -- note that only the delusional or completely dishonest will
try to use the "not at all evil" approach.

What often works out best (IMHO) is when (frequently) we get a party
in power who didn't have a majority (50%+) so they need help to
vote most things through, which you don't get without giving someone something in return. That swings the policies a little more one way
or the other than they would maybe prefer, but not radically so.

Since the extra votes often come from the far Left party, they agree
to vote with you if they can get a few things going through that often
help out low income people and seniors, moderately good dental covereage being the last big one that came from one of those deals.

That'd be nice. Since we are down to 2 choices here, IMHO, there needs to
be some safeguard in place that prevents one party -- either one! -- from having control of the White House and both Congressional chambers. Like
maybe some "at large Representatives" who only get to serve/vote in the
House if it is necessary to prevent full party control of all three.

They often get nothing done anyway but, when all three are controlled by
the same party, they often tend to get mostly only stupid, polarized things done.


* SLMR 2.1a * All Aboard!!!
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

That is why we in Canada have 3 main parties, a strong Right, a strong Left

>> and a medium one, although the far left doesn't seem to get many of the
>> votes.

Unfortunately, our two main parties -- Republican and Democrat -- have

>things under control in most states that make it very, very difficult for a
>third party to get on the ballot and/or to have access to public funds
>and/or have access to debates and other "public access" that they have.

You usually have to have a lot of money and be able to get X% of the vote

>in the state before you can be considered for any of those things. In
>some/many cases, just getting on the ballot requires you have a petition
>turned in, with X number of registered voters signing, before you can even
>get on a ballot and start trying for X% of the vote.

Yes. I guess our systems are a little different. We always have a few
minor parties as well as the top 3, like the Green party who is all
about reducing pollution and such but they are lucky to get one or
two seats in parliament. That and the French parties out of Quebec.

There are still some hoops to jump through to get on the ballot
and then you have to win in enough areas to get a minimum number
of seats to get Party Status, which our far Left party lost last
election. (You need at least 12 seats out of the total of 343)
But they are still there voting on things since they did win in
a few (7?) ridings so the benefit of Status is a bit confusing.
Obviously there must be some other benefits like funding and
maybe the ability to even introduce a question or Bill at all
in the House of Commons.

But getting on a ballot is not that difficult as there is a group
messing with the bi-election where Poilievre, the leader of our
Conservative Party, is trying to win a seat after losing his own
riding in the recent election.

Anyways, this group has managed to get over 200 names on the ballot
there (I assume running as Independants) to try to confuse the issue..
You don't need much other than being legal to run in Canada and,
depending on the riding, you need 50 or 100 signatures of residents
wanting you to run there.
---
* SLMR Rob * If something goes without saying, LET IT!
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Yes. I guess our systems are a little different. We always have a few
minor parties as well as the top 3, like the Green party who is all
about reducing pollution and such but they are lucky to get one or
two seats in parliament. That and the French parties out of Quebec.

Yes, I suspect it is more "open" and not so controlled by the long-standing parties.

But getting on a ballot is not that difficult as there is a group
messing with the bi-election where Poilievre, the leader of our
Conservative Party, is trying to win a seat after losing his own
riding in the recent election.

Anyways, this group has managed to get over 200 names on the ballot
there (I assume running as Independants) to try to confuse the issue..
You don't need much other than being legal to run in Canada and,
depending on the riding, you need 50 or 100 signatures of residents
wanting you to run there.

So you don't have to be a resident of the riding in order to run for office there? I have never thought much about that here. In Kentucky, you have
to be a resident of the state, but you may not have to be a resident of the district that you attempt to represent -- that might prove difficult if you live in a state where they are always shifting the boundaries.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * The Word of the Day is "Legs." Spread the word.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Re: Democrats Cracked?
By: Rob Mccart to MIKE POWELL on Sat Jul 26 2025 08:41 am

What often works out best (IMHO) is when (frequently) we get a party
in power who didn't have a majority (50%+) so they need help to
vote most things through, which you don't get without giving someone something in return. That swings the policies a little more one way
or the other than they would maybe prefer, but not radically so.

This is the state of affairs we usually have hear and it is quite bad.

What usually happens is the party with the most votes wants to pass a certain bill no matter the costs, and will make a deal with smaller parties in order to pass it, paying ANYTHING they demand to them. You end up with a frankenlaw.

The best we have been in recent History was the last time in which big parties were so low in votes that nobody could add up the votes to build a government. We spent around a year with no functional government at all. As a result the economy and general wellbeing in the country rose noticeably. It was headline material.

That people didn't take the clue and realize we are much better off when politicians are tied and doing absolutely nothing is depresing.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (618:250/24)

Anyways, this group has managed to get over 200 names on the ballot

>> there (I assume running as Independants) to try to confuse the issue..
>> You don't need much other than being legal to run in Canada and,
>> depending on the riding, you need 50 or 100 signatures of residents
>> wanting you to run there.

So you don't have to be a resident of the riding in order to run for office

>there? I have never thought much about that here. In Kentucky, you have
>to be a resident of the state, but you may not have to be a resident of the
>district that you attempt to represent -- that might prove difficult if you
>live in a state where they are always shifting the boundaries.

You don't need to be a resident of the riding you are running in,
but you may have to be living in the same Province.
But most Provinces have a lot of ridings considering we only have
10 Provinces plus 3 Territories, but there are 343 Ridings..
(a.k.a. Electoral Districts)

That Provincial restriction is just for Provincial elections, not
Federal ones. Sort of like comparing running for Governor there
compared to running for President.

---
* SLMR Rob * Hard work has a future payoff, laziness pays off now.
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

What often works out best (IMHO) is when (frequently) we get a party

> > in power who didn't have a majority (50%+) so they need help to
> > vote most things through, which you don't get without giving someone
> > something in return. That swings the policies a little more one way
> > or the other than they would maybe prefer, but not radically so.

This is the state of affairs we usually have hear and it is quite bad.

Yes, I suppose in some cases it can be taken to extremes and not be
good for the majority of people. The only saving grace is if the
politician involved does really stupid things they (hopefully) won't
get elected again next time.

As I mentioned earlier one deal that was made in a case like that
got us Government Dental insurance at no cost brought in which is
horribly expensive so those who already had coverage through work
or are too rich to worry about the cost no doubt resent the cost
involved being paid through taxes.

It is based on income so it pays most of the bill for lower income
people and less of the bill as income goes up finally hitting Zero
when your FAMILY net income gets up over $90,000 a year.

Not everything is covered, and nothing cosmetic. It's more for cavities
and repairs and covers checkups and limited time (1 hour a year) spent cleaning/polishing teeth. Dental here is ridiculously expensive.

I'm not sure how it compares to the USA but in the past I knew a
lot of people who needed a fair bit of work going Mexico or something
to get the work done at about 1/4 the cost.

My recent bills.. a 2 surface filling cost $308 and a 4 surface
filling was $379.. Pulling a tooth will run about $400 and a
Crown can easily get up close to $2000. A thorough checkup with
full X-Rays but no cleaning or other work done costs $250.
That insurance rarely covers a Crown.

---
* SLMR Rob * I don't have to be dead to donate my organ
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (618:250/1)

Arelor wrote to Rob Mccart <=-

What usually happens is the party with the most votes wants to pass a certain bill no matter the costs, and will make a deal with smaller parties in order to pass it, paying ANYTHING they demand to them. You
end up with a frankenlaw.

Shows how we as a society have a lack of morals and scruples.

-- digi <8D~

... 911: government-sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: Outpost BBS * Johnson City, TN (618:618/1)