Why does establishment Democrats think their base voters are incompetent and unable to get free voter ID card?
Its all a rouse and they know it. The reason there is little evidence of voter fraud at the polls on Election Day is because the fraud was committed long ago with the fraudulent voter registration. Groups that commit the fraud know the names of their fraudulently registered people accepted by the voter registrar. On Election Day the paid voter goes in to vote using the name of the phony person. Thus with list in hand 60 people on a bus can vote at 10 different voting locations under 600 different names that were registered years ago. In large cities with hundreds of polling places one is only restricted by time and polling places available. With voter ID to complete the task above would require 600 ID cards and violate multiple laws. Voter ID forces each registration on the voters list to prove it is real. When the citizens of AZ wanted voter Id they had to battle the Democrats all the way to the State Supreme Court. Once voter Id was the law of the land everyone had to reregister. One did so by simply signing and mailing back a prepaid postcard that was mailed to every address that was a registered voter in the state. 35,000 cards were not returned and or the post office found them to be false addresses and undeliverable. NONE of these 35,000 voters complained at being taken off the voting rolls. Unchallenged a phony registration is a democrat vote. PS. States offer ID for those extreme cases of people who do not have any form of ID.
Will the Democrats take back the House in 2018?
The answer to this greatly depends on Gill v. Whitford which the Supreme Court will issue its verdict on sometime this summer. The deciding vote will most likely be made by Justice Kennedy who has indicated in a previous case he would like to tackle the issue of gerrymandering. If the ruling strikes down the partisan gerrymandering currently in use amongst many states in our union as unconstitutional then the Democrats will not only pick up seats, but potentially hold onto a majority for a long time to come.A ruling today in Pennsylvania has struck down gerrymandering based on partisan redrawing of districts which favored Republicans. The State Supreme Court ordered the drawing of a new map by February 9th. This will most likely hand 3–4 seats to the Democrats just in Pennsylvania as we have seen a drastic move away from the GOP in affluent suburban districts. California also has a few very vulnerable districts that HRC won last year. While nothing is guaranteed since the election is still 10 months away, history and data are both in favor of the Democrats. Even in the republican waves during Obama’s term we never saw millions of people marching across every state pledging to vote against Trump this November. The blowout in Virginia was also a good indicator that enthusiasm is on the side of Democrats. The unknown factor in this is will Trump voters from 2016 be disenfranchised or depressed when he is not on the ballot, or will they turnout again to make sure people who support his agenda are elected to congress.Side note: both Virginia and Hillary Clinton’s upset in 2016 has shown us polls are very poor predictors of who will actually turn out to vote. Thats why some companies are turning to social media to try and analyze the enthusiasm level on either side to determine whose base is more energized.
How do Democrats expect to appeal to white male voters if they feel that Democrats "mock" them?
The us of the terms "white privilege," "male privilege," and "ableism," among others, is intended to call attention to the inherent advantages certain individuals have over others purely as a result of their birth. The point of discussing them is to talk about how we can make life better, and more fair, for those who face greater challenges to success and happiness in our country.It is most definitely not intended to mock white men, or to make them feel bad about themselves. The fact that white men feel that a discussion about improving the lives of others is, by its very nature, an attack on them, is an excellent illustration of why we need to be having these discussions to begin with.But that's not really answering your question. You asked, essentially, if it's politically expedient to stop using these terms in the interest of securing the white male vote. Two points:1) Democrats thrive off of the minority and the woman vote. Republicans are already counting on the white male vote. I don't know if the specific use of the term "white privilege" is making matters substantially worse in that regard, but suffice it to say that I doubt it.2) The point of these discussions isn't to score political points in the first place. But we're still going to talk about it, because it's important. If we stopped using these words in the interest of appeasing white males, it would defeat the point of using them in the first place. You're putting the interests of white males over others to maintain an existing power structure. Do you see how this is self-defeating?In summation, no. We don't have to stop using these words. Nor should we.
Why don't more Democrats turn out to vote?
These types of questions make it sound like the parties are sports teams, out on the field, all their members loyal and trying to win. I think the people who click "Democrat" when given a choice of two parties are particularly not a team. So, there's no getting to the bottom, but I'll throw out one key that I think is important: the Democrats philosophically very loosely represent the interests of ordinary people and blue-collar workers in the face of monopolistic and over-powerful businesses. The Republicans philosophically represent the idea that American strength comes in large part from powerful businesses. Politicians on both sides get their money from the businesses, and are pretty much puppets (even if they don't want to be) -- so the Democrats and Republicans alike keep supporting free trade measures that have relatively harmed the working class and benefitted the business owners / Wall Street. This same action is less corrupt if you believe these businesses are the heart of America's wealth and competition is good for union workers. Republicans taking millions from Wall Street are not particularly hypocrites for doing so, but Democrats are, and these days you have to take the millions to win. This is depressing and disempowering for the Democratic base, and makes it very hard for Democratic politicians to stay on-message.
How many of the Democrat segregationists, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, changed parties?
Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, off the top of my head. Facts are handy, but without context, they can be misleading. It is true that prior to Nixon, politicians who favored segregation and were against civil rights for blacks, aligned themselves with, and were, democrats. Trent Lott, for example, was a proud democrat in those days. It was around the time of Nixon that the Republican Party started to embrace these views in an effort to attact this base of voters. The Democratic party likewise started to embrace a more pro-civil rights platform. During this time Trent Lott, for example, switched parties and became a Republican. Over the next few decades, the transition became complete, and the roles were reversed. No one would dispute today that the Democratic party is more 'pro civil rights' than the Republican party. Otherwise, they would not be getting something like 80% of the black vote and a majority of the female vote. It is not the party which makes the politicians, it is the politicians which make the party. In 1950, pro-civil rights politicians found a home in the Republican Party. Today, those same politicians find their home in the Democratic party. As party platforms drift away from the views of certain segments of their voters, they'll nevertheless try to retain those old voters (and politicians) for as long as they can. People who don't follow the changing policies and platforms of their own party are at risk of voting for policies they don't agree with."
Why are The Democrats dividing America?
Unfortunately the Radical extreme left is attempting to hijack the Democratic Party. That is what is causing the division. Hillary Clinton represents the traditional liberal base of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama is operating as a "Trojan Horse" or stealth candidate who is being marketed as just another liberal however all of Barack Obama's long time associations are with the Radical extreme left. If Barack Obama is elected President Barack Obama will govern according to the Radical extreme left political position. That will be extemely destructive for the United States of America. The result will be that Barack Obama will be voted out of office after one term like Jimmy Carter was. Also the Democratic Party will be so badly tarnished that Democratic Candidates will be unelectable for years like we were after the Jimmy Carter debacle. If Barack obama is given the Democratic nomination the only alternative left to the rest of us in the Democratic Party is to crossover and vote for and elect John McCain in the General Election. At least John McCain's positions are very close to those of the mainstram Democratic Party. Also by electing John McCain we avoid being tarnished by the spectre of the radical extreme left that Barack Obama would cause. Barack Obama will not be acceptable to the American Public any more than Jimmy Carrter was. We still hope that a more mainstream candidate like Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. However it does look like the Democratic nomination will go to Barack Obama. So the only option left to us will be to crossover and vote for John McCain in 2008 and take back the Presidency in 2012. When over 30% of the registered Democrats cross over and vote for the Republican, it is almost impossible for the candidate with the Democratic nomination to win. That is how Jimmy Carter lost the Presidency afterone term.
Is this a good definition of the main block of Democratic voters? The block which the Democrats could not win a single election without?
Not really. In fact, all of those can be seen as far more descriptive of the Republican Party. For example, the idiot vote could include Legions of Republicans who believe nonsensical things such as Obama being a secret Muslim, global warming being a hoax, or that a man who ran primarily on anti-immigrant sentiment would never in a million years deport the immigrant workers who farmers rely upon. The free stuff ideas also a big part of the Republican appeal. This is especially true of trump who promised that he would massively / taxes while maintaining, or even increasing, entitlement spending. In fact, the last few Decades of the Republican Party can be seen as a big effort to give free stuff to the Baby Boomers. These people got lots of services from government but did not pay the taxes needed to support those services. Finally, the Republican party also represents people who thinks that the government knows how to live our lives better than we do. After all, it is the Republicans and not the Democrats who want to legislate about how people can have sex, what drugs they can do, and how they can worship.
What makes up Trump's voter base?
Individuals who are susceptible to authoritarianism, who thirst for unnuanced oversimplification of the world such as “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it” as Trump stated in his convention acceptance speech. Authoritarianism requires that the self appointed authority have the unique ability to be all things to all people, but without ever being challenged by individuals. John McCain and Mitt Romney weren't authoritarians and possibly didn't earn the enthusiasm from the Republican base because they didn't position themselves as such. Hillary Clinton, though in both 2008 & 2016, campaigned as an entitled heir-apparent but didn't presume to be the unquestionable authority who would be unique authority as Trump did.The news sites that convince their audience that the absurd is reality, and only they have access to (alternative) facts and any other source of information is a lie, therfore inoculating the audience from contradictory facts, ‘primes the pump’ to accept an authoritarian who operates with the alternative facts. As Voltaire said “those that believe absurdities, will commit atrocities”; for example if one is to believe the absurdity that a subset of humans are somehow more valuable than all other humans, they will commit the atrocity of systematically killing them (Trail of Tears, chattle slavery, the Holocaust, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, religious wars of the Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, etc).Facts are stubborn things, and seeking out confirmation for one's beliefs rather than being open to admitting that your personal opinion is unfounded, is what sets individuals into their beliefs. There are Trump supporters that would rather believe a slight plurality of Americans are just like them and that 5 million illegal votes were cast against Trump than For Trump. Even if the unfounded claim was true, there was 74 million votes for candidates other than Trump and the 5 million illegal votes still would have left Trump with 62 million votes and 7 million votes shy of a majority (though it would narrow the margin from 12 million ). Why does this anecdote confirm who is Trump's base? Because only those who believe Trump to be the exclusive fount of knowledge would still find him credible and not a compulsive liar.If one still believes the wholecloth falsehoods he tweets out then congratulations, you are Trump's base.
Is this why the Democrats have a huge advantage over the Republicans?
They might do,but they are making a dogs breakfast of it all...the real reason trump is hated by the left is that he is a businessman.He works tirelessly to make his businesses as streamlined and efficient as possible, transfer that to government and you get a lot of people worried about their lacklustre performances...think of federal jobs,and I'll guarantee its full of slackers and wastrills.That won't or can't compete in the private sector.Trump is a major threat to that cushy way of life...and he is hated for it,because noone likes being shown up as crap at their job.Even if they are being crap on purpose.
Why do Democrats hate Republicans?
Dear OP:This won’t be a pleasant answer, and I expect Republicans to get defensive. Don’t.If you are a Republican, and you can honestly say these things do not apply to you, then good for you. I am not talking about you.Even if you voted for Trump, and none of the things I’m saying are true of you, then rest assured: I’m not talking about you.But they do apply to many other people. So I ask: is this the party you want to associate with?With that disclaimer aside, my answer:I never had any reason to hate the Republican Party before. But now I do. Why?They hate Obama irrationally. They compared him to an ape. They showed him being lynched. They accused him of not being born in the USA; when Obama proved that he was, they ignored him and continued.They hate Hillary Clinton irrationally.They distanced themselves from Trump during the campaign but voted for him. No, not everyone; but those who did this are hypocrites.They gloated after Trump won, and then had the nerve to accuse us of being sore losers.They resent any suggestion that they might be racist, but blame all Democrats for rioting at Berkeley.They demand the respect for Trump that they refused to give to Obama.They demand respect for Trump that Trump does not deserve.They continue repeating debunked accusations against Obama and Clinton, but deflect any criticism of their candidate.Their agenda has gone from conservative to reactionary and right-wing.They refuse to compromise and are manipulative. See here: A Key Mechanism of Control.They behave sadistically, and yet expect their emotions to be respected.They try to steal the narrative: among other things, they tell me precisely what I think and what I feel and what my motives are. And then they have the nerve to get defensive.They think all criticism of Donald Trump is fake news, but themselves watch Fox, a channel known for its blatant bias and emotional slant.They say things like this bumper sticker, and pretend to be joking; but of course they cannot take a joke.I would hope not all Republicans are like this. But enough of them are.So long as torturing a liberal is seen as a formula for saving America, I cannot trust the Republican Party.Yours,Chrys JordanP.S. Yes, I will delete comments that descend into jackassery. No, that isn’t censorship. Yes, you are free to write your own answer in which you rebut mine. No, Quora is not a debating site. But yes, if you want to debate me, writing your own answer is the way to do it.