View the Trailer
Advertisement
Columns

3 Democratic Delusions

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, with her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, (L), and her Vice-President running mate Tim Kaiine (R), listen to  her concession speech to President-elect Donald Trump in New York, U.S., November 9, 2016.        REUTERS/Carlos Barria

As Democrats try to regroup after their recent presidential defeat, they tend to delude themselves on three crucial points.

First, they seek comfort in Hillary Clinton’s popular vote margin of more than two million, marking the sixth election of the last seven in which a Democrat won more raw votes than his or her Republican rival. But this meaningless “winning streak” masks a far more serious losing streak: In the last 50 years, over the course of 13 presidential elections, Barack Obama is the only Democratic nominee to reach a solid popular vote majority of 51% or more — and he did it twice. Going beyond Lyndon Johnson’s landslide against Barry Goldwater in 1964, you’d need to reach all the way back to Franklin D. Roosevelt to find another Democratic nominee who connected with an unmistakable majority of his fellow citizens. In the intervening 72 years since FDR’s last race in 1944, Republicans won decisive, majority victories seven times….

Read the full column at USATODAY.com

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (39)

Leave a comment
  1. audrey a  •  Nov 30, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    Democrats are ignoring how the electoral college affects the way people vote: why bother voting Republican in California or our state of Washington? If we had a popular vote, it would change how people vote–it could mean that many millions more Republicans would have a reason to vote. No rational person can say that Hilary would have won if we went with the popular vote because doing so would change how people vote! but of course, who claims Democrats are rational…heard they just reelected Pelosi…

    • Ty  •  Nov 30, 2016 at 4:44 pm

      That cuts both ways, why would more liberally minded people living in Montana bother going to the polls? Or Texas?

      The electoral college, if it was meant to focus more on smaller states would favor more candidate visits to smaller/less populous states. But does it? No, it does not, if favor not big states vs small states in terms of attentiveness to needs, it favors CLOSE states. That includes Florida and Ohio along with smaller states that are toss ups. If the electoral college was meant to give more power and attention to the concerns of smaller states, it partial failed. It still gives them outsized voting power since they ought to have fewer electoral college votes available based on population, while states like California ought to have about 10 votes more.

      But as we all know, conservatives favor empty space over ACTUAL human beings. Land over people is the only way conservatives can win, so I don't expect them to be honest about the ill effects of the electoral college.

      • Franco  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 am

        Moron, this isn't about empty spaces. This is about States' Rights, and representing the will of the people from each individual state.
        Trump won the popular vote in each state he won.
        America is a Constitutional, representative Republic… not a pure democracy.
        It never has been, it never should be. Pure democracy equals mob rule.
        It's pathetic that you libtards don't know and understand this basic and fundamental principle.

      • Ty  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 2:09 pm

        A popular vote would not be mob rule, there would still be representative government, it's just that it would better reflect the actual voting population, which is what you don't want.

        I get it, but spare me this self righteous tone of deferring to the wishes of the founders. The founders did not even have direct elections of senators at the start, wishes change, the world and the nation is what we make of it. If you want the US to be bound completely and totally by the standards and restrictions of 1776 you are a fool.

        Right now, instead of the tyranny of the majority, we have the tyranny of the MINORITY, because of how populations are spread, a minority population of the US gets to dictate terms to the rest of the nation, so I don't care if you won more states, or more counties, It is WRONG that you get more power because there are fewer actually PEOPLE in those states and counties as a whole.

        Don't be a p*ssy, come out and admit the obvious, you PREFER empty spaces with fewer people over MORE people winning power because you are an anti democratic hack who knows you cannot win the battle of ideas. So keep at it, keep relying on gerrymandered districts to get power and being a charity welfare case of power in your shriveled up counties and states that people are abandoning more and more each year because the places where the LIBERALS dominate are more of an actual draw for humanity. Keep your power, but spare me this trash that you earned jack #$%^.

        The electoral college is affirmative action for rural conservatives that can't actually convince more of the nation their ideas are correct.

      • Franco  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 6:29 pm

        Ty
        Pure Democracy, majority rule IS Mob Rule. Which president has ever been elected by your Mob Rule? You're a loser, and so are your ideas. America has rejected liberalism, both at the local and national level. You can cry all you want, but America is not going to be dictated to by the likes of 2 states.
        Go learn your history… learn how to play the game, learn how we keep score and maybe you might have a chance of winning. I doubt it, because your ideas are UnAmerican and have been proven a failure throughout world history.
        We will see how much you favor majority rules, when your pathetic, minority of libs try to filibuster everything.

      • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 1:38 am

        Direct elections of the president is not mob rule, and the election of representatives and senators implies there is a BUFFER between the DIRECT will of the people/mob and what gets voted on in congress. I realize you are conservative but is this really that difficult to understand? We still have a bill of rights, we still have a hard time changing the constitution where the states can come into play, but election of presidents? The fact that presidential elections are more frequently NOT aligned with who wins the popular vote is a bug, not a feature. Even the founders would agree with that. Look at what Madison said and thought.

        http://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president

        Was Madison some socialist/communist/enemy of the republic? You are an arrogant little man, you seem to think that WHATEVER came before must be CONSERVed at all costs. Not even the founders thought that. You prefer the current system for one reason alone, it props up your minority views and grants you outsized power. Lie to yourself all you want, but don't expect me to accept the lie.

      • Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 10:21 am

        First of all Ty… you're a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Lets quit pretending that you care about The Constitution and The Founders, like Madison.
        It is ABSOLUTELY, 100% clear, The Founders OPPOSED popular-vote, pure-democracy elections. This is NOT up for debate.

      • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm

        Guilty, I am a liberal, SO dyed in the wool that I voted for Schwarzenegger and later McCain in 2008.

        But I am a liberal, and apparently that means being more honest about history than you are and not only selecting the bits that are convenient to you. You are right, the founders were against and fearful of direct elections, and people could not even vote directly for the Senate at the start. But the blinder is that the founders were PERFECTLY happy with how the system they set in motion was set up. They were not happy with it in total, they did NOT think it was some divine document inspired directly by GOD or some Quranic text that is perfect in every way and need not be tweaked. That was the point. Madison did not like the way the electoral college was working. In his case that does not mean he wanted a popular vote, but the idea that the way things were set up is, and always will be a gold standard that should never be altered is a TRASH way to look at the world, a very conservative way to look at the world.

        The House of Representatives is supposed to be the more democratic house of congress, but it is functionally LESS democratic than the body that was designed to be less democratic, the senate. It's harder to gerrymander up the wazoo with only 2 degrees of freedom vs far more.

        A solution, that will never take place, that would be an IMPROVEMENT on the initial intention of the house being more directly related to the will of the public, would be to get rid of 1 representative, 1 vote. Votes would be based on the # of people in a congressional district, such that if one district cut out of a city had twice the population of a rural district that represented more sand and DIRT than people, the vote of that representative would count for less.

        That would be an improvement. If we had a time machine and brought all the founders up to the modern day and showed them how their system was shaking out, I suspect we could convince a great many that such a tweak would be an improvement in representing the will of the popular public in the house, the peoples house.

        Now I don't expect you and other conservatives to ever go for such a thing, and that's fine. I am not a fool, I don't expect you to give up power. What I will not do however is go along with this fiction you LIE to yourself and others with that the system we have now is the best of all possible worlds. You like the system, because it is an affirmative action quota system to keep conservatives in the game and in power, even though they have less support from actual human beings.

        That is the alpha and omega of the base of support for the current system.

      • Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 3:22 pm

        It is you, who is for the "Affirmative Action Vote", you want the 2 liberal bastions (New York, and California) to be over-represented, and speak for the entire country.
        You libtards won California…. Great. You get their electoral votes. But, that doesn't mean you get to override the will of the people from Indiana, or from Florida, etc. They get to vote too. Their will gets to be represented as well.
        California is big… You get 55 votes. Indiana is smaller… They get 11.
        Go convince America of your liberal values, get to 270… but you can't.
        You can't win at the local level, the state level or at the National level.
        Your ideas and values have been overwhelmingly rejected.
        31 Republican Governors
        54 Republican Senators
        247 in Congress

        The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers — the highest number in the history of the party. Republicans currently hold the governorship and both houses of the legislature in 23 states, while Democrats have that level of control in only seven.

        So, it is clear to see for anyone, who has open eyes and thoughtful mindS… You libtards are losers are EVERY CONCEIVABLE LEVEL.

      • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 4:12 am

        If the electoral college was purely based off state population, then based off the 2010 census California would have around 65 electoral college votes, but it does not because of all the smaller states getting higher base votes than their population warrants.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

        And democrats will take the presidency again, but like I said, we will have to convince even more people to counteract the affirmative action for conservatives that control empty spaces where we toss them pity power for existing, and not actually having more people live there.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 9:28 am

        These so-called "empty spaces", your lib talking point is already accounted for.
        States with larger populations have more electoral votes.
        This is pretty basic and fundamental.
        And… you don't need a YouTube link to understand it.
        I'm sure you've heard this analogy…. The World Series is the best of 7 games.
        Game 1 – Libs beat Real Americans (15-1)
        Game 2 – Real Americans beat Libs (8-3)
        Game 3 – Real Americans beat Libs (4-0)
        Game 4 – Libs beat Real Americans (12-6)
        Game 5 – Real Americans beat Libs (5-1)
        Game 6 – Real American beat Libs (3-1)
        – That's it series is over. Real Americans defeated the Libs, 4 games to 2.
        But then, Libs start crying…. wait a minute, we outscored you 32-27.
        Sorry Libtards, that's not how we play the game.

      • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm

        Liberals are real Americans too. We are still here, more of us voted against Trump than for him across the nation. We understand this does not win the presidency due to population distribution, but we'd appreciate not being talked down too as if we don't matter and are irrelevant. Like I said elsewhere, everything the right accuses "the left" of they engage in in spades.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 1:15 pm

        Liberals are not REAL Americans. Almost everything you believe in is antithetical to American values, traditions and our heritage. It could be more accurately described as liberals are REAL UnAmericans. And, don't sell yourself short, you Liberals do matter…. but only to the extent that you must be stopped.

  2. Ty  •  Nov 30, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Another point, if it goes through. The liberal vs conservative support base is primarily one of cities and metro areas vs rural areas. And guess where the diversity of industry and the engines of American economy resides? NOT with conservative voters, they are the freeloaders of the nation.

    http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/11/not-every-trump-voter-is-freeloader-but.html

    • Ty  •  Nov 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm

      BTW, even looking at Michael and numerous other conservative talk hosts, where do most of their well to do selves choose to live? Out in the sticks where the conservative base is at its strongest? Of course not. They choose to live where things are nicer, in those LIBERAL centers of power, the cities and metro areas or the warm afterglow of liberal meccas.

      So keep on talking about how it's all about conservative governance and a belief that your ideas are winning, they are not, you just benefit like a cripple and the biggest affirmative action baby in the universe by having your rural destitute votes counting for more than the people living in the regions that are actually driving the nation forward economically.

      • Franco  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 9:38 am

        Please be specific…. Which liberal Meccas are you referring to, that are so "nice"?

      • Ty  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 2:15 pm

        Almost every metro area in the nation. Higher Crime, but also higher opportunity, VASTLY more diversified economies because they are not some rural hell holes that rely on a smattering of industries to stay out of the gutter, where a few mal timed swings or leavings of a plant can tank a whole area.

        It's an INHERENTLY inferior economic model and societal structure to found success on, and the rural areas are the places where the backwater conservative strongholds are located. This is not even about states, or counties, it's rural vs metros.

      • Franco  •  Dec 1, 2016 at 6:19 pm

        Every metro area… Ok, how about Detroit?
        Chicago?
        Oakland?
        St. Louis?
        Which one EXACTLY? And be specific. Ask your Mom, if you don't know the meaning of the word "SPECIFIC".

      • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 1:55 am

        Detroit is a blighted city, and Chicago has major issues with crime and violence. What about NY? Seattle? Los Angeles? San Francisco? Austin? Denver?

        You make arguments in bad faith, like a coward making a case he's the fastest runner and can beat any other member of the team, then choosing to race against the cripple with a broken leg as proof of your superiority. Oh look, weedhole oklahoma is better than living in Detroit, what an accomplishment!

        The percentage of poverty in rural areas is HIGHER than cities, even though there are more people in poverty in metro areas because the population is so much higher. My point still stands, the metro regions are superior places to live, and that is why people move away from the dust bowls and into the cities. Medved lives in/near a metro area of Seattle. Prager lives in a metro area, so does Hugh Hewitt, and Larry Elder. Look at where people with means TEND to choose to live their lives!

        Not in the bastions of conservative dominance. Know why? Because they don't WANT to live there, they want to live where the liberals rule. Don't pay attention to what they say and mislead with, look at how they Behave.

        Michael mentioned if California was not counted, Trump would have won the popular vote. So what? If the US did not have California, it would be FAR less wealthy, FAR less of a technical power with the loss of silicon valley and the film industry, even WITH the migrations of production companies to lower cost states and cities like Vancouver, California has a thriving agricultural sector, even with the drought, it is a major producer of wine for the nation and the world. This HATED liberal pariah state is a freaking godsend for the nation to have among it, so spare me this flippant talk like we don't matter. That our will in national elections deserve to be diluted in the way they currently are. And like I said, it's not just California, all across the nation, it's the liberal dominated region, the cities and larger metros that are the ACTUAL engines of the nation, that drive more wealth creation and prosperity.

        Jefferson was wrong, the agrarian paradise was a useless fantasy. It produces far less, but it sure does know how to suck from the teat of prosperity LIBERAL areas generate.

  3. Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 7:59 am

    Sorry Ty…. You are just wrong. It is well documented that cities attract and maintain a disproportionate amount of poor versus rural suburbs. It's not even close.

    I'm glad you like to focus on California. California does produce a lot of good, despite its mismanagement by liberals. However, as a state, California is a fiscal mess. It has well over a debt-total of $400 billion.

    • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm

      Look at this data.

      https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/poverty-overview.aspx

      overall, rural poverty rates outstrip metro areas.

      (combined comment got moderated, perhaps two links in a single post triggers something)

    • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 2:29 pm

      As far as California debt, it is rather high. But this is not a useful metric in a vacuum. California also PRODUCES far more than ANY other state in the union. Take a look at these stats.

      http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/state_debt_rank

      Our debt load is just 1% higher than texas when you factor in the total gdp the state produces. Look at the states with the lowest % of debt to gdp. Want to live there?

      EXPAND your metrics conservatives. You all love doing this, looking at the economy with a straw sized view finder, finding something that makes liberals and only liberals look bad, then ignoring the rest.

      This is a larger problem with most of talk radio (Michael is better than most here, though he is still part of the problem too). The lies of omission, if you JUST look at the total state debt California looks terrible, when you put it in context with its population and gdp totals it looks far more healthy.

  4. Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 10:28 am

    “Almost every metro area in the nation… are superior places to live”

    – Your cherry-picked cities tell another story. Keep living in your delusional bubble. Most major cities are shit-holes, swarming with crime, poverty and illegal aliens looking to cash-in on Joe-Tax Payer.

    The official US poverty rate in 2015 was 13.5 percent, down 1.2 percentage points from 14.8 percent in 2014.

    The latest poverty rates for New York City are in. More than three years into the economic recovery the poverty rate remains high at 21.2 percent, statistically unchanged from 2011 when it was 20.9 percent.

    Definitely sobering in the Bay Area where, according to 2011 data, approximately 20 percent of the population – 1.3 million people-are considered below the poverty "threshold." That includes 184,000 out of San Francisco's population of 788,000.

    New U.S. Census data show the poverty rate in Los Angeles County is 17.8 percent. That is higher than rates in the rest of California or the nation.

    Austin’s poverty rate is at 22%

    Seattle’s poverty rate is 16.5%

    Denver is right at 13%

    Lesson over…. you are dismissed.

    • Papa  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 2:09 pm

      You couldn't afford to buy a home in NYC, SF, or Seattle. I have done quite well in Seattle real estate, while east of the Cascades is in the doldrums.

      On a different topic, changing demographics is gonna be a mofo for republicons. 🙂

  5. Henry  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Ty, what you are trying to do is so pathetic. Since well before the industrial revolution the strength of any nation was based on the quality of its major cities. Cities are of course the lifeblood of a modern nation. The question of how the Democratic Party came to dominate the vote in major US cities is a separate debate altogether (and they have not BTW dominated the vote in the suburbs of those cities). … All you’re trying to do here is extend the Democratic Party long successful practice of divide and conquer. First it was wealth vs. poor, then white vs. black, then non-union vs. unions, then legacies vs. immigrants, then men vs. women, then straights vs. gays, then global warming skeptics vs. global warmers. All fostered hateful and angry accusations of racists, elitists, homophobes, misogynists, bullies, nazis, fascists, etc. And now you have discovered yet another untapped tributary of the Democratic Party’s campaign of propaganda-anger-hatred: rural vs urban. No doubt you’ll paint the former ignorant yahoos and the latter college educated geniuses. … I think you’re out of bullets. The Saul Alinsky playbook is depleted. Folks are finally sick and tired of your divide and conquer tactics that have not helped one iota to lower the poverty rates that Franco so appropriately pointed out. … What next? Tall vs. short?

    • Ty  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm

      I semi agree with you, but I did not start the current battle here. Michael and others have been trying to dismiss complaints about the way the electoral college disfavors democrats and liberals that cluster in cities, and now with this latest article claim that democrats are failing to gain power, which is true but the undercurrent is it's because our IDEAS are faulty and incapable of persuading people..

      THAT is where the source of the pushback comes, if we just had a tally of which ideas most of the nation agreed with, we'd get a lot closer to the wishes of Bernie than conservatives would be comfortable with.

      And remember that article about if we only did not count California votes Trump would have won the popular vote? Who is writing WHO off here?

      Another Salem host who I shall not name CONSTANTLY goes on and on about the left this and the left that, where "the left" has become his own personal white whale:

      All that most maddens and torments, all that stirs of the lees of things, all truth with malice in it, all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain, all the subtle demonisms of life and thought, All EVIL, to crazy D…Ahab, were visibly personified and made practically assailable in Moby Dick (The Left).

      EVERYTHING he accuses the left of doing, conservatives do in spades. This is not the 1980s, this is not the same media world, we don't live in universal bubbles of information where liberals dominate, there is NEVER been a time when anyone would travel through life only listening to the things they wanted to hear. Have you read the comments section of a breitbart article? libtard abounds, conservatives and people on the right demonizing anyone that does not agree with them. You think this was started on the left, that it only lives on the left? Look in the damn mirror.

      So if conservatives want to write off liberal ideas and policies because we don't have as many state houses and representatives and land mass, don't be surprised if I offer the kind of pushback I've given here, pointing out that winning more locations is NOT THE SAME THING as convincing more people. Michael is treating it as if it is even though conservatives have less total actual support.

      Liberals are still in trouble, we are like asians in college admissions, we actually have to work HARDER to get the same result because of the quotas and affirmative action given to the political power bases where conservatives are stronger prop up their representation. It's a legitimate problem. And for the record, I don't think trying to waste time changing the electoral college is fruitful, it's not going to happen for reasons of basic self interest, but seeing people argue that the electoral is the ideal system is DIFFERENT from arguing we should work to change it and engage in pickets charge to feel good. I will not lie down and pretend, or let others pretend it's some great thing.

  6. Henry  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Ty, you are misguided on so many counts one cannot begin to cover them all here. Just a few thoughts, then. … Firstly, you are the ‘left,’ not the ‘liberals.’ Real ‘liberalism’ is found in the free market democratic capitalist ideals still held by Republicans, but sadly now fully detested by modern Democrats. That the left stole the word ‘liberal’ here is simply criminal. … Secondly, the left has almost NO ideas. Yes, national healthcare is noble. But the Democrats had no intention of ironing out a reasonable (and private sector) plan. They only wanted to say, “See, we did it!” But that’s the extent of the left’s noble intent. All else is political correctness, divisiveness, and hatred and anger: America bad, western culture bad, capitalism bad, religion bad, white bad, wealth bad, men bad, etc. … Thirdly, think about it. What Trump is doing now is positioning the Republican Party into precisely what the Democratic Party once stood for: job security; patriotism; freedom of (not from) speech, religion, creativity, etc. And why? Because real Democratic Party ideology wasn’t far enough left for the Democrats. They want ‘socialism’ and they want it now. So, who’s left standing? 76-year-old Nancy Pelosi and two socialists: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders! … Well, if our schools would ever teach our students that almost 100 millions deaths resulted from the policies of communists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro, then perhaps the Democratic Party would no longer hold 40-47% of the vote before any candidates are even announced! Now THAT’s what has to change.

    • Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 7:35 pm

      Henry… Still knocking 'em out the park!
      Keep up the good work.

    • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 12:20 am

      I am certainly more "left" than most people here, but what does that mean? The term is so misused and abused it's lost all meaning. Kind of like the term racist used against the right by social justice warriors for pointing out crime stats. I am DEFINITELY a liberal, and I will not yield that classification. I have a mixture of more right leaning and left leaning views, but if you think that means I get the term liberal stripped from my person because I am not a talk radio styled ideologue, too bad.

      I have no problem with free markets, but unlike many conservatives, I do not think ALL markets should be completely left to their own devices ALL the time. The healthcare market is one such market. The consequences of not being able to afford a 1000 dollar macbook is perhaps buying a cheaper windows notebook, or waiting a few more months until you can. The consequences of not being able to afford a healthcare treatment, or drug, can and often is DEATH. This is not the same kind of market, this is why the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is not based on credit card purchases, it's medical related bankruptcies. Those losers, choosing life over death, or the lives of a spouse. What JERKS. If THAT is what it means to be a classical liberal, I want no part of it.

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

      Medical care is EXACTLY the kind of thing you want socialized. Everything? No, but that? Yes.

      We mandate people buy liability insurance to drive a car. Why? This is a restriction of the freedoms of men, is that being a classical liberal? Why not let people drive without insurance and suffer the consequences if they get in an accident? Why is it the GOVERNMENTS job to ensure that there is coverage to pay for the property and care for others? Why not just let the "market" take care of EVERYTHING?

      Why restrict alcohol selling after certain times? Why require 20% equity in a home to qualify for a loan in Texas?

      The questions might never end, if what it means to be a classical liberal/conservative is to NEVER EVER put a guiding hand into a market, then I want NOTHING to do with that mummified belief system. Too rigid, too inflexible, too incapable of adaptation. Men are not angels, we are flawed creatures, the idea that the sum total of human experience can be best handled by pure market forces is THE most arrogant belief of the conservative mind. And that is saying something because they have so many other arrogant notions that compete for attention. How about a private militia where the guiding principle is every militiamans own financial self interest over and above concepts like honor and duty? Oh? What's that? Perhaps there is more to the universe and what stiches a society together than markets?

      And national healthcare is not just "noble" It WORKS better. But this is your problem, and the problem with damn near all conservatives. You don't CARE. It can't be true, because that would conflict with conservative dogma about the free market ALWAYS producing the ideal outcomes. So you can IGNORE the fact that we spend around DOUBLE our gdp, while not covering millions of people in the nation. Did you EVER give a damn about that?

      Why should healthcare be tied to employment? WHY? And don't you DARE blame that on government, a bad policy in the past does NOT imply that the ideal policy = NO policy. It might mean some other scheme. Israel mandates health coverage. Is Netanyahu, that supports that model in Israel a socialist? A Marxist?

      Thinking that just because people want SOME mix of social services implies they want to strip away all private ownership, strip away all differential results in outcome. IT's a LIE. You LIE about people like me, you slander and libel us CONSTANTLY. What the HELL do you think school vouchers are Henry? Is that private expense on k-12 education? NO. It's public expense, for a common good, a general welfare. Do YOU have a problem with that? Because that is not a pure market, that is the government confiscating tax dollars and using them to pay for the education of anyone with children that goes to k-12.

      Want that gone Henry? IF not, then back the hell off with this trash talk about anyone who wants a few more socialized programs and expenses than you do as if WE are the socialists and YOU are not.

      Israel is not a communist/socialist #$%t hole. Neither is Sweden, or the UK, or Germany, or Singapore, and ALL of those places have universal healthcare systems of some sort, or mandates to save and buy insurance. It's not just a god damn free for all like the US.

      Modern liberalism arose because of the imperfections of classical liberalism. PLENTY of liberals go much farther than I do, but I am not interested in equal outcomes, I just want the floor of outcomes raised higher than what it currently is. And that does not make me a socialist or a marxist. If it does to you, that tells me more about your own personal failures of comprehension than anything else.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 8:15 am

        Ty
        You correctly point out that "Men are not Angels", this is PRECISELY why we don't want centralized, consolidated, uniformed, iron-fisted, federal government.
        Perhaps, you are familiar with the axiom of Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why we believe in divided government, and state's rights and ultimately, the rights of the individual. It is why we oppose your liberal collectivism.
        You act like you care more because you want government to provide cradle to grave guarantees in life. But, there are no guarantees in life… and there is NOTHING noble or righteous about taking from one (who earned it), and giving to someone else (who did not earn it). Your beliefs are immoral and they fail everywhere they are implemented.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 8:25 am

        Ty
        Please show us where it's a "Free for all" in the US?
        Please demonstrate to us where exactly it is in the US, that government isn't meddling.
        Which aspect of our lives is free from constant, pervasive and ever-increasing regulations?
        I know we haven't arrived at your government Utopia yet, but please don't be so delusional about some mythical "free for all" here in the US.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 8:29 am

        Nothing has raised the floor of outcomes more than America and the free-market.
        It just requires a little individual effort.
        And nothing has done more to cap achievement than liberal/socialism.
        It punishes achievement and rewards failure.
        It defies logic?

      • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 11:37 pm

        The free for all is the insane number of different healthcare systems within the US.

        medicare = single payer
        medicaid = single payer
        VA system = single payer
        employer based healthcare = private insurance with different pool sizes based on the company in question and state controls – inflated insurance often purchased due to zero rating encouraging companies and people to buy more healthcare coverage than they would otherwise tolerate if the benefits were taxed
        exchanges = federal and state based markets for healthcare
        get sick and DIE tier – make more than medicaid allows? Employer offers no healthcare? make too little to afford insurance on your own? DIE in the streets, or get sick, carted to the hospital, and kicked out the moment the imminent emergency is over, can't pay for an expensive med out of pocket? Sorry, die and stop being a burden on the rest of society.

        It takes a special kind of VULTURE of a human being to think that last is a tolerable state in a wealthy society like the US that has SCORES of examples around the world where such cases can be vastly minimized.

        There are more systems than that, but that is just a sampler, there are multiple different systems.

        All conservatives talk about now, (AFTER the liberals of this nation tried to make SOME improvements with conservatives sitting on their @ss like nothing was wrong), is tort reform and being able to access insurance across state lines…

        OK, fine, what about not being able to negotiate prices with drug companies like medicare does? Like the VA does? What about the innumerable billing systems that WASTE time, and get sick and DYING patients and their families to do additional work to ferry payments/scheduling and care? What about all the WASTED expense of those billing systems that SLOW down care and make coverage more expensive? How is that more cost effective administratively than a single payer system?

        How do you solve the problem of getting young healthy people to buy into care without a mandate or making it compulsory? I've seen some of the conservative plans require continuous coverage to encourage people to not drop care… So what happens, as often does in a dynamic economy with families who suffer a job losses and need to cut back on expenses, like healthcare premiums, if they start later now they get that wonderful CONSERVATIVE blessing of even HIGHER premiums, lest they get pushed off into the streets, not able to afford life saving medicine.

        Companies have been spending more and more money on healthcare for DECADES while wages have stagnated, what would happen if we could REALLY get our total healthcare costs down? Like Germany? Like Singapore? You want to talk about 4% growth? How about not WASTING so much god damn money on this twisted horror show of a dozen different healthcare systems? But ah, right, choice, we need more choice, always more choice. Well we have it, and it's TRASH. I can see it because I'm not a lying ideologue.

      • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 11:54 pm

        The free market has done more to raise people out of poverty than any other system. And guess what Franco? It still can if we redistribute some of the resources from people that are doing well to raise the floor of outcomes for people.

        This is all about a matter of degree, if a 3% income tax increase could fund enough for some sort of universal basic income to replace the current conditional sloppy welfare systems and unemployment systems, all but eliminate the non mentally ill homeless population being so destitute they populate the streets of cities across America, and make the economic lives of people who are on the lower end of the income distribution live a more prosperous life, is that not worth the trade?

        If that answer is no, always no, then conservatism and classical liberalism DESERVES to fail and fall into the ditch. No compromise, pure markets, pure meritocracy, even though we KNOW some REAL portion of outcome is based on variables that are GIFTED to men and NOT earned. No one EARNS their intelligence, such people can work twice as hard, for longer hours of their lives and do far worse. A Free market does not give a crap about effort, only results, only the value you can bring to others. And that's a feature not a bug, it makes the system work better and more efficiently, but if you want to maintain that with SOME sense of decency as a man, then you need to have SOME way to help those who are not so gifted.

        But therein lies the rub, the conservative mind is ULTRA obsessed with the freeloaders, the cheats, the ones who will sit on their ass and do nothing but live off the labor and efforts of others.

        It's the old law adage flipped. Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man punished? Oh no, better 10 innocent men stay CHAINED than one guilty man be freed. Conservatives seem closer to the latter sentiment than liberals.

        I am more interested in helping the decent, than punishing the wicked. So I can tolerate more than 0-10% of the population abusing a system if it helps boost up 90% of the rest. And we can do that without putting people in chains.

        Henry mentioned the road to serfdom. Guess who flirted and was sympathetic to the idea of a universal basic income or negative income tax?

        Hayek! And so was Milton Friedman. Are those socialists and marxists? How could they NOT be? How could ANYONE not be if they were in favor of SOME level of redistribution?

        Because being in favor of such things does NOT imply you are a marxist, are a socialist, are against free markets in most cases.

        Talk radio conservatives, and conservatism in general has lost its way, the selective memory about what some of their own standard bearers actually believed is off the charts. They just pick and choose whatever is most convenient to them.

  7. Franco  •  Dec 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Can I just start calling you Hank "The Hammer"?

    • Henry  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 12:44 am

      Ha, ha. No, just Hank the heavily relieved. Because, by a miracle of proportions that should have made Medved’s latest book, the nation managed to dodge the Road to Serfdom. Let us hope now that (a) both parties will move back towards the center, (b) excellent people will once again attend to the nation’s affairs, (c) the nation will learn to laugh again at things other than angry and hateful political satire, and (d) the citizens and immigrants all across this land will rediscover their love and appreciation for this Greatest Nation on God’s Green Earth, the United States of America.

      • Franco  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 8:17 am

        Amen brother!

  8. Henry  •  Dec 3, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    Ty, your latest tirade is classic modern left. (Firstly, BTW, no one is proposing an end to ALL social programs. Indeed, I particularly referenced healthcare as a noble cause.) For you readily jump to extreme accusations (everything from dropping car insurance to the sale of alcohol), and then this pathetic positing that capitalists just “don’t care,” that we somehow all become “liars” and “slanderers” and all our beliefs are “arrogant”! The anger and hatred surfaces in less than a New York minute.

    And then you bring in the left’s greatest ploy: Sweden and Singapore! (Remarkably, you left out Denmark and Norway; so likely you are not as far left as many.) But one wonders whether you can find a more homogenous nation than Sweden. One wonders how you would comment about getting caught spitting gum in Singapore. … Israel!? I assure you, Netanyahu is delighted the Democrats lost this election. … Germany? I believe their healthcare system is a private system. And the UK? It appears they came to their senses (Brexit) slightly before we did—hopefully, much like Margaret Thatcher took the reins there just before Ronald Reagan did here.

    You confuse me about school vouchers. The left detests them because they feel it somehow bucks their precious schools unions (though that makes no sense to me). The right wants them because it might finally give inner city kids a chance at a good eduction. That’s altruism, Ty; not anger and hatred. And it’s certainly not racism or elitism.

    Anyway, you left out other of the rights’ grievances: runaway political correctness, abortions right up to partial birth, twisting of the 1st Amendment with regard to religious freedom, legislating via the court system, making global warming more serious than such things as energy independence or ISIS or increasing murders in our inner cities, the list goes on and on. The left has no ideas, it just has propaganda, anger, and hatred. I beg you to give it some serious thought. You seem to me more altruistic than Marxist. There’s hope.

    • Ty  •  Dec 4, 2016 at 12:10 am

      The LEFT is a catch all term from lazy conservatives to categorize every thing and every one they do not like. Germany has private insurance but it's compulsory.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany#Health_insurance

      Big difference, that lowers costs for everyone by default as the young and healthy don't get the "freedom" to not be in the pool and creating a natural death spiral or inflated cost structure like we have in the US.

      And the left is far more varied than you paint. I'm to the right of Trump on foreign policy, to the right of Michael Medved on Islam and it's influence in the world. I don't care about forcing people to bake gay wedding cakes, I have less tolerance than any of you for some tantrum throwing Yale brats who want to shut down the speech of others. And I still want a universal healthcare system and am socially liberal across the board. I do not shut myself inside an ideological bubble, I suspect I'm better than 90% of the conservatives listening to talk radio on that point, particularly the sub section clamoring to have Hillary Clinton Jailed and chanting lock her up. Thugs is what THOSE people are. I, am a liberal. And it's past time someone makes an actual defense of our kind against the people who lie and misrepresent us on the far right and far left.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead - Michael Medved's Premium Content

Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Michael

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Get Medved weekly movie reviews, columns, and special offers delivered to your inbox.

Subscribe

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Advertisement
Hear what Michael has to say about Health Markets
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn