He outperformed Hillary by a 6 points. He had the outsider thing going for him which was attractive in MO.

eh. hillary got 38% of vote but trump got 56% of vote. kander got 46 but blunt only got 49. pretty solid overperformance

blunt isn't very likeable and his entire family being lobbyists sucks but trump is also a huge POS too so i think kander did about as well as any dem could possibly do in that spot who isn't an incumbent. we are one of the states where the GOP has a supermajority and the governor after all

anyway i think dems absolutely need to almost primarily focus on recruiting veterans to run in missouri. i know stephen webber is the dnc chair here now but it was rather surprising he didn't win his race as a dem vet.


in other dem news i know after the election there has been a big (and so far pretty successful-but still in its infancy) push to create a lawyer's chapter of the ACS in Missouri to counter the massively powerful federalist society. pretty shocking there was no statewide chapter to connect liberal attorneys

I'd prefer a Nazi Party to a big tent party that represents half the country and occasionally gets high jacked by nazis

honestly the answer is to go back to the smoke filled rooms where party insiders select the nominee (jeb!). the parties are too powerful to leave them up to the crazies that vote in the primaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

We should look at how things are done higher up on the list, not lower.

The Democrats just tried that with Hilary. They should have started with 10+ candidates like the Republicans did, and whoever won that would be president right now.

few of those countries have open primaries to select party leaders. it's mostly done by party insiders. labour started it and it immediately ****ed everything up for them.

hilary would have been a fine president. clinton vs jeb would have been incredibly boring which is what politics should be.

Even if it was Hillary?

Well if the Republicans would have just cooperated and nominated ¡Jeb! - everyone would be happy right now. Status quo/endless neocon skirmishes/mild kleptocracy preserved. The people in ****hole dying towns would be exactly as economically ****ed as they are under Trump.

I guess Trump makes them feel better though, so there's positive utility in that.

I agree

I doubt she would have beat out multiple challengers if it was an equal playing field from the start (I think Bernie would have beat her if given more coverage early on), but it would have given her more credibility and momentum. Just turning out a few more votes (or flipping a few that went third party) could have certainly made enough of a difference to flip the election.

It makes me sad that Bernie waited until he was near the end of his career to get his message out on the national stage.

Super confused as to how Australia gets a 10 for civil liberties.

- Weed is illegal, with an recently created, extremely narrow exception for medical uses
- Gay marriage is illegal
- Euthanasia is illegal
- There is no guarantee of freedom of speech and there are a few laws which infringe it

I mean civil liberties here are fine in general but 10/10?

Also you guys have refugee camps. The ones that look like you'd put prisoners, not people in.

Bernie had been saying the same thing forever. He did an 8 1/2 hour filibuster in 2010 which got some notice. Bernie could possibly have gotten his message out a little earlier, but it really depended on an existing movement, social media, fund raising, things like moveon.org. And I think the time was right for his message and it was picked up.

I don't know much about Scandi politics, so maybe, but they don't just have two parties locked into power do they?

In theory I don't think parties should have to have open primaries, but given our system here where you have no choice but to vote for one of the two lest you are a spoiler, I think the parties should be as open as possible. I feel like what little hope we have of democracy in the presidential election is in the primaries.

On a different note, any viable Dem challengers to powerful Republican incumbents in 2018 ?

I am hoping Joaquin Castro challenges Ted Cruz here in TX.

Ooohh I like it.

I was just reading about Beto O'Rourke the other day, seems like a good guy.

Related: while looking up 2018 Ted Cruz challengers because I forgot his name, I stumbled upon another guy who might try to primary Cruz in 2018 - Representative Mike McCaul, R-Austin.

Wait, what? R-Austin? How in the...



Oh Texas, you're so cheeky.

Prisoners are still people.

Not to most Americans.

To be fair, the 100% of republicans who think prisoners aren't people kind of tip the scales a bit.

you call it democracy but those participating is a small fraction of the public disproportionately made up of the most fanatic. uk labour opened up their leadership elections and have ended up more extreme and less connected to the public than ever. if the tories did the same then the uk might end up having to choose between two lunatics.

i'll rather take my chances with professionel/corrupt party officials trying to appeal to the median voter in a generel election than true believers demanding it's their way or bust.

So you don't think that the members of a political party should have a say in who leads the party because they may not agree with you.

yes, basically. as evidence i'll produce jeb!>trump and boring normal labour figure>corbyn

Austin is part of SIX congressional districts.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...t-us-city-wit/