but, this isn't a winning strategy, though. what it is - and it is this, transparently - is a cynical ploy to try and pry values voters away from the republican party. it's evolved clintonism. and, it keeps failing horribly.

with franken, in particular, it's so transparent that he actually maintains a majority of female support in minnesota, right now. i'm sure the propaganda eats into this, eventually. but, if the intent of the democrats' strategy is to appeal to female voters, and voters concerned about women in general, then this strategy has actually immediately backfired, at least amongst the first voters that examined the situation with any seriousness. this is the predictable actual outcome of clintonism, almost everywhere it's been applied.

but, these are democrats - the conservative party in the system. it was always a strange animal, this liberal democrat - never did make a lot of sense.

liberals in america are going to have to find a way to enfranchise themselves. if organized effectively, they could become an effective third party, with broad influence - by preventing either major party from winning office, and instead sending the issue to a senate that they may have some influence over. it's just the geographic block: the northern part of the midwest has strangely become the country's electoral battleground, but the truth is that this is because the region is so terribly disenfranchised. there is no obvious answer in either party as to how to remedy this. the great lakes are going to need a localized political movement, and it's likely to surprise people just how left-leaning that's likely to end up. i think there's good potential for organizing a third party in the midwest right now, anyways - minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, illinois, ohio, iowa, missouri. even uniting a small block of these states in a third party could cause havoc, with the otherwise locked map.

what if minnesota, michigan and wisconsin voted in a block for the green party, instead of ending up in a virtual tie? that would have prevented trump from getting to 270 electoral votes, and forced the senate to declare a president from the top three candidates. in 2016, the candidates were less than optimal, and so that choice seems less meaningful. but, now, imagine a future where a liberal bloc from the midwest has some power in the congress. they could potentially bring in a vice-president.

but, do i think al franken should unresign? no; they'll just keep throwing more stories at him. you'll note the accusations have stopped. he was just dragged out by his ear for running his mouth off, he wasn't really presented with a real choice. there was no other outcome.

i might have liked to see him fight it a little harder, but i wasn't expecting him to, either.

the democrats have defined themselves clearly, moving forwards. it's up to the rest of the country to determine if it wants to follow their lead or not.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/19/al-franken-unresigning-could-kill-democrats-2018-chances-commentary.html

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.