>So why do tax cuts for the overclass get through Congress? Why do Republicans consistently win elections? Why won't Nathan's Dems run on an explicit soak the fat boys agenda?
Is it actually possible under the US electoral system for the democrats to put forward a party policy that candidates were bound to consistently espouse. (Let alone actually enact if and when elected.)
I understood the system was that any man or his dog could basically jump up and call himself a Democrat and grab the mantle of "Democrat candidate". Even if the actual democrat Party didn't want anything to do with him and he didn't want anything to do with any policies that the party might have determined.
If my understanding is right, then it would seem a complete waste of time for the Democrats to work on election policies. The only function of a political party under this system is to raise funds for candidates. And even then, the candidates can simply do that directly. The only policies that matter are the ones directed to appealing for funds. Policies are irrelevant. You can have as many policies you like, but without enough money to get on the ballot, the public won't get a chance to vote for or against those polices. In which case it would seem sensible to design policies which appeal to those who have money, rather than those who can merely vote.
But maybe I am missing something here?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas