This is true, and the terrible closed primary system results in the most rabid party-line voters choosing the candidates for the D and R tickets. So you end up with much less of a chance in finding someone who represents a balance. The GOP in particular had a lineup so bad recently with people trying to out-wingnut each other that it was laughable, and to be honest, only Sanders made the Democrat lineup any less insane.

I'm okay with Trump until he gives me a reason not to, in terms of real policy and action. As yet, all we've had is yet another ugly election cycle with people freaking out, same shit different year higher volume. I didn't support him, but I'm not crying either. If you could tell me I could either replace the entire Senate and Congress, or replace the POTUS and staff, I'd choose the former 100 times out of 100. It's much more powerful by far, and of course it still has the same full stock of lifetime politicos that take their marching orders from elite interests. Maybe 1 in a hundred has the ghost of a care about the average citizen, the rest are only in it for money/power/influence.

Well, this is a problem as well, but there's a counterargument that those people would make about how their party in general better represents their interests or vision for the future or whatever.  Even if they're just mindlessly voting for "their team" in truth, they have a fallback argument that is very hard to discredit. 

These guys I'm talking about are just saying, "I don't know or care about the proposals, I just want a fresh face even if he could be Hitler reborn for all I know."  Press them on it and their only defense is "Change." 

Am I going after the easier target?  Sure.  But this soon after an election fight like this, pointing out the problem of mindless partisanship is just going to devolve into partisans mindlessly pointing fingers at their equal opposites as the entire problem.  There's probably no good time to have that conversation, but this time seems especially unlikely. 

(On a related note, all those guys walking around in protest of Trump being elected are good examples.  It's going to accomplish exactly nothing.  He got in legitimately, and it's not like they're going to convince him to resign.  I was ardently against Trump, and if I lived in an area having those protests I'd be tempted to mount a counter-protest saying "Get over it!") 

I have no problem with socialism as long as it works.  The United States has many socialistic elements that people would go ballistic over if removed.  Anyone really want to go back to private roads?  I doubt it.

The problem with Trump's healthcare plan is that he doesn't have one, which is kind of my point.  It's just promises and talking points.  However, while people who wanted details were criticizing that, the fact that he was just making vague promises to "replace Obamacare with something terrific" was perfect rhetoric for those who don't care about details.  In fact, his success in that regard might influence elections going forward, with candidates only giving trumped up (pun unintended) overviews of their intentions.  

I don't think socialism ever "works" as well as people would like. More importantly, I don't get the impression Americans want the same socialism other countries believe "works."

Paying taxes for roads is fine, but for the wealth redistribution we've seen from Obamacare is something else.

Obama's healthcare plan was a disaster from the start and shouldn't have existed as it was. I think its fair to say it was a scheme to get working people to subsidize healthcare for the poor. I'm fine with safety nets, but Obamacare has been a burden for many. To be fair there have been aspects I've liked about ACA, but as a whole its a mess. Maybe the Trump administration will keep aspects of it.