Well, that’s no good.
It wasn’t my intention to imply that, as I’ve repeatedly said the very opposite. Please do examine that I said “the nation”, not the Democratic party. The Democratic party does not currently represent the will of most of the nation.
If the Democratic party represented most of the nation, Obama and other top Democrats would have been a lot less hawkish or downright anti-war. This is what he promised the nation in his presidential campaign. This is what most of the nation wanted.
If they had represented the nation, the party would have fought hard for a true single payer system, not Obama/RomneyCare which was set up by the insurance industry, etc. Obama promised single payer when he ran for president and won in a landslide.
The Democrats would’ve also been anti-bankster (as he promised in his initial campaign) if they had fought for the will of most of the nation.
Those were progressive issues that the majority of the American public voted him in for. This nation is a progressive majority.
It’s no surprise to me that after Obama and the Democratic party failed to follow through on those progressive agendas properly (or at all), voter turnout went from a 40 year high to a 70 year low.
Many of the elites within the Democratic party are very much a part of the corporatist right. Powerful Democrats such as Obama often use Republicans as scapegoats for both their actions and inactions. They do this in order to pander to many on the left while also appeasing the corporatist right at the same time.
The power players within the modern Democratic party are quite far to the right, in my opinion. That’s why I’ve repeatedly strategized for and supported paving the way for truly progressive third parties to take hold down the road. I also applaud attempts to reform the Democratic party within as well (see Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, etc.)
Of course, that’s not going to blind me to the fact that the Democratic party is still the overall lesser evil than the Republicans who blithely throw snow balls in the face of catastrophic climate change, either. 
No doubt. Gerrymandering has been with us from both side for a very long time. However, I think “fewer” is quite a bit of an understatement when comparing the two parties.
The rampant gerrymandering via the Republican party has been outright historic. As you may have seen via the links I added within my previous post, we’re now seeing the effect of Republican gerrymandering effects that has only happened several times in the last hundred years.
Not to mention the unfair advantage that Republicans garner from low-information (and misinformed) voters via their right wing radio machines (they run at a financial loss) and via our shitty electoral system that gives vastly more “votes” to rural people over those who live within cities.
The fact that Republicans lose any elections with all the advantages they have (through cheating) is a testament to the growing progressiveness of the American public.
