CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Democratic Party Going Forward
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Democratic Party Going Forward - Page 9

post #401 of 653

Democrats almost won an Oklahoma State House seat today.  They lost by 56 votes:

 

https://twitter.com/JZTessler/status/862114026444267522

 

Trump won this district last year 73-23:

 

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/862117324362579968

post #402 of 653

Lawrence Krasner won the Democratic primary for district attorney of Philadelphia, and that's the good news we needed today:

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Krasner-win-is-a-brand-new-revolution-for-Philly.html

 

Quote:

"Larry understands that poor people get the short end of the stick," Harden told me by phone early last night from Election Court, where he was challenging campaign irregularities on his candidate's behalf. He cited Kranser's promise to end cash bail and not lock up non-violent arrestees who pose no apparent threat to the community. "He's going to be sensible -- to make sure his policies don't affect the poorest and most marginal communities."

 

OK, it's true that the vast majority of folks didn't bother to even vote today, and it's hard to compete with the must-see TV of the NBA draft lottery and the slow-motion implosion of Donald Trump's presidency. So maybe you didn't hear the big boom that went off around 9:45 p.m., the moment that Kranser was declared the winner in the seven-candidate Democratic primary to replace the scandal-scarred Williams as DA.

 

What was that sound? Nothing less than the stirrings of a whole different kind of revolution from the city that gave America the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights -- a revolution aimed at finally undoing draconian justice regime that had turned the Cradle of Liberty into a death-penalty capital and the poster child for mass incarceration.

 

If elected in November -- and he is the heavy favorite in this overwhelmingly Democratic town --  Krasner has pledged to never seek capital punishment while working to end bail policies that lock up people for being poor, an asset-forfeiture program that has been a national disgrace, and stop-and-frisk searches that disproportionately target non-whites.

post #403 of 653
That's outstanding news for Philadelphia. The city has been known for terribly racist local politics for years.
post #404 of 653

Around 4,000 people came out to a Rob Quist rally in Missoula, Montana with Bernie Sanders:

 

https://twitter.com/AriRabinHavt/status/865988723720286208

 

post #405 of 653

A Democratic mayor in Pennsylvania who backed Trump last year just lost a primary:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/defeated-pro-trump-democratic-mayor-down-dumps-n762541

 

Quote:

Last year, the mayor of a seen-better-days steel town in Western Pennsylvania became the poster child of President Donald Trump's appeal to white working-class Democrats. But he'll soon be out of work after a 26-year-old assistant band director at the local high school beat him in a Democratic primary.

 

Monessen Mayor Louis Mavrakis' outspoken support for Trump turned him into a media sensation. The 79-year-old former union organizer helped decode Trump's appeal in the Rust Belt on Sunday political talk shows and for major newspapers, where he was quoted saying things like: "If ISIS was to come to Monessen, they'd keep on going. They'd say someone already bombed the goddamn place."

 

Trump himself made a high-profile visit to Monessen, a town of just 7,500, on Mavrakis' invitation. Trump stood in front of a wall of recycled trash to slam free-trade policies and promised to bring back good-paying coal mining and steel-making jobs. 

 

But Mavrakis' coup in getting Trump to town also helped lead to his downfall.

 

When a group of residents protested his visit, they were led by Matt Shorraw, a local community activist whose family has been in the town for generations.

 

"What bothered me the most was Trump's visit got our mayor a lot of press, but he basically used that press to say our city is a dump," Shorraw told NBC News.

 

Shorraw resolved to run for mayor, even though he had never held public office and was only in his mid-20s.

 

On Tuesday, he narrowly defeated Mavrakis in the Democratic primary. And with no Republican on the ballot in November, Shorraw is all but guaranteed to be the youngest mayor in the town's history. 

 

Looks like Matt Shorraw cares about the community:

 

Quote:

But he got noticed for the community projects he has taken on since he was 18, such as revitalizing an amphitheater. It demonstrated an optimism for the town that voters found refreshing, said Rendar.

 

The Westmoreland Democratic Party broke its longstanding precedent of not endorsing in primaries in order to back Shorraw after Mavrakis brought Trump to town.

 

"Mavrakis was already lost to us," said Lorraine Petrosky, the party chairwoman. 

post #406 of 653

Chicago's population fell again, and it's the African-American community who is leaving:

 

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2017/Chicagos-Population-Problem/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Reader+tweet+31510+May%2017%202017%2002:02

 

Quote:

So where the headlines imply a gush, analysts see a trickle. And as for the reasons behind the drop? They’re more complicated than the knee-jerk reactions suggest. “The tax argument is really a canard,” Paral says. “Kansas has slashed taxes, and they are losing population.” And while many armchair quarterbacks rushed to blame the exodus on last year’s surge in murders, it’s too soon for people to have picked up their lives in response to that.

 

Things get interesting—and alarming—when you look at who is leaving. “The white population is not falling, and the Latino and Asian populations are slightly growing,” says Paral. “The big factor that is altering Chicago’s population is the change among blacks.”

 

Since the early ’80s, blacks in South and West Side neighborhoods have been steadily leaving the city, resettling at first largely in the Cook County suburbs. But over the past 15 years, more and more have been leaving the area entirely for northwest Indiana, Iowa’s Quad Cities, and Sun Belt states, says Alden Loury, the director of research and evaluation at the Metropolitan Planning Council. Today there are roughly 850,000 blacks in Chicago, down from 1.2 million in 1980.

 

The reasons for this are varied: The foreclosure crisis saw blacks evicted disproportionately from their rental apartments and houses; the Chicago Housing Authority leveled high-rises like the Robert Taylor Homes, scattering public housing residents; the lack of stable employment in South and West Side neighborhoods continues to force residents to look elsewhere for jobs; and school closures further disenfranchise communities. “There are not a lot of messages that Chicago cares about its black residents,” says Mary Pattillo, a sociology and African American studies professor at Northwestern University and author of the book Black Picket Fences. “When you lose the institutions that cultivate attachment, it makes it a lot easier to pick up and leave.”

post #407 of 653
post #408 of 653
Quote:

I know Booker is a rising star, and there's certainly some things I like about him (FYI he's a Trekie), but overall I don't want him to one of potential Dems to take down Trump in 2020. 

post #409 of 653
I feel like 2020 is going to be a repeat of 2004 for the Dems. The nominee will be a respectable guy with no enthusiasm behind him. In other words, we're getting Kaine.
post #410 of 653

I usually blanch at people going nuclear over "corporate Democrats" or "Neo-Liberals", even if I don't definitionally disagree, but you can't have Kushner money in your pockets; it's not a good look.

post #411 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I feel like 2020 is going to be a repeat of 2004 for the Dems. The nominee will be a respectable guy with no enthusiasm behind him. In other words, we're getting Kaine.

If they do that after losing with Kaine and Clinton, they deserve to lose.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't deserve what we'll get if they lose.
post #412 of 653

I feel like it shouldn't be this hard to have a candidate who can multi-task by attacking Trump and the GOP in the right way and selling the soundness of their own policies. I don't know what kind of president Macron is going to be, but so far he's given a potential American Democratic counterpart a short playlist of how to deal with this. The Democrats don't need a dizzying, passionate orator so much as they need someone who can hit straight, hard, and true.

 

Macron took a shit in Putin's mouth in front of the whole world today. We need someone who can do that.

post #413 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I feel like it shouldn't be this hard to have a candidate who can multi-task by attacking Trump and the GOP in the right way and selling the soundness of their own policies. I don't know what kind of president Macron is going to be, but so far he's given a potential American Democratic counterpart a short playlist of how to deal with this. The Democrats don't need a dizzying, passionate orator so much as they need someone who can hit straight, hard, and true.

Macron took a shit in Putin's mouth in front of the whole world today. We need someone who can do that.

10000% agreed.

Every other month now I start to think maybe I could run one day. But then I think of the (short, but very real) list of ex-girlfriends and others who probably hate my guts and I can't imagine putting my family in the crosshairs like that.

Which basically assures I'll be staying out of politics for at least another decade or so.
post #414 of 653

Big Illinois news: automatic voter registration has been greenlit in the House.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-05-29/illinois-legislature-oks-automatic-voter-registration

 

Republicans voted for the measure too.

post #415 of 653

Booker was out for 2020 anyway. It's the Andrew Cuomo problem - you can't do NY/NJ politics without getting your hands dirty. 

 

Also, I like how you guys are whining about not wanting the Rock in the main thread, but are begging for someone who can "take a shit in Putin's mouth" and "hit hard, straight, and true." You do realize that, for the most part, Democratic pols are a bunch of cautious nerds, right? 

 

Which is why I say keep an eye on Jason Kander and Kamala Harris. 

post #416 of 653
Jesus Jiminy Fucking Christ, look at Boone still chasing me through threads about The Rock.


Me: None of the trailers for Baby Driver really appealed to me, but I trust Edgar Wright enough...

Boone: So funny that you trust Edgar Wright to deliver on Baby Driver, but you don't trust the Rock to deliver on the presidency!


Me: Eating a little too much Thai food as of late. Trying to establish some degree of diet discipline.

Boone: Oh, look ar Johnny, trying to establish "diet discipline" when he won't acknowledge that Dwayne Johnson, a man with great diet discipline, could potentially make a great president!
post #417 of 653

The fact that you think I have a problem with you says more about you than it does about me. 

post #418 of 653
Pardon me, I guess I shouldn't take your directly quoting me and bringing up an argument from another thread the "wrong way."
post #419 of 653

I was using your specific comments in this thread to contrast a general argument being made in the other thread. You weren't the only one talking about a Rock presidency. 

 

Jesus jimminy fucking christ, not everything is about you. 

post #420 of 653
This thread is wonderful.
post #421 of 653
Thread Starter 

So does anyone know what The Rock's politics are? Sure he hung out with the Obama's, since they were cool and Trump is not. I'd guess he's against restrictive immigration policy. Otherwise...I got nothing. 

 

Who else is out there? Al Franken looks and acts like a guy who carries around a crumpled piece of paper with the names of everyone who every slighted him in any way...and it's a loooong list. 

 

Elizabeth Warren is apparently less popular in her home state by the day and seems to have been caught up in her own celebrity status. 

 

Who else?

 

I'd actually take a close look at Oprah since she has the charisma/celebrity thing going plus she actually runs her business and has done for years. 

post #422 of 653
post #423 of 653
I will be donating to that gentleman's campaign.
post #424 of 653
Thread Starter 

He related to Weird Al?

post #425 of 653
Thread Starter 

Clinton: I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win

 

 

 

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Wut?

post #426 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Clinton: I was the ‘victim’ of an assumption that I would win






........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Wut?

Not sure why that's a difficult but to crack, CB. Snowden flat out said this was the safest election ever to feel you could vote third party. Plenty of folks who weren't wild about Clinton stayed home because they figured she'd win anyway.

If she'd been 5 points down in the polls 2 weeks out she'd have probably won. Leading non stop for months hurt her.
post #427 of 653
post #428 of 653

So the DNC is shocked and appalled by Hillary's calling them out for their shittiness - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-misplaced-criticism-of-the-dnc-as-a-cause-of-her-defeat/2017/06/01/ec8688e6-46e3-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html?utm_term=.3387f8e43f0c 

However, in the article, it says the following:

 

Quote:
In those days, the DNC was a more robust and battle-ready institution and Bill Clinton as candidate and president paid attention to it. President Obama did not. Under Obama, the DNC was neglected and left to atrophy.


“The DNC has not played any dynamic role except just on a rare occasion since Obama was president,” said a former party official.

Soooo... why is this long article not about Obama's neglect, but Hillary noticing it?

post #429 of 653

And imagine the howls of rage if Hillary was praising the DNC after the "rigged" primary.  Damned if ya do...

post #430 of 653
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Olmos View Post


Not sure why that's a difficult but to crack, CB. Snowden flat out said this was the safest election ever to feel you could vote third party. Plenty of folks who weren't wild about Clinton stayed home because they figured she'd win anyway.

If she'd been 5 points down in the polls 2 weeks out she'd have probably won. Leading non stop for months hurt her.

 

Hilary Clinton spending the next 4 years bitching and moaning and pointing fingers at everyone in the world except herself is not a good look for the Democratic party. 

 

I don't care what conspiracy theories you care to float (and isn't it funny how the script flipped on that: before the election people here rolled their eyes over Trump's and Co's statements that the election might be rigged. Then they win, and now everyone on this Board is screaming about rigged elections!).

 

She sucked as a candidate. Trump should not have gotten 1% of the vote. That he not only got more but actually one should tell you about the opposing candidate. If  you really think that doesn't matter I don't know what to tell you.

post #431 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

Hilary Clinton spending the next 4 years bitching and moaning and pointing fingers at everyone in the world except herself is not a good look for the Democratic party. 

 

I don't care what conspiracy theories you care to float (and isn't it funny how the script flipped on that: before the election people here rolled their eyes over Trump's and Co's statements that the election might be rigged. Then they win, and now everyone on this Board is screaming about rigged elections!).

 

She sucked as a candidate. Trump should not have gotten 1% of the vote. That he not only got more but actually one should tell you about the opposing candidate. If  you really think that doesn't matter I don't know what to tell you.

 

this is dumb

post #432 of 653

I got Al Franken's new book, GIANT OF THE SENATE, through Audible. It's great, and what's interesting about it is that while he doesn't hold back in his frank appraisal of Washington and some of his colleagues, he's also optimistic and good-humored about the country and its future. There are times when it sounds like he's making a stump speech. 

 

I recommend it. 

post #433 of 653
Come on guys, lets help Yankovich yank a dick outta Congress!

The man has my vote.
post #434 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

I got Al Franken's new book, GIANT OF THE SENATE, through Audible. It's great, and what's interesting about it is that while he doesn't hold back in his frank appraisal of Washington and some of his colleagues, he's also optimistic and good-humored about the country and its future. There are times when it sounds like he's making a stump speech. 

I recommend it. 

I heard a piece on NPR about it the other day with an interview of him. He essentially said he is settling nicely into the role of an ex-comedian turned politician. They played clips of his questioning of Sessions. He also made examples of how the biting of his tongue has stopped in regards to his hatred of Cruz.

Then in a psuedo-brash way he stopped the interview with a chuckle and said "ok, we're done. The interview is over.." It was a good look into his current role. Always loved me some Franken.

Now I will watch the criminally underrated Stuart Saves His Family.
post #435 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

Hilary Clinton spending the next 4 years bitching and moaning and pointing fingers at everyone in the world except herself is not a good look for the Democratic party. 

 

I don't care what conspiracy theories you care to float (and isn't it funny how the script flipped on that: before the election people here rolled their eyes over Trump's and Co's statements that the election might be rigged. Then they win, and now everyone on this Board is screaming about rigged elections!).

 

She sucked as a candidate. Trump should not have gotten 1% of the vote. That he not only got more but actually one should tell you about the opposing candidate. If  you really think that doesn't matter I don't know what to tell you.

 

Hilary couldn't compete with an onslaught of nativism, racism, sexism, Russian meddling, and an opponent who opening admitted that he could have shot someone and not lost a vote. 

 

Saying that she was simply a bad candidate is such a naively and simplistic way of looking at the election that it isn't even worth spending energy on. 

post #436 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

I don't care what conspiracy theories you care to float (and isn't it funny how the script flipped on that: before the election people here rolled their eyes over Trump's and Co's statements that the election might be rigged. Then they win, and now everyone on this Board is screaming about rigged elections!).

Citation needed.

 

Very few people have claimed that the election itself was rigged. Saying that strategically released leaks from Russian sources were used to distort perception of Clinton and the DNC enough to convince people to either stay home because 'they're both the same' or vote Trump because 'Corrupt Hillary' is not the same as saying the election was rigged.

post #437 of 653
Thread Starter 

There's a billion posts on the Trumpcolypse thread you can peruse...but to your point, people here and in the media have been blending the terms "influence" and "hacking" for a while. 

post #438 of 653

Again: the "influence" and "hacking" being referred to are not the same as the "rigging" that Trump claimed was going to cost him the election. Nobody has claimed voter fraud, aka "rigging" got Trump in.

post #439 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
 

Again: the "influence" and "hacking" being referred to are not the same as the "rigging" that Trump claimed was going to cost him the election. Nobody has claimed voter fraud, aka "rigging" got Trump in.

 

One of, if not the, prominent underlying theory right now is that the campaign worked with Russian hackers/bots to use data provided by the campaign to target specific districts with pro-Trump online messaging in order to sway the election in those districts and counties. 

 

They may not have hacked the voting machines, but they hacked the voters, and in doing so, they rigged the election.

 

Part of the problem with this is that it's so new, and that we don't have words for what happened. 

post #440 of 653
Thread Starter 

I keep bringing up the point and you guys keep missing it. NO Candidate with Trump's baggage could have or should have gotten ANY measurable support...hell Perot in the 90's never got above 20% of the popular vote, and he was a hell of a lot more palatable than Trump. 

 

That Trump got so much support speaks to 1) dissatisfaction with both political parties 2) the opposing candidate (really candidates if you consider the Repubs in the nomination fight).

 

"But the Russians" has become the new "But her emails!"

post #441 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

They may not have hacked the voting machines, but they hacked the voters, and in doing so, they rigged the election.

 

Part of the problem with this is that it's so new, and that we don't have words for what happened. 

 

"Bullshit" is a good word.

post #442 of 653
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

That Trump got so much support speaks to 1) dissatisfaction with both political parties 2) the opposing candidate (really candidates if you consider the Repubs in the nomination fight).

 

You keep bringing up this point, and the reason no one responds to it - "or misses it" - is because it's facile, particularly this "dissatisfaction with political parties" point you keep making. 

 

What happened in 2016 was a near-complete breakdown brought on by decades - one could argue centuries - of bad decisions. 

 

Look at Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater was, also, an extreme candidate with extreme views for the time. But the reason he didn't become president - the reason he got his ass handed to him - is because a huge section of the Republican establishment and party leaders refused to back him. 

 

Now, granted, that was a different time. We didn't have the extreme polarization - which I would argue is more of a problem than "both parties are bad" - and the mentality of politics as sports, where you vote for the guy wearing your jersey, that we do today. But I think the analogy holds. 

 

I had a long point-by-point breakdown of everything that happened, but I kept coming back to one figure throughout the campaign: Ted Cruz. 

 

Cruz is a smart guy - smarter than Ryan or McConnell, certainly. He's passionate about the crazy things he believes, and while he's not a great public speaker, in one-on-one situations, he seems to be pretty personable - like a slightly obnoxious history teacher or something. He believes deeply in his faith, etc. During the primary, he thought it was smarter to focus on taking on the weaker candidates like Carson or Jindal rather than put all his energy towards making Trump look like a fool - which, as a debater, he could do. Even though he'd signed a pledge to support whoever the nominee was, after Trump became the nominee, Cruz seemed to waver. Then there was that moment during the convention when he said "vote your conscience," not saying "vote for Trump."

 

And then he said he was going to vote for him anyway later that year.

 

While that's not even getting into factors like the tons of free media given to Trump by mainstream outlets, this, to me, sums up everything that went wrong with this election on the Republican side. Trump was never seen as a threat during the primaries, so he was allowed to get further in the primaries than he should have. After he became the party nominee, there could have been a moment when the party establishment - McConnell, Preibus, Ryan, leaders like Cruz and Rubio - could have repudiated him, put their reputations on the line, and said "this guy does not speak for Republican ideals," but really, was that ever going to happen en masse?  (This is why Ben Sasse and John Kasich are like the two Republicans who have a bright future in the party.) No. Because they were so obsessed with winning that they'd do anything to win.

 

They hated him, but they voted for him anyway.

 

Eventually, it came down to a very simple fact: Trump was the Republican nominee, and he was supported by the Republican establishment and a media that normalized him and a mentality that you vote for the guy wearing your jersey. And even during the electoral college process, if the system worked, he should have been denied the votes he needed based on the fact he was a uniquely unqualified and dangerous candidate - but you had electors who were unwilling to see the big picture (and you can throw in a bon-mot about the decline of civics courses in the aftermath of the cold war here), and voted for the guy wearing their jersey. 

 

And on the other side:

 

We've rehashed Hillary's problems throughout this thread. I've made it clear I was proud to support her, and I think of the candidates talked about for 2016, she was the best, most qualified candidate. But she wasn't helped by (among other things) a Democratic Party establishment - from Obama on down - that cleared the field for her early, a Sanders campaign that had to be dragged, kicking-and-screaming, into supporting her and was never really keen on repuditing some of its base (I will never forget the boos at the convention), a media that has a love-hate relationship with her for twenty years, including the New York Times, which thought that the e-mails were going to be the first great story of the Clinton Presidency, and that Fucking. Comey. Letter. She wasn't perfect. She was perhaps too cautious about the way she spoke, and she wasn't adept at responding to a rapidly changing political climate (Black Lives Matter, for example). And she should have fucking listened when people told her they weren't polling great in those states that turned out to be so crucial. 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't just e-mails. It wasn't just dis-satisfaction with both parties. It wasn't a blue collar working class that felt abandoned by trade policies or older voters who had been poisoned by Roger Ailes. It wasn't a Clinton campaign that didn't listen and it wasn't a Republican party that refused to repudiate Trump. And it wasn't just the Russians, either. 

 

It was all of these things, and that's what we need to remember. Trying to find one solution for why things wound up the way they did is pointless, because we saw an unprecedented system failure across the board last year, and I think people are having a lot of trouble coping with that.

 

In conclusion, Tim Kaine says a lot that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. That's what I think we need to remember. 

 

The Democratic party/progressives needs to: 

 

1. Build up its grass-roots network outside of the major cities.

2. Continue to fight in the House and the Senate and the courts against regressive policies of this administration.

3. Recruit and help run candidates for 2018.

4. Figure out what went wrong on the Democratic side for 2020.

5. Keep up the pressure on trying to figure out how a foreign power meddled in our election, possibly in collusion with the current administration.

 

We can do all of those things. 

post #443 of 653
Boone, I definitely don't always agree with you, but that post was a beautiful summation of the 2016 Shitshow. Well done.
post #444 of 653
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't just e-mails. It wasn't just dis-satisfaction with both parties. It wasn't a blue collar working class that felt abandoned by trade policies or older voters who had been poisoned by Roger Ailes. It wasn't a Clinton campaign that didn't listen and it wasn't a Republican party that refused to repudiate Trump. And it wasn't just the Russians, either. 

 

It was all of these things, and that's what we need to remember. Trying to find one solution for why things wound up the way they did is pointless, because we saw an unprecedented system failure across the board last year, and I think people are having a lot of trouble coping with that.

 

In conclusion, Tim Kaine says a lot that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. That's what I think we need to remember. 

 

The Democratic party/progressives needs to: 

 

1. Build up its grass-roots network outside of the major cities.

2. Continue to fight in the House and the Senate and the courts against regressive policies of this administration.

3. Recruit and help run candidates for 2018.

4. Figure out what went wrong on the Democratic side for 2020.

5. Keep up the pressure on trying to figure out how a foreign power meddled in our election, possibly in collusion with the current administration.

 

We can do all of those things. 

 

I agree with the above. 

 

Where I differ and frankly get frustrated with you and others on this board is, you presume there's this is mostly a problem with party and Electoral structures, am I'm saying there are fundamental shifts going on in the economy in the US and around the world that the "establishment" is either ignoring completely or addressing with fantasy "solutions". 

 

You see things from a top down approach, I'm seeing a straight line from the Great Recession to Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party to the 2016 election, and the line is, there is a massive up welling from the people of this country, they aren't seeing real solutions from most of the political class, and many of them voted a "Hail Mary Pass" With Trump. 

 

Also, I wouldn't underestimate the propensity of people to hold their noses on the candidate but vote the agenda. And however incompetently Trump is acting, he is working hard to fullfill his campaign promises. 

post #445 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

And however incompetently Trump is acting, he is working hard to fullfill his campaign promises

 

 

He's lied about many of his campaign promises, but the ones he wasn't lying about are all disasters set to blow-up in the faces of the GOP, their voters, and everyone else.

post #446 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

I agree with the above. 

 

Where I differ and frankly get frustrated with you and others on this board is, you presume there's this is mostly a problem with party and Electoral structures, am I'm saying there are fundamental shifts going on in the economy in the US and around the world that the "establishment" is either ignoring completely or addressing with fantasy "solutions". 

 

You see things from a top down approach, I'm seeing a straight line from the Great Recession to Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Party to the 2016 election, and the line is, there is a massive up welling from the people of this country, they aren't seeing real solutions from most of the political class, and many of them voted a "Hail Mary Pass" With Trump. 

 

Also, I wouldn't underestimate the propensity of people to hold their noses on the candidate but vote the agenda. And however incompetently Trump is acting, he is working hard to fullfill his campaign promises. 

 

Except I'm not. I'm saying that we need to account for frustration resulting from economic disenfranchisement among the working class (and not just the white working class, please note that service sector unions and retail workers, who are predeominately the working class and people of color, went for Hillary in huge numbers) in addition to everything else we're doing. We need to be looking at all the pieces. 

 

And I'd argue it goes back even further than the Great Recession. We're talking about an underlying problem that started with the decimation of the unions and the hollowing out of the Rust Belt in the 1970s and 1980s. We're talking about problems that go back thirty or forty years and those have no easy fix.

 

As for the establishment offering fantasy solutions, well, the Republican party seems to pretend like the coming trend towards automation isn't going to be a problem, whereas I've listened to many interviews with Democrats who are well aware this is coming sooner than we expect and we need to be ready to account for it. 

post #447 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

I keep bringing up the point and you guys keep missing it. NO Candidate with Trump's baggage could have or should have gotten ANY measurable support...hell Perot in the 90's never got above 20% of the popular vote, and he was a hell of a lot more palatable than Trump. 

 

That Trump got so much support speaks to 1) dissatisfaction with both political parties 2) the opposing candidate (really candidates if you consider the Repubs in the nomination fight).

 

"But the Russians" has become the new "But her emails!"

 

I certainly agree that Trump should have been uniquely unpalatable to anyone, on both sides of the aisle, but then I lose the track.  If Trump's support speaks so much to all the other candidates' failings, then it doesn't really speak to any of them specifically.  And while losing to Trump in any fashion is ignomious, the fact remains that Hillary got more votes, handily.  That, to me, suggests that the failure was on the system's end, at least in terms of "working" the system.  Certainly, the candidate has a good deal of responsibility in steering their campaign's strategizing on that end.  But no matter how much you go on about what a terrible candidate she was, she got the votes.  Obviously that wasn't enough, but it's a pretty big hole in your theory that she lost because no one could stand to vote for her.  We know they could, because they did.

 

Comparing Russia to emails doesn't make sense on any level.  Much like your conviction that the Democratic Party Going Forward thread should be focused on dissecting the flaws of a past candidate (which, to whatever extent they are personal and unique, are also moot looking forward).  Russian tampering, on the other hand, remains a huge, open issue that both parties will be dealing with in coming elections.  Even if you're totally blase about a foreign power brazenly interfering in our electoral processes, it remains the huge, gaping chink in the current administration's armor, and certainly one of the defiining issues for 2018 and 2020.  Of course people are more focused on that than validating your personal antipathy toward the losing candidate from the last election cycle.

post #448 of 653
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

 

 

He's lied about many of his campaign promises, but the ones he wasn't lying about are all disasters set to blow-up in the faces of the GOP, their voters, and everyone else.

 

Yes, but the point is, he said he'd do it, and now he's doing it , or trying his damndest. President Obama did the same with Healthcare and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, though the later efforts were thwarted by the military. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

I certainly agree that Trump should have been uniquely unpalatable to anyone, on both sides of the aisle, but then I lose the track.  If Trump's support speaks so much to all the other candidates' failings, then it doesn't really speak to any of them specifically.  And while losing to Trump in any fashion is ignomious, the fact remains that Hillary got more votes, handily.  That, to me, suggests that the failure was on the system's end, at least in terms of "working" the system.  Certainly, the candidate has a good deal of responsibility in steering their campaign's strategizing on that end.  But no matter how much you go on about what a terrible candidate she was, she got the votes.  Obviously that wasn't enough, but it's a pretty big hole in your theory that she lost because no one could stand to vote for her.  We know they could, because they did.

 

Comparing Russia to emails doesn't make sense on any level.  Much like your conviction that the Democratic Party Going Forward thread should be focused on dissecting the flaws of a past candidate (which, to whatever extent they are personal and unique, are also moot looking forward).  Russian tampering, on the other hand, remains a huge, open issue that both parties will be dealing with in coming elections.  Even if you're totally blase about a foreign power brazenly interfering in our electoral processes, it remains the huge, gaping chink in the current administration's armor, and certainly one of the defiining issues for 2018 and 2020.  Of course people are more focused on that than validating your personal antipathy toward the losing candidate from the last election cycle.

 

Past is prologue, and I don't see much going on with the Democratic party at the moment to tell me they even understand what's going on in the country. 

 

Re; Hilary. I voted for her, I thought she'd be miles away a better President despite serious misgivings about her actions as Secretary of State, and bear her no ill will as a person at all. As a candidate, she and her staff admitted she was not charismatic, not good with crowds, etc. And she was up against a man who's one area of expertise is...playing to crowds. 

 

Re "But the Russians" thing: I feel it's an excuse and a distraction that will enable politicians to yet again fail to address meaningful change. 

post #449 of 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

Re "But the Russians" thing: I feel it's an excuse and a distraction that will enable politicians to yet again fail to address meaningful change. 

 

I really don't think it's "but the Russians." I think it's "we should talk about the fact that this administration may have colluded with a foreign power in order to win an election and destabilize the West, and that's fucked up." 

post #450 of 653

The Democrats (and America in general) have problems that go well beyond the Russians.  But we have to address them too.  If nothing else, they demonstrated us to be shockingly vulnerable to some fairly basic fuckery.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Democratic Party Going Forward