And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
Harry Dresden on
+3
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
WASHINGTON ― In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s staff in key Midwest states sent out alarms to their headquarters in Brooklyn. They were facing a problematic shortage of paid canvassers to help turn out the vote.
For months, the Clinton campaign had banked on a wide army of volunteer organizers to help corral independents and Democratic leaners and re-energize a base not particularly enthused about the election. But they were volunteers. And as anecdotal data came back to offices in key battlegrounds, concern mounted that leadership had skimped on a critical campaign function.
“It was arrogance, arrogance that they were going to win. That this was all wrapped up,” a senior battleground state operative told The Huffington Post.
President-elect Donald Trump heavily out-campaigned his Democratic opponent in the last 100 days of the election, spending roughly 50 percent more time in six key battleground states that pushed him to victory on Nov. 8.
Over the final 100 days of the election, Trump made a total of 133 visits to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin. Over the same time period, Hillary Clinton visited the first five of those states a total of 87 times. She never traveled to Wisconsin during the 102 days between the convention and the election.
Asumming Obama-levels of enthusiasm as the default when most of the Clinton supporters had to talk like her lawyers was very short sighted in hindsight. Also, no, Dems don't have to "throw minorities under the bus", they have to stop putting DC Insiders in charge of stuff. The guy that lost to Rand Paul got 10 points more than Hillary. An an openly gay man. In a red state.
When I heard Mayor Jim Gray’s concession speech last week after he failed to unseat U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, it struck me as the first speech of his next campaign. So, when I met him for an interview Tuesday, I wanted to know: What’s next?
The race wasn’t close, and Gray’s loss was expected. Paul beat him by 14 percentage points in an increasingly conservative state that went big for Donald Trump and saw control of the state House of Representatives swing overwhelmingly to the GOP.
And there was this: Gray was running as an openly gay man in Kentucky, where a year ago Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis became a national figure by taking an illegal stand against the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
“The results weren’t altogether what we wanted, but considering the circumstances our performance was strong,” Gray said.
“We out-performed Hillary by 10 points, which was the highest of any competitive Senate race in the country, without significant outside dollars,” he added. “If Hillary had gotten Obama’s (Kentucky) numbers in ’08, it could have been a different outcome.”
Unfortunately, this was Clinton's to lose, and she did.
Let's not forget that she won the popular vote. That doesn't change anything, but pointing the finger firmly at Clinton as the guilty party in this doesn't strike me as fair or accurate. The question of whose fault it was is a multiple-choice question, and more likely than not most of the boxes need to be ticked.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+23
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
I am painfully aware of this, believe me.
I just think the game has changed, and Dem Senators are comfortably slipping back into old school chess mode when it's actually Netrunner
It's difficult for me not to see a potential narrative of democrat acquiescence twisted into democrat weakness as a powerful theme in the propaganda machine you know is coming (we know because of Steve Bannon!) in such a way that sets up Dems for larger failures down the line. It USED to be you could trade votes and make concessions so you could bring a nice story back to your constituents and save your ass for reelection. But now when they control this vast universe of misinformation too?
As so many times in this past week: my blood runs cold.
Unfortunately, this was Clinton's to lose, and she did.
Let's not forget that she won the popular vote. That doesn't change anything, but pointing the finger firmly at Clinton as the guilty party in this doesn't strike me as fair or accurate. The question of whose fault it was is a multiple-choice question, and more likely than not most of the boxes need to be ticked.
Everybody agrees with that, but clinging to "she won the popular vote" as an excuse to not change anything means that the DNC might as well give the rest of the seats in 2018 to the GOP. And with the Very Smart People running pieces like this one:
Sanders distracted Hillary Clinton from creating a unified vision for the future
On Election Day, Senator Bernie Sanders earned the 2016 “Ralph Nader Award” for the Leftist Most Responsible for Helping Republicans Win the Presidency. True, Donald Trump cleverly exploited voters’ frustrations. And Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 was as rigid and empty as it was when she lost in 2008. Still, Sanders helped Clinton lose. His insurgency pushed her too far left to prevent an effective re-centering in the fall, while goading her into wooing different constituencies rather than uniting the nation.
Both demonized Washington insiders and free trade, rather than tackling the real structural problem: the United States deindustrialized because Americans refuse to pay what it costs to hire American workers and instead buy cheaper imported products. As a result, just as Ralph Nader siphoned tens of thousands of votes on Election Day 2000 in Florida from Al Gore, causing the deadlock and George W. Bush’s victory, Bernie Sanders’ similar vampire effect enfeebled Hillary Clinton.
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
the difference being the GOP could effectively stone-wall Obama's agenda whereas the Dems in their current position cannot effectively stone-wall Trump's agenda without poaching some never-Trumps (assuming the GOP blows up the filibuster, which I think they will)
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
The difference is that the Republicans control the legislature.
If Trump, through some quirk of what pass of his mental process, want to pass a law that is not terrible, it makes sense for the Democrats to support it, and let the Republicans oppose it.
Assuming no riders, etc.
If and when those happen, then the Dems should point them out, and say they have a clean version that is good for all Americans.
As so many times in this past week: my blood runs cold.
I sort of feel the urge to make a mashup of the J. Geils Band song "Angel is a Centerfold" and the Yeats poem "The Second Coming," with "Angel is the centerfold" replaced by "the center cannot hold." It very nearly scans.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Unfortunately, this was Clinton's to lose, and she did.
Let's not forget that she won the popular vote. That doesn't change anything, but pointing the finger firmly at Clinton as the guilty party in this doesn't strike me as fair or accurate. The question of whose fault it was is a multiple-choice question, and more likely than not most of the boxes need to be ticked.
Everybody agrees with that, but clinging to "she won the popular vote" as an excuse to not change anything means that the DNC might as well give the rest of the seats in 2018 to the GOP.
I agree with this, but I am sick and tired of anything and anyone that says, "Well, obviously it was the fault of Clinton!" "Well, obviously it was the fault of the Democrats!" "Well, obviously it was the fault of the media!" It was the fault of all of these and of voters. It was the fault of those too lazy or confused or indifferent to vote. It was the fault of anyone regurgitating the fiction of false equivalence. It was the fault of everyone who patronised the rural, the white, the Christian etc.
It doesn't help anyone to find a scapegoat: it helps to look at what can be done differently by whom, and that includes practically everyone. "So-and-so done fucked up" helps precious little, if that's where it begins and ends.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+9
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
The difference is that the Republicans control the legislature.
If Trump, through some quirk of what pass of his mental process, want to pass a law that is not terrible, it makes sense for the Democrats to support it, and let the Republicans oppose it.
Assuming no riders, etc.
If and when those happen, then the Dems should point them out, and say they have a clean version that is good for all Americans.
I don't think Republicans will oppose whatever it is, though
Let's not forget that they have shown a remarkable lack of spine and principle this year alone
As a whole I do not expect them to start taking principled stands now
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+11
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
My biggest fear is that Trump, who is a populist with no ideology, abandons his far right promises and governs from the middle and is ultimately successful and popular. I think that if he were to do this, the political lines in this country would be even more about identity politics than ideology.
Maybe I'm just in denial and we are already there. This election was entirely about identity politics and it isn't entirely the GOPs fault. I think this is very very bad for the country.
Everything is about race now. We are no longer one people but several discrete tribes. Look at how you talk about appealing to groups of voters. You see them as blocks of people belonging to different races. This is bad!
furbat on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Case in point: if any of them at the top had a spine that wasn't made of shit and gelatin fucking Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court
They have played games with our democracy and we have to recognize it is not the same game with the same rules as 8 years ago
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
The US is unlikely to end up full authoritarian, but it's entirely believable that an attempt at this gets made and shatters the union. The Civil War was definitely about slavery, and importantly was about attempts by the southern states to force the northern states to recognize slavery within their borders (spurred on by supreme court rulings as well...)
This would be pretty much the same thing at the worst possible end: federal orders to round up and detain immigrants leading to public outrage in the blue states and widespread protests. If some states fold into implementing it, then you're going to get mass internal migrations setting up the divisions.
At which point who the hell knows how it goes - it would be a literally unprecedented situation to have the global superpower collapse. Over in the rest of the world I guess we get to dick around with Russia and Chinese expansionism.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
My biggest fear is that Trump, who is a populist with no ideology, abandons his far right promises and governs from the middle and is ultimately successful and popular. I think that if he were to do this, the political lines in this country would be even more about identity politics than ideology.
Maybe I'm just in denial and we are already there. This election was entirely about identity politics and it isn't entirely the GOPs fault. I think this is very very bad for the country.
Everything is about race now. We are no longer one people but several discrete tribes. Look at how you talk about appealing to groups of voters. You see them as blocks of people belonging to different races. This is bad!
You were all successfully divided and are about to be conquered by the money behind Trump.
Congratulations?
autono-wally, erotibot300 on
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
Honestly, this goes for a lot of people. I already made sure my mom has an escape route because she's not a citizen (though she has a permanent green card) and not white.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Flynn: National Security Advisor.
*facepalm*
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
Honestly, this goes for a lot of people. I already made sure my mom has an escape route because she's not a citizen (though she has a permanent green card) and not white.
I'm a citizen who had a, uh, trinational upbringing? I'm as white as white can be, but have a REALLY thick accent
I would not feel comfortable about speaking in public right now
0
Options
ExtreaminatusGo forth and amplify,the Noise Marines are here!Registered Userregular
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
Honestly, this goes for a lot of people. I already made sure my mom has an escape route because she's not a citizen (though she has a permanent green card) and not white.
What makes a good escape plan, though? Feel free to PM me, because I'm starting to think I'm really going to need one and have no idea where to start.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about it. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
The difference is that the Republicans control the legislature.
If Trump, through some quirk of what pass of his mental process, want to pass a law that is not terrible, it makes sense for the Democrats to support it, and let the Republicans oppose it.
Assuming no riders, etc.
If and when those happen, then the Dems should point them out, and say they have a clean version that is good for all Americans.
I don't think Republicans will oppose whatever it is, though
Let's not forget that they have shown a remarkable lack of spine and principle this year alone
As a whole I do not expect them to start taking principled stands now
Unlikely scenario A):
The Republicans and Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Democrats oppose. It passes, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled* (that's down to 2 seats).
Unlikely scenario :
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats oppose. It passes with riders, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled.
Unlikely scenario C):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It passes with riders, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Unlikely scenario D):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they are Republicans.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It fails, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Trump is now fighting with the Republicans.
If and only if Trump pushes for sane policies that the Democrats wanted and have been pushing for years, automatic opposition is worst.
You just lost an election in part because your voters don't trust your party.
*Should be Mulroney'ed but Campbell got stuck with the fallout.
Case in point: if any of them at the top had a spine that wasn't made of shit and gelatin fucking Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court
They have played games with our democracy and we have to recognize it is not the same game with the same rules as 8 years ago
It's shocking and terrifying to me how easy it was for the GOP to just stop playing by the rules. And not only were there no consequences for it, they were enthusiastically rewarded. It feels like a way too significant portion of our system was built around Tradition and Gentleman's Agreements, and now that they're being casually tossed aside, there's no power left in the only system that could theoretically make the needed adjustments.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about social justice. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
That would be 100 percent against everything I have seen.
Edit: like, my refusal to say it outed me as a liberal.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
No it isn't, it really isn't difficult
Every poll on likability of Sanders came back high, more Democratic primary voters just either thought she had a better chance of winning, or thought she had a better chance at accomplishing her agenda
But the message of economic populism is popular with every kind of Democrat except maaaaaaaaaaaybe the rich New Yorker class (but frankly I don't care what rich NY Democrats think, they don't matter in elections)
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about social justice. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
That would be 100 percent against everything I have seen.
Edit: like, my refusal to say it outed me as a liberal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
You got outed as a liberal by disaffected Obama voters for refusing to say the N word?
override367 on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
No it isn't, it really isn't difficult
Every poll on likability of Sanders came back high, more Democratic primary voters just either thought she had a better chance of winning, or thought she had a better chance at accomplishing her agenda
But the message of economic populism is popular with every kind of Democrat except maaaaaaaaaaaybe the rich New Yorker class (but frankly I don't care what rich NY Democrats think, they don't matter in elections)
They matter to Donald Trump, who will shower them with tax breaks and tax shelters and deregulation until they finally accept him as one of them, God dammit
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
No it isn't, it really isn't difficult
Every poll on likability of Sanders came back high, more Democratic primary voters just either thought she had a better chance of winning, or thought she had a better chance at accomplishing her agenda
But the message of economic populism is popular with every kind of Democrat except maaaaaaaaaaaybe the rich New Yorker class (but frankly I don't care what rich NY Democrats think, they don't matter in elections)
They matter to Donald Trump, who will shower them with tax breaks and tax shelters and deregulation until they finally accept him as one of them, God dammit
You're worried NYC is going to flip red because of Donald Trump?
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about social justice. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
That would be 100 percent against everything I have seen.
Edit: like, my refusal to say it outed me as a liberal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
You got outed as a liberal by disaffected Obama voters for refusing to say the N word?
That lots of people would be would be furious if they heard the nword.
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about social justice. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
That would be 100 percent against everything I have seen.
Edit: like, my refusal to say it outed me as a liberal.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
You got outed as a liberal by disaffected Obama voters for refusing to say the N word?
That lots of people would be would be furious if they heard the nword.
So you are disagreeing with the concept that disaffected Obama voters would be upset by hearing the N word in public at all?
I'm having a hard time parsing what you're saying
+2
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The strategy appears to be: try to focus attention on the areas where Trump hedged liberal-populist like maternity leave and etc. Make that the issue. Then, if Trump sides with you and you can get it to pass, then congratulations! You managed to get the country maternity leave passed and that's incredible. On the other hand, if Trump sides against you and kills it, then you've forced him to eat his words and you're positioned to yank back the mantle of economic populism.
Seems plenty intelligible to me.
Yeah and the only thing that worries me is letting him claim those victories
but then, if one of them ends up running in 2020 they are also their victories
This is literally the GOP's reasoning for not working with Obama: because it would give him the "win" of doing something
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
The difference is that the Republicans control the legislature.
If Trump, through some quirk of what pass of his mental process, want to pass a law that is not terrible, it makes sense for the Democrats to support it, and let the Republicans oppose it.
Assuming no riders, etc.
If and when those happen, then the Dems should point them out, and say they have a clean version that is good for all Americans.
I don't think Republicans will oppose whatever it is, though
Let's not forget that they have shown a remarkable lack of spine and principle this year alone
As a whole I do not expect them to start taking principled stands now
Unlikely scenario A):
The Republicans and Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Democrats oppose. It passes, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled* (that's down to 2 seats).
Unlikely scenario :
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats oppose. It passes with riders, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled.
Unlikely scenario C):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It passes with riders, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Unlikely scenario D):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they are Republicans.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It fails, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Trump is now fighting with the Republicans.
If and only if Trump pushes for sane policies that the Democrats wanted and have been pushing for years, automatic opposition is worst.
You just lost an election in part because your voters don't trust your party.
*Should be Mulroney'ed but Campbell got stuck with the fallout.
I am about to head out the door to my job (feeling again like "what's the point but I suppose I will need this hoard of money to spirit me away in case the shit really goes down god fucking dammit what have we done") but my short response is: of those unlikely scenarios the unlikeliest is the ones where republicans oppose and democrats come out of it looking like champions of the people
Plus the devil is in the details (I know we hate details right now but stick with me)--during the campaign the parental leave trump announced at ivankas urging was tax credits for childcare and some marginal maternity leave only which basically leaves impoverished families who need relief the most out in the cold but lets affluent NYers write off their nanny expenses. She even flipped out a little on the Cosmo interviewer who asked how this was supposed to help fathers be more involved in supporting family burdens or apply to gay families.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good for sure but this ain't even close
Hakkekage on
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+5
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
And the rightward shift begins, as the rust belt become the only important demographic in America.
...I need a new swear word, the standard set no longer properly convey my absolute disdain anymore.
Wait, what? The rust belt isn't right or left. It's not the only important demographic but working class white voters make up about 40% of the electorate so it's certainly one of the biggest.
From what many posters*, who come from that area, describe that demographic is that culturally they are rightward of liberals/Democrats on important issues - like sexism, racism etc. This is where we lost them this election. An argument has to be made to focus less on those issues to court them back.
They seem not to be hateful jackasses, yet they're not full on liberals either. This is the sweet spot for the GOP and candidates like Donald Trump to pick them up. They've also been a demographic the GOP has tried capturing for years. Why wouldn't they?
Why would you disdain them having a voice?
They can have a voice, but we shouldn't sacrifice too much if they don't want what we're selling.
* and other sources in the media
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
No it isn't, it really isn't difficult
Every poll on likability of Sanders came back high, more Democratic primary voters just either thought she had a better chance of winning, or thought she had a better chance at accomplishing her agenda
But the message of economic populism is popular with every kind of Democrat except maaaaaaaaaaaybe the rich New Yorker class (but frankly I don't care what rich NY Democrats think, they don't matter in elections)
They matter to Donald Trump, who will shower them with tax breaks and tax shelters and deregulation until they finally accept him as one of them, God dammit
You're worried NYC is going to flip red because of Donald Trump?
Not electorally but I think the ambivalent NY donor class who will fund his 2020 campaign matter very much now
I'm not sure if continued fealty to the donor class is a winning strategy anymore for the presidency, in many ways I think the election of Trump was kind of a referendum on that kind of thinking
Hillary Clinton didn't lack funds, it didn't mean anything
It's not like calling for much higher taxes on the rich is going to cut you off from all donors either, and I think the difference can be made up in small donations
Mods, let me know if this needs to be a separate topic, but... If such a thing came to pass, when is it time to bail out? Would there be any warning time before it went into effect?
Judging by German history, the time to bail out is early.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
Honestly, this goes for a lot of people. I already made sure my mom has an escape route because she's not a citizen (though she has a permanent green card) and not white.
My wife and I are both native born citizens and I'm still worried. I don't have a ton of faith in "oh this brown person is okay, they're a citizen."
I also don't have a ton of faith that the rest of the population will lift a single finger to help us if the time comes.
I am about to head out the door to my job (feeling again like "what's the point but I suppose I will need this hoard of money to spirit me away in case the shit really goes down god fucking dammit what have we done") but my short response is: of those unlikely scenarios the unlikeliest is the ones where republicans oppose and democrats come out of it looking like champions of the people
Plus the devil is in the details (I know we hate details right now but stick with me)--during the campaign the parental leave trump announced at ivankas urging was tax credits for childcare and some marginal maternity leave only which basically leaves impoverished families who need relief the most out in the cold but lets affluent NYers write off their nanny expenses. She even flipped out a little on the Cosmo interviewer who asked how this was supposed to help fathers be more involved in supporting family burdens or apply to gay families.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good for sure but this ain't even close
Can't say I disagree. If Trump and the Republicans push terrible legislation, then they should be opposed and the Democrats should push a competing law.
The Republicans' law will pass, but at least the Democrat can say they tried to help all Americans.
I'm just pointing that, unlike the Republicans', the Democrats' base actually like it when the government does things.
Total opposition was possible for the Republicans because their base believes that the government is the problem.
Posts
I think that if the dems ignore working class white voters to focus more on sexism and racism they deserve to keep losing.
After some point, people weren't even allowed to leave anymore.
Who said they were ignoring them? It's not like the Dems didn't give them the ol' college try with logic and understanding. That tactic utterly failed - to Trump, one of the most up front racist and sexist politicians in modern American history.
And what's wrong with making sexism and racism a big priority*? What about the demographics who voted for Dems based on that? Should they be sacrificed to appease the white working class? If they do that they won't have a coalition anymore, they'll be a smaller GOP-lite party.
* This is good strategy long term since Asians and Latinos are the two biggest rising populations in the country, whites aren't.
edit: What needs to be done is appealing to all of the demographics simultaneously - which is going to be incredibly difficult.
edit 2: Dems going rightward to stay relevant has occurred before, this is how we got the Reagan Democrats and Bill Clinton.
Let's not jump the gun
I probably should get in on that, too..
And going:
Asumming Obama-levels of enthusiasm as the default when most of the Clinton supporters had to talk like her lawyers was very short sighted in hindsight. Also, no, Dems don't have to "throw minorities under the bus", they have to stop putting DC Insiders in charge of stuff. The guy that lost to Rand Paul got 10 points more than Hillary. An an openly gay man. In a red state.
Never forget that 140 million people didn't vote for Trump
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I am painfully aware of this, believe me.
I just think the game has changed, and Dem Senators are comfortably slipping back into old school chess mode when it's actually Netrunner
It's difficult for me not to see a potential narrative of democrat acquiescence twisted into democrat weakness as a powerful theme in the propaganda machine you know is coming (we know because of Steve Bannon!) in such a way that sets up Dems for larger failures down the line. It USED to be you could trade votes and make concessions so you could bring a nice story back to your constituents and save your ass for reelection. But now when they control this vast universe of misinformation too?
As so many times in this past week: my blood runs cold.
NNID: Hakkekage
Everybody agrees with that, but clinging to "she won the popular vote" as an excuse to not change anything means that the DNC might as well give the rest of the seats in 2018 to the GOP. And with the Very Smart People running pieces like this one:
Things aren't really looking good, sorry to say.
Yup.
And it's worked out pretty damn well for them so far.
The difference is that the Republicans control the legislature.
If Trump, through some quirk of what pass of his mental process, want to pass a law that is not terrible, it makes sense for the Democrats to support it, and let the Republicans oppose it.
Assuming no riders, etc.
If and when those happen, then the Dems should point them out, and say they have a clean version that is good for all Americans.
I sort of feel the urge to make a mashup of the J. Geils Band song "Angel is a Centerfold" and the Yeats poem "The Second Coming," with "Angel is the centerfold" replaced by "the center cannot hold." It very nearly scans.
It doesn't help anyone to find a scapegoat: it helps to look at what can be done differently by whom, and that includes practically everyone. "So-and-so done fucked up" helps precious little, if that's where it begins and ends.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I don't think Republicans will oppose whatever it is, though
Let's not forget that they have shown a remarkable lack of spine and principle this year alone
As a whole I do not expect them to start taking principled stands now
NNID: Hakkekage
@mRahmani
Start planning an escape route now - with the hope and prayer of never needing it, but who knows what might happen if the neonazis at the white
House get emergency powers after a terrorist attack
My biggest fear is that Trump, who is a populist with no ideology, abandons his far right promises and governs from the middle and is ultimately successful and popular. I think that if he were to do this, the political lines in this country would be even more about identity politics than ideology.
Maybe I'm just in denial and we are already there. This election was entirely about identity politics and it isn't entirely the GOPs fault. I think this is very very bad for the country.
Everything is about race now. We are no longer one people but several discrete tribes. Look at how you talk about appealing to groups of voters. You see them as blocks of people belonging to different races. This is bad!
They have played games with our democracy and we have to recognize it is not the same game with the same rules as 8 years ago
NNID: Hakkekage
The US is unlikely to end up full authoritarian, but it's entirely believable that an attempt at this gets made and shatters the union. The Civil War was definitely about slavery, and importantly was about attempts by the southern states to force the northern states to recognize slavery within their borders (spurred on by supreme court rulings as well...)
This would be pretty much the same thing at the worst possible end: federal orders to round up and detain immigrants leading to public outrage in the blue states and widespread protests. If some states fold into implementing it, then you're going to get mass internal migrations setting up the divisions.
At which point who the hell knows how it goes - it would be a literally unprecedented situation to have the global superpower collapse. Over in the rest of the world I guess we get to dick around with Russia and Chinese expansionism.
You were all successfully divided and are about to be conquered by the money behind Trump.
Congratulations?
Honestly, this goes for a lot of people. I already made sure my mom has an escape route because she's not a citizen (though she has a permanent green card) and not white.
*facepalm*
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm a citizen who had a, uh, trinational upbringing? I'm as white as white can be, but have a REALLY thick accent
I would not feel comfortable about speaking in public right now
What makes a good escape plan, though? Feel free to PM me, because I'm starting to think I'm really going to need one and have no idea where to start.
Someone who would be furious if they heard the n word or saw a gay couple denied service, but who doesn't understand BLM or safe spaces isn't necessarily a hateful jackass (I feel like I shouldn't have to explain this but members of this forum are often so detached from reality that it's like talking to aliens)
More importantly, social issues aren't their primary concern, their day to day life is, and they don't have the privilege of spending all day on the internet reading about it. That means they probably have some bad opinions, by our standards, but purity testing the party is a hilariously stupid idea.
They voted for Obama for crying out loud, we're not talking about going after the MAGA rally people, I think we just need to run on a message of 1. this is fucked up 2. these assholes are to blame and 3. we can fix it
Unlikely scenario A):
The Republicans and Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Democrats oppose. It passes, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled* (that's down to 2 seats).
Unlikely scenario
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats oppose. It passes with riders, Democrats opposed paid parental leave and get Campbelled.
Unlikely scenario C):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they want to add riders.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It passes with riders, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Unlikely scenario D):
Trump want to pass paid parental leave, with no riders or other problems.
Republican oppose because they are Republicans.
Democrats are willing to pass it as-is. It fails, Democrats can point out they tried to help all Americans, but the Republicans wanted to only help rich white people.
Trump is now fighting with the Republicans.
If and only if Trump pushes for sane policies that the Democrats wanted and have been pushing for years, automatic opposition is worst.
You just lost an election in part because your voters don't trust your party.
*Should be Mulroney'ed but Campbell got stuck with the fallout.
It's shocking and terrifying to me how easy it was for the GOP to just stop playing by the rules. And not only were there no consequences for it, they were enthusiastically rewarded. It feels like a way too significant portion of our system was built around Tradition and Gentleman's Agreements, and now that they're being casually tossed aside, there's no power left in the only system that could theoretically make the needed adjustments.
That would be 100 percent against everything I have seen.
Edit: like, my refusal to say it outed me as a liberal.
No it isn't, it really isn't difficult
Every poll on likability of Sanders came back high, more Democratic primary voters just either thought she had a better chance of winning, or thought she had a better chance at accomplishing her agenda
But the message of economic populism is popular with every kind of Democrat except maaaaaaaaaaaybe the rich New Yorker class (but frankly I don't care what rich NY Democrats think, they don't matter in elections)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say
You got outed as a liberal by disaffected Obama voters for refusing to say the N word?
They matter to Donald Trump, who will shower them with tax breaks and tax shelters and deregulation until they finally accept him as one of them, God dammit
NNID: Hakkekage
You're worried NYC is going to flip red because of Donald Trump?
That lots of people would be would be furious if they heard the nword.
So you are disagreeing with the concept that disaffected Obama voters would be upset by hearing the N word in public at all?
I'm having a hard time parsing what you're saying
I am about to head out the door to my job (feeling again like "what's the point but I suppose I will need this hoard of money to spirit me away in case the shit really goes down god fucking dammit what have we done") but my short response is: of those unlikely scenarios the unlikeliest is the ones where republicans oppose and democrats come out of it looking like champions of the people
Plus the devil is in the details (I know we hate details right now but stick with me)--during the campaign the parental leave trump announced at ivankas urging was tax credits for childcare and some marginal maternity leave only which basically leaves impoverished families who need relief the most out in the cold but lets affluent NYers write off their nanny expenses. She even flipped out a little on the Cosmo interviewer who asked how this was supposed to help fathers be more involved in supporting family burdens or apply to gay families.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good for sure but this ain't even close
NNID: Hakkekage
Not electorally but I think the ambivalent NY donor class who will fund his 2020 campaign matter very much now
NNID: Hakkekage
Hillary Clinton didn't lack funds, it didn't mean anything
It's not like calling for much higher taxes on the rich is going to cut you off from all donors either, and I think the difference can be made up in small donations
My wife and I are both native born citizens and I'm still worried. I don't have a ton of faith in "oh this brown person is okay, they're a citizen."
I also don't have a ton of faith that the rest of the population will lift a single finger to help us if the time comes.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Can't say I disagree. If Trump and the Republicans push terrible legislation, then they should be opposed and the Democrats should push a competing law.
The Republicans' law will pass, but at least the Democrat can say they tried to help all Americans.
I'm just pointing that, unlike the Republicans', the Democrats' base actually like it when the government does things.
Total opposition was possible for the Republicans because their base believes that the government is the problem.