Real Estate: Location, Location, Location
Presidential Politics: Charisma, Charisma, Charisma
It’s almost impossible to win without it, unless your opponent is worse. Warren ain’t got it. Obama had it like few others since Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. It’s easy to find someone who excites the base. The Democrats need someone who can excite the country.
When has the Democratic party done that, though?
I agree to a point with John Mace’s charisma chant, however I think an actual message would be well received. The dems have seemingly just abandoned the working people. The message Hillary put out was that globalism is more important than any working person’s job. The republican message was just about the same. Everyone but Trump.
Trump was against the TPP treaty, claimed he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Made promises that no one could possibly keep. Secure the southern border and so on. I don’t think the people that voted for him believe he could do these things, but there was no one else. To the people in the rust belt, the democrats seem to be much more worried about the social issues than they are about jobs, or how is Joe the laid off factory worker going to feed his kids.
To most of the working stiffs in flyover country, both the democrats and republicans offer more of the same, reward companies for moving jobs overseas, continue to allow banks and the rich to just become richer while the working man and his family see their standard of living decrease every year. Adding insult to injury, the democrats put in ACA. Affordable?? People with families already financially stressed, have to come up with thousands of dollars to have health insurance coverage. Oh yes there are subsidies, but when you are already at your limit a subsidy isn’t enough. Then come and tell me how I should be grateful for being forced to pay so insurance companies can become richer. Once again not looking out for the working stiff.
I realize that this is just skimming the surface of the problem, Hillary had much more message than globalism is king. Problem being is everything boils down to “it’s the economy, stupid” No one but Trump even attempted to talk to the working American.
No, they haven’t.
No, the message she put out was that those jobs that left aren’t coming back, and so it’s better to prepare yourself for the world that is rather than demand the return of the world that was.
Orange Hitler may have told white working-class snowflakes what they wanted to hear, and they may have voted for him because they couldn’t handle the truth that Hillary Clinton was trying to tell them, but, well, should we eschew reality-based solutions in favor of reality-free fantasies just to get votes? That hardly seems like a recipe for the survival of civilization.
Which may be true but isn’t helpful for people with limited opportunities or money for vocational training and no support system to move to where jobs may be available. Clinton came off as really not carrying what happens to these people; it is no wonder that traditional Democratic voters switched to Trump or third party candidates, or just stayed home.
Stranger
Which is why she, you know, advocated programs and policies to deal with that specific problem.
Traficant was a Democrat. (This fact is consistent with your point here, so I assume it was just a typo on your part, as was your reference to the “Republican establishment”.)
This seems a bit inconsistent with your first post to this thread.
But that aside, one problem Clinton had was that she did in fact do an about face on trade when she ran, and in contrast to your suggestion. Problem was that there was widespread skepticism about her sincerity in this regard, both from her supporters and from her opponents, and this just fed into her self-serving and insincere image.
Sure, but how much did HRC emphasize those issues as opposed to virtue signalling and chasing wealthy upper middle-class Republican suburbanites who would be willing to vote anybody the RNC nominated provided they promised tax cuts? You could say the exact same thing about Bernie who did have a platform favourable to black voters but who nonetheless lost blacks overwhelmingly to Clinton because the latter had far better connections to the black community.
Yeah, clearly the comparison with a straight-shooter like Trump was damaging. Anyone who tells you these issues are simple is either lying or stupid. Or, as in his case, both.
Oh, yes, Hard Hats for Hillary:
Her plan would put forward a tax credit for businesses of $1,500 per apprentice and would insist on accountability for employment and earnings outcomes for programs receiving the credit. Hillary’s plan will also grant a bonus on that tax credit to businesses for providing opportunities specifically for young people.
If you are living in Detroit, MI or Evansville, KY, hand to mouth with a family to take care of and no jobs or apprenticeships to be had, this basically does fuck all for you. This is a major problem that is only going to get worse as automation eliminates many traditional low skill jobs and it is going to take a lot more than a tax credit to address it.
Stranger
First: Evansville is in Indiana. I know this because I grew up there.
Second: Yeah, if you literally just pick out one thing out of many and pretend like it was all there is, then it looks like there’s nothing more. But that’s kind of a stupid way to do things.
So who isn’t unhappy when their party loses? Especially against a uniquely beatable candidate like trump? Maybe the Dems need their own version of the “Buckley rule”.
So expand. What was her plan to bring new jobs to economically blighted areas, or subsidize people without means to obtain vocational training and move to areas where those skills are in demand?
I don’t mean this criticism to just focus on Hillary; literally no one in politics is talking about his because it is such a large problem with no clean solution, and to be completely fair at least she isn’t promising to bring back fictional jobs by imposing harmfully protectionist trade agreements or build a pointless wall, but this is the real discussion that needs to be had about where jobs are and what needs to be done to better utilize the availble workforce. We don’t have an employment problem in this country (as evidenced by labor states, which despite Trump’s ignorance are not “fake”) but we do have a problem that many people who are unemployed are not trained and located where the labor is needed, and we’ve largely filled that gap using legal and undocumented immigrant labor that Trump now wants to eject from the country without any real thought or plan on how to rebalance the economy.
It is a fucking travesty when the smartest voice talking about this problem and the solution is a reality TV show host, and not the one who got himself elected president by stirring up fear about immigrant rapists. Second to doing something to actually deal with out of control health care costs, this is the discussion which should be dominating domestic policy discussions.
Stranger
Maybe booing Perez can become a Democratic tradition, like how NBA fans once mercilessly booed commissioner David Stern.
The pundit class loves third way politics. For them corporate centrism and adhering to the beltway consensus is the height of sober minded maturity, so Bill Clinton pushing through NAFTA and ending welfare and all the rest while avoiding the social backwardness of the right was the ideal.
There are some lefties who are happy to see the Dems go down in flames instead of seeing Hillary and the Dem establishment win. There is a silver lining in that the mainstream left has rediscovered its moribund anti-war, anti-corporate, and pro-civil liberties sentiments.
I think that the Democrats need new grassroots politicians as well as voters. If all these Democrats are not satisfied with the direction of their party, maybe some of them should run for office instead of just complaining about what their current representatives are doing.
My own view is that the Democratic party as a whole is trying to do the right thing*. They just didn’t have quite enough power at their peak in 2009 and 2010 to enact true reform. Take the ACA. I don’t think that was the plan Democrats truly wanted, it was just something they were forced to go with due to lack of a filibuster proof senate. If there had been, say 64 or 65 Democratic senators in 2009 instead of the 59 we had after Ted Kennedy died, I think we would probably have universal healthcare by now. Ever since that compromise I think the Democrats have been suffering from disunity due to the perfect is the enemy of the good type of thinking.
Yes, sorry, thanks. You know, Republican, Democrat, same thing, really. 
I do take away one thing from the discussion so far in this thread: there are a lot of “liberals” who still don’t get that the Democratic candidate lost the election, and that this wasn’t some sort of illegitimate result. The candidate was fine, the campaign was fine, the party was fine, but somehow, the voters screwed up (probably due to some sort of questionable hijinks).
Get a grip on reality, folks.
Thanks for your helpful advice. Speaking for the left (without the least authority to do so), let me say we will give it all due consideration.
Well, it is important to remember that Hillary won the popular vote. And let’s not forget Fox News. And the election was rigged and hacked. By the Russians. With help from the FBI.
As a Democrat, I admit it was the party that screwed up. I believe, however, that the problem is not the principles of the Democratic party, it’s more a deficiency in how Democratic politicians have been playing the game. The focus needs to change, even if the same principles continue to apply. I think Democrats need to run on their support for things that help working class people. The Republicans attack the Democrats on things like gun control and abortion rights, and the Democrats keep taking the bait. When asked about those things, Democratic politicians should say yes, I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose and sensible gun control, but there are much bigger problems facing the nation and we need to focus on those issues first. They should do that rather than focus on issues that are very decisive and would provide very little return, even if the Democrats achieved a legislative victory.