Liberals always make these claims. They do not have the gray matter available to realize that more than one person can have the same traits.
Socialism will destroy us just like it has Venezuela.
Stay off my socialist roads. Don’t call the socialist police when you are in trouble. Stop using the socialist internet. Go live in some non-socialist country like… well I don’t think there is one to suit you, so just go away you brain defective one note whining piece of troll shit.
Personally, I don’t think we ever recover from the Trump presidency. It’s a bell we can’t unring and we’ll never be countrymen again. Have a great weekend everyone!
My sentiments exactly, but far more polite than I would have done it.
It’s okay. I have more than enough brown matter for all of them.
I’m kind of out of shape for this kind of thing. I’ll have to work out more.
The “banned” next to the username has a certain irony to it.
I do love it when people out themselves.
Democrats very well can use US vs THEM. That’s what the are doing now and is why Republicans are getting so upset, suddenly caring about decorum and stuff. Rich vs poor is already working.
To take it further we need to adopt their language. It’s the rich elites, not the liberal elites. It’s those lazy rich people who don’t work for their money. Rich people want to push atheist law. Rich people want to take away our guns.
I want to see ads calling Trump and co special snowflakes. I want to see them pushing for freedom of speech. I want to see ads about making jobs for poor people. I want to see quotes from Jesus showed against the contradictions by Republicans.
We have the ammo. Now use it effectively by stealing techniques from the opposition. Facts can trump ignorance, if they play by the same tactics.
Until then, no whining about how people aren’t listening. Learn to speak their language.
And don’t forget appeals to fearof what will happen if America loses its prominence.
America showed how very disappointing it could be in 2016 (as well as racist, short-sighted and just plain ignorant). I figure it’ll take several election cycles to get past that.
Actually every vote would count equally, be it urban or rural. (Which is kind of the point.) And the effect of that would be that minority populations would suddenly find themselves having the minority voice. Which they should. Because they’re the minority. Unless of course they’re not - going to a “one man, one vote” would also unshackle the minority voices in all states - both pubs in blue states and dems in red states would suddenly get a voice that they’ve never had before. Which I, as a dem in a very red state, would deeply appreciate. I’d have a reason to go to the damn polls for the first time in my life!
Another excellent reason to do this would be to screw over the politicians - they would no longer be able to ignore 4/5ths of the states as they campaigned. They would have to court the vote everywhere. And there’s no way they have time for that, so they’d end up scrambling around in a desperate panic, and who doesn’t want to see that?
I am also a Democrat in a state that votes Republican, but I believe the guys who wrote the damn thing had a good reason for having the several states elect the President rather than a popular vote.
Wasn’t their reasoning basically ‘the public may fall for an authoritarian demagogue, so we need extra steps in the process to prevent that from happening?’
I thought they believed that it would be better for the states to select the President. Perhaps it was a compromise so that smaller states felt they had a fair amount of clout in an election.
Well, John Mace, what do you think the Democrats can do to speak to people in middle America? What position do you think the Democrats can take, what messaging can they send, that will sound like a good idea when filtered through the pundits at FOX News, Breitbart, and Infowars? Remember, they took this:
So for example, I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?
And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.
Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on. […]
So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.
And turned it into this:
"Here’s a novelty: Hillary Clinton told the truth. Oops!
“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Clinton said Sunday night while boasting about her clean energy program — and with a big smile on her face.
In fact, this is standard Democratic policy: President Obama’s been throwing coal miners out of work for seven years now, aiming to deliver on his 2008 pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry."
What the fuck do you do about a propaganda machine like this? What the fuck do you even do? What could the democrats possibly do? The OP is right, and this is the reason. Anything short of a massive national disaster that directly and immediately impacts everyone’s lives with Trump’s signature directly on it, and the right-wing can trivially make the democrats look like the responsible party, or complain that the republicans are the problem, or the list goes on.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I think the messenger is more important than the message. Advice #1: Don’t run Hillary again. Run a governor from the Midwest or West, and focus on 1) Raising the MW; 2) Protecting Health Care reform (and fixing the problems that exist); 3) Improving the infrastructure and 4) Keeping America safe while not getting into any wars (and getting us out of the ones we’re in).
Hillary had a message that was quite good for the Democrats. It’s just that too many people didn’t like the messenger. If they have to run a pro-choice Democrat in conservative areas, so be it. You’re not going to get a majority in Congress with nothing but big-city progressives.
My understanding is at root, Hillary lost the election (but still won the popular vote for various reasons)
[ul]
[li]Minorities didn’t turn out as much, or didn’t give her as large of margins as Obama[/li][li]Young people didn’t turn out as much, or voted 3rd party more[/li][li]Working class whites (whites without a college degree) moved even further to the right. Going from 27 point margins for the GOP in 2012 to 39 point margins in 2016.[/li][/ul]
The democrats have to find solutions for some/all of these problems to win a presidential election in the future. I’m not sure how they do that.
Someone recently pointed out: Prior to the 2006 midterms, Bush’s approval rating was 37%. The Democrats gained only 31 seats in the House.
Prior to the 2010 midterms, Obama’s approval rating was 45%. The Democrats lost 63 seats in the House.
And that was, IIRC, *before *the latest round of GOP gerrymandering had kicked in.
There’s only one way to win an election and not be disappointed: run on your platform first, the failings of the other party second. and then implement as much of your platform as you can, as skillfully as you can. Then see if the voters like it.
even if the Democrats get total power back by 2020, it won’t amount to much. As a conservative, I actually have more hope for that situation than we have now. The national GOP is actively harmful to the country and to conservatism as a governing party. as an opposition party, however, they are extremely effective. I like them better that way. All they need is one chamber of Congress and a majority of state governments.
Slave states feared that they would be crowded out by the more populous non-slaves states and would lose their precious bondage.
Yes, it all really does go back to slavery.
…
It seems to me that, once a party gets out of power, they tend to devolve into nothing more than “the opposition”. The problem with that is it means that they stop becoming the party of ideas. There’s little to nothing they are offering to support. Rather, they just the party of the people who hate those in power.
And, so, I think the focus needs to be on ideas/policies. This might seem obvious, but it is too easy to slip into the simple reactionary “anti” party (especially now, when Trump gives so much to be against) and lose any hope of capturing the support needed to win. That support comes from advocating for things, instead of just advocating against the things the other side wants.
The Dems should start to beat their policy drum now, so it becomes a loud chorus by 2018 (and defeaning by 2020)…For example, don’t just talking about saving the ACA; instead, call for a worthwhile reform (e.g. “we want a public option”). Don’t just give platitudes about middle class jobs, or the environment, or immigration, or whatever. Name specific policy ideas and proposals that people can talk about and support.
For as stupid as building a wall is, its a tangible thing that people can get behind. Taxes may be cliché, but the concept of getting more money from each paycheck is an example of the government doing something for them.
People need to know what the Democrats want to accomplish. Merely stopping the GOP (while laudable to those of us who all already baked into the Democratic support network) isn’t going to be enough.