But here’s the thing: the next candidate the Dems put up for president will surely be asked “about the deplorables thing”. And they can look straight into the camera and say “yeah, racists and sexists and homophobes are, in fact, deplorable – as well as ‘irredeemable’, like she said – and if you understand that and feel insulted or offended, then you’re one of 'em; millions of Trump’s supporters were; half, maybe.”
And the question is, is that the response you recommend?
Then by all means, go forth and conquer. I wish you luck and hope you succeed.
pretty much. Fuck’em.
We don’t need many of “Trump voters” to come to their senses. No matter what happens, the Republicans will get 40% in any election, anywhere, anytime. I don’t care if they’re offended. Reasonable people who *can *be moved don’t give a shit about the “deplorable” comment.
The problem with the “Half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable” comment is that *more than half *of Trumpers probably perceived themselves as being the ones targeted.
Suppose someone says, “Half of Costa Rican women are arrogant loudmouths” - chances are, 70% or 80% of Costa Rican women would take offense because they perceive themselves as being in that targeted category.
(Not equating political support with race or nationality, but you get my point.)
So we just stay in the death spiral.
THIS liberal for one is happy to welcome with civility the expression of buyer’s regret from any Trump voter who comes forth and says “y’know what? That was a mistake. I had thought it was worth it for the sake of (a tax cut/a SCOTUS seat/getting rid of the Clintons/spiting the Bushes/etc.) but this… is just wrong”.
"Is it even worth it for Democrats to try to convert Trump supporters?
Why do you believe it’s important to tell others what to write, or how to think?
“Buyer’s regret”? Do Democrats regret running Hillary for POTUS a 2nd time? That is something that Democrats could admit to. You know, something Democrats actually HAVE control over.
The death spiral will continue until a candidate with broad appeal can actually be elected. Or until our current Congress critters can be repealed and replaced.
Because he’s a part of the body politic, and that’s how politics works.
EDIT: In reply to post 86.
This sounds like a definition of insanity I’ve heard before.
Buncha them DO. Often producing long and dense justifications of why they should not feel bad about it 
Why do you post on this message board?
Except for the part where I explain with a little detail why.
You might do well to read the advice on one of your cites, to be cautious about using the scorecard to draw conclusions, and that they use their judgment about what to fact-check, and what to ignore.
I’m not sure that this is a good point for you to make - one of the main architects of Obamacare has admitted publically that he knew all along that things like this weren’t true. I’m sure Obama intended to be persuasive, but that’s not the same thing.
Still - Obama makes a claim, it turns out to be wildly false, and you point to it as an example of how the Right is being misled.
Not sure I agree 100% with your detective work there, Lou.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought we were talking about what the Dems should try - not both sides, just the ones that lost, and wanted to change so that they would win.
Regards,
Shodan
To answer the original question, yes, it’s absolutely worth it to try to convert Trump supporters, particularly since there are various shades of them. Of course progressive democrats are not going to convert people who listen to yell “Lock her up!” but I think a surprising number of GOP voters could envision themselves crossing party lines for the right candidate. The bigger question is, how would those on the far left if the Democrats had, let’s say a fresh face, someone not Clinton, who tried to make overtures by being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’ on some issues? I think that’s the bigger question. Will coastal liberals accept that their leader might not be from Chicago, San Francisco, or New England, but Iowa, Missouri, or Indiana? And that this candidate might talk about maintaining a strong military and that businesses don’t need to be regulated to death?
As a Seattle liberal, I’m perfectly happy with a Midwesterner. Obama was from Illinois, as I recall. I don’t care if the candidate is from Alabama, as long as it’s someone competent and not behind all of the Republican agenda.
And he or she could talk up “strong military” all they want. (We could cut 25% off the top and still have the strongest in the world.) Ending regulations that don’t make sense? I’m fine with that too.
This is why these conversations always go the way they do. People saying vague things that mean nothing to anyone.
What democrats vote for a “weak military” and “regulating businesses to death”?
What do republicans mean when they say they want a “strong military” and “deregulation”?
How many tanks, planes and submarines are too many? How many are not enough?
What specific regulations can we do without and which regulations are necessary to protect consumers?
So we’re right back to if the other side says anything wrong even once it’s exactly equivalent to our side spewing 1000 lies from 1000 mouths a thousand times a day from a thousand media outlets. The tiredest of all the tired responses from the deniers of everyday reality.
Exhibit 1A.
NDAA 2018 is probably a pretty good starting point for that discussion. 73 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ‘no’
“How many tanks, planes and submarines are too many? How many are not enough?” are relevant questions.
I have no idea if these no votes were because they thought it wasn’t enough, or too many.