Bush’s presidency was widely regarded to be so disastrous that it might usher in a new age of liberalism. The new democratic wave turned out to be short-lived and now the country is more republican now than at any time in the last 140 years. The party focused on winning the presidency and in doing so tried to use the country’s changing demography to its advantage. But it failed to create a movement that enjoys broad support. Trump could fail miserably and yet if they don’t address the problems they’ve had as a party since 2008, the damage will be largely confined to the effort to control the White House. Most states will be under republican control. Both chambers of congress could be under GOP control, or at worst, within reach of control within a 2 year election cycle.
Yes, it wouldn’t be fair to analyze the Democratic coalition without pointing out that on the social front, they are standing up for minorities. But again, this has come at the expense of their economic priorities. Which is fine as far as it goes, since BLM was making the point all year that while African-American appreciate the problem of economic inequality, being treated as equal citizens comes first. And Democrats have in fact made that the first priority for all disadvantaged groups. But that comes with an opportunity cost, since more time focused on issues like that means less time for their economic agenda.
I think that’s a political problem, but from a policy perspective it makes perfect sense. It sucks to be near poor, but in a world of limited resources you can’t take care of everyone who is merely uncomfortable. You have to prioritize the truly impoverished first.
The establishment has to deliver. People are willing to overlook the sausuage making if good policies result. Democrats aren’t wrong about that much of it. But getting to good policy using bad means is difficult and neither Democrats nor the establishment Republicans have been getting it done. The other problem, as Vox points out, is that the Democratic Party primarily caters to its donor base, which prioritizes social and environmental issues and doesn’t want its taxes to go up:
Read it again, “pumped up” refers to unfounded fears. Many relatives and co-workers (some of them black) pointed at what Trump was saying as one important reason for the fears. I voted early because I already was for years in the early vote list, and I did point at the fears to be mostly exaggerated. It could had been an issue only in states that Trump had pointed out as places for his goons to be more active like in Pennsylvania. But, what I do think it took place is that by then most of the media harped on this and the fear expanded to many across America, and to a good number of Democratic voters.
It has to be added also that in Arizona a more prosaic fear was also at work: the primaries were grossly mismanaged by the current Republican administration, so on that on election day many people that were of less means could not risk their employment, the fear then was more basic: getting stuck for hours in line like in the primaries and end up giving up like many did and deciding to go back to work instead.
Sounds very much like the armed black New Panthers who were going to threaten at polling places to stop white voters which alarmed timid right-wing sites back in 2008.
Turned out to be just two guys.
Nice to know Dems are the same gullible 'fraidycats as Republicans.
Hostile poll watchers were encouraged by Trump. Of course, it was just another of his vote-getting threats–& his “vigilantes” stayed home. The Republicans feared “voter fraud”–which Trump still blames for his loss in the Popular Vote. (Donald, you’ve won the Presidency with Electoral College votes. But never forget that millions more of us preferred somebody else. We won’t. ) This article was one of many to pop up.
White violence against non-whites has more historical precedent than those fearsome Black Panthers. Still, enough Arizonans turned out to dump the loathsome Arpaio.
Interesting coincidence: Tarrant County (Fort Worth) is the only Texas urban county to go to Trump.
This is very interesting. You cannot cite a single news story of legitimate violence against voters of color. All you can cite is a liberal website that speculates there could be violence. It sounds more like liberal paranoia. Or are you saying that the Black men you know are so effeminate that they would cower down if they thought there might be intimidation? All the Black men I know would take it as a challenge and go vote. I play a lot of pickup basketball and am usually the only white person on the court. My friends never expressed anything like what you are claiming.
Still not understanding what I said so you reach for the strawman in an attempt to divide others. What I really said is that most indeed raised to the challenge and did vote. Do you understand what voting early Means? Do you understand that I was telling you that the fear some had was unfounded and therefore there was no need indeed for a “news story of legitimate violence”? Or do we have to assume that you do not know what “Pump up” and “unfounded” means?
Another thing that you showed also was even ignorance of what I have said before, the point about the media raising fear was not to point out that they were doing good there, but that the effort from Trump to seed uncertainty and fear was maximized by reports that show how a lot of the media focused to make the election a horse race, and that is not talking nice about the media BTW. Still, most minorities did vote but just enough got worried (and it was not just democratic minorities) enough by the news, add just basic delays and vote suppression dick moves by Republicans in battle ground states, add then a bit of complacency because news also reported a likely Clinton win and then just enough Democrats don’t show up in a few states to allow El Trompo to win the electoral college.
That electoral integrity report looked credible until they came out with that laugher. Gerrymandering has been the norm in the US since the founding, and an elected legislature can limit a governors’ powers all it wants, being elected and all, assuming the governor’s powers are not defined in the state constitution but subject to legislative discretion.
I’ve never understood why “electoral integrity” organizations seem to love executive power so much. There have been so many places where executives have overstepped their bounds and been removed by another branch of government, yet these liberal groups always act as if that was subverting democracy. I guess they are used to the idea that most of the liberal base in any country only cares about electing executives, and so have internalized the idea that only the executive has true popular legitimacy.
Gerrymandering is much more of an art form and has been used by Republicans to limit the voice of minorities in government as well as to maintain its failing grip on power.
The NC governor debacle may be technically legal but not ethical or moral in any sense. “Our guy won! Yay! Let’s give him more power!.. Our guy lost! Boo! Let’s strip his powers down!”
This was done by a Democratic majority of sufficient number to override Romney’s veto. It was not done in a special session called without notifying the opposition party and it merely required a special election, the governor was free to make an appointment until the special election. Seems quite tame compared to the NC fiasco. Of course, they’re close enough to satisfy the gods of bothsidesdoitism.