I figured someone might respond thusly. I am not saying the Dems should respond to Trump the way Dukakis responded to Bush, but rather the way Bentsen responded to Quayle. Who do you think would have won a contest between the latter two?
This may sound squishy, but one takeaway from the election is that voters are looking for candidates that are just nicer–Beto, for example. From that perspective, Democrats make a mistake when they turn snarly.
I don’t see why so few people have noticed that the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all swung strongly to the Democrats. I hesitate to make predictions for what will happen in two years, but I can definitely say that this was definitely a great election for the Dems.
It may be a mistake for the Dems to after the elusive big prizes of Texas or Florida, and go back to their areas of historic strength in the Midwest. As this election showed, it’s still there.
No points for sang-froid in the face of relentless badgering? I don’t watch Fox News, ever, so maybe this is just the standard template when Democrats are interviewed? And yes, good response on your part.
That could work.
Texas is doubtful, without say- Beto. But Florida is very doable.
What Republicans have taken a position to eliminate Social Security and Medicare?
Not eliminate- **cut and reduce. **
The current Speaker of the House, & the Senate majority leader. Do you need anyone else?
-
The poster did not say cut or reduce. He or she said “take away.”
-
The Washington Post—the freaking Washington Post rates that claim with four Pinocchios:
This same false claim was raised against Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. The proposal is not to “cut” anything. It is to get these out of control programs under control by reducing the rate of increase in subsequent years.
To call that a “cut” shows how out of control the spending is. If I make $50k this year and expect to make $60k next year, but due to budget constraints the company only gives me $55k next year, then that would certainly be disappointing to me. However, to say that I got a pay cut would be incorrect and disingenuous. To say that the company was “tak[ing] away” all of my pay would be very factually incorrect.
Why can’t we just have a good old fashion debate and slugfest on real facts instead of scaring the elderly?
They didnt say they only wanted to "reduce the rate of increase in subsequent years.".
Both GOP leaders have gone on record in calling Soc Sec and medicare a 'entitlement" and saying they want to make unspecified cuts in those benefits to pay for the tax cuts for the very rich. The tax cuts they said would be easily paid for by increased taxes, so there’d be no problem paying for them. Yes, they want to “take away” some medicare & Soc Sec benefits. No, they didnt say get rid of them entirely but they made it clear they would like to do some “cuts”. "*…but Republican leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Florida Senator Marco Rubio have long indicated their desire to cut entitlement programs to pay for their tax cuts.
"You have got to generate economic growth because growth generates revenue,” Rubio said at a Politico conference late last year. “But you also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn’t the driver of our debt. The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries.”
“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Speaker Ryan said on a conservative radio program around the same time."*
**
The elderly have every right to be scared.**
OK, maybe the 'cut" will only be the tiny CoL increase they get. Which is a few years cuts very deeply indeed.
Are you a centrist? Whatever that even means!
I would point out that in 2016 the Democrats ran a ticket with two pro-TransPacificPartnership candidates pretending not to be pro-TPP, and the VP was a moderate on abortion. It didn’t help much.
The Democrats are a huge number of politicians and have a reputation as a party. It’s not a matter of bringing in a centrist to change things. Voters who like what liberals stand for want a liberal they can trust to be a liberal; voters who don’t like it probably won’t vote for the Democrats. How does a centrist succeed in that context?
To a degree, I think it is. First of all, I’d suggest a degree of decorum. Just as here on the SDMB, we do not attack the person, we attack the arguments.
“Ladies and gentlemen, four years ago, my opponent said that he would build a border wall, and have Mexico pay for it. Now, that border wall is not being built–well, it kind of, sort of is, in certain areas–but you, the American taxpayer, are paying for it. Do you like being made to pay for it, when you were told Mexico would?”
“My opponent said he would reform Obamacare from Day 1. So far, he has done nothing. How is your health insurance holding up? Is it time to look at alternatives, especially since the current administration has done nothing? What kind of alternatives would you like? I’m listening.”
“My opponent has alienated our traditional allies–the UK, Canada, western Europe, Australia, and the rest of the Anglosphere–countries whose cooperation we have always depended on–in favor of dictators in Russia, China, and North Korea. My opponent has insulted our allies. He has instituted trade wars against them. Perhaps he is not acting in the best interests of the United States or of individual Americans. Perhaps he is only acting in the best interests of himself and his friends.”
The Democratic candidate who raises such questions, and gets individual Americans thinking, will be on the ballot in 2020. With that information, and the Republicans’ information, Americans can go to the ballot box in 2020, and vote as an informed electorate.
What they need first is a charismatic person with a short-term record, but sucessfull that limits many grey areas for the Republicans to pick apart.
What they have are old white people. Sanders or Biden are the best bets for now, the trouble is both would be 78 years old if sworn in. At that age, there is no guarantee they will even live out their term. I think Warren disgraced herself with this native American blood claim, and can’t take a political punch. Berto, or Robert Francis if you go by his real name could not beat out sleazy Ted Cruz despite greatly outspending him. He’s a media pipe dream.
The man who most intrigues me is Mitch Landrieu. A southern man in his prime who has a lot of charisma and an upbeat can-do type of attitude. Of course such as candidate needs early funding as the party establishment won’t embrace him early.
Trump will not be easy to beat. If he gets his border security and wall done, he can pretty much say whatever he wants. He’s got the economy going, he negotiated better trade as he said he would, and my hunch is many in the Midwest are enjoying his tax cuts and growing economy.
Can anyone point to a YouTube of Booker so I can “feel” the excitement also? BTW, I’ve no idea who Urkel is, or what the comment means, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong! 
As a matter of political expediency, if/when the MAGA-Pence-Kasich(*) folk destroy SocSec, present retirees and soon-to-be retirees will be “grandfathered” in. SocSec will be restructured for those in their 30’s and 40’s who’ve already been brainwashed into thinking they’re not getting it anyway.
(* - I took care to include Kasich because of a tendency to view this extremist as a “moderate.” Kasich is a hard right-winger. But right-wingers are no longer called “right-wingers.” That term is reserved for the Batshit Brigade.)
I just didn’t like her politically. I thought she was the worst choice because I believe she would have supported gun control as president, would have pushed progressive causes, and in general simply been terrible from a conservative point of view.
But I’m eager for Nikki Haley to run. You might say, “I’m ready for Nikki”.
And for all the panicky proclamations of nuclear war by an impetuous Trump, or the great damage that’s been done to the country that will take decades to recover from, and the random, ultimately inconsequential complaints that supposedly cause this damage, Democrats are going to be feelin’ just fine come next Democrat president. All the fear and worry and panic will all be a memory.
The country will be just fine. We weathered civil war, world war, and major economic depressions. We can handle a president like Trump. In fact, some might argue we already have in Truman.
So if you voted for Trump, don’t buy the panicky line. Most of the hang-wringing isn’t sincere; they just don’t like his anti-progressivism. They don’t like that he’s not pushing Democrat issues. Most of all, they don’t like that he beat Hillary. They don’t really think he’ll launch a nuke on a whim, or that any lasting damage is really being done to the country in some way. Unless you count judicial appointments, but in that case damage is in the eye of the beholder.
Another conservative psychic! Man, with the power to read minds, you must be rolling in the dough! Congrats. I’d say that I’m a liberal, and in fact what you’re describing mostly doesn’t apply to me, but you’re the psychic so you obviously know best.
EDIT: The adjective form is “Democratic”, by the way. Just for future reference. Unless you’re just trying to antagonize your political opponents, in which case carry on.
No, but I’m pretty sure you are with the grammar Nazi business here.
Hey, no big deal. Just a friendly suggestion. You are free to disregard, but I hope you’re the friendly type and you’ll take a well meaning suggestion.