There was a hope under Bush, due to his ineptitude and cronyism that it would help usher in a more progressive era. It didn’t happen I don’t think. 2006 and 2008 were good years for democrats, and millennials seem to have developed a lifelong aversion for the GOP (millennials have been supporting the dems by 20-35 point margins for the last decade) but it hasn’t really changed politics much. The GOP controls most state houses as well as the executive and legislative on the federal level.
So lets assume Trump is a more corrupt, incompetent, dangerous, deranged version of Bush. That may lead to democratic landslides in maybe 2018 and 2020, but after that will elections be balanced again or will it lead to long term realignments?
I guess I’m not hopeful of long term realignments, or people permanently refusing to vote GOP. Personally, I don’t think I can ever vote GOP again after seeing them support Trump, but I’m in the most liberal 20% of the electorate so I’m not representative.
However, millennials as I said do seem to have a long term realignment. And minorities are growing as a % of the electorate. But the fact that whites w/o a college diploma (who make up half of white voters, which is 35% of the electorate in 2016) are moving further and further to the right, negating the benefits from millennials and non-whites.
The problem with that is what we saw under Obama and Bush, if people show up to vote for or against one particular person only you can’t really count on them for any other elections.
Tape delay anything by the administration, only broadcasting after scrolling fact checking is added. Give the administration a chance to respond and correct before broadcasting…but, the American public, and the world, deserves the full and unblemished truth in all statements from the White House and both sides of congress. Don’t they?
I’m hoping that as Millennials grow up and become more active the Overton window starts to shift back to the left, to the point where there’ll still be a GOP, but it’ll move back to the centrist GOP that existed in previous decades.
My child has become a Alex Keaton like character because of the Internet. (FYI - Alex Keaton was the conservative child who clashed with his hippie parents in a sitcom called Family Ties.) I’ve heard stories of children being far conservative than their parents because of Internet posts and videos. That plus a heavy dose of Fox News when he visits the grandparents.
I think that’s exactly the point. I remember my HS history teacher saying that, in general, when you tear into a president over something, it’s usually something that’s been in the works since the previous administration. So when you rip him a new one over starting a war or a declining economy or whatever, instead of being shortsighted and just looking at what happened in the last 2 weeks, look back at the last few years. I think Pearl is saying the same think. People will see Intel and their 3000 jobs and be thrilled that Trump did that, even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. You could show people land deals, building contracts and employment negotiations from 8 months ago, but people would only see 3000+ jobs (and a booming economy in that area) when the plant opens.
Intel could have scrapped it also. Or built the plant in Mexico. The fact it wasn’t built during the Obama years speaks volumes. It was something they wanted to do but were probably reluctant to do in an anti-business or indifferent environment.
I don’t think we’re in the same political environment you remember and recognize, where this means anything. The kind of voters we are talking about, why do they care about 3000 jobs for someone else? So maybe there’s 3000 votes out of the 3 million deficit nationally? I bet 500 voted for donnie anyway. If 2000 voted for democrats then they really couldn’t give a fuck.
Donnies fans seem to feel entitled to something. I can’t say what it is just yet, but more of the endless echolaliac pimping for him on fox, and trumpsplaining jobs numbers, might not have the same effect it seems to have in the past.
Who the 3000 people that get those jobs vote for is irrelevant. It’s when the unemployment numbers come out and everyone looks at those and makes decisions based on those numbers. What I was saying is that you can argue all day about (in this case) which president had more to do with Intel creating 3000 US jobs, but people, specifically Republicans will see that as theirs.
Also, just to be clear, Intel actually announced this plan in 2011, with Obama.
Curious, if they stall for another 5 years and it opens after Trump is gone and, for the sake of argument, a democrat is president, will that still ‘speak volumes’ or will there be some reason that it won’t?
What about if it just takes them 5 years to get it up and running? Does the next president still get to claim the win?
I absolutely agree this was in the works long before Trump was elected, but investing 7 billion is a big decision. There must be a genuine need for this plant.
And, yes, if they stall for another 5 years, it will speak volumes about Trump. The thing is that no one has left after meeting Trump screaming in panic that we’re all going to die. In fact, it’s been the opposite. Even the Silicon Valley people have had good things to say about him.
My point is that employment figures are from another political era. It may not work that way now. Republicans can see it as theirs if they want, but their party just got hijacked by a conman. trump voters are not like reagan or bush voters.
