Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
They are already a center-left party, and a major reason they didn't win is because practical center-left policies don't get people excited, or jive up the Democratic base. The D's haven't moved left at all, it's just that the R's have shifted so far right in the last 12-16 years.
I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...
It may seem like that because of how acrimonious both sides are since the Clinton years.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.
The republican party chose Donald J Trump, a man who ran on dog-whistle politics, extreme protectionism, and insane far-right populist Ideals. Yes the have fething gone further right wing. Now you can argue (with some validity) that it is a minority pushing the R's that way, but it's the R's who keep voting these people in.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
They are already a center-left party, and a major reason they didn't win is because practical center-left policies don't get people excited, or jive up the Democratic base. The D's haven't moved left at all, it's just that the R's have shifted so far right in the last 12-16 years.
I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...
It may seem like that because of how acrimonious both sides are since the Clinton years.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.
The republican party chose Donald J Trump, a man who ran on dog-whistle politics, extreme protectionism, and insane far-right populist Ideals. Yes the have fething gone further right wing. Now you can argue (with some validity) that it is a minority pushing the R's that way, but it's the R's who keep voting these people in.
Well... if you think Cheeto Jesus is some hardline right-winger... there's nothing I can do to disabuse that notion other than saying I think he's a NorthEast moderate who only looks out for himself. He sure is gak ain't an ideologue.
thekingofkings wrote: I can't agree that one party is better than the other, they both bear a clear and present threat to the republic, the dems are just better at lying about it.
Democrats do seem to tell their audience enough to tell lies that are fairly believable, that's true.
There is a lot of problems with the republican party, but there is a lot of that which is essentially media spin.
The 'media spin' drumbeat is one of the standard Republican lines that has given them an escape on their failings. Don't have an answer for a disfunctional policy or dangerous political strategy, just claim that it isn't that bad and only seems that way because of media spin. It's one of the bits of bs that voters need to reject absolutely.
The democrats have a lot of issues and are going even further left
The Democrats have plenty of issues, but they're the opposite of what you've implied. The Democrats of the last 20 years have been the party of Clintonian triangulation, the practice of taking the strongest parts of left and right wing ideology to form a third way of politics. They've been a party of the centre, certainly on economic issues. This strategy is showing its age, and it's poor fit to the modern state of tribalist, identity politics. So what we've started to see, and what will certainly be accelerated by Hillary Clinton's defeat, is that now Democrats will start moving to the left.
Their sense of entitlement cost them what should have been an easy win anyone they had other than clinton would have beat trump, especially after he chose pence as a running mate. The poison is deep on both sides. That roughly 1/4 of the country supports each side means they both have a seat at the table here.
"Both sides" is the other defense that that needs to be rejected utterly, in order for there to be a meaningful reform of the Republican party.
Look, right now there's only one party that has blocked any discussion of a SC nomination for a year, and threatened to continue that blockade if the other side of politics won. Only one side of politics used faux concern about the deficit to threaten hitting the debt ceiling, all in order to extort concessions from the other side of politics. A position they've now almost completely forgotten as they get ready to pass a massive, unfunded tax cut. Only one side of politics invented a pretend scandal over information security that ended with insisting the other side's presidential candidate be locked up over the matter, only to forget that within days of the election as they look to appoint as Sec of State a guy who was actually convicted of allowing access to his mistress.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
They are already a center-left party, and a major reason they didn't win is because practical center-left policies don't get people excited, or jive up the Democratic base. The D's haven't moved left at all, it's just that the R's have shifted so far right in the last 12-16 years.
I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...
It may seem like that because of how acrimonious both sides are since the Clinton years.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.
The republican party chose Donald J Trump, a man who ran on dog-whistle politics, extreme protectionism, and insane far-right populist Ideals. Yes the have fething gone further right wing. Now you can argue (with some validity) that it is a minority pushing the R's that way, but it's the R's who keep voting these people in.
Well... if you think Cheeto Jesus is some hardline right-winger... there's nothing I can do to disabuse that notion other than saying I think he's a NorthEast moderate who only looks out for himself. He sure is gak ain't an ideologue.
You've obviously never been to the north-east if you think he's a moderate, but it's not his personal views, but the things he used to get elected. Right wing populism, protectionism (usually associated with reactionary movements), dog-whistle politics and anti-intellectualism.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
They went from the word God appearing in their official platform twice to appearing 24 times within 2 decades.
They went from advocating reasonable gun control to "stop trying to take away our guns" just from 1980 to 1996.
The party has shifted from being a Federalists party that supported Federal-State partnership programs to a "government sucks always" party that wants the Federal government to basically sit there and do nothing, on the grounds that social justice and righting social inequalities are ineffective and wastes of time, taxing the rich hurts poor people and is unfair, and equate anything less than completely hands off to Communism. They constantly preach tradition and "natural law" as a basis for their positions, and with the election of Donald Trump the party has shifted into full blown populism.
It's the most classical definition of "gone more right" that there is. Hell about the only thing the current Republican party has traded with the original Right (as in the French Revolution) is that they glorify the rich instead of the nobility, but then what are the rich today but the new nobility?
The Republicans have gone far right.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons.
A Republican just won an election by making white voters an ethnic voting bloc while the Democrats swept the multi-cultural palette. I don't think the Democrats are the ones making ethnic identity the demarcation line of American politics anymore. That kind of ended with the FDR administration.
whembly wrote: I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...
You are simply wrong. Multiple political studies reviewing positions and voting patterns have tracked this and every single one has shown a marked shift right of the Republican party.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.
Nah, this one is more about message control. You need the right message hitting the right audience. Republicans sell their 'big business is our god' to the Wall St and corporate insiders, and then they go out and sell some protectionist nonsense to the white working class. Similarly, Democrats need to keep hitting ethnic minorities with messages about equality and access, while selling a bunch of other message to their other voting blocs.
Where Democrats went wrong this time was in going for a focused target on female voters. It's easy to see how they made that mistake, Trump is likely a molester of women, who at the very least was on record bragging about doing it. But it turns out political identity is stronger than gender identity, and that barely moved the needle. But it did allow Democrats to lose focus on other areas, and instead made them look like all they had was a variety of special interest appeals.
Add in the decision launched at the convention to target Republican voters by focusing on a centrist appeal, rather than pushing for the left of their own party... in order to win the maybe 10 voters in the country who vote Republican for their foreign policy positions alone... and that's basically the two big Clinton mistakes.
But note those a mistakes of strategy, not party position. They don't even have to be 'fixed' in 2018, because you make new strategy decisions with each election, regardless of whether the old decisions worked or not.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
thekingofkings wrote: I can't agree that one party is better than the other, they both bear a clear and present threat to the republic, the dems are just better at lying about it.
Democrats do seem to tell their audience enough to tell lies that are fairly believable, that's true.
There is a lot of problems with the republican party, but there is a lot of that which is essentially media spin.
The 'media spin' drumbeat is one of the standard Republican lines that has given them an escape on their failings. Don't have an answer for a disfunctional policy or dangerous political strategy, just claim that it isn't that bad and only seems that way because of media spin. It's one of the bits of bs that voters need to reject absolutely.
No, when the man says he is against illegal immigration and says that Mexico is not sending their best, that is certainly overblown rhetoric, insensitive yes, but it is not "racist and bigoted" that is the bs that needs to stop, the man has enough issues that inventing them is not necessary and just adds fuel to the fire.
The democrats have a lot of issues and are going even further left
The Democrats have plenty of issues, but they're the opposite of what you've implied. The Democrats of the last 20 years have been the party of Clintonian triangulation, the practice of taking the strongest parts of left and right wing ideology to form a third way of politics. They've been a party of the centre, certainly on economic issues. This strategy is showing its age, and it's poor fit to the modern state of tribalist, identity politics. So what we've started to see, and what will certainly be accelerated by Hillary Clinton's defeat, is that now Democrats will start moving to the left.
Socialist ideology is left of where the Democrats need to be, more Jim Webb, less Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Their sense of entitlement cost them what should have been an easy win anyone they had other than clinton would have beat trump, especially after he chose pence as a running mate. The poison is deep on both sides. That roughly 1/4 of the country supports each side means they both have a seat at the table here.
"Both sides" is the other defense that that needs to be rejected utterly, in order for there to be a meaningful reform of the Republican party.
Cannot disagree more, it takes two to tango here and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were just as culpable as Mitch "the b**ch" McConnel and John Beohner.
Look, right now there's only one party that has blocked any discussion of a SC nomination for a year, and threatened to continue that blockade if the other side of politics won. Only one side of politics used faux concern about the deficit to threaten hitting the debt ceiling, all in order to extort concessions from the other side of politics. A position they've now almost completely forgotten as they get ready to pass a massive, unfunded tax cut. Only one side of politics invented a pretend scandal over information security that ended with insisting the other side's presidential candidate be locked up over the matter, only to forget that within days of the election as they look to appoint as Sec of State a guy who was actually convicted of allowing access to his mistress.
That is true, but that is because they are only the most recent to do it,. The Democrats are not innocent of any of this and do not forget they forced through the ACA with no support at all from the GOP. They are just as guilty of ramming through and obstructing. As for pretend scandal, I point out that Bradley Manning is in prison for similar issues and that Edward Snowden is in exile for similar issues. Classified material was misused and mishandled, you and I would both be facing 20-life for what she did. General Patreaus was definately in the wrong, he should have been punished much harsher. He was lucky he was the "hero" of Iraq that let him off so lightly, if nominated, he should not be confirmed by the senate. That I will not even attempt to rebut. Personally if I were Trump, I would keep John Kerry.
While I believe you have some valid points, it is still choosing to hold one side accountable while letting the other off the hook.
whembly wrote: Well... if you think Cheeto Jesus is some hardline right-winger... there's nothing I can do to disabuse that notion other than saying I think he's a NorthEast moderate who only looks out for himself. He sure is gak ain't an ideologue.
There needs to be a distinction between who Trump is, and what he ran his campaign on. You are right that Trump is no kind of ideologue. Co'tor Shas is right that Trump ran a campaign that expressly appealed to racist sensibilities.
The point being, of course, that Trump was basically saying whatever would get him a vote. He saw votes among the racists, just like he saw votes among people worried about globalism, and people who wanted to hear medicare would be left alone, and so he told them all what they wanted to hear.
And incredibly, most of them believed it.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
@samwhiteout
Can't wait for all the politicians who refuse to adjust gun laws to send their "thoughts & prayers" to Ohio State.https://twitter.com/i/moments/803264415344623617 …
One problem... that attack was done by a car and a butcher knife.
The party has shifted from being a Federalists party that supported Federal-State partnership programs to a "government sucks always" party that wants the Federal government to basically sit there and do nothing, on the grounds that social justice and righting social inequalities are ineffective and wastes of time, taxing the rich hurts poor people and is unfair, and equate anything less than completely hands off to Communism. They constantly preach tradition and "natural law" as a basis for their positions, and with the election of Donald Trump the party has shifted into full blown populism.
I'll agree that this party has shifted to populism... which isn't healthy because of the chaos it offers... The DNC and the RNC fethed up big time. Both parties didn't appreciated the underlining anger the these voters had with the status-quo and Cheeto Jesus capitalized on it when the only other person who recognized it was Sanders.
It's the most classical definition of "gone more right" that there is. Hell about the only thing the current Republican party has traded with the original Right (as in the French Revolution) is that they glorify the rich instead of the nobility, but then what are the rich today but the new nobility?
The Republicans have gone far right.
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day. The next election? It won't work, and I think the GOP party and Cheeto Jesus will be judged harshly.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons.
A Republican just won an election by making white voters an ethnic voting bloc while the Democrats swept the multi-cultural palette. I don't think the Democrats are the ones making ethnic identity the demarcation line of American politics anymore. That kind of ended with the FDR administration.
Actually, its the fact that the Democratic party lived & breathed identity politics... the white voting blocs fealt left out and voted as like an ethic voting bloc. The Democrats need to recognize this and wake.the.feth.up and recalibrate.
@samwhiteout
Can't wait for all the politicians who refuse to adjust gun laws to send their "thoughts & prayers" to Ohio State.https://twitter.com/i/moments/803264415344623617 …
One problem... that attack was done by a car and a butcher knife.
The party has shifted from being a Federalists party that supported Federal-State partnership programs to a "government sucks always" party that wants the Federal government to basically sit there and do nothing, on the grounds that social justice and righting social inequalities are ineffective and wastes of time, taxing the rich hurts poor people and is unfair, and equate anything less than completely hands off to Communism. They constantly preach tradition and "natural law" as a basis for their positions, and with the election of Donald Trump the party has shifted into full blown populism.
I'll agree that this party has shifted to populism... which isn't healthy because of the chaos it offers... The DNC and the RNC fethed up big time. Both parties didn't appreciated the underlining anger the these voters had with the status-quo and Cheeto Jesus capitalized on it when the only other person who recognized it was Sanders.
It's the most classical definition of "gone more right" that there is. Hell about the only thing the current Republican party has traded with the original Right (as in the French Revolution) is that they glorify the rich instead of the nobility, but then what are the rich today but the new nobility?
The Republicans have gone far right.
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day. The next election? It won't work, and I think the GOP party and Cheeto Jesus will be judged harshly.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons.
A Republican just won an election by making white voters an ethnic voting bloc while the Democrats swept the multi-cultural palette. I don't think the Democrats are the ones making ethnic identity the demarcation line of American politics anymore. That kind of ended with the FDR administration.
Actually, its the fact that the Democratic party lived & breathed identity politics... the white voting blocs fealt left out and voted as like an ethic voting bloc. The Democrats need to recognize this and wake.the.feth.up and recalibrate.
With white Americans making up by far the largest single group, no one will win the presidency without their support, that does not make it racist in any way, shape, or form. You still need the majority to win. Had Clinton won, it would be those same white people the left is now decrying as racist bigots who would have made her president, just like they did to President (then Senator Obama) twice. The vast overwhelming majority of those people have legitimate fears for their future and writing them off as racist "deplorables" drove them into the arms of a terrible candidate.
thekingofkings wrote: That is true, but that is because they are only the most recent to do it,. The Democrats are not innocent of any of this and do not forget they forced through the ACA with no support at all from the GOP.
I still don't know exactly what the Democrats were supposed to do get this mythical Republican support for healthcare reform. In the wake of the 2008 Republican disaster at the polls, they decided that their path back to relevance was in sinking Obama and the Democrats on healthcare. This isn't a claim I've made, we have public statements from Republicans at that time.
When the original townhouses were held to receive feedback from people, before Democrats had even decided on what their healthcare reform would be, Republicans organised for people to attend and be as disruptive as possible. As the legislation started to form, with Republicans refusing to be part of the drafting process, they started spreading a long series of incredible nonsense, such as that crazy death panel stuff.
They then looked to block the bill in committee, and when Senator Snowe voted to release it to be voted on by the full senate, Republicans declared open war on one of their own.
I'm not really sure exactly what Democrats were supposed to do to get Republicans on board with this.
General Patreaus was definately in the wrong, he should have been punished much harsher. He was lucky he was the "hero" of Iraq that let him off so lightly, if nominated, he should not be confirmed by the senate.
What will be your opinion of any Republican who claimed Clinton should go to jail, but votes to approve Petraeus' appointment?
While I believe you have some valid points, it is still choosing to hold one side accountable while letting the other off the hook.
If there are two dogs, and one is a puppy nipping at my heels, and the other is a full grown rottweiler goring my neck, I'm gonna focus on the rottweiler. This isn't letting the puppy off the hook, this is focusing on the immediate, real danger.
Make no mistake, there's every chance of the puppy growing up fast, and turning just as bad. There were warning signs in some of the nonsense buried in Sanders' claims, and out on the fringes of the Democrats there are some truly crazy leftwingers who could be in power very soon, if Democrats play their opposition to Trump in the wrong way.
But right now, we should focus on the rottweiler.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Why is this a problem? Obviously those of religious persuasion would want someone to represent their views.... right?
There is a big difference between having a religious view that informs your politics, and having a religious tribal identity that you demand your political party must consent to.
And weirdly enough, it isn't even about being a christian anymore. Clinton was a lifelong methodist. Trump pretty obviously holds no real interest in religion, and has led a very non-religious life. The Republican Christian identity is strong, and the evangelicals got out to vote for the guy who promised them their sympathetic SC justice.
I'll agree that this party has shifted to populism... which isn't healthy because of the chaos it offers... The DNC and the RNC fethed up big time. Both parties didn't appreciated the underlining anger the these voters had with the status-quo and Cheeto Jesus capitalized on it when the only other person who recognized it was Sanders.
The right wing stoked the fires of that anger. You listen to FOX News or to any talkback station, and you angst and panic and disaster. Meanwhile crime continues the long term downward trend, and unemployment is down except in specific areas built around old industries.
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day. The next election? It won't work, and I think the GOP party and Cheeto Jesus will be judged harshly.
Possibly. I think if you're willing to turn out for Trump once, why not a second time? That 60 million Republican voters can just about be taken to the bank at this point. The question will be on the white working class voters across the rust belt - well they be patient with Trump when he hasn't given them any new manufacturing jobs? And the bigger question will be on if the larger Democratic base turns out?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/29 05:06:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I disagree that the GOP as shifted righter...
You are simply wrong. Multiple political studies reviewing positions and voting patterns have tracked this and every single one has shown a marked shift right of the Republican party.
Here's the problem... there's this thought that the parties ought to either be mirror images (contrarians) or there are school of thoughts that at the federal level, the differences between the parties are meaningless.
Keep in mind, this nation as a whole, is center-right compared to most other Western nations. My favorite metric when trying to ascertain some sort of scale is using the DW-nomiate. (it does have issues, but at least it's consistent).
Spoiler:
Where's that massive shift?
Spoiler:
Seems mirror-image like... no? Yeah, you do see the red line tailing off a bit to the right, but that seem gradual, and I'm sure in 2018/2020 the democrats will be back to force the GOP back towards the center.
Spoiler:
I posted this one before... when looking at this graph from an American perspective, that "center zero line" is really at 0.2 if you account for the US being center-right. Also, the president Reagan and both Bushes were remarkable similar. Gotta think Cheeto Jesus would rank way below them.
I don't get the sense that the GOP is being pull that far to the right.... only that the extremes in both parties, at some years will be successful with their tug. These sort of thing seem to wax and wane, but never a permanent fixture.
What we *do* see, is that the party polarization seems more severe:
Spoiler:
You see that massive jump in 2010 when GOP spanked the Democrats at midterm election. THAT is a reaction to Obama/Democrat policies from '08-'10.
The Democrats simply need to stop making identity politics their main weapons and go back to the basics. They have a perfect opportunity to rebrand their planks, and make a dent in 2-to-4 years.
Nah, this one is more about message control. You need the right message hitting the right audience. Republicans sell their 'big business is our god' to the Wall St and corporate insiders, and then they go out and sell some protectionist nonsense to the white working class. Similarly, Democrats need to keep hitting ethnic minorities with messages about equality and access, while selling a bunch of other message to their other voting blocs.
Where Democrats went wrong this time was in going for a focused target on female voters. It's easy to see how they made that mistake, Trump is likely a molester of women, who at the very least was on record bragging about doing it. But it turns out political identity is stronger than gender identity, and that barely moved the needle. But it did allow Democrats to lose focus on other areas, and instead made them look like all they had was a variety of special interest appeals.
Add in the decision launched at the convention to target Republican voters by focusing on a centrist appeal, rather than pushing for the left of their own party... in order to win the maybe 10 voters in the country who vote Republican for their foreign policy positions alone... and that's basically the two big Clinton mistakes.
But note those a mistakes of strategy, not party position. They don't even have to be 'fixed' in 2018, because you make new strategy decisions with each election, regardless of whether the old decisions worked or not.
Oh no seb... both STRATEGY and PARTY POSITIONS need serious calibration. The GOP gained serious grounds where the GOP local/house/senate candidates did better at the polls than Trump. They broke the Blue Wall in the rust belt. That ought to terrify Democrats.
They cannot run the operation the same way they did for Obama. Obama is unique in that he's a rockstar campaigning and public appearance. Frankly, there's no such thing as conventional wisdom anymore, as highlighted by the fact that Cheeto Fething Jesus will be our 45th President. Some hard work is in store for both parties, especially for democrats. Who knows what 2 or 4 years would look like. I can't predict... cuz, seem like everytime I pick the reasonable outcome, it turns out to be wrong.
thekingofkings wrote: That is true, but that is because they are only the most recent to do it,. The Democrats are not innocent of any of this and do not forget they forced through the ACA with no support at all from the GOP.
I still don't know exactly what the Democrats were supposed to do get this mythical Republican support for healthcare reform. In the wake of the 2008 Republican disaster at the polls, they decided that their path back to relevance was in sinking Obama and the Democrats on healthcare. This isn't a claim I've made, we have public statements from Republicans at that time.
When the original townhouses were held to receive feedback from people, before Democrats had even decided on what their healthcare reform would be, Republicans organised for people to attend and be as disruptive as possible. As the legislation started to form, with Republicans refusing to be part of the drafting process, they started spreading a long series of incredible nonsense, such as that crazy death panel stuff.
They then looked to block the bill in committee, and when Senator Snowe voted to release it to be voted on by the full senate, Republicans declared open war on one of their own.
I'm not really sure exactly what Democrats were supposed to do to get Republicans on board with this.
They used some dirty tricks to be sure, but all the things that came out after the fact about the ACA, while not completely validating their points definitely made them less like the boy who cried wolf. I think that with the goal being single payer system, there was little chance of ever getting GOP support, but that does not make their opposition "immoral". there is a legitimate difference there. That they never read it makes it damning on both sides. I do not believe that President Obama "lied" to the people about it, the ACA directly negatively impacted a lot of people and a great many of its premises proved to be either untrue or untenable. There was no real attempt by either side for bipartisan support and with the Democrats controlling govt the way the Republicans do now, there was no attempt on their side to even bother, I am certain they will be crying foul now just as the Republicans did.
General Patreaus was definately in the wrong, he should have been punished much harsher. He was lucky he was the "hero" of Iraq that let him off so lightly, if nominated, he should not be confirmed by the senate.
What will be your opinion of any Republican who claimed Clinton should go to jail, but votes to approve Petraeus' appointment?
I will consider them hypocrites of the worst kind. I will not be in any position to say much about it though as Colorado is essentially blue. Cory Gardner has given every indication that he will oppose President-elect Trump at every turn and Michael Bennet can be trusted to do the same. While there are more R's than D's on the congressional side, Colorado tends to veer left.
While I believe you have some valid points, it is still choosing to hold one side accountable while letting the other off the hook.
If there are two dogs, and one is a puppy nipping at my heels, and the other is a full grown rottweiler goring my neck, I'm gonna focus on the rottweiler. This isn't letting the puppy off the hook, this is focusing on the immediate, real danger.
Make no mistake, there's every chance of the puppy growing up fast, and turning just as bad. There were warning signs in some of the nonsense buried in Sanders' claims, and out on the fringes of the Democrats there are some truly crazy leftwingers who could be in power very soon, if Democrats play their opposition to Trump in the wrong way.
But right now, we should focus on the rottweiler.
The difference here is that fully 1/4 of the voters (and I am basing that on less than 50% voting and of those that did, nearly half went to Trump, this is not a 100% accurate number, but bear with me here) think that it was two rottweilers. They preferred their dawg. This was Hilary's election to lose and she did it in style. Trump was very beatable, and Hilary should have done so, but using the dawg analogy, her comments (and they were most likely taken completely out of context...think Marie Antoinette) made people think "Trumps a lying *@#$@, but Hilary blatantly hates us" she should and could have chosen her words more carefully, because right or wrong, a lot of the folks I work with who went with Trump assumed she meant 50% of Trump voters regardless. so even if he had a lot of racists (and he did, but to be honest, Hilary had her own racists in support as well) the assumption of folks was that she was directly accusing them.
Why is this a problem? Obviously those of religious persuasion would want someone to represent their views.... right?
I didn't claim it was a problem per se (though I'd argue it is not because religion is bad but because trying to pass theocracy into law is bad).
It is a sign of going more right, given than the he "left" is differentiated by advocating of secularism. Which political party keeps trying to pass laws about life, marriage, and morality based on Judeo-Christian theological beliefs? The mistake you're making is not seeing that;
That was a reaction to those who want to strengthen gun controls. I mean really, what more is there to do other than to enforce the law?
I'm not arguing if its right or wrong, merely that it's a clear shift to the political right. For those who are ready for more History with Hats, the terms Left and Right refer to the seating arrangements of the Revolutionary French parliament . The people who sat on the... whoever runs a parliament in Revolutionary France's right were conservative and supported the nobility and the Church, while those who sat on his left were progressive and supported the emerging merchant class and the poor
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day.
These two statements are contradictory.
Actually, its the fact that the Democratic party lived & breathed identity politics...
Both parties live and breath identity politics. Identity is politics. You think a rancher in rural Utah and a suburbanite in sprawling Atlanta are voting the same because they have so much in common? They have little in common, except one party told them they're both white and pointed at the black girl from Chicago and the tweaky Hipster in the Hills and said "be afraid white people."
the white voting blocs fealt left out and voted as like an ethic voting bloc.
That still fails to explain how the pluralist party needs to stop playing hard core identity politics. Actually it would seem to support the opposite, and while we're on the subject maybe angry left behind voters shouldn't vote for the political party explicitly dedicated over 30 years to not having social safety nets and programs to help displaced workers. and certainly not for the candidate who can't possibly help them but hey he blamed all the right people and coddled them so I guess the kool-aid is pretty good (wasn't this the party of personal responsibility and not babying people at some point?).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 05:22:31
thekingofkings wrote: With white Americans making up by far the largest single group, no one will win the presidency without their support, that does not make it racist in any way, shape, or form. You still need the majority to win.
In 2012 Obama won 39% of the white vote and comfortably won. In 2008 he won 44% and won a big victory.
Clinton won 37% of the white vote, and lost the electoral count by quite a bit. But dropping 2% of the white vote compared to Obama doesn't really explain what happened. Afterall, Clinton's popular vote win is shaping up to be quite large, there's clearly plenty of votes out there even if you lost the white vote by 20 points.
The real story here is the number of white voters who switched to Trump, or previously didn't vote... who did so in swing states. Add in a reduced black turnout (which is disproportionately located in swing states), and that's the story of an EV win right there. From there it doesn't matter that the hispanic voters turned up in larger numbers in Texas and California, because those states aren't competitive.
Had Clinton won, it would be those same white people the left is now decrying as racist bigots who would have made her president, just like they did to President (then Senator Obama) twice. The vast overwhelming majority of those people have legitimate fears for their future and writing them off as racist "deplorables" drove them into the arms of a terrible candidate.
Of course, Clinton said that half were racist deplorables, and half weren't, and she implored them to stop siding with the guy playing up to the racist deplorables. But of course, the right heard what it wanted to hear, and decided it was an attack on all of them.
This doesn't mean Clinton's words were a smart thing, and 'half' was way overstating the size of the racist supporters, but that doesn't mean people should pretend there wasn't massive manipulation of that comment.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Why is this a problem? Obviously those of religious persuasion would want someone to represent their views.... right?
There is a big difference between having a religious view that informs your politics, and having a religious tribal identity that you demand your political party must consent to.
Why is that bad? At least they should be honest about it in plain sunlight. If enough people don't want that sort of thing, the votes won't be there.
And weirdly enough, it isn't even about being a christian anymore. Clinton was a lifelong methodist. Trump pretty obviously holds no real interest in religion, and has led a very non-religious life. The Republican Christian identity is strong, and the evangelicals got out to vote for the guy who promised them their sympathetic SC justice.
For the life of me, I don't understand how the evangelicals voted enmassed for Cheeto Jesus. I wouldn't trust him to nominate a sympathetic SC justice (I certainly hope so!). That answer is that, HRC was such a horrible candidate.
I'll agree that this party has shifted to populism... which isn't healthy because of the chaos it offers... The DNC and the RNC fethed up big time. Both parties didn't appreciated the underlining anger the these voters had with the status-quo and Cheeto Jesus capitalized on it when the only other person who recognized it was Sanders.
The right wing stoked the fires of that anger. You listen to FOX News or to any talkback station, and you angst and panic and disaster. Meanwhile crime continues the long term downward trend, and unemployment is down except in specific areas built around old industries.
I'm going to play this game. Please don't ignore the hysteria pushed by liberal pundits and media outlets. The SJW-isms has gone way overboard that lead to the rise of Operation Wallstreet, BLM, shutting down a pizza parlor over a fething hypothetical, the vultures in the aftermath of Michael Brown, etc...
I'm not sure how we can combat this other than to call out their bs and don't back down.
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day. The next election? It won't work, and I think the GOP party and Cheeto Jesus will be judged harshly.
Possibly. I think if you're willing to turn out for Trump once, why not a second time? That 60 million Republican voters can just about be taken to the bank at this point.
That's convential wisdom speaking... you should ignore that bro.
The question will be on the white working class voters across the rust belt - well they be patient with Trump when he hasn't given them any new manufacturing jobs? And the bigger question will be on if the larger Democratic base turns out?
Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.
thekingofkings wrote: With white Americans making up by far the largest single group, no one will win the presidency without their support, that does not make it racist in any way, shape, or form. You still need the majority to win.
In 2012 Obama won 39% of the white vote and comfortably won. In 2008 he won 44% and won a big victory.
Clinton won 37% of the white vote, and lost the electoral count by quite a bit. But dropping 2% of the white vote compared to Obama doesn't really explain what happened. Afterall, Clinton's popular vote win is shaping up to be quite large, there's clearly plenty of votes out there even if you lost the white vote by 20 points.
The real story here is the number of white voters who switched to Trump, or previously didn't vote... who did so in swing states. Add in a reduced black turnout (which is disproportionately located in swing states), and that's the story of an EV win right there. From there it doesn't matter that the hispanic voters turned up in larger numbers in Texas and California, because those states aren't competitive.
This is in my opinion the fault of her campaign team as well, she did not need to campaign in certain states. She really needed to campaign in others. She should have won North Carolina, but there was no effort on her part until last minute and whoever thought it was a good idea to have Lady Gaga assist in North Carolina after that state was pilloried as "anti-gay" should have had their head examined. The fact is they both campaigned on the EC not the popular vote, her campaign did a terrible job of prepping their candidate for that. But the numbers of whites even if down matter as there are few minorities in the bulk of the states that Trump easily won. I am not so sure that black voters are disproportionate in swing states, California and Illinois, and New York were solidly hers, so them not showing there didn't matter. Surprisingly she got crushed in Allen County Indiana which she should have carried easily. The blacks there went Trump. I think she took their support for granted and paid for it in places they could have been decisive.
Had Clinton won, it would be those same white people the left is now decrying as racist bigots who would have made her president, just like they did to President (then Senator Obama) twice. The vast overwhelming majority of those people have legitimate fears for their future and writing them off as racist "deplorables" drove them into the arms of a terrible candidate.
Of course, Clinton said that half were racist deplorables, and half weren't, and she implored them to stop siding with the guy playing up to the racist deplorables. But of course, the right heard what it wanted to hear, and decided it was an attack on all of them.
This doesn't mean Clinton's words were a smart thing, and 'half' was way overstating the size of the racist supporters, but that doesn't mean people should pretend there wasn't massive manipulation of that comment.
Exactly, there was massive manipulation of both candidates words. Clinton just didn't do enough damage control (again her campaign manager has a lot to answer for here too) I also think the distrust of the media overall worked against Hilary far more than it did Trump. He was able to look like "the victim" which helped him, while she looked like the "arrogant bully" which hurt her. there was media bias on both sides, but the reality tv star overwhelmed the politician in that arena.
Gotta crash soon, should be able to continue tomorrow. thanks!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/29 05:37:23
Why is this a problem? Obviously those of religious persuasion would want someone to represent their views.... right?
I didn't claim it was a problem per se (though I'd argue it is not because religion is bad but because trying to pass theocracy into law is bad).
It is a sign of going more right, given than the he "left" is differentiated by advocating of secularism. Which political party keeps trying to pass laws about life, marriage, and morality based on Judeo-Christian theological beliefs? The mistake you're making is not seeing that;
No... I recognize that. I'm simply stating that I don't really see the right being pulled WAY more to the right, than the left being yanked to Bernie-land.
And arguments that the GOP want to turn this country into a theocracy is laughable. We're way too contrarian to allow that to happen.
That was a reaction to those who want to strengthen gun controls. I mean really, what more is there to do other than to enforce the law?
I'm not arguing if its right or wrong, merely that it's a clear shift to the political right. For those who are ready for more History with Hats, the terms Left and Right refer to the seating arrangements of the Revolutionary French parliament . The people who sat on the... whoever runs a parliament in Revolutionary France's right were conservative and supported the nobility and the Church, while those who sat on his left were progressive and supported the emerging merchant class and the poor
Yeah, I knew the genesis of how the Left/Right is describe in poli sci. My point is to highlight many of these are reactions to what their political opponents are advocating for...
Sure... okay. I've been following politics since the Billy Clinton years. Same gak, different story ya'll... only this time, populism is the flavor of the day.
These two statements are contradictory.
You don't think Obama\Clinton\Dubya didn't tap into the populism? o.O Sure, the this year is dialed up a bit...
Actually, its the fact that the Democratic party lived & breathed identity politics...
Both parties live and breath identity politics. Identity is politics. You think a rancher in rural Utah and a suburbanite in sprawling Atlanta are voting the same because they have so much in common? They have little in common, except one party told them they're both white and pointed at the black girl from Chicago and the tweaky Hipster in the Hills and said "be afraid white people."
Erm... my thought process is that the Democrats took the white working voting bloc for granted... and focused primarily with minority groups & issues. I'm not saying they should drop it, but simply throw their old constituents a bone.
the white voting blocs fealt left out and voted as like an ethic voting bloc.
That still fails to explain how the pluralist party needs to stop playing hard core identity politics. Actually it would seem to support the opposite, and while we're on the subject maybe angry left behind voters shouldn't vote for the political party explicitly dedicated over 30 years to not having social safety nets and programs to help displaced workers. and certainly not for the candidate who can't possibly help them but hey he blamed all the right people and coddled them so I guess the kool-aid is pretty good (wasn't this the party of personal responsibility and not babying people at some point?).
:roll eyes:
Obviously there were a disconnect.
Or maybe, American politics makes it structurally difficult to maintain a 3rd term of the same party. (don't know how to explain Congress... convential wisdom need a reboot).
whembly wrote: Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.
Cory Booker, man. A likable, eloquent, relitivly young (47), generally all around cool guy (while mayor, her ran into a burning building and saved someone, how many politicians can say that).
Seriously, read this section from his wikipedia page.
Spoiler:
Booker gained national attention when, on December 28, 2010, a constituent used Twitter to ask him to send someone to her father's house to shovel his driveway because her elderly father was going to attempt to do it himself. Booker responded by tweeting, "I will do it myself; where does he live?" Other people volunteered, including one person who offered his help on Twitter, and 20 minutes later Booker and some volunteers showed up and shoveled the man's driveway.[57][58] On April 12, 2012, Booker saved a woman from a house fire, suffering smoke inhalation and second-degree burns on his hands in the process. Newark Fire Chief John Centanni said that Booker's actions possibly saved the woman's life.[59] After Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline areas of New Jersey and New York in late October 2012, Booker invited Newarkers without power to eat and sleep in his home.[60] In February 2013, responding to a Twitter post, Booker helped a nervous constituent propose to his girlfriend.[61] Booker rescued a dog from freezing temperatures in January 2013 and another dog that had been abandoned in a cage in July 2013.[62][63]
The man is pretty damn selfless.
He's someone to watch for sure.
Plus Salon hates him, so that has to count for something, right?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.
Cory Booker, man. A likable, eloquent, relitivly young (47), generally all around cool guy (while mayor, her ran into a burning building and saved someone, how many politicians can say that).
Seriously, read this section from his wikipedia page.
Spoiler:
Booker gained national attention when, on December 28, 2010, a constituent used Twitter to ask him to send someone to her father's house to shovel his driveway because her elderly father was going to attempt to do it himself. Booker responded by tweeting, "I will do it myself; where does he live?" Other people volunteered, including one person who offered his help on Twitter, and 20 minutes later Booker and some volunteers showed up and shoveled the man's driveway.[57][58] On April 12, 2012, Booker saved a woman from a house fire, suffering smoke inhalation and second-degree burns on his hands in the process. Newark Fire Chief John Centanni said that Booker's actions possibly saved the woman's life.[59] After Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline areas of New Jersey and New York in late October 2012, Booker invited Newarkers without power to eat and sleep in his home.[60] In February 2013, responding to a Twitter post, Booker helped a nervous constituent propose to his girlfriend.[61] Booker rescued a dog from freezing temperatures in January 2013 and another dog that had been abandoned in a cage in July 2013.[62][63]
The man is pretty damn selfless.
He's someone to watch for sure.
Plus Salon hates him, so that has to count for something, right?
Cory, to me, is one of the good guys. I like him and I'd give him an honest shot to woo me.
Can he be the adult in the room?
EDIT: Salon hating him does count.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/29 06:02:31
whembly wrote: And arguments that the GOP want to turn this country into a theocracy is laughable. We're way too contrarian to allow that to happen.
Again, which party opposes abortion, LGBT, and kids not being forced to pray in school?
My point is to highlight many of these are reactions to what their political opponents are advocating for.
The right is reactionary by definition. So yeah. of course they're reacting. The entire Republican party as it exists now is a reaction to the later half of the 20th century in America.
You don't think Obama\Clinton\Dubya didn't tap into the populism? o.O Sure, the this year is dialed up a bit..
I'm saying that the first statement can't be true while the second claims "populism is the flavor of the month." Clinton and Obama actually proposed rational public policy and talked about it. Disagree with it all you want, but it wasn't on par with Trump shouting "make America great again" with the words "make" "America" "great" and "again" all undefined.
Erm... my thought process is that the Democrats took the white working voting bloc for granted... and focused primarily with minority groups & issues.
They took the group for granted because they assumed people in desperate need for social safety nets, reemployment assistance, and education initiatives wouldn't ever vote for the party that has spent 30 years sabotaging social programs, economic diversification, and public education. Turns out they didn't foresee a ringer jumping in from the stands and cutting from the Republican platform all that nonsense about bootstraps and poor people deserving to be poor.
Most certainly the Democrats focused heavily on minority groups and their issues, but that's part of the beauty of Trumps plan. By race baiting, he simultaneously got the Left to focus on racism (a favorite pet peev), got the racists on board with his plan, and buy dropping some of the usual Republican rhetoric he managed to avoid offending a voting bloc while simultaneously asking why they were voting Democrat at all. It was really quite brilliant. The exact kind of thing you'd expect a salesman to do right before he sells you a car with a picture of an engine;
thekingofkings wrote: The Democrats are not innocent of any of this and do not forget they forced through the ACA with no support at all from the GOP.
Let's avoid revisionist history here. The democrats "forced it through" with no republican support because the republican party decided that no health care law was going to be allowed, no matter what it contained. There was plenty of opportunity for them to participate in the process, they just refused to do so.
As for pretend scandal, I point out that Bradley Manning is in prison for similar issues and that Edward Snowden is in exile for similar issues. Classified material was misused and mishandled, you and I would both be facing 20-life for what she did.
And this is exactly the kind of "both sides are just as bad" nonsense that needs to stop. Clinton mishandled classified information. Manning and Snowden leaked classified information. Previous high-level officials, including republicans, who committed offenses that are actually similar to what Clinton did received similar "don't do this again" punishments with no prison time.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
sebster wrote: Beating that means getting the Democratic base organised and energetic enough to turn out in stronger numbers, in both presidential elections and mid-terms. Doing that without becoming populist and fact free, a left wing mirror of the Republicans, that will be the challenge.
IMO, we had populist and based in facts with Bernie... Yeah, some of his solutions may have been crazy and unobtainable, but he had a very vocal base.... Obviously, that "base" was the one that traditionally doesn't vote in primaries.
whembly wrote: Here's the problem... there's this thought that the parties ought to either be mirror images (contrarians) or there are school of thoughts that at the federal level, the differences between the parties are meaningless.
It's a fair point that the parties aren't, and should be mirror images. Of course, the problem isn't that the Republicans are just more right than the Democrats are left. That's pretty ordinary. And there's nothing inherently wrong with one political party moving away from the centre. But there is something wrong with pretending it hasn't happened when it has.
Keep in mind, this nation as a whole, is center-right compared to most other Western nations. My favorite metric when trying to ascertain some sort of scale is using the DW-nomiate. (it does have issues, but at least it's consistent).
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that DW nominate assumes a natural centre defined as the spot between the two parties. That is, it will never show one party as more extreme than the other because of its base assumptions. It's good for identifying individuals in the context of their parties, but not for assessing the two parties overall.
Seems mirror-image like... no? Yeah, you do see the red line tailing off a bit to the right, but that seem gradual, and I'm sure in 2018/2020 the democrats will be back to force the GOP back towards the center.
That shows the Republicans moving steadily right, while the Democrats remain constant. And remember the last data point there is for the GW Bush, the last and most right wing president, who in the wake of his presidency was declared to have not been conservative enough!
I don't get the sense that the GOP is being pull that far to the right.... only that the extremes in both parties, at some years will be successful with their tug. These sort of thing seem to wax and wane, but never a permanent fixture.
There will be ebbs and flows, but the trend now is pretty clear. The Democrats of the 1970s were strongly left wing, and they began a long process of moving to the centre, spurned by stagflation, by Reagan giving them a thumping, and to some extent by the collapse of the Soviet Union (not so much an issue for elected reps, but for the base who were in part informed by old school socialist intellectuals, it was the end of a strong 'pulling' factor). That trend culminated with Clinton's 1996 triangulation. The party has been on more or less autopilot since then, but with Hillary Clinton's defeat you just watch and see what a real left wing party is about.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are on a different trajectory. Reagan's 1980 win showed the rise of movement conservatism. This got built on and reinforced (a look at Reagan's policy positions today and he'd be RINO, if he even got in to the party at all).
Oh no seb... both STRATEGY and PARTY POSITIONS need serious calibration. The GOP gained serious grounds where the GOP local/house/senate candidates did better at the polls than Trump. They broke the Blue Wall in the rust belt. That ought to terrify Democrats.
Again, strategy is something you pick each time, by itself. What came before doesn't really matter. Slogan, campaign focus, all these things you start with new each campaign.
Its policy that you adjust from campaign to campaign. On that front I can't see a problem, not because Democrat policy is great (it's pretty meh), but because it simply isn't a factor in modern US elections. Clinton's faux email scandal received three or four times the coverage on network news than policy... all policy, from all candidates.
They cannot run the operation the same way they did for Obama. Obama is unique in that he's a rockstar campaigning and public appearance.
I know you've tried to write off Obama as some freak event, but the evidence is lacking. Remember since 1992 Republicans have won the popular vote once, and that was likely the result of a big rallying effect in the wake of 9/11. This isn't to say Democrats are dominant, because they have real problems in turning presidential votes in to down ballot votes, and even worse problems in getting turn out in the mid-terms.
Really, the stronger pattern appears to be that Republicans book their solid 60 million votes every election, while Democrats fall off as their Democratic president doesn't bring in a new utopian wonderland, and then they get all enthused and vote in huge numbers when they get a dose of what Republicans are all about, then start waning as the new Democratic president doesn't bring in a new utopian wonderland...
Frankly, there's no such thing as conventional wisdom anymore, as highlighted by the fact that Cheeto Fething Jesus will be our 45th President.
This is true. Very true.
About the only theory that held up, arguably, is the one that says the candidate doesn't matter. But that theory puts it down to economic fortunes, and that probably wasn't the case here either. I like my steady Republicans, cyclical Democrats theory from above.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.
Cory Booker, man. A likable, eloquent, relitivly young (47), generally all around cool guy (while mayor, her ran into a burning building and saved someone, how many politicians can say that).
Seriously, read this section from his wikipedia page.
Spoiler:
Booker gained national attention when, on December 28, 2010, a constituent used Twitter to ask him to send someone to her father's house to shovel his driveway because her elderly father was going to attempt to do it himself. Booker responded by tweeting, "I will do it myself; where does he live?" Other people volunteered, including one person who offered his help on Twitter, and 20 minutes later Booker and some volunteers showed up and shoveled the man's driveway.[57][58] On April 12, 2012, Booker saved a woman from a house fire, suffering smoke inhalation and second-degree burns on his hands in the process. Newark Fire Chief John Centanni said that Booker's actions possibly saved the woman's life.[59] After Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline areas of New Jersey and New York in late October 2012, Booker invited Newarkers without power to eat and sleep in his home.[60] In February 2013, responding to a Twitter post, Booker helped a nervous constituent propose to his girlfriend.[61] Booker rescued a dog from freezing temperatures in January 2013 and another dog that had been abandoned in a cage in July 2013.[62][63]
The man is pretty damn selfless.
He's someone to watch for sure.
Plus Salon hates him, so that has to count for something, right?
He seems too young and doesn't have enough political experience or connections to get nominated. Plus, he just isn't well known enough. It could happen, but it seems unlikely.
The democrats definitely need someone new. And hopefully not a meme candidate like Bernie Sanders with superficial appeal (weed and free college bro!!!!!) but overall gakky policies. We need someone new, who isn't tainted by political scandals like Hillary, and who is moderate enough to appeal to more white people. We need someone who can win the Rust Belt back.
I have no idea who that person would be. Booker maybe. I don't know. But democrats need better candidates by. The Republican primaries at least had a few good eggs, like Marco Rubio and John Kasich. Even if they didn't win, at least they were present and publicized. The only publicized candidates in the democratic primary were a delusional meme and moderate competent criminal.
whembly wrote: Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.
Cory Booker, man. A likable, eloquent, relitivly young (47), generally all around cool guy (while mayor, her ran into a burning building and saved someone, how many politicians can say that).
Seriously, read this section from his wikipedia page.
Spoiler:
Booker gained national attention when, on December 28, 2010, a constituent used Twitter to ask him to send someone to her father's house to shovel his driveway because her elderly father was going to attempt to do it himself. Booker responded by tweeting, "I will do it myself; where does he live?" Other people volunteered, including one person who offered his help on Twitter, and 20 minutes later Booker and some volunteers showed up and shoveled the man's driveway.[57][58] On April 12, 2012, Booker saved a woman from a house fire, suffering smoke inhalation and second-degree burns on his hands in the process. Newark Fire Chief John Centanni said that Booker's actions possibly saved the woman's life.[59] After Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of the shoreline areas of New Jersey and New York in late October 2012, Booker invited Newarkers without power to eat and sleep in his home.[60] In February 2013, responding to a Twitter post, Booker helped a nervous constituent propose to his girlfriend.[61] Booker rescued a dog from freezing temperatures in January 2013 and another dog that had been abandoned in a cage in July 2013.[62][63]
The man is pretty damn selfless.
He's someone to watch for sure.
Plus Salon hates him, so that has to count for something, right?
He seems too young and doesn't have enough political experience or connections to get nominated. Plus, he just isn't well known enough. It could happen, but it seems unlikely.
The democrats definitely need someone new. And hopefully not a meme candidate like Bernie Sanders with superficial appeal (weed and free college bro!!!!!) but overall gakky policies. We need someone new, who isn't tainted by political scandals like Hillary, and who is moderate enough to appeal to more white people. We need someone who can win the Rust Belt back.
I have no idea who that person would be. Booker maybe. I don't know. But democrats need better candidates by. The Republican primaries at least had a few good eggs, like Marco Rubio and John Kasich. Even if they didn't win, at least they were present and publicized. The only publicized candidates in the democratic primary were a delusional meme and moderate competent criminal.
Eh, he has more experience than Obama did (mayor and senator). And He'll be 51 by the time 2020 rolls around.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Other than him, I don't know who will,really run. Cumo may try, but he's been dropping in popularity, and has to hold on to the governorship first. O'mally will probably run, but he is both really boring and lacks name recognition. Sanders is too old, same for Biden. Although maybe they'll get their own unqualified celebrity who will win against all expectations.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I bat maybe 85%. Lately, in my sleep deprived new baby state, it's more like 50%
Many congratulations btw
[/thread hjack]
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
