Inaccurate? It's a clickbait rhetorical premise that the author spends the entire article tearing down. We already elected a black president who ran on universal healthcare and he was the most popular president in modern history. Democrats and pundits are conveniently ignoring that much of Trump's campaign popularity stemmed from his populist messaging, just as Obama ran on "Hope and "Change", not "America is already great".
Democrats Are Playing Checkers While Trump Is Playing Chess
Quote:
----------
When Trump stands up in front of his audience at rallies during the campaign and tells them he’s going to give them their country back, Trump is having a conversation about race. Our response is that we are going to raise the minimum wage — we are having a conversation about economics. We are playing checkers while Trump is playing chess. And he continues to do so as he focuses on things like Black N.F.L. players taking a knee. Until Democrats can inoculate against some of the heightened angst, most prominently found among blue collar whites, about the changing face of America, they will struggle to compete for white non-college voters.
The greatest threat to the next Democratic nominee for President isn't white working class voters, but in fact our inability to cobble back and hold together the core of Obama's back to back majority coalitions. The "protest vote" by millennials – HRC's significant underperformance with younger voters, particularly younger voters of color – is actually where she was most notably off of Obama's performance in the overall battleground aggregate.
Definitely, and there is no amount of pragmatic moderation that is going to make people switch teams in these polarized times. In 2017 you either energize and motivate potential voters or you discourage and lose potential voters. Moderation isnt motivating anyone to vote. Middle class, middle age white moderates are going to vote anyway. Poor people, uneducated people, young people, and minorities are the swing constituencies.But during Obama's tenure, Republicans took over the House and several states and gerrymandered it to hell.
"moderates" are going to vote anyway, but these economically and foreign policy "moderates" aren't so great in numbers and fickle in affiliation that they should be holding the party hostage. This notion, that the suburban middle class is the heart and engine of the Dem party, is a charade. Politicians are driven by donors - PACs of wealthy elite donors and corporate interests. It's those donors who prefer "moderation" and "pragmaticism", because their wealth is dependent upon the status quo. Progressive economic policies poll very well, yet Dem politicians don't support those policies. Why?you equate "moderation" with "not doing anything" for some reason.
also, moderates are going to vote and you want their vote because they're reliable participants. the old are selfish and super reliable R voters. the young and impressionable are fleeting and super unreliable
"moderates" are going to vote anyway, but these economically and foreign policy "moderates" aren't so great in numbers and fickle in affiliation that they should be holding the party hostage. This notion, that the suburban middle class is the heart and engine of the Dem party, is a charade. Politicians are driven by donors - PACs of wealthy elite donors and corporate interests. It's those donors who prefer "moderation" and "pragmaticism", because their wealth is dependent upon the status quo.
Gimmicks. Jesus Christ..if not for fucking dickheads like Joe Lieberman and Joe Manchin, we might have passed an actual UHC plan in 2010 inorder to have the "gimmick" type of healthcare service that the UK has had for 70 fucking yearsI guess i'd prefer a different strategy than "hope to inspire irregular voters with gimmicks"
Yeah, I guess all those racists were ok with a black president named Barack Hussein Obama from Kenya, but they couldnt stomach a rich white woman.utterly laughable to equate a vote for Obama with some sort of affection for "socialism"