• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

But during Obama's tenure, Republicans took over the House and several states and gerrymandered it to hell.
 
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".

oops, i thought you were talking about the article comparing 2020 to the 1984 election.
 
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.

It sounds like Dems are playing chess while Trump is playing checkers, but America prefers checkers.

I think this is an important part to point out:

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.

For all the romanticizing of white working class voters, the best path forward is to get more people who agree with Dem ideas to vote.
 
The Democrat path forward with white working class people is to help them while knowing they won't realize who helped them and knowing many are too stuck in the past to help themselves to job training and education opportunities.
 
But during Obama's tenure, Republicans took over the House and several states and gerrymandered it to hell.
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.
 
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
 
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. Progressive economic policies poll very well, yet Dem politicians don't support those policies. Why?
 
Last edited:
"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.

i do enjoy the way you that you define terms to suit your opinion. rather JH of you, old chap.

who do you feel is the true heart of the Democratic party?
 
Poor women

c95a66e154d1e04fff9133a8d41cdd0d.gif
 
Right. So Democrats have to get the broad coalition out to vote and make sure their votes matter.
 
I guess i'd prefer a different strategy than "hope to inspire irregular voters with gimmicks"
 
On the topic of the middle-class, we Democrats will continue to beat our head against a wall by dismissing the psychology of white middle-class economic dejection. Trump's voting base averaged 77k income, and considering their overall rural-ness, that is a fair amount of money, but they expected more from life and are dissatisfied. If socialism scared them soo much they wouldnt have voted for Obama in such high numbers. These voters are going to vote for the party that gives them attention and hope, not the party that says their life is already great.

http://time.com/money/4318531/trump-middle-class-voters/

If we really want to understand how Trump came to win the nomination, that’s a key economic fact to wrestle with. For much of the primary season, Trump was dismissed as the candidate of the deeply disaffected and uneducated. As the campaign season went on, that became less and less supportable. In many states from Super Tuesday onwards, Trump won handily among GOP voters with college degrees. Blue collar workers may have made up Trump’s most devoted supporters, but it took a lot of $70,000-a-year professionals to get him to Cleveland.

There’s one thing that the conventional wisdom on Trump got right: Trump’s appeal is certainly strongest for those who feel like their expectations have been disappointed, their hopes circumscribed, and their financial state made precarious—people who feel shame that they don’t have the money to retire or to support their families. The hard part to get your head around is how much of the middle class that turns out to be.
 
utterly laughable to equate a vote for Obama with some sort of affection for "socialism"
 
I guess i'd prefer a different strategy than "hope to inspire irregular voters with gimmicks"
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 years
 
utterly laughable to equate a vote for Obama with some sort of affection for "socialism"
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.
 
I don't know why I bother with y'all. You cant see the world past your own cul-de-sac. Sure. We're all just racist rubes and pimply faced gamers who definitely don't want affordable healthcare... bye
 
you know why it's a waste of your time? because your ideas are fun thought exercises for college kids but your revolution is never going to come when you live in representative democracy.
 
Back
Top