$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 99.18

6,303 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
39.7% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
43 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Democrats Still Caught in a Trap of Their Own Making rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
mbmbmb
Many, many months ago I predicted that running on "Trump is racist!" was a losing strategy. Well, Clinton and the media spent the last months of the election campaign vilifying Trump and his supporters as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic...and they lost.

No matter how much Hillary and the media wanted it to be about racists and deplorables, it was really about the economy, and that's why the media was stunned when Trump eked out a win. Check out the voting demographics. Trump got virtually the same percentage of the white vote as Romney did four years ago. The important splits were education and income, where Democrats lost what had been a long-standing advantage with those on the lower end. Shrinkage in the Democratic vote even extended to the expected victims of Trump's alleged racism: blacks, Latinos, and Asians; so apparently, there were plenty of non-whites who thought little enough of Trump's antics that they voted for him despite those antics.

And...

What's been the response so far? Progressive Democrats have doubled down on "Trump is racist" and taken to the streets. RSP liberals have started thread after thread "exposing" Trump's racism. Sorry, folks, but your arguments fell on deaf ears while people were deciding on their votes. A lot of the people you think you're helping voted Trump.

Starting another Occupy movement isn't going to accomplish anything. The election is over, and Trump is going to be President of the United States for at least the next four years. The sooner you deal with that the better, because it will allow you to focus on what's next rather than what's past.

Bernie Sanders understands this better than the Democrats he pretended to be one of this past year. He's flat-out said that he's willing to work with Trump if the agenda is ending corporate control of the economy, which strangles the middle and working class. This is smart thinking because it recognizes both that elections have consequences and that politics makes strange bedfellows.

Will this offer of cooperation lead to anything? That depends on Trump. If "fighting for the working class" was just a smokescreen then we'll get four more years of corporate control, bad trade deals, huge trade deficits, lost jobs, and downward pressure on working-class wages. You coastal liberals with good jobs won't feel the effects of this. In fact, you'll probably be just as well off four years from now. The rest of America won't be so lucky.

Coastal liberals can't elect a president without help, which should be all too obvious at this point. Four years from now, will you have a Democratic candidate with a message that resonates inland? Will you have a Democratic candidate who can attract moderates/independents? That also depends on Trump because he and the Republican Congress will be controlling the agenda.

But...

It won't depend entirely on Trump. Sure, you can root for him to lose, and in the process we'll all lose. You can also root for him to win, and by win I mean actually address some of the problems he was so very good at identifying and shouting about during the campaign. We are hemorrhaging jobs. We are hemorrhaging trade dollars. Corporate control of Washington politicians is a cancer.

Rather than spend the next four years shouting down the president, take Bernie's advice and find common ground. Trump is more of an unknown quantity than anyone who's ever assumed the office. His background is not boilerplate Republican. Far from it. Far enough that many in the Republican establishment don't trust him. That's a potential opening if you're a Democrat.

If Trump rejects these overtures and rides along on the Republican wave then he will have no one but himself to blame. Conditions in the Rust Belt will continue to deteriorate, and working-class Democrats will have reason if not enthusiasm for returning to the fold.

It would be far, far better, though, if Democrats actually offered the working class some reason to vote Democrat. One way to start is by rejecting the Clinton Third Way strategy, which has been an economic and electoral failure for Democrats because it is essentially Republican-lite. Another is to offer support for those of Trump's campaign promises which are on the "wrong side" of the Republican party line.

You have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Trump won't need any help with damaging his administration and the country. He'll get plenty of advice on that from White House and campaign insiders. If the outsiders do nothing more than shout slogans and block bridges in Portland then they'll have missed an opportunity to turn things in a more positive direction. It's still one country, and we only get one president. Let's try to make this one more than Bush III.

14 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Grand Admiral Thrawn
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"If Mr. Trump in fact has the courage to take on Wall Street, to take on the drug companies, to try to go forward to create a better life for working people, we will work with him. But if his presidency is going to be about discrimination. If it’s going to be about scapegoating immigrants, scapegoating African Americans or Muslims, we will oppose him vigorously."

-Bernie Sanders on November 13
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Welcome Rolling Stones
Latvia
Bullshit
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Trump will not deliver on any of the things he promised to those who voted for him. He lied about everything.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
10/₆
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature"
mb
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
49xjohn wrote:

Trump will not deliver on any of the things he promised to those who voted for him. He lied about everything.


An interesting assertion.

I'd love to wager on that but I'm not sure we'd find parameters we could agree to.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
49xjohn wrote:

Trump will not deliver on any of the things he promised to those who voted for him. He lied about everything.


Don't worry, Trump will never be president so you don't need to worry about him failing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret


Never mind more or less to the left. Less corrupt would have been a good start.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A few points I agree on, others not at all.

I agree that it was a major strategic blunder for Hillary to make vilifying Trump the focus of her campaign. His continual gaffes already did the job of showing how unfit for the presidency he was; by getting into the mud and making the election about character rather than policies, she allowed the conversation to take place in an arena he was comfortable in. To have focused on presenting her own policy vision (in concise, accessible terms of course- a challenge of its own given her disparate coalition) would have shifted the conversation to a place where Trump would have been a fish out of water; that would have much more effectively accomplished the goal of underlining how unqualified he was (Sarah Palin in 2008 anyone? The economic crisis nailed the coffin on that campaign)

Moreover, Hillary had already been tarred and feathered by Republicans for well over a decade and in any event had her character flaws. This election was won via the false equivalence between Trumps egregious flaws and.... a private email server. Not to take away from Trump's "white working class revolution", but this election was won because too many moderate voters stayed home, duped by the notion that "they're both bad, so what's the difference?" If those people show up then all the rust belt votes in the world wouldn't have mattered.

Also, I'm sick of this bullshit narrative that the election was a repudiation of social progressivism and therefore we should listen with an open mind to what essentially amounts to xenophobia born of fear and distress. So a bunch of rust belt working class whites think that reverse racism is a thing, and now the rest of us have to give that ridiculous and yes- deplorable point of view legitimacy? Fuck that. Trump didn't even win the popular vote, and another candidate or even a different strategy by Hillary would've won the election easily.

The ultimate upshot is that all of Trump's promises to working class whites are a bald-faced lie. Those jobs aren't coming back no matter what, and trade protectionism is only going to drive the prices up at Walmart. Guess who shops at Walmart? Give me a fucking break. Trump's whole election strategy was a cynical ploy that now Republican elities are going to benefit from. Drain the swamp my ass.
10 
 Thumb up
0.35
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret


Dude...everything I have seen from the left is they not only reject Trump winning on economic issues but they are doubling down on all the shit they have been saying and doing pre-election.

Doubling down on calling Trump and his followers racist. Doubling down on pushing social issues. Double down on the SJW shit, the protests and political correct bullshit people hate. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. The main stream media too.

Frankly, I figured Trump will be a 1 term President. Tweak their message a bit to appeal to middle America and put forth a less detestable candidate than Hillary and they will wrap it up. But if the Democrats and the media keep down this path he might win twice. Too early for me to make that predication since he's not even in office yet.

But yea, going more to the left is not what people want.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
10/₆
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature"
mb
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret


Are you asserting if Sanders was the nomination that he would not have beaten Trump?

If you assert in the positive, so be it, I can't convince you otherwise. If you assert in the negative, and you believe Sanders would have won. What factors would you have to make that assertion. What voting block do you think he would have gotten to give him the win?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
deadkenny wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret


Never mind more or less to the left. Less corrupt would have been a good start.


I'm with you 100% regarding less corrupt.


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
galad2003 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
[q="MWChapel"]The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?


galad2003 wrote:


Dude...everything I have seen from the left is they not only reject Trump winning on economic issues but they are doubling down on all the shit they have been saying and doing pre-election.


Which makes them economically illiterate more than anything else.

galad2003 wrote:


Doubling down on calling Trump and his followers racist. Doubling down on pushing social issues. Double down on the SJW shit, the protests and political correct bullshit people hate. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. The main stream media too.


Yes, the Democrats are going gang bangers on trying to tar everything who every said word against them as racist. It simply shows how they're out of ideas; that's why they're just hurling words at people now.

galad2003 wrote:


Frankly, I figured Trump will be a 1 term President.


He might be...I'd love to see Pence after Trump, and one term would be put him at 74 years old. I'm fine with that.


Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
MWChapel wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?



Ferret


Are you asserting if Sanders was the nomination that he would not have beaten Trump?


To be fair, you didn't answer my question--are you asserting that the Democrats need to be more leftist?

To answer your question (I'm just kind of guy) no, Bernie would have failed even more spectacularly than Hillary. He probably would have had around 350 electoral college votes at a rough guess. My favorite hope in the primaries (back before we found out that Hillary had all rigged it for her and he never had any hope of winning) was that he would win.

A straight up fight between a socialist-light and a populist would have been a remarkable debate.



Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
galad2003 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
[q="MWChapel"]The problem wasn't the inland social conservatives that was the issue. The issue was that Clinton needed the people you are complaining about in this very thread. The social progressives. Obama got them, he won, Clinton didn't get them, she lost. She didn't need or would have ever gotten the vote that Trump won this year.

So the message YOU need to understand is, in the next election, the Democrats either slides more to the left and they win, or continue to status quo and lose.


Wait..you're asserting the Democrats need to be more leftist?


galad2003 wrote:


Dude...everything I have seen from the left is they not only reject Trump winning on economic issues but they are doubling down on all the shit they have been saying and doing pre-election.


Which makes them economically illiterate more than anything else.



In politics it doesn't matter if what you say is right or wrong, it matters if it resonates with the people. People are pissed about the economy so Trump played on that so he won.

99% chance Trump can't bring jobs back to this country, but 100% Hillary will cause more jobs to leave it. So people went with that 1% chance. Hell, Ford has already said they will keep one of their plants in the US instead of moving to Mexico so we will just have to see. It's called hope, it's what got Obama elected and what got Trump elected.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
Are you asserting if Sanders was the nomination that he would not have beaten Trump?


I'll assert that. Hillary lost (*) the election on turnout, and Sanders didn't win the Democratic primary because he was focused on white voters. He might have done better with white voters, but he would have taken a hit that would have been close to equivalent with minority voters because he did not earn their trust for the most part during the primary process.

On top of that the oppo research book on Sanders was enormous. Clinton barely touched it because she didn't have to, but "he's a Commie" would have been the least of the accusations hurled at him in the general by far.

(*) and it's worth noting that she's currently ahead 2 million votes in the popular vote, which is still being counted, and active voter suppression efforts in North Carolina and Wisconsin probably contributed to her losing those states
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
10/₆
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature"
mb
Ferretman wrote:


To be fair, you didn't answer my question--are you asserting that the Democrats need to be more leftist?


Yes, I think if you want that millennial vote, you will have to go further to the left.

And yes, I believe if Sander had the nomination, he would have beaten Trump. Status Quo would have voted Democrat ticket no matter who was on it, Clinton or Sanders. Add the Sander Millennials and Progressive votes would have been more than enough to pass Trump's measly win.

The so call "mid country" workers who voted for Trump will find in the next four years that his policies were never designed to help them. They can account for their logic in anyway their minds will account when results are results. Democratic policies are meant to work for them, but they have decided to think otherwise because the Right has decided to skew the message to social politics rather than the realities of economics.

So yes, they should go further left of center to capture the Millennials and Progressives. And the rust belt workers will have to come to terms that what they are looking for might not be recoverable no matter who wins. Those are demons they will have to come to terms with on their own. Contemporary market forces are against them. So those votes are fickle, not reliable.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
mb
The longer Mark Blyth videos are worth watching. Global Trumpism in particular.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
galad2003 wrote:

In politics it doesn't matter if what you say is right or wrong, it matters if it resonates with the people. People are pissed about the economy so Trump played on that so he won.


A remarkably cynical view...

Leaving that aside, the economy was (and is, though just the sea change has helped a lot since the election) in a terrible state, and people knew that something had to change. There was a lot playing into this, but yes part of the issue was that people were pissed that most of the Establishment (primarily Democrats but yes many Republicans) just ignored them.


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
MWChapel wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


To be fair, you didn't answer my question--are you asserting that the Democrats need to be more leftist?


Yes, I think if you want that millennial vote, you will have to go further to the left.


Interesting.

It's certainly going to be a heck of a four years. If he succeeds I think people will flock to the Trump banner in droves and Sanders or Warren or whoever tries to run in 2020 will rival Dukasis in the loss.

I can't concur at all that Sanders would have won.....he simply had no depth at all, nothing other than proposals that wouldn't have accomplished anything useful. I also think that if Sanders were the nominee that Trump would have altered his proposals accordingly, and probably ended up more populist (which he is at heart) than he would have. Warren is a more effective speaker (even if she's wrong in nearly every thing possible) and would have a been candidate.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


To be fair, you didn't answer my question--are you asserting that the Democrats need to be more leftist?


Yes, I think if you want that millennial vote, you will have to go further to the left.


Interesting.

It's certainly going to be a heck of a four years. If he succeeds I think people will flock to the Trump banner in droves and Sanders or Warren or whoever tries to run in 2020 will rival Dukasis in the loss.

I can't concur at all that Sanders would have won.....he simply had no depth at all, nothing other than proposals that wouldn't have accomplished anything useful. I also think that if Sanders were the nominee that Trump would have altered his proposals accordingly, and probably ended up more populist (which he is at heart) than he would have. Warren is a more effective speaker (even if she's wrong in nearly every thing possible) and would have a been candidate.



Ferret


I don't see how anyone can argue that Sanders had less depth than Trump, who had no depth whatsoever. Look, I hope Trump has some success because he's president, but don't kid yourself, his pronouncements during the campaign couldn't have been any more superficial and shallow. Sanders' propositions certainly had more depth and substance to them, even if some of them were probably not viable. Just don't sit there as a Trump guy and throw rocks at any other candidate about depth - you are sitting in the middle of a huge glass mansion (a really classy one, to be sure) when you do that.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
desertfox2004 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
Ferretman wrote:


To be fair, you didn't answer my question--are you asserting that the Democrats need to be more leftist?


Yes, I think if you want that millennial vote, you will have to go further to the left.


Interesting.

It's certainly going to be a heck of a four years. If he succeeds I think people will flock to the Trump banner in droves and Sanders or Warren or whoever tries to run in 2020 will rival Dukasis in the loss.

I can't concur at all that Sanders would have won.....he simply had no depth at all, nothing other than proposals that wouldn't have accomplished anything useful. I also think that if Sanders were the nominee that Trump would have altered his proposals accordingly, and probably ended up more populist (which he is at heart) than he would have. Warren is a more effective speaker (even if she's wrong in nearly every thing possible) and would have a been candidate.



Ferret


I don't see how anyone can argue that Sanders had less depth than Trump, who had no depth whatsoever. Look, I hope Trump has some success because he's president, but don't kid yourself, his pronouncements during the campaign couldn't have been any more superficial and shallow. Sanders' propositions certainly had more depth and substance to them, even if some of them were probably not viable. Just don't sit there as a Trump guy and throw rocks at any other candidate about depth - you are sitting in the middle of a huge glass mansion (a really classy one, to be sure) when you do that.


Sorry, I saw nothing but meaningless platitudes and rants from Sanders; he couldn't put two sentences together with either saying somebody was racist or slamming Wall Street. He made a few policy statements I'll admit, but he never followed up on them at all--he was just putting out policy papers, not building on anything.

Warren at least has a bit of meat on her bones and has some bonafides, unlike Sanders who did nothing except live on the public dole.

Trump was all over the map in his various policy statements, but "no depth" simply isn't accurate at all.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mb
desertfox2004 wrote:
Just don't sit there as a Trump guy and throw rocks at any other candidate about depth - you are sitting in the middle of a huge glass mansion (a really classy one, to be sure) when you do that.


And once again, I'm not a "Trump guy". I voted for the best available candidate who, by nearly every measure possible, was Trump.





Ferret
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oh my God They Banned Kenny
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Any way it would have turned out, IMHO a Trump vs. Sanders campaign would have been a much better one for the US. You would have had two candidates selling different approaches for dealing with the problems, rather than one of them pretending the problems didn't exist or weren't that serious and simply painting the other side as "deplorable".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris
United States
Sandy Springs
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thinking Sanders had a chance in the general election shows just how out of touch you are with regular America. It's the beer test. Everyone president who won wins the beer test, the guy you are more likely to have a beer with at the local bar.

Bill cli ton had it, bush had it, Obama had it and so does Trump. Regular Joe's aren't going to have a beer with Hillary or Sanders.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.