2020...

tenacious said:
I'd be interested in seeing some stats to back up the idea that minorities and women are doing worse under Trump? I see more people of color and women running for public office and running companies then ever before. The #metoo movement has certainly improved life for women. Heck, T's polling among Latinos is up.

Now I'm not saying we should cheer T as the cause of any of this, but I'm not sure if in the privacy of the voting booth voters are going to worry about identity politics as much as you and the rest of the democratic field are hoping.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Hmm... guess I’m sort of disappointed in this response. Pointing out that Ts polling with Latinos is going up, and that no one seems able to find any statistics that minority’s or women are suffering economically (or at least more then under O) doesn’t seem too difficult to understand?

Once the primaries are over T and Republicans are going to start loudly pointing this out. Worrying that dems seem to be hiding in a bubble and aren’t ready for what’s coming.
 
tenacious said:
Hmm... guess I’m sort of disappointed in this response. Pointing out that Ts polling with Latinos is going up, and that no one seems able to find any statistics that minority’s or women are suffering economically (or at least more then under O) doesn’t seem too difficult to understand?

Once the primaries are over T and Republicans are going to start loudly pointing this out. Worrying that dems seem to be hiding in a bubble and aren’t ready for what’s coming.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...spanics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.183ff7e0ec2b
 
messy said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...spanics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.183ff7e0ec2b
Click to expand...

Alright... so seems like the author of this piece has three main points.

1- when you take into account cuts to food stamps and social spending cuts, it negates increases in income for Latinos. Point well taken... and I get what’s being said. But hard to see any Dem even attempting to make this argument during a debate.

2- Home ownership is down among blacks. But then again with tightening lending standards again I’m not sure how this plays when the other side is punching back? I can almost see T asking if dems want to crash the housing market like in 2007 when everyone was getting loans.

3- Income for blacks are lower then they were at the end of the Clinton admin. The same Clinton whose wife blacks didn’t really turn out for in 2016 when she ran for President. Again I get the point... but yikes. Don’t know that this one will win any undecideds over either.
 
Last edited:
tenacious said:
Hmm... guess I’m sort of disappointed in this response. Pointing out that Ts polling with Latinos is going up, and that no one seems able to find any statistics that minority’s or women are suffering economically (or at least more then under O) doesn’t seem too difficult to understand?

Once the primaries are over T and Republicans are going to start loudly pointing this out. Worrying that dems seem to be hiding in a bubble and aren’t ready for what’s coming.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your assertion that Obama sat back watching as state and local seats then went to Republicans, a narrative (that he is lazy) pushed by those whose reaction to seeing Obama (for whatever reasons you could imagine) elected was to do whatever it took to, "Get 'their' merica back". There is a long history, and a alarmingly wide swath of those that feel only the old status quo (a white man) can see us through . . . not a woman, not a person of color. t inherited a burgeoning economy, what besides striping away decades of environmental protections has he done to help anyone but himself and his cronies?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I was referring to your assertion that Obama sat back watching as state and local seats then went to Republicans, a narrative (that he is lazy) pushed by those whose reaction to seeing Obama (for whatever reasons you could imagine) elected was to do whatever it took to, "Get 'their' merica back". There is a long history, and a alarmingly wide swath of those that feel only the old status quo (a white man) can see us through . . . not a woman, not a person of color. t inherited a burgeoning economy, what besides striping away decades of environmental protections has he done to help anyone but himself and his cronies?
Click to expand...
#1. The white part of Obama is just as lazy as the black part.
#2. Obama's goal was to transform America.
#3. Obama said his low GDP was the new normal.
#4. You are a big pussy.
 
Trump has his “base” (the racists and losers and other deplorables), but that won’t win him the election.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I was referring to your assertion that Obama sat back watching as state and local seats then went to Republicans, a narrative (that he is lazy) pushed by those whose reaction to seeing Obama (for whatever reasons you could imagine) elected was to do whatever it took to, "Get 'their' merica back". There is a long history, and a alarmingly wide swath of those that feel only the old status quo (a white man) can see us through . . . not a woman, not a person of color. t inherited a burgeoning economy, what besides striping away decades of environmental protections has he done to help anyone but himself and his cronies?
Click to expand...

Great points, and I don't at all think Obama was lazy. He was a groundbreaking, smart, hardworking man who really wanted to do what was best for America. That said, what good is any of that for Dems if it ended with Republican's sweeping into power at every level of government and dismantling everything he built?

Speaking in terms of realpolitik... I've heard enough about intentions and being on the right side of history with their wokeness. I want to be part of a party that actually delivers.

The Democrats' Losses in State Elections Were A Bloodbath
Democrats got walloped at the very top of the ticket, but what’s happening at the very bottom of the ballot could hurt them for years to come.
Alex Wagner Nov 14, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/chambers-of-pain/507467/

The mood in the Democratic field late last week was one of unbridled optimism. Hillary Clinton, if you believed the polling and the campaign rhetoric, was on track to be the nation’s first female president. With this win, Democrats believed, might come a majority in the Senate and a shrinking margin in the House. But it wasn’t just that: Democrats, finally, were looking to flip state legislatures and governorships on election day 2016—a bid to begin to correct what happened to the party in 2010. That year, Republican wins at the state level, plus the decennial census, had allowed newly conservative statehouses to redraw House districts in a way that would cement a rightwing majority for the next 10 years—at least.

Anyone who had witnessed the last six years of the Obama administration understood that the House Republican caucus had made it very nearly impossible to pass laws of any kind—necessitating a White House end-run around the legislative process through the use of executive action and regulatory authority. A Clinton administration was likely to have to deal with the same challenging landscape, as long as the House was run by the GOP. The next four years would be critical in winning back control of the House: Its districts will be drawn again in 2020, following the next census. Before then, Democrats had to win control of state chambers in order to control the redistricting process.

More Stories
Just before election day, I spoke with Jessica Post, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a party organization tasked with winning back state legislatures. Post was door-knocking in Iowa for Democratic candidates—she was clear about the challenge, but she was energized.
“In 2010, I was at the DLCC,” she said. “I had a firsthand look. We were prepared for an old fight: lawyers, guns and money—but not a lot of investments were made in the electoral campaigns for state legislators.”

That 2010 wakeup call shook (some) Democrats into action.

“We have to invest in campaign infrastructure,” she told me.

Groups like the DLCC saw the 2016 presidential election as a critical point to turn statehouses and governorships blue, and ride that momentum into the 2018 midterms—so that by 2020, the eventual redistricting process would take place under Democratic oversight. (No less important, Democratic chambers could put a stop to conservative, state-level legislation like transgender bathroom laws and rollbacks of reproductive-health services). Speaking to my colleague Russell Berman this past August, Post was downright bullish about the prospects of doing this: At that point, the DLCC hoped to flip at least 10 state chambers, and as many as 13.

To do so, Post told me about her organization’s grassroots victory program, one that trained state legislative field organizers, “getting them to door knock, make sure the turf was cut, and to train the volunteers around the candidates.”

That infrastructure would prove critical in the long-term, according to Post. “This is longer-lasting than direct mail,” she said, and it would assist Democratic candidates in the following election cycle, and the one after that.

The DLCC was assisted in its efforts in certain states—like Ohio—by the Clinton campaign, which put hundreds of organizers in the field. President Obama, in a fairly unprecedented move, made 150 down-ballot endorsements. These included U.S. House races, but also candidates running for state Assembly seats and state Senate seats. David Simas, the White House political director, told me that, “Foundationally, the president—on his own—said to me and others on team that he wanted to engage forcefully and aggressively … on the state and local level.”

That desire, he said, was “Driven by what the president has seen in the last few years, in terms of legislation passed in statehouses—like SB-2 in North Carolina, voter disenfranchisement laws, attacks on reproductive health and attacks on climate.”

President Obama had already announced that gerrymandering will be a focus of his post-presidency, and he will work alongside former Attorney General Eric Holder on the newly-established National Democratic Redistricting Committee. The White House election-year effort to bring attention to down-ballot races, Simas said, “is absolutely consistent with the President’s drive to deal with redistricting.”

One week ago, the DLCC’s target list included flipping seats in critical states: the Michigan House, the North Carolina House, the Pennsylvania House, the Florida Senate, both the Senate and House assemblies of Ohio, as well as Wisconsin’s State Assembly and Senate.

But on November 8, all of these states—Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin—ended up being the ones that ultimately destroyed Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency. The DLCC’s attempts to make Democratic inroads met with a similar end....
Click to expand...
 
tenacious said:
Great points, and I don't at all think Obama was lazy. He was a groundbreaking, smart, hardworking man who really wanted to do what was best for America. That said, what good is any of that for Dems if it ended with Republican's sweeping into power at every level of government and dismantling everything he built?

Speaking in terms of realpolitik... I've heard enough about intentions and being on the right side of history with their wokeness. I want to be part of a party that actually delivers.
Click to expand...
So interesting that as true as that was in ‘16, the pendulum doesn’t take long to swing back, as ‘18 showed us the beginnings of the move to the other side.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Non sequitur.
Click to expand...


Yes !
Just about everything you post does not follow with the previous argument.

You are Capt Non sequitur.

large_rec-201701251555.jpg
 
messy said:
So interesting that as true as that was in ‘16, the pendulum doesn’t take long to swing back, as ‘18 showed us the beginnings of the move to the other side.
Click to expand...

I question how long the swing backs last... especially when lifelong dems like Beto are having to apologize his marriage doesn’t pass the progressive litmus test, and Chelsea Clinton is in videos getting attacked for trying to attend a rally about the shooting in NZ.

It’s time to face up to the fact the progressives are dragging the rest of the party down, because they make building a lasting majority impossible.
 
Last edited:
tenacious said:
Great points, and I don't at all think Obama was lazy. He was a groundbreaking, smart, hardworking man who really wanted to do what was best for America. That said, what good is any of that for Dems if it ended with Republican's sweeping into power at every level of government and dismantling everything he built?

Speaking in terms of realpolitik... I've heard enough about intentions and being on the right side of history with their wokeness. I want to be part of a party that actually delivers.
Click to expand...
Cuz Democrats weren't ready for the barrage of lies, deceit, use of the census to gerrymander districts and how well that worked due to the gullibility of many Americans (some even when shown facts prefer the lies).
 
tenacious said:
I question how long the swing backs... especially when lifelong dems like Beto are having to apologize his marriage doesn’t pass the progressive litmus test, and Chelsea Clinton is in videos getting attacked for trying to attend a rally about the shooting in NZ.

It’s time to face up to the fact the progressives are dragging the rest of the party down, because they make building a lasting majority impossible.
Click to expand...
The right has gone so far overboard it has achieving the desired effect, pulling the unaware in America right. The game use to be played on a level playing field where facts mattered.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Cuz Democrats weren't ready for the barrage of lies, deceit, use of the census to gerrymander districts and how well that worked due to the gullibility of many Americans (some even when shown facts prefer the lies).
Click to expand...

They should have been.
 
Last edited:
Hüsker Dü said:
The right has gone so far overboard it has achieving the desired effect, pulling the unaware in America right. The game use to be played on a level playing field where facts mattered.
Click to expand...

I agree. But at the same time that doesn’t means I agree that socialism is the appropriate response to the excesses of capitalism. Or that I believe that more racism and intolerance is how we fix social inequality. Etc. etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top