Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on November 30, 2016, 11:58:41 AM
-
http://www.salon.com/2009/09/09/healthcare_31/
Yes, it was 2009 and she was warning about 2012. Obama's personal qualities and Romney's lackluster campaign saved them that year.
But, as evidenced by this year's election, the underlying problems remained. As illustrated by this paragraph:
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
She nailed the exact problem the Democrats faced this year. In fact, they specifically rejected reaching out to "ordinary Americans":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0
Though she would never have won this demographic [working class whites], her husband insisted that her campaign aides do more to try to cut into Mr. Trump’s support with these voters. They declined, reasoning that she was better off targeting college-educated suburban voters by hitting Mr. Trump on his temperament.
It's not as though the Democrats were unaware they were losing the common man. They made a conscious decision to ignore him.
And, of course, I'm willing to predict the solution will be doubling down on identity politics.
-
http://www.salon.com/2009/09/09/healthcare_31/
Yes, it was 2009 and she was warning about 2012. Obama's personal qualities and Romney's lackluster campaign saved them that year.
But, as evidenced by this year's election, the underlying problems remained. As illustrated by this paragraph:
She nailed the exact problem the Democrats faced this year. In fact, they specifically rejected reaching out to "ordinary Americans":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0
It's not as though the Democrats were unaware they were losing the common man. They made a conscious decision to ignore him.
And, of course, I'm willing to predict the solution will be doubling down on identity politics.
Picking Keith Ellison as DNC honcho is not an olive branch to middle America by any means. Neither is excoriating white women who voted Trump.
So, you are likely right. Whether or not is works depends on how faithful Trump is to his immigration promises. If he is wishy-washy, kiss goodbye to euro-America and hello to Dem hegemony...and likely civil strife not seen since the Civil War/WBtS/WoNA/War for North American Empire. If Trumps sticks to it and goes out most of the immigrants of all sorts, there might be some breathing room. I prefer the latter, so my kids can face coming unpleasantness as adults.
-
And, of course, I'm willing to predict the solution will be doubling down on identity politics.
Yep, Pelosi just won minority leader, where TIm Ryan was the one who had a clue why the dems lost.
-
Yep, Pelosi just won minority leader, where TIm Ryan was the one who had a clue why the dems lost.
I remember the night of the Reagan landslide, a Dem operative was on TV going on about how, since the Dems were right on issue after issue, the people HAD to vote for them.
HAD to. :facepalm:
A little later Reagan's campaign chairman was being interviewed on the same channel, and he said what he was happiest about is that the Dems STILL didn't know why they'd lost.
-
I remember the night of the Reagan landslide, a Dem operative was on TV going on about how, since the Dems were right on issue after issue, the people HAD to vote for them.
HAD to. :facepalm:
A little later Reagan's campaign chairman was being interviewed on the same channel, and he said what he was happiest about is that the Dems STILL didn't know why they'd lost.
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
-
The mention of Romney got me thinking. Isn't it interesting how the Romney nomination sort of parallels the Bob Dole nomination in 1996.
-
The mention of Romney got me thinking. Isn't it interesting how the Romney nomination sort of parallels the Bob Dole nomination in 1996.
I'll go with no, since there's nothing interesting about Dole or Romney.
-
Yep, Pelosi just won minority leader, where TIm Ryan was the one who had a clue why the dems lost.
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
Bonaparte called it.
-
I'll go with no, since there's nothing interesting about Dole or Romney.
You are right. Forget I mentioned it. Lots of reasons not to choose Romney other than him being Dole 2.0.