Wait, I'm really confused now: what is DLC? I thought you were saying the DNC before. I don't know what DLC stands for?
Furthermore, what is the "Archie Bunker myth"? I was not aware of people saying that rich people weren't racist.
Third, I believe you're conflating college graduates with wealthy people. People who were at the highest income brackets, by and large, voted Trump. But college-educated professionals are not necessarily people who are at the highest income brackets. The professionals you speak of did, by and large, vote Clinton.
Fourth, no, it's not just the mandate that people object to about Obamacare. It's the fact that people lost their previous insurance plans - which Obama said would not happen - and the fact that insurance premiums soared after Obamacare happened. Which, again, really makes me when someone says the problem is that the Democrats aren't left enough, because these people do not seem to be clamoring for greater amounts of government intervention in the healthcare system.
So, basically, I really have no clue what point you're trying to make beyond, "Clinton is a corporate stooge and corrupt." Which, yeah. But so is Trump. And I will agree that Clinton was a major reason why the Democrats lost. Because she's Clinton. But I have no idea what you're saying past that.
You are familiar with the DLC's modus operandi, right?
Referencing what specifically? I'm assuming Sanders?
Actually, no. Most of them simply stayed home. Of those who voted, most of them (at least, whites making under $50k and various ethnic and religious minorities) voted for Clinton. But fewer voted for her than voted for Obama.
Ironically, with professionals, you see the exact opposite movement. They still voted, by and large, for Trump (though I have little doubt there's more of a split by profession, e.g. investment bankers love Trump), but there was a movement toward Clinton. She arguably made the peak percentage white professionals could get for Clinton.
It's simple: Hillary Clinton and her supporters are more comfortable with a certain type of voter: White, has a bachelor's or better, making over $200k (in 1992 dollars), belongs to a country club, has a place in the Hamptons, an enthusiastic philanthropist who hates taxes. You know, Republicans. (Which is also the only way I can justify pissing away so much money in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.) Also, they have an inferiority complex after getting schlonged by Obama in 2008.
Fair, but the question then comes as to what extent is this a problem with centrist Democrats vs. to what extent is this a problem with Clinton, or for that matter Obama?
I assume you understand that private insurance providers are the polar opposite of communism, right? Actually, any viable "replace" would be more communist than Obamacare. (The next option is the public option. Go farther left and you have a complete nationalization of healthcare.)
Then again, there were the "**** Obamacare, I've got ACA" people. Too many of them. But there won't be for very long! #GallowsHumor
Is the backlash against Obamacare really because the people against it want there to be even more government intervention in the healthcare industry?
One cannot deny a major impetus for the flipping of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania wasn't due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Which, again, prompts the rather confused look I have towards someone saying that the problem with Democrats losing elections comes from them not being left enough.
Liberalism is losing appeal to capital in favour of fascism, what with Clinton's comical failure to secure the position the Democrats had given up most other politics for, and losing appeal to workers due to its insistence on punching leftwards.
So you're arguing that the reason that the Democrats alienated voting blocks that voted for Obama in 2008 was because they weren't politically left enough?
And so they voted Trump?
How on earth did that make sense in your head when you wrote this?
You are, of course, blissfully unaware of the widespread backlash against Obamacare? Hint: it's not because it isn't Communist-enough.
In other news, Trump has now come out to say that he's going to make Congress pay for the wall, and then Mexico will pay us back.
Mexico will pay us back for building a border wall.
Yeah, this is a good time to note something that's been said already, but I feel bears repeating: Donald Trump is a CON MAN. And what threads like this one are basically doing is looking at how many people bought what the con man was selling, and then proclaimed, "Wow, everyone bought what the con man was selling! Looks like the other people who are selling X are out of business!" Except, the problem with that is you're only going by who bought it, and not who actually got what they ordered and was satisfied afterward. You're not looking into the people who never actually got anything despite ordering it, or the people who got something very different from what was advertised.
Another metaphor would be tipping your waiter before the food arrives, or in this thread's case, giving the restaurant three Michelin stars and declaring that it will drive all other restaurants out of business before the food arrives.
In other words, yes, a lot of people may have bought into what the con man was saying. A lot of people may have ponied up good money for what he was selling. But the Republicans' success, at least for the next election, is dependent upon a con man following through on what he promised.
Remember the part where he's a con man? Yeah. It's not likely.
You are looking at the election results without much context. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are traditionally safe states for Democrats.
No, they are states that lean Democrat. They are not, for example, California. And both Michigan and Pennsylvania went red in 1988.
You brush off the results by thinking "oh, this isn't bad, this was damn close" but I see otherwise.
Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?
Have you seen what is happening with the West? There is absolutely a massive populist revolt going on in multiple countries. We had Brexit in the UK and Trump getting elected in the US. France and the Netherlands are likely going to be the next countries to go through this same "stick it to the man" wave. I fully expect Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders to win their respective elections now that they're energized by what has happened in the Anglosphere.
Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.
None of that makes the Democrats finished.
Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.
Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?
I love that. I don't like Trump but yeah, this is why America is awesome. We just did something insane that is going to truly harm this country but really freak out leftists, the political elites in Europe, Canada, etc. We're doing this out of spite, for giggles, you know...
Is it, though? He's wasn't just the TV personality that he was before the election - nor was he Joe Populist. He came out and was as crazy as he wanted to be, maybe crazier than that. He said things that made you wonder whether the Democratic establishment was operating some kind of mind control device on him to get him to sabotage himself. He had no clue what he was doing before this started and he ran against a well-established politician. He spent less than her. He didn't have the appeal of being the first female POTUS. The Republican party itself turned on him - the most we've seen a party rebel against their own candidate in a century. The overwhelming majority of the media was in full attack mode against him.
Not only should he have lost, he should have been trounced. And he won. Barely or not... he won. Dude, how the hell did that happen?
You said you would vote for Trump as a second choice after Gary Johnson, didn't you? So, why would you have voted for Trump?
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
A perfectly fair point, but I have no confidence that the people who are apathetic enough to not vote are actually significantly less informed than those who do. Whether someone votes tells us whether they are motivated and have an opinion, it doesn't tell use whether they are informed or reasonable.
True, but I think it's reasonable to say that someone who does not vote out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is less likely than someone who plans on voting to have put the time into doing the necessary research to have an informed opinion, on the grounds that the person who is not voting out of a lack of interest in participating in the election is not interested.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
Now to your comment about "and came damn close to winning the presidency." There are 538 electoral votes available. Trump got 306 electoral votes, to Hillary's 232.
306/538 = 56.87% of the electoral vote went to Trump
232/538 = 43.12% of the electoral vote went to Hillary
That is not what I would consider "damm close to winning"
Except it is.
There are 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Hillary needed 38 more to make that total. Had she won the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states that normally lean blue but went red in this abnormal election, she would have won the election. Clinton lost by 0.3% of the vote in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 1.2% in Pennsylvania.
That is damn close.
It's why this narrative of a blue collar revolt, a revolution of the white working class is so ridiculous. Trump barely won the presidency, and even in the states he was able to wrestle away from the Democrats, he only was able to just barely scrape by. And certainly this notion of a landslide victory that Trump seems to think he achieved is ridiculous. Trump did not win by a landslide, he won by the skin of his teeth.
Which brings me to a particular point: in order for a republic to function, people need to be thinkers. They need to have bull***** detectors capable of detecting lies and rejecting them. And with that, I segue to another point you made:
In a republic democracy society like what the US experiences having AT BEST a 66% voter turn out is extremely bad.
This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.
THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.
Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.
With that in mind, let's go to the OP:
Not only that, but more importantly the Democratic party appears to have transformed into a party that caters mostly to wealthy professionals that are a part of the "elite". Usually Republicans have a solid advantage over Democrats when it comes to winning high-income households in elections. But in this election, Trump just *barely* edged Clinton in households with six-figure incomes. Compare this to 2012, when Romney solidly beat Obama in the same demographics. There seems to be a clear trend that Democrats have abandoned many in the middle to lower income brackets and have catered to much more affluent individuals.
To further make things worse, Democrats decided to double down on the same cosmopolitanism that cost them the election by re-electing Nancy Pelosi as US House Democratic leader. Pelosi is literally a caricature of out of touch coastal cosmopolitanism. While Hillary was a flawed candidate in many other ways, certainly one of her flaws was the fact that she was seen as an out of touch, cosmopolitan political elite who could not connect with ordinary Americans. The fact that a billionaire from New York City connected more with people from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan than a Democrat should shock the party to its very core. The Democrats in the house have effectively elected a symbol of the very corruption, hypocrisy and elitism that voters expressly voted against.
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent? Or has that bridge been burned?
This is ridiculous.
I have already pointed out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, rendering the narrative that this election is a result of the "silent majority" in this country speaking up an absurdity.
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Yet here is an OP trying to create the same narrative, that Trump represents a landslide populist revolution against the wealthy elite, a narrative which is clearly absurd at this juncture now that the man has demonstrated his cabinet choices and the ineptitude exhibited therein. "That the voters expressly voted against?" On what parallel universe does Trump represent anything other than a wealthy elite out of touch with reality?
As I said, this narrative is absurd. But why would anyone put it forth? Because it's the narrative the Trump campaign is spouting.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
It bears repeating that the Democrats won the popular vote, and came damn close to winning the presidency.
Quote from Surging Chaos »
What can Democrats do to regain the voters they used to represent?
I don't think the Democrats will have to do anything. We've seen two presidencies enter office on a wave of support of people wanting to throw the previous administration out and get change going, and then immediately squander said support with blunders. And Trump is dumber than either of them. So I don't think this is going to take all that long.
We must remember that despite the fact that Trump ran as the Republican nominee, his campaign was based on a movement against the Republicans as well as against the Democrats, and won based on popular discontent with either party. But it's difficult to maintain the support of those who express disdain towards those in power when you yourself are in power. We'll see what happens.
Furthermore, what is the "Archie Bunker myth"? I was not aware of people saying that rich people weren't racist.
Third, I believe you're conflating college graduates with wealthy people. People who were at the highest income brackets, by and large, voted Trump. But college-educated professionals are not necessarily people who are at the highest income brackets. The professionals you speak of did, by and large, vote Clinton.
Fourth, no, it's not just the mandate that people object to about Obamacare. It's the fact that people lost their previous insurance plans - which Obama said would not happen - and the fact that insurance premiums soared after Obamacare happened. Which, again, really makes me when someone says the problem is that the Democrats aren't left enough, because these people do not seem to be clamoring for greater amounts of government intervention in the healthcare system.
So, basically, I really have no clue what point you're trying to make beyond, "Clinton is a corporate stooge and corrupt." Which, yeah. But so is Trump. And I will agree that Clinton was a major reason why the Democrats lost. Because she's Clinton. But I have no idea what you're saying past that.
Fair, but the question then comes as to what extent is this a problem with centrist Democrats vs. to what extent is this a problem with Clinton, or for that matter Obama?
Is the backlash against Obamacare really because the people against it want there to be even more government intervention in the healthcare industry?
One cannot deny a major impetus for the flipping of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania wasn't due to the widespread dissatisfaction with Obamacare. Which, again, prompts the rather confused look I have towards someone saying that the problem with Democrats losing elections comes from them not being left enough.
And so they voted Trump?
How on earth did that make sense in your head when you wrote this?
You are, of course, blissfully unaware of the widespread backlash against Obamacare? Hint: it's not because it isn't Communist-enough.
Mexico will pay us back for building a border wall.
Yeah, this is a good time to note something that's been said already, but I feel bears repeating: Donald Trump is a CON MAN. And what threads like this one are basically doing is looking at how many people bought what the con man was selling, and then proclaimed, "Wow, everyone bought what the con man was selling! Looks like the other people who are selling X are out of business!" Except, the problem with that is you're only going by who bought it, and not who actually got what they ordered and was satisfied afterward. You're not looking into the people who never actually got anything despite ordering it, or the people who got something very different from what was advertised.
Another metaphor would be tipping your waiter before the food arrives, or in this thread's case, giving the restaurant three Michelin stars and declaring that it will drive all other restaurants out of business before the food arrives.
In other words, yes, a lot of people may have bought into what the con man was saying. A lot of people may have ponied up good money for what he was selling. But the Republicans' success, at least for the next election, is dependent upon a con man following through on what he promised.
Remember the part where he's a con man? Yeah. It's not likely.
Then maybe you should try looking at voter percentages.
And the Dems came into power after Bush with a filibuster-proof majority. People were declaring the GOP dead during that time. How many times, I wonder, does this need to happen before declaring a party dead is recognized as a premature reaction?
Yes, in reaction to an increasingly globalized world and the new challenges it brings, there are movements within many countries that represent a backlash against it in the form of a retreat towards nativism.
None of that makes the Democrats finished.
Hell, right now there's increasing concern amongst the "coal country" voters about whether or not they'll lose the health benefits granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans' next move on the healthcare issue will play a major role in determining whether these voters will continue to support the Republicans or feel a sense of betrayal and actively oppose them.
Which brings us to the thing that really needs to be driven home: we are FIVE DAYS into 2017. So maybe, just maybe, it's a tad bit too premature to declare the Republicans the winners of the 2020 election when they're not even a week into this current presidency. Right?
Apparently, whatever your other reasons were, one of them was because Trump not knowing what he was doing, and Trump being crazy - so much so as to evoke conspiracy theories that he was some kind of Democratic plant installed to ensure Hillary's victory - really didn't bother you all that much.
Evidently 63 million people really weren't bothered by it either.
*The next two posts are responses about mandatory voting* C'mon guys...
Any further discussion should go to another thread. This is about the Democratic party and its future.
And we should not make this a debate on mandatory voting. The US has no mandatory voting policy, and even if such a thing were ruled not-unconstitutional (it wouldn't), it is not going to implemented in the near future.
There are 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Hillary needed 38 more to make that total. Had she won the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, states that normally lean blue but went red in this abnormal election, she would have won the election. Clinton lost by 0.3% of the vote in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 1.2% in Pennsylvania.
That is damn close.
It's why this narrative of a blue collar revolt, a revolution of the white working class is so ridiculous. Trump barely won the presidency, and even in the states he was able to wrestle away from the Democrats, he only was able to just barely scrape by. And certainly this notion of a landslide victory that Trump seems to think he achieved is ridiculous. Trump did not win by a landslide, he won by the skin of his teeth.
Which brings me to a particular point: in order for a republic to function, people need to be thinkers. They need to have bull***** detectors capable of detecting lies and rejecting them. And with that, I segue to another point you made:
This is an excellent point, and I completely agree. Voter apathy is a problem in any republic, especially ours in an election like this. It's ridiculous to have so many people not vote.
THAT BEING SAID, I posit that if you have a voter populace that is that apathetic, to the point where in such a monumental election, they still couldn't be bothered to show up [presuming they weren't disenfranchised, which is a completely separate issue, though one absolutely worth addressing], for them to fail to turn out to vote is actually the best case scenario.
Well, not the BEST case scenario, the best case scenario is to have 100% of all people eligible to vote to be mature, responsible people who did the proper research, put enough effort to really think about the election, and then turned out to vote. But we don't have that kind of best case scenario, and in such a reality, far worse is for apathetic voters who did not take the time and the care to ensure that they were properly informed of the issues behind this election to then go ahead and vote. It is far worse for people who are not willing to think to vote than not vote.
With that in mind, let's go to the OP:
This is ridiculous.
I have already pointed out that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, rendering the narrative that this election is a result of the "silent majority" in this country speaking up an absurdity.
I have already pointed out how Trump only barely won this election, rendering the narrative that Trump represents a sort of white working class uprising an absurdity.
Yet here is an OP trying to create the same narrative, that Trump represents a landslide populist revolution against the wealthy elite, a narrative which is clearly absurd at this juncture now that the man has demonstrated his cabinet choices and the ineptitude exhibited therein. "That the voters expressly voted against?" On what parallel universe does Trump represent anything other than a wealthy elite out of touch with reality?
As I said, this narrative is absurd. But why would anyone put it forth? Because it's the narrative the Trump campaign is spouting.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
I don't think the Democrats will have to do anything. We've seen two presidencies enter office on a wave of support of people wanting to throw the previous administration out and get change going, and then immediately squander said support with blunders. And Trump is dumber than either of them. So I don't think this is going to take all that long.
We must remember that despite the fact that Trump ran as the Republican nominee, his campaign was based on a movement against the Republicans as well as against the Democrats, and won based on popular discontent with either party. But it's difficult to maintain the support of those who express disdain towards those in power when you yourself are in power. We'll see what happens.