Dems Rebuild

[AFhusker]

 

I guess I'm the only one that thinks Trump sucks at charisma.

 

He's loud, boisterous, over the top....says outrageous things that most of the time is a bald face lie. He has goofy hair that everyone makes fun of. The guy sucks at public speaking. He looks very uncomfortable in some situations. He's always saying something that offends someone.

 

To me, that is not great charisma. We elected Rodney Dangerfield from Caddy Shack.

To me, it's not either. But empirically this is not true in general.

 

It's an odd, and worrying brand of charisma. Yet there can be no doubt it was captivating.

 

Talking policy appears to make little difference. People need a threat they are convinced they are batting down. Whoever creates the more compelling threat wins. And you'd think Trump's threats would be considered generally threatening....but also no. Some people felt so, and many others didn't really.

 

Finally talking policy in the last 2-3 weeks is what got him that bump that won the election for him. Hillary screwed up by not changing her message from that "he's not fit." Also I think the Dems underestimated how much the country didn't like what Obama was doing. You didn't hear about it because the media was in the bag for Obama the last 8 years and was obviously trying to do everything they could to help Hillary win. Nobody wanted to ask Obama a tough question because they didn't want to be labeled a racist.

 

I will combine a few responses so I don't flood the thread, but you are right about the R's being in dismay too. They won in spite of themselves because if they had their way they would have fixed the primary for Cruz. The difference was that there were rules in place so they couldn't do it unlike how the Dem's fixed their primary for Clinton. Trump beat both establishments in the process of winning two weeks ago and both sides have nobody to blame but themselves for his victory. Both sides are out of touch with what the American people want, the difference is that Trump picked to be an R (as he is really a Dem at heart) and is why the R's won. Not because of anything that their far right base did, but in spite of them. People are tired of whoever is in power blaming the other for nothing getting done in Washington. That has been going on for decades and that is how we got Trump. Well that and Hillary was also a historically bad candidate, with zero charisma and a ton of baggage who ran a very bad campaign.

[AFhusker]

That line about Clinton to the Romney/McCain/Gore pile is pretty apt, Knapp. I rather like that one.

 

The sad thing about Warren is that if she had been the nominee, Trump would've really gone balls to the wall with his "Pocahontas" shtick, and sadly, you'd have had entire arenas full of people hooping and hollering at that type of garbage because they think it's just so witty and hilarious.

 

I think you guys hit on a relevant point, though. If you look at our elections, going way back, it really is shocking how much it devolves into a popularity contest. Just going backwards, I would say that Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all the more charismatic choice in their elections. I'm not really sure how HW and Mondale stacked up-- again, before my time-- but HW was a VP for a very popular president in Reagan and from what I understand he was most eminently qualified. Literally I know about Mondale was that they hammered him with a commercial about being soft on felons because he didn't like the death penalty and he took a stupid photo wearing a helmet in a tank.

 

Still, that's nearly four decades worth of elections that have been almost exclusively gone to the more charismatic candidate. 2016 was another illustration of that. Obviously Trump is widely derided by a ton of folks, but he sucks all the oxygen out of the room all the time, and it's hard not to come off as more likable than Hillary Clinton.

 

Qualifications don't appear to matter that much. You'd better have a likable candidate first and foremost.

HW won because Dukakis was a terrible candidate and it was by default more than anything. He didn't look the part and did some silly things that pretty much handed the election to HW. I just watched a documentary about Dukakis and that campaign, his heart was in the right place, but he ran a terrible campaign. It was so bad that he really didn't have a chance.

[AFhusker]

 

20 years of misinformation, her general unlikeability, all the issues with Bill and the Trump Phenomenon is why she lost.

I do agree with this. And I'd also say the larger part of her unlikeability stems from being such an establishment figure in a decidedly anti-establishment time. Talk about misreading the national mood, Mr. Obama.

 

--

 

IPB keeps eating parts of my post. Anyway, I don't think this was an insane time for a woman to run. But it wasn't an unchallenging one, either. It will be for the next woman, and that's no more or less true if she's Mother Teresa or Ann Coulter.

 

More women will get into politics and it will become a lot more normal for them to both seek and attain the highest office. This is a stark challenge to decidedly male-dominated positions of power, and there's zero way that this will be an unbumpy ride. As with any groups accustomed to majorities or privilege, it's not easy as that begins to erode over time.

 

So, the gender topic, how we view women vying for legislative or executive power, these are all topics I think are worth discussing. Let's not keep it in a Hillary charge/excuse context, either; that diminishes the topic too.

 

I personally don't think the country has a problem with a woman in power. We are far past those times, but the problem is that the wrong woman ran this time. I don't see any that are "names" that would win right now, not because they are women, but because they are too far right or left and those names are Warren and Palin. It will be somebody from the next generation of politicians and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if she was an R.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Why is it so hard to understand that people don't like her? Not because she's a she, but based on her own merits? She is a plastic person. That's irrespective of gender, party affiliation, anything.

 

That's not hard to understand, but why is it so hard to entertain the idea that a legitimate element of why people don't like her might have to due with her being a woman in a decidedly patriarchal role.

 

It's implicit bias. And studies show us what kind of situations it exists in consistently. If you're going to take this line of reasoning, then I guess my question is how do we ever point to sexism/racism/etc. as being real in specific situations outside of the most ridiculous and egregious examples of people holding onto things like, "I hate black people." or "Women don't belong outside of the home."

 

Surely those biases exist in much more subtle ways than that. So...how do we find them? Because apparently the data doesn't apply to any specific situation.

Dem's can start by stopping making those issue's a reason for everything that doesn't go the way they want or how to describe people who are not "progressive." Labeling everyone an "ist" or on an "ism" is not the answer, America is tired of it and it showed why the "progressive" movement needs to tone it down or it will not be able to survive much longer. The Dems need to move away from the far left crazies like Sanders and Warren if they want to make any progress in 2018 or 2020. Hillary was more center before the primaries, being pulled to the far left hurt her more than any fake "ism" or "phoebe." that the Dems want to blame her loss on.

 

I mean hell the Dem's are labeling one of their own a "sexist" for challenging Pelosi for her positon of minority leader (based on obvious poor performance) which is ridiculous. Until this stuff stops, the Dems won't gain any ground because they can't get elected based on separating people and failing to run on policy.

I completely agree with this.

 

The country is sick and tired of every time someone opposes a black person or a woman or a gay person they are instantly labeled with an "ist" or "ism".

 

What some people don't realize is that when they go that, they actually diminish the value of what ever group they think they are protecting.

 

A woman can't actually have a debate and lose because she is a woman and anyone who opposes her is sexist....instead of actually debating her thoughts and ideas.

[Danny Bateman]

At the same time, the right does itself (and America) a disservice by telling people to shut up about -isms and -ists. Those things should absolutely be definitely be called out wherever they exist. The left would've been better off had they focused less on labeling Trump (correctly) as those things-- just label him those things decisively and move back to issues. Don't get caught chasing your tail over these issues.

 

There are millions of people who experience those types of discrimination, though, so people shouldn't shut up about them.

America is at most divided on this issue. They're definitely not sick and tired of them. The popular vote gap is 2M and growing at this point AGAINST the president-elect. That means that type of message is definitely striking significant chords with more Americans than not.

[BigRedBuster]

The left/Dems have made a living for a long time by labeling everyone who disagrees with you're candidate racier or sexist.

 

Politically it's had its advantages but it does nothing to actually help solve these problems.

 

Obama is rejected and everyone who disagrees with him on issues is labeled racist.

 

Hillary loses and people who didn't vote for her are sexist.

 

They just can't handle the fact there are people who gont like their ideas.

 

Obamacare sucked as a bill.....not because the president was black.

 

By doing that it makes it harder to have actual discussions about the "isms".

[Danny Bateman]

Who is saying those things? I don't know anyone that claims Obama gets stonewalled or Clinton lost because they're black/a woman.

 

Should politicians just give up advocating for those affected by racism or sexism altogether?

 

More people voted for their ideas than voted for anyone else's.

[BigRedBuster]

Oh good lord....

 

After Obama was elected, I constantly heard people claim those who opposed him were racist.

 

As for Clinton.....have you read this thread?

[TGHusker]

Chris Ruddy, the Editor in Chief at Newsmax wrote the following commentary on the steep road the Dems face going forward. I thought it was an interesting read.

However, I would caution against any republican 'optimism'. In 2008, everyone was writing about the demise of the repub party. Prior to the recent election, much commentary

was again about the repub party's demise and the struggles it would face going forward. With the Obama overreaches in his first 2 years, the tide started to turn in local

and congressional elections in 2010,12,& 14 and the tide became an unexpected tsunami in 2016. This same kind of turn-a-round could occur quickly, if the Repubs overreach.

They have the worse possible president elect who is full of all kinds of unbelievable self destructive tendencies, who could very quickly find himself way above his political pay grade.

I'm sure congressional repubs will do all they can to channel him and prop him up - but it will be a huge challenge. Their ship, is tied to a shaky dock to say the least.

 

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/ChristopherRuddy/Democrats-catastrophe-house-senate/2016/11/28/id/761036/

This was to be the beginning of a new Democratic era.

The first African-American president was to be followed by the first women president, who just won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes nationally.

Democrats have won the popular vote in every president election since 1992, with the exception of 2004 when George W. Bush squeaked by for re-election.

With these victories, the Democrats' dominance of the federal courts, now eight continuous years in the making, was to be become concrete with another eight under "President Hillary Clinton."

With the expected control of the Executive Branch, Judiciary, and favorable demographic changes, the Democrats were preparing for state elections in 2018 and 2020 that would have set the stage for reapportionment, giving the Democrats an opening to gain control of the House of Representatives in 2022. States like Florida, and even Texas, have been trending blue.

But the surprise victory of Donald Trump has changed all of that.

Three weeks after the election, Democrats are just waking up from their nightmare to face its horror.

Trump, a lifelong Democrat who ran and won as a free-thinking Republican, has already moved to assemble his administration.

Conservatives are elated, his picks are decisively right-leaning. For example, he selected the staunchly conservative member of the Senate as his Attorney General, Alabama's Jeff Sessions.

Trump will have not only full executive power, he will soon pick the crucial "fifth vote" for the Supreme Court majority.

Expect a solid "Scalia"-style vote, since Trump himself has said the late Justice Antonin Scalia will be his model.

Meanwhile, the Senate remains in GOP in hands. And because the Democrat majority foolishly did away with the cloture rule for nominees, Trump and the GOP majority will have a free hand to appoint a Court pick in Scalia's image.

As each domino has fallen – the House, the Senate, the White House, and soon the Court – the Democrats seem paralyzed or in denial.

Case in point, House Democrats are on the verge of re-electing Nancy Pelosi as their leader. (Funny enough, the National Republican Congressional Committee has even endorsed her re-election!)

Perhaps it does not matter what happens with Pelosi.

Due to gerrymandering, the House will remain in Republican hands until at least 2022, barring any economic crisis or black swan event.

At the state level, the Democrats have been behind the eight ball, especially after Obamacare caused a pro-GOP tsunami in 2010.

This year the Democrats hoped to reap a windfall from the Trump candidacy. Instead, as Fox News reported, their results were dismal.

Democratic control of state legislatures reflected "their lowest level since the Civil War." The GOP now controls 33 governorships, up from 31 last year.

And Republicans control both houses in 32 state legislatures. The Democrats control both houses in only five states, and only one is significant, California.

Without federal power, the Democrats are also in jeopardy of losing unions as a key cornerstone of their power.

Grover Norquist, the leading anti-tax activist, touts the fact Wisconsin's vote for Trump – and surprise re-election of solid conservative Senator Ron Johnson – had everything to do with Scott Walker's 2011 initiative to end collective bargaining for public unions.

As Norquist explains, since Walker's action, 130,000 union members have opted to stop paying dues.

Each had paid about a $1,000 a year, or combined, about $130 million in union fees.

In all, Norquist estimates the unions have been deprived of over $500 million in Wisconsin, a key reason the state went "red" this presidential year – the first time since 1984.

This past March, after Scalia's death, a split 4-4 Court vote on a critical case involving the California teacher's union failed to end collective bargaining.

Had Scalia voted, the ruling would have dealt an incredible blow to unions and the Democrats.

Many conservatives are anxious for the Supreme Court to rule on another collective bargaining case again, one that will likely be fast-tracked by the Trump administration. A perfect storm of events have given President-elect Trump a unique opportunity to shape the political landscape like Franklin Roosevelt did.

Since 1928, Republicans never held the House, Senate and Presidency at the same time – until 2017. The Democrats should note that is almost a 100 years of waiting!

[zoogs]

Obama didn't "overreach", he passed a heavily compromised ACA, making the U.S. the last member of a developed world we are supposedly leading to make official the idea that healthcare is a universal right.

 

If you do see this as overreach, then I suppose the six year blockade that ensued was an entirely reasonable response.

 

2008 was the demise of the Republican Party; it is now no longer recognizable, and the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 was the beginning of that.

 

Similarly, there will be a serious power struggle within the Democratic Party now and it's no promise that the best version will result (only the most powerful one), although we may hope so.

[BigRedBuster]

Obama passed a health care bill that is a horrible health care bill. This isn't a defense of the pathetic Republican party during that time and since. But, to act like Obama's bill is some kind of great piece of legislation that should be celebrated is misguided.

 

That piece of legislation is one big reason Hillary lost because she acted like she loved it and pretty much wanted to keep it in tact. Meanwhile, much of America is swimming in healthcare premiums they are forced to have.

[knapplc]

Millions of Americans have health insurance only because of Obamacare, and yet over 3.5 million people voted for Trump, against their own interests re: insurance.

 

So, unless the Republicans have been hiding some magically great healthcare reform package from us for six years, we're going to have all those millions of people out of insurance again, meaning they're going to use the Emergency room for hangnails and my healthcare costs are going to skyrocket.

 

Obamacare wasn't perfect by any means. But it was a step toward fixing our healthcare problem. We're back to Square One with Trump.

[Danny Bateman]

Now hold on there BRB. She wasn't campaigning on keeping ACA intact. She campaigned on keeping because healthcare reform is so damn hard and trying to fix what is wrong with it.

Obama wouldn't have passed such a horrible healthcare bill if any Republicans at all cared about doing what was best for the country instead of obstructing. A single-payer or public option in 2010 would've been the best options for actually clawing our way back towards a sustainable healthcare system. But because that entails big government helping people, none of them would go for it.

 

You really think this was the ACA Obama wanted?

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not saying anything about this issue and the voters is logical.

 

The issue is though, one hell of a lot of voters got notices that their premiums are going through the roof right before the election. I firmly believe that played a part in her losing. She was viewed as the one who would keep it in tact and Trump was viewed as the one who would repeal or make major changes.

 

And...nowhere did I ever say this was the ACA Obama wanted. It's a horrible bill and the Republicans never have actually proposed anything better.

 

Millions of Americans now have health care. That's a major plus for the bill. Besides that....well........

[TGHusker]

Obama didn't "overreach", he passed a heavily compromised ACA, making the U.S. the last member of a developed world we are supposedly leading to make official the idea that healthcare is a universal right.

 

If you do see this as overreach, then I suppose the six year blockade that ensued was an entirely reasonable response.

 

2008 was the demise of the Republican Party; it is now no longer recognizable, and the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 was the beginning of that.

 

Similarly, there will be a serious power struggle within the Democratic Party now and it's no promise that the best version will result (only the most powerful one), although we may hope so.

Actually the overreach wasn't just ObamaCare, it also is the 'shovel ready' stimulus, the auto bailout, etc. This on top the GWB bank bailout led to the revolts at the polls starting in 2010- it was Obama's issues added to GWB's issues. All eventually leading to a $19T debt.

Also the need of the country at the time was the economy and not the revamping of 1/6 of the economy wt the ACA - which has become a burden on the economy. Obama had a super majority and with it he choose the ACA over 'stimulus' 1st while he had some political capital. I think if he had address the economy first, you may not have seen as big of a revolt.

 

Regarding the bold - they are separate issues (the over reach and the repubs obstruction) . The repubs were/are at fault for being obstructionists. They have yet to lay out their ACA alternative and will now be held accountable if they don't fix what they say they are going to fix. Time for the repubs to come up with a clearly better plan that meets the needs of all citizens while not driving premiums through the roof. Let's see if they can back up their rhetoric.