4 minutes ago, Vee said:

I think Hillary could've taken down almost any other Republican that was on the board last year, especially Ted Cruz, who IMO most people not in the evangelical ranks view as a religious creep. Trump has the star power and apolitical 'charisma' which drew a lot of an apathetic and disaffected, increasingly disenfranchised and anxious white (and at the very least quietly racist) middle of the country, especially people who only know him as the guy from TV and who think his politics are pretty open-minded (which they actually are, in a bizarre way). That X-factor, the mood of the country, and intense generational hatred of Hillary from the Republican base and the far left, from the media and from elements of our government collided to make an unlikely mix. This could not have happened with Ted Cruz.

 

I agree about Cruz. I'm not sure if I suggested he would have won - I didn't mean to.

 

Trump was the ultimate card because so many loathed him yet he was a fresh voice to many. So you may be right about her beating the others. I tend to think the media and the general mood of the country would have gone in the favor of media darling Marco or one of the other puppets if they'd stuck around. Cruz and Jeb Bush are the two I'd say were most beatable. 

 

I think Hillary ran a much better campaign than she'll get credit for. She should have won. I just wonder now if she had way too much baggage to ever truly have a chance. 

There is also a segment of the American public that (mistakenly) equates money with virtue.  I saw this in the NYC mayoral race when Bloomberg was running. People somehow assumed that by virtue (there's that word again) of being a billionaire, Bloomberg could elevate all of NYC's fortunes, and he did for some- they're called the 1%, who moved to NYC in droves. Unfortunately, the homeless population exploded during his three terms and after one half-explored "remedy" the Bloomberg administration ceded that problem to his successor (who still struggles with it).

 

Things only really improved for the wealthy as many left NYC because they could no longer afford it. When people demanded to know why Bloomberg seemingly spent so much time courting the tourists and the billionaires- Bloomberg's response "Why wouldn't NYC want more billionaires? Billionaires make it better for everyone".  Tone-deaf, of course, and it illustrated that a billionaire, even a successful one does not necessarily make an empathetic mayor or the most knowledgeable on how to run a city and the myriad of services that it must provide for its people. NYC learned from that time and elected not to vote for the billionaire in 2016 but many segments of America have yet to learn that lesson. It may come soon and it may just end up being a very tough lesson.

I think Trump and Christie had done enough to humiliate Rubio in the primaries to bury him. The Latino vote would also not have come out for him, IMO. If it had been Rubio Trump would have already finished him in the eyes of the public. And he definitely could not have handled a real debate - the Republican farces proved that.

Edited December 30, 20168 yr by Vee

1 hour ago, DRW50 said:

 

One of the things that I'm most wary of with Democrats is those who have the naive belief that we're always on a path to getting better, and people just have to understand this reality. Many people don't and won't understand that. I'm not saying cater to these views, because Democrats have tried to do that too and often failed - but you can't just dismiss them. It's difficult, because views are so hardened now, even the most compassionate or skilled Democratic candidate isn't going to convince a voter to agree or to compromise, but there has to be a middle ground between pandering and essentially writing off huge portions of voters and entire states, entire sections of the country, as impossible to reach, and saying it won't matter because demographics means other parts of the country will "catch up." Republicans have shown just how efficient they are at that rendering that impossible.

 

There's something inherently decent in many Democrats that they believe everything will move toward equality, fairness, and tolerance (although some struggle to adjust to the reality of this not involving white liberals patting POC on the head), but this also means many of them simply can't and won't understand the huge portions of the country that don't feel this way. Many can't be reached, but the sliver that can be reached - not through pandering and lurching to the right, but in empathy and honest talk - are worth the effort. Instead we either have sneering and elitism, or the tedious wanking of "What's the Matter With Kansas?" that yearns for a past that is never coming back. 

 

This is important, want to come back to this when I have the time.

I think Carl is right on about a lot of the problems with Democrats. My problem is that, just as you say, there has to be a middle ground between reaching out and reconnecting to the white working-class (however distasteful I presently find reaching out to that segment of apathetic Trump voters or non-voters) versus catering to them and largely abandoning our progressive social values.

 

I say 'social' because I think the far left and a lot of the Sanders contingent are all too eager to re-focus entirely on the white working class and economic issues, and call social issues, racial issues, diversity issues merely a 'distraction' just as Sanders did during the primaries. I think it makes the predominantly white, often-aging far left far more comfortable to be in the driver's seat on those issues and simply name-dropping Bernie, Howard Dean, etc. (not that I have anything against Dean, but he is in the mold: white and loud) vs. engaging with a more racially and sexually diverse progressive movement in the age of Obama and post-Obama, which is part of why many of them never trusted him and resented him IMO - because he usurped their power base, their message, their easy throne. It's the same meltdown we've seen with many progressive vanguard commentators from the Bush years, from Glenn Greenwald on down, when the angry white leftist on the Internet reigned supreme. Their attitude towards Obama, since 2008, has too often been 'who does he think he is?' IMO, Barack Obama was as much an agent of racial panic and resentment for the far left as he was for the right and the undecideds.

There is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party but it's not just about bridging the working class gap, it's about reconciling our ideology with the predominantly white, straight, male elements of the party who do not want to let go of being not only morally 'right' but in full control. And that begins with the Sanders diehards, and there is a racial and otherwise discriminatory element. It was the same in my mother's day when she was an activist - in the '60s the men always took the megaphone.

Edited December 30, 20168 yr by Vee

4 minutes ago, Vee said:

I think Carl is right on about a lot of the problems with Democrats. My problem is that, just as you say, there has to be a middle ground between reaching out and reconnecting to the white working-class (however distasteful I presently find reaching out to that segment of apathetic Trump voters or non-voters) versus catering to them and largely abandoning our progressive social values.

 

I say 'social' because I think the far left and a lot of the Sanders contingent are all too eager to re-focus entirely on the white working class and economic issues, and call social issues, racial issues, diversity issues merely a 'distraction' just as Sanders did during the primaries. I think it makes the predominantly white, often-aging far left far more comfortable to be in the driver's seat on those issues vs. engaging with a more racially and sexually diverse progressive movement in the age of Obama and post-Obama, which is part of why many of them never trusted him and resented him IMO - because he usurped their power base, their message, their easy throne. It's the same meltdown we've seen with many progressive vanguard commentators from the Bush years, from Glenn Greenwald on down, when the angry white leftist on the Internet reigned supreme. Their attitude towards Obama, since 2008, has too often been 'who does he think he is?' IMO, Barack Obama was as much an agent of racial panic and resentment for the far left as he was for the right and the undecideds.

There is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party but it's not just about bridging the working class gap, it's about reconciling our ideology with the predominantly white, straight, male elements of the party who do not want to let go of being not only morally 'right' but in full control. And that begins with the Sanders diehards, and there is a racial and otherwise discriminatory element. It was the same in my mother's day when she was an activist - in the '60s the men always took the megaphone.

 

I think that's also true. I think many of these types, like that idiot Jill Stein, are also probably somewhat fine with Trump winning, deep down, because they may feel they won't be affected and they think the world will be purified and their time to shine will come. 

 

I do think something in Bernie Sanders (not so much his supporters and campaign people) connected, maybe not with the average voter, but in a way that the working class can't connect to the establishment of the party. I'm sorry none of that was ever properly harnessed. He did try, and I think he genuinely wanted Hillary to win, but the damage was done from the ugly primary. 

Oh, Bernie connected but IMO he could never have won. The opposition file on him is deep and was never used. But yes, his passion does need to be harnessed.

5 minutes ago, Vee said:

Oh, Bernie connected but IMO he could never have won. The opposition file on him is deep and was never used. But yes, his passion does need to be harnessed.

 

I don't think he would have worked as VP, but I wish there had been some way he and Hillary could have effectively worked together. It just isn't likely though. I think looking back the biggest missed opportunity was just not offering another vision. The media would have ignored it for Trump and scandal anyway, but I still wish there had been more. Like the VP debate, when they had Tim Kaine focus only on Trump. Kaine wasn't the most natural speaker or personality but there was a lot about him that could have connected if it hadn't had to be all about Trump.

1 hour ago, Nothin'ButAttitude said:

 

Excellent. Black excellence.  

 

Obama is playing chess while the rest of these fools are playing checkers. 

 

I personally think this move is smart and strategic. One on hand, if Trump pardons these diplomats and invites them back, he is exposing himself to everyone that he is a treasonist. The media will be all over his ass and that'll be his narrative for the next 4 years. On the other hand, I think that if he ignores Putin and doesn't undo what Obama just did, he'll be exposed by Putin for not complying with what he wants. Trump's hands are tied. I'm sure Trump even knows this. What Obama just did is a thing of beauty. 

 

I think Trump may just find that it will be harder to undo something things than he may have thought. Meanwhile, he'll be on the hook to the Russians, who no doubt have intel on him as they hacked the RNC records but opted not to use any information. The Russians need only have a third party embarrass Trump on the world stage and he becomes a national liability.

 

6 hours ago, GMac said:

Good tips, DD.  I'll check them out.

 

I think you'll like NHK. Google NHK English, it'll come up. I swear, I saw a 30 minute documentary about hairdressing and barbering in Japan and thoroughly enjoyed it for reasons I cannot explain! The hairdressers and barbers were so meticulous in their work and the barbershop was so upscale, those hair tools were sparkling!

I think there was a vision - the media and a lot of the public just consistently ignored it, as a lot of it was the longtime party platform (which isn't all bad or outdated). And I do think there were mistakes made. They were wrong not to do what both Bil Clinton and Obama suggested, which was go back into the Rust Belt as opposed to assuming certain Democratic strongholds would hold. Many did not.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

I wouldn't be too surprised if those people disappear. They did their job, they're there to be used up and cast aside. 

 

A disquieting thought, but...true.

 

3 hours ago, marceline said:

Nothing matters to Trump's followers. They are a lost cause.

 

Also true.  Which is why I feel so...conflicted over Carl and Vee's brilliantly drawn arguments.  Because I DO agree that they are a lost cause, incapable of growth or compromise; and I fear that reaching out to them (and not correcting or outright rejecting them) will only result in reinforcing their false ideas and keeping this country as divisive as ever....

 

And yet, Carl and Vee are right: the Democratic party can't regain any footing if they don't at least try.

The key is that not all Trump voters are created equal. Some are diehard bigots and/or lock-step right-wingers. Some are evangelicals who held their noses. Many are just apathetic, disaffected white people with no particular affiliation who were quietly racist, anxious about a changing social and racial America, vaguely dissatisfied with life and thought 'why not try the TV guy? (Plus he's a white guy and not a woman)'.

 

Trump is a desperate attempt to reinforce a lot of people's comfortable views of an America that is fading. Eight years of a black guy plus rapidly changing social issues and now a woman made a huge segment of our old culture face an existential crisis. Trump was a last, petulant gasp for baby boomer-era white supremacy. But he is the last. And his coalition is not a coalition at all, it's just a bunch of disparate voters plus the Republican/Tea Party bigot base, all of whom can and will turn on him in a flash for a million reasons.

 

I don't like any of these people right now; I actively detest many of them. But the ones who are apathetic, disaffected, party-less, passively racist or at least deeply uncomfortable with their place in a changing America - many of them can be peeled off from Trump, reconnected with, brought into the fold and told it's not gonna be so bad. And some of them will have to be. I just don't know if I'll be the one able to do that.

Edited December 30, 20168 yr by Vee

12 hours ago, marceline said:

 

There has always been a contingent of women who hate Hillary for not being like them. Sam Bee did a really nice piece outlining, among other things, how other women have resented her. It started all the way back when she was First Lady of Arkansas. They hated her for using her maiden name. They hated her for continuing to work in politics instead of "baking cookies." There will always be a contingent of women who attack women for making different choices. They consider it a rejection of the values they find important. You see it with self proclaimed feminists too. 

 

In a way, it's like that episode of "Designing Women" where Mary Jo and Charlene had a falling-out, because Charlene decided she needed to stay home and spend more time with Olivia, and Mary Jo, being a divorced mother of two with no financial or other help from her ex-husband (her choice), felt threatened by her best friend's choice.  As Mary Jo said at the episode's climax (and yes, I'm paraphrasing): the "traditional moms" will always accuse the working moms of being selfish yuppies, and the working moms will always accuse the stay-at-home moms of being lazy, but that instead of turning on each other, the stay-at-home moms and the working moms need to stop blaming each other and ban together.

 

And I can't believe I've just cited an episode of "Designing Women" in order to make a point.

Edited December 30, 20168 yr by Khan

When you're right you're right.

49 minutes ago, Vee said:

When you're right you're right.

 

Actually, Pamela Norris, who wrote "Working Mother," was right.  I'm just a guy in his late thirties who lives at home with his mom and watches bad sitcoms.

 

Trust me: there will come a time when I will use an episode of "Mama's Family" to explain a complex moral issue facing this country, and you will rue the day you joined this board.