Are Democrats going to do everything the same in 2020?

[NightHawkeye]

There will be at least one major change: Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic candidate. Indeed, the sad fact is that she may not even be alive in four years' time.

Now, now ... Hillary's not that old. Odds are that with the stresses of public life lifted her health will improve. Admittedly, she's on Coumadin but some people have survived on blood thinners for years.

 

[brinny]

There will be at least one major change: Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic candidate. Indeed, the sad fact is that she may not even be alive in four years' time.

It is sad, in that i pray that she is right before God before she dies.

Tragic.

 

[Rion]

Now, now ... Hillary's not that old. Odds are that with the stresses of public life lifted her health will improve. Admittedly, she's on Coumadin but some people have survived on blood thinners for years.

I wonder what all is wrong with her. That phlegm ball looked nasty and the SS having to throw her in the van didn't look good.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It is sad, in that i pray that she is right before God before she dies.

Tragic.

Fortunately ... it is not ours to judge.

 

[Kiterius]

I wonder what all is wrong with her. That phlegm ball looked nasty and the SS having to throw her in the van didn't look good.

Not to mention the Iced Chai.

 

[brinny]

Fortunately ... it is not ours to judge.

Interesting quote.

I just pray for her, just like i pray for many, including Charles Manson, who is very old and sickly...and i would never want him or anyone to die sick, alone, and lost.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not with that first line...

It's about 50/50 (I'll explain that in a second). I've heard conservatives crowing about "coastal elites" for decades (and in fact, that fight extends back at least to the 1890's, when it was an issue between Bryan & McKinley), yet when I finally meet these "elites" and hear what they have to say, it turns out that the bulk of them are just educated professionals whose work deals with a specific area of policy.

Assuming not, I agree with the idea of working hard, etc. etc. etc. but I also recognize that things can happen outside of your control. For a lot of people, the jobs simply came back after the 08 recession, or if they did, they were McJobs. Add to this the rise of intersectional/identity politics and you have a huge swathe of middle Americans who were not only suffering, but demonized as having it too good.

Believe it or not, I do actually have a lot of compassion for the folks in the middle America that's dying. That's where I grew up, and that's why I left. Moving is hard and expensive. Learning a new skill when there are zero opportunities around you is incredibly challenging.

But at the same time, I've heard conservatives trotting out their Horatio Alger stories for ages and sometimes I feel like turning it back on them. If poor, inner-city blacks are to be blamed for the conditions of their neighborhoods and ought to be expected to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should rural & middle America whites not be held to the same standards?

As for being elitist, I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm talking about people like CNN's Van Jones, who blamed the election on a so-called 'whitelash' against Obama and then went to Ohio to meet some of the people who voted for Trump. Van Jones has a net worth of over a million, IRC, and you had him on his show talking to people who were definitely your average Americans who were struggling, and it blew his mind they weren't white Nationalists.

Right. This "elitist" went out and talked to people and learned something about them and changed his mind. That's not being elitist; that's being intelligent and thoughtful. When was the last time Hannity or Limbaugh did that? When have they ever thought to challenge their ideas of what makes liberals tick? If anybody's elitist, it's those clowns and their followers who act like they're so much better than us liberals (and I'm not even really a liberal) that they can't even deign to try to understand us, to wonder why we believe what we do.

Post-election, a lot of liberals have acted like fools - and as a kinda-sorta-lib, it's really embarrassing. But a lot have also done a bunch of soul-searching and made significant steps in trying to figure out what makes the other side tick - your story about Van Jones is one example of that. The fact that I had to wait 2.5 months for one of my library's multiple copies of Hillbilly Elligy to become available is another. Numerous other articles and books have seen their popularity spike as we leftists have sought to understand the minds of Trump voters.

You know how much of that sort of curiosity I saw while I was a conservative or how much I've seen among conservatives since leaving that camp? Practically none.

I may or may not be an elitist, but I identify with Van Jones not because I'm also a millionaire (I'm not) or because I'm on TV (I'm not), but because I'm also curious and thoughtful and have arrived at many of the same conclusions.

Who's more elitist? The guy who takes the time to reevaluate his beliefs about <the others> or the guy who thinks that such an exercise is beneath him?

Then you have people online or off who push the idea that minorities cannot be racist, women cannot be sexist, etc. etc. So you have extremists in groups like the BLM movement calling for the murder of whites and cops, and when someone says that sounds hateful or they happen to share their belief that there should be less genders than Baskin Robbins has flavors, they're shouted down and told to check their privilege.

Yep, they're fools. But at the same time, you've got tons of folks on the right who deliberately try to ignore things like racial disparities and abuse in policing, and other issues of real discrimination. Is it any wonder that some folks on the left over-correct?

BTW, if you're not lazy, change your user title. You aren't a Newbie, you were here last time I was.

I don't pay any attention to all of the profile stats on this site. I have sigs turned off. My religion is wrong. I don't know (or care) what blessings are. I had assumed that "newbie" would auto-update based on something like your post count, which is how it works on every other board I've been on.

Democrats ran a terrible candidate ... because they assumed they couldn't lose.

True. That was definitely part of it.

How's your humility quotient?

Depends on my mood.

My father taught me when I was young that I could learn something from even the most ignorant fool. It's a lesson I never forgot.

I'm always open to learning something from people.

That's not the issue in flyover country. Many of us have bettered ourselves in addition to working hard and contributing to society for years.

That's great. But then why are people leaving those areas?

Yet, despite that, politicians still can't resist lying and pretending true is false when money is involved.

Common sense rules. When the emporer has no clothes, people see that. Pretending that the emporer must be viewed from, say, the perspective of an abstract artist where anything goes isn't going to persuade them otherwise.

So they elect Trump? I don't agree at all that people will see that the emperor has no clothes. I think people will see whatever clothes they wish to see. I'll readily concede that some on the left tried to paint Hillary as maybe a bit nicer than was warranted, but that effort really pales in comparison to the delusions I saw (and continue to see) from the folks in the solid pro-Trump camp.

Nah, the simple fact is that we now have a political elite class in this country which exists mostly to perpetuate itself.

Is there a better explanation for the FACT that this past election was presaged as a contest between two political dynasties, the Clintons and the Bushes. The further FACT that voters rejected both dynasties should serve as a wake-up call to those in the elite class. Hopefully, some will hear the call ... but it certainly doesn't look like very many have yet accepted that new reality.

Yeah, people went with name recognition. Trump had the added bonus of being an authoritarian, which makes a lot of people feel good. And he said a bunch of nonsense about jobs and immigration that also made people feel good.

 

[Rion]

Who's more elitist? The guy who takes the time to reevaluate his beliefs about <the others> or the guy who thinks that such an exercise is beneath him?

Except he's a news contributor who only went to meet them after demonizing them for months, and even the way he spoke to them was utter cringe. I'm glad he was willing to admit he was wrong, but as a reporter, you shouldn't revel in your ignorance until it slaps you upside your head.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Except he's a news contributor who only went to meet them after demonizing them for months, and even the way he spoke to them was utter cringe. I'm glad he was willing to admit he was wrong, but as a reporter, you shouldn't revel in your ignorance until it slaps you upside your head.

That's a fair criticism, but what does it say about the folks who continue to revel in their ignorance even after it slaps them in the head? Or the folks who can't recognize when they're being slapped by their ignorance? Or the folks who never give their ignorance the opportunity to slap them? Conservative media is full of that sort of ideological isolation.

Just by virtue of showing up and listening, Jones showed himself to be LESS elitist than the rest of them.

 

[MoonlessNight]

...or you're completely wrong. Anything can happen in the next few years.
tulc(suspects it will look nothing like it does today)

If you're fair you won't call me wrong until after 2020 when I explain how even though every one of my predictions didn't materialize, I'm still right because I analyzed the situation in such a good way.

 

[Redac]

Probably; they don't seem like they've learned much from the election.

Who do they even have in the reserves for 2020 anyway?

 

[tulc]

If you're fair you won't call me wrong until after 2020 when I explain how even though every one of my predictions didn't materialize, I'm still right because I analyzed the situation in such a good way.

alright...I'll say you aren't wrong!
tulc(well played sir, well played!)

 

[joshua 1 9]

But it seems like Democrats will repeat all of their mistakes

Trump was God's choice for president. He will be president for 8 years then Pence will be president for 4 years. Everyone well benefit from the prosperity and the strong economy. I predict the day will come when people can build a home for $30 to $40,000. (50 to 60 with developed lot) They are already starting to make a 3D live sized printer that can frame in a home in a day.

3D printer creates 10 houses in a DAY | Daily Mail Online

 

[freezerman2000]

well...except for the losing part of course. President-elect Trump will, of course, give us everything we'll need to win.
tulc(thanks him in advance)

And you know..how?

 

[freezerman2000]

Trump was God's choice for president. He will be president for 8 years then Pence will be president for 4 years. Everyone well benefit from the prosperity and the strong economy. I predict the day will come when people can build a home for $30 to $40,000. (50 to 60 with developed lot) They are already starting to make a 3D live sized printer that can frame in a home in a day.

3D printer creates 10 houses in a DAY | Daily Mail Online

No..it will
not happen It may be easier to buy a house,but at those prices?> dream on.
Utopia it will not be..

 

[joshua 1 9]

No..it will
not happen It may be easier to buy a house,but at those prices?> dream on.
Utopia it will not be..

You can already buy a factory built mobile home in the 30 to 40,000 range, plus the cost of developed lot to set the home up on. It is not unusual to buy them used around here for around $5,000. A double wide of course cost twice that amount.

 

[Vylo]

I'm hoping there will be a shake up in the party that helps them never choose a candidate whose "turn" it is again. Every bit of polling showed Clinton decisively weaker than Sanders, Sanders was immensely popular and they did everything in their power to squash him instead of letting the people decide. Considering the extremely narrow margins Trump won by, and how many Sanders supporters who came forward and admitted swapping to Trump, staying home, or going third party, it is easy to see how the DNC ignoring its own voters cost them the election.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Believe it or not, I do actually have a lot of compassion for the folks in the middle America that's dying. That's where I grew up, and that's why I left. Moving is hard and expensive. Learning a new skill when there are zero opportunities around you is incredibly challenging.

Allow me to correct you. Middle America is not dying. Struggling under Obama would be a better description.

But at the same time, I've heard conservatives trotting out their Horatio Alger stories for ages and sometimes I feel like turning it back on them. If poor, inner-city blacks are to be blamed for the conditions of their neighborhoods and ought to be expected to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, why should rural & middle America whites not be held to the same standards?

What would you have them do that they are not now doing?

Post-election, a lot of liberals have acted like fools - and as a kinda-sorta-lib, it's really embarrassing. But a lot have also done a bunch of soul-searching and made significant steps in trying to figure out what makes the other side tick ...

I'm always open to learning something from people.

That's great. But then why are people leaving those areas?

You seem to be working with bad information. Here's a recent map showing population growth and decline:

The area losing population is the liberal Northeast and the so-called "rustbelt" which for years hasn't been able to decide whether to vote liberal or conservative. The middle of the country, the South and the West are all showing significant population growth.

People still vote with their feet in the USA. It's a tradition.

So they elect Trump? I don't agree at all that people will see that the emperor has no clothes. I think people will see whatever clothes they wish to see.

Perhaps that's one of the major differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". (Note that I only use the two terms here because you are. I personally believe the political spectrum is far more varied and nuanced.)

I'll readily concede that some on the left tried to paint Hillary as maybe a bit nicer than was warranted, but that effort really pales in comparison to the delusions I saw (and continue to see) from the folks in the solid pro-Trump camp.

Believe it or not, people voted for Trump because of what he stood for. It's no more complicated than that. His message was very simple ... and accurate.

Yeah, people went with name recognition.

You can thank the mainstream press for that.

Trump had the added bonus of being an authoritarian, which makes a lot of people feel good.

Again, you can thank the mainstream press for that. It's more than a little ironic that the same press which was horrified by the authoritarian leanings of Richard Nixon became comfortable with the heavier authoritarian leanings of Barack Obama.

Trump was the over-reaction to the excesses of the Obama presidency.

And he said a bunch of nonsense about jobs and immigration that also made people feel good.

Indeed. Noting that Obama said a lot of things which made people feel good as well. Few of Obama's actions though brought about the desired results.

Can the Democrats regroup, get real, learn from their mistakes of the past half-century of repeated failed policies in time to field a real candidate in 2020? You know, a candidate offering hope, change. Oh wait, it takes more than that, doesn't it?

Call me skeptical. Evidence from the past eight years suggests that the Democrat party may soon be replaced instead.

 

[Vylo]

Allow me to correct you. Middle America is not dying. Struggling under Obama would be a better description.

What would you have them do that they are not now doing?





You seem to be working with bad information. Here's a recent map showing population growth and decline:

The area losing population is the liberal Northeast and the so-called "rustbelt" which for years hasn't been able to decide whether to vote liberal or conservative. The middle of the country, the South and the West are all showing significant population growth.

People still vote with their feet in the USA. It's a tradition.

Perhaps that's one of the major differences between "liberals" and "conservatives". (Note that I only use the two terms here because you are. I personally believe the political spectrum is far more varied and nuanced.)

Believe it or not, people voted for Trump because of what he stood for. It's no more complicated than that. His message was very simple ... and accurate.

You can thank the mainstream press for that.

Again, you can thank the mainstream press for that. It's more than a little ironic that the same press which was horrified by the authoritarian leanings of Richard Nixon became comfortable with the heavier authoritarian leanings of Barack Obama.

Trump was the over-reaction to the excesses of the Obama presidency.

Indeed. Noting that Obama said a lot of things which made people feel good as well. Few of Obama's actions though brought about the desired results.

Can the Democrats regroup, get real, learn from their mistakes of the past half-century of repeated failed policies in time to field a real candidate in 2020? You know, a candidate offering hope, change. Oh wait, it takes more than that, doesn't it?

Call me skeptical. Evidence from the past eight years suggests that the Democrat party may soon be replaced instead.

People are leaving rural America. For the first time in US history, rural America is actually losing population. Not just shrinking % of populationwise, but actually lowering in number. The largest hits seem to be rural counties in the NE, such as my own, which have started contracting. People are moving to the cities, and often cities in other areas of the country.

Only 3 states are shrinking, only one of which is in the NE, Vermont. The other 2 are WV and illinois.

The greatest growth tends to be florida and oil rich states due to cheap land and fracking. The west coast has strong growth too due to the tech sector (this is also driving growth in places like Austin).

 

[iluvatar5150]

You seem to be working with bad information. Here's a recent map showing population growth and decline:

The area losing population is the liberal Northeast and the so-called "rustbelt" which for years hasn't been able to decide whether to vote liberal or conservative. The middle of the country, the South and the West are all showing significant population growth.

Eh... You might want to study the geography and demographics of the northeast a little more. Those red areas are not the liberal parts - those are the conservative rural and "middle America" parts. The blue parts of NY, for example, are NYC (and surrounding areas), Albany (and Saratoga County), and Ithaca. The only exception is Hamilton County (the northern-most blue county in NY) which is in the Adirondacks - that's a sparsely-populated vacation area, so probably doesn't fit either of our agendas. All of the red parts are conservative and either rural or small-ish "middle America" cities. The dark red blotch on the northeast corner of Lake Ontario is Jefferson County, home of Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division - hardly a liberal enclave. That stretch of light pink from central to western NY is Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo, which you can see have lost less population than the more rural southern tier.

In MA, the central and eastern parts are growing, because Boston and its suburbs are growing. The only part that's shrinking is the rural and more conservative western part. In NH, the southeast corner is growing because that effectively functions as a suburb of Boston - that's where people move if they work in the northern Boston area but want cheaper real estate. The rest of NH is shrinking.

In VT, it looks like the area around Burlington is growing, while the rest is shrinking. Burlington is not conservative.

In ME, the southern tip is growing - that's Portland and some of the farther Boston suburbs. The rest is shrinking.

RI, also not really conservative, is also growing. In the north, it's probably due to Providence's resurgence and its proximity to Boston. In the south, my guess would be tourism, but I could be wrong.

In CT, the part closest to NYC is growing. Lots of the rest is rural and middle-america-ish.

Looks like the same is true for PA and NJ: you've got growth around Pittsburgh, Philly, and York (which serves the same tax-haven function for Baltimore workers that Nashua, NH does for Boston workers)

Baltimore and DC are growing.

People still vote with their feet in the USA. It's a tradition.

Yep, and they're leaving rural areas. I'd wager that you'd see more growth in NYC and Boston if their real estate wasn't so expensive.

People are leaving rural America. For the first time in US history, rural America is actually losing population. Not just shrinking % of populationwise, but actually lowering in number. The largest hits seem to be rural counties in the NE, such as my own, which have started contracting. People are moving to the cities, and often cities in other areas of the country.

Only 3 states are shrinking, only one of which is in the NE, Vermont. The other 2 are WV and illinois.

The greatest growth tends to be florida and oil rich states due to cheap land and fracking. The west coast has strong growth too due to the tech sector (this is also driving growth in places like Austin).

Yep.