The Democrats Will Win In 2020

[naf140230]

I found this article I think you shuold see. Here is the URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siege...92304.html

Here is the article:

Quote:In 1928, despite Democrat Al Smith’s loss to Republican Herbert Hoover, political scientists found critical changes in American electoral and demographic patterns that began the reversal of the three decade Republican lock on party identification. These changes led to a restructuring and realignment of the major American political parties that lasted for generations. I believe that the 2016 and 2020 elections can repeat the sequence of the 1928 and 1932 resulting in sustained Democratic political domination and a potential long-term hemorrhage of Republican party support on the national level.
There are three reasons for the realignment that is already underway. First, the new demography of the United States is dramatically changing party identification and the current Republican Party doesn’t look or think like the new America. Second, the Trump phenomenon has ruptured the Republican political brand and accelerated the party’s fatal weaknesses with the expanding constituencies of this new America. Third, the coincidence of the 2020 decennial census and a presidential election will swell Democratic turnout for down ballot elections of Governors and state legislatures that will subsequently redistrict the House of Representatives for a decade.
The 1928 campaign of Governor Al Smith of New York expanded the demography of the Democratic Party to embrace urban voters, workers, blacks, academics, the senior citizens and Jews. The campaign began to uproot the Republican political dominance that had been in place since 1896. Political scientists label 1928 a “critical election” because it signaled the beginning of a structural change that culminated in the 1932 “realigning” election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
Data on the American electorate since 1988 shows a dramatic demographic shift that has now reached critical mass: the white electorate has shrunk from 88% of overall turnout to an anticipated 69% this year. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are expected to comprise 31% of the 2016 electorate, with Hillary Clinton expected to receive between 80-92% of the non-white vote. Voters under 30 have single digit support for the Republican ticket and single women are repudiating not only Trump, but traditional Republican ideology by dramatic margins. These increasingly powerful demographic constituencies identify and vote significantly Democratic, thus making a Republican national election victory — even if Republicans had a strong, non-controversial candidate — improbable.
The Republican Party conducted an “autopsy” after its 2012 defeat. That RNC report concluded that the Party must reach out, programmatically and symbolically, to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. Yet, the only response by Republican State parties to these recommendations has been not to reach out to these growing constituencies, but rather to adopt voter suppression legislation to prevent them from voting. And as the Republican base of old white men dies off, the demographic base of the Democratic Party continues to attract the expanding constituencies of the new American electorate.
The votes of the Electoral College states that consistently vote Democratic has now swelled to a reliable 244, just 26 electoral votes from the majority needed to win. For Republican presidential candidates to prevail in the Electoral College, they must thread the needle of marginal “purple” states, needing to win ALL of them to succeed.
Current demography makes a Republican win increasingly difficult, exacerbating recent historical trends. In the last six presidential elections Republicans have lost the popular vote five times. They prevailed in the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004 with 284 and 286 Electoral College votes, a margin of 14 and 16 electoral votes out of 538. In the last four elections won by Democrats, they received 370 Electoral College votes in 1992, 379 in 1996, 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012, margins of victory ranging from 52 to 109. Democrats can afford to lose almost all purple states and still top 270.
The Trump-ization of the Republican Party in 2016 makes the future of the party even more problematic. The outlook for Trump’s candidacy points to the same losing Electoral College pattern — or worse — with even the “red” states of NC, AR, GA and MO now in play. And demographic projections currently predict that Texas, the most critical Republican prize of all, with 32 electoral votes, will slip from “red” to “purple” to “blue” within two cycles as a result of of the rapid acceleration of the Hispanic electorate. When — not if — Texas turns blue, the Republicans, under the best of conditions, will cease to be a competitive national political party in presidential elections.
But what about the future control of the House of Representatives? The Republicans, principally because of skillful redistricting, have a 30-vote majority. This is where the coincidence of the census and presidential elections comes into play. The Republican Party, in the tsunami of the 2010 midterm election, took control of 22 state legislatures. In the reliably blue states of MI, PA and WI, Republicans seized control of the redistricting process. They also controlled redistricting in the purple states of OH, FL and NC. In these six states combined, the Republicans gerrymandered the map to create 34 new (and non-competitive) safe Republican House seats.
For example, as a result of this off-year election gerrymandering, in blue Pennsylvania Republicans control 13 of the 18 House seats despite the fact that Democrats cast 100,000 more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans in 2014. In Florida, Republicans have 63% of the House seats, in Michigan 64%, in OH 75% in NC 77% and in WI 63%. A Democratic controlled redistricting in some or all of these states after the 2020 elections and census could very well reverse party control of the House of Representatives for at least a decade.
All of these factors make it reasonable to predict that 2016-2020 will give political scientists what they have not seen for almost a century: a “critical election” (2016) followed by a “realigning election” (2020) resulting in Democratic domination on the national level of the emerging era of American politics.

[pbrower2a]

(01-07-2017, 11:55 PM)naf140230 Wrote: I found this article I think you shuold see. Here is the URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siege...92304.html

Here is the article:

Quote:In 1928, despite Democrat Al Smith’s loss to Republican Herbert Hoover, political scientists found critical changes in American electoral and demographic patterns that began the reversal of the three decade Republican lock on party identification. These changes led to a restructuring and realignment of the major American political parties that lasted for generations. I believe that the 2016 and 2020 elections can repeat the sequence of the 1928 and 1932 resulting in sustained Democratic political domination and a potential long-term hemorrhage of Republican party support on the national level.

There are three reasons for the realignment that is already underway. First, the new demography of the United States is dramatically changing party identification and the current Republican Party doesn’t look or think like the new America. Second, the Trump phenomenon has ruptured the Republican political brand and accelerated the party’s fatal weaknesses with the expanding constituencies of this new America. Third, the coincidence of the 2020 decennial census and a presidential election will swell Democratic turnout for down ballot elections of Governors and state legislatures that will subsequently redistrict the House of Representatives for a decade.

The 1928 campaign of Governor Al Smith of New York expanded the demography of the Democratic Party to embrace urban voters, workers, blacks, academics, the senior citizens and Jews. The campaign began to uproot the Republican political dominance that had been in place since 1896. Political scientists label 1928 a “critical election” because it signaled the beginning of a structural change that culminated in the 1932 “realigning” election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

Data on the American electorate since 1988 shows a dramatic demographic shift that has now reached critical mass: the white electorate has shrunk from 88% of overall turnout to an anticipated 69% this year. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are expected to comprise 31% of the 2016 electorate, with Hillary Clinton expected to receive between 80-92% of the non-white vote. Voters under 30 have single digit support for the Republican ticket and single women are repudiating not only Trump, but traditional Republican ideology by dramatic margins. These increasingly powerful demographic constituencies identify and vote significantly Democratic, thus making a Republican national election victory — even if Republicans had a strong, non-controversial candidate — improbable.
The Republican Party conducted an “autopsy” after its 2012 defeat. That RNC report concluded that the Party must reach out, programmatically and symbolically, to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. Yet, the only response by Republican State parties to these recommendations has been not to reach out to these growing constituencies, but rather to adopt voter suppression legislation to prevent them from voting. And as the Republican base of old white men dies off, the demographic base of the Democratic Party continues to attract the expanding constituencies of the new American electorate.

The votes of the Electoral College states that consistently vote Democratic has now swelled to a reliable 244, just 26 electoral votes from the majority needed to win. For Republican presidential candidates to prevail in the Electoral College, they must thread the needle of marginal “purple” states, needing to win ALL of them to succeed.

Current demography makes a Republican win increasingly difficult, exacerbating recent historical trends. In the last six presidential elections Republicans have lost the popular vote five times. They prevailed in the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004 with 284 and 286 Electoral College votes, a margin of 14 and 16 electoral votes out of 538. In the last four elections won by Democrats, they received 370 Electoral College votes in 1992, 379 in 1996, 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012, margins of victory ranging from 52 to 109. Democrats can afford to lose almost all purple states and still top 270.

The Trump-ization of the Republican Party in 2016 makes the future of the party even more problematic. The outlook for Trump’s candidacy points to the same losing Electoral College pattern — or worse — with even the “red” states of NC, AR, GA and MO now in play. And demographic projections currently predict that Texas, the most critical Republican prize of all, with 32 electoral votes, will slip from “red” to “purple” to “blue” within two cycles as a result of of the rapid acceleration of the Hispanic electorate. When — not if — Texas turns blue, the Republicans, under the best of conditions, will cease to be a competitive national political party in presidential elections.

But what about the future control of the House of Representatives? The Republicans, principally because of skillful redistricting, have a 30-vote majority. This is where the coincidence of the census and presidential elections comes into play. The Republican Party, in the tsunami of the 2010 midterm election, took control of 22 state legislatures. In the reliably blue states of MI, PA and WI, Republicans seized control of the redistricting process. They also controlled redistricting in the purple states of OH, FL and NC. In these six states combined, the Republicans gerrymandered the map to create 34 new (and non-competitive) safe Republican House seats.

For example, as a result of this off-year election gerrymandering, in blue Pennsylvania Republicans control 13 of the 18 House seats despite the fact that Democrats cast 100,000 more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans in 2014. In Florida, Republicans have 63% of the House seats, in Michigan 64%, in OH 75% in NC 77% and in WI 63%. A Democratic controlled redistricting in some or all of these states after the 2020 elections and census could very well reverse party control of the House of Representatives for at least a decade.

All of these factors make it reasonable to predict that 2016-2020 will give political scientists what they have not seen for almost a century: a “critical election” (2016) followed by a “realigning election” (2020) resulting in Democratic domination on the national level of the emerging era of American politics.

Oh, do I wish this were true.

Just to remind you  -- the Republican Party has achieved an ominous resemblance to the racist Nationalist party of Apartheid-era South Africa, and in a very short time.  Beyond any question the demographics of South Africa under Apartheid were such that the Nationalist Party could never win a free election. It got electoral results much like those of Commie states except for being a racist, ultra-capitalist party with a populist veneer. Does that sound familiar?

Republicans have mastered the art of gerrymandering to ensure that the House of Representatives will represent rural areas very well (rural voters vote like European peasants -- keep taxes and government services small) and people elsewhere badly. It isw safe to say that about 20% of the electorate does not matter in Congressional politics -- ever, at least since 2010. The right-wingers can get away with just about anything short of calling for genocide or a restoration of slavery, and in practice they are but stooges for corporate lobbyi9sts responsible only to their paymasters.

I expect the current Congress, most state legislatures, and the President to be so corrupt that they dare not lose. Should they lose they will face prison terms -- so they would rather criminalize dissent as prevention and ensure their re-election in a rigged election. I expect violence against Democratic politicians who challenge Republicans meaningfully.

There is no historical analogue to Donald Trump in American history. That's scary. He is a wild card in the worst possible way. At best he is Horthy. At worst he is Duvalier.

[naf140230]

(01-08-2017, 12:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 11:55 PM)naf140230 Wrote: I found this article I think you shuold see. Here is the URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siege...92304.html

Here is the article:

Quote:In 1928, despite Democrat Al Smith’s loss to Republican Herbert Hoover, political scientists found critical changes in American electoral and demographic patterns that began the reversal of the three decade Republican lock on party identification. These changes led to a restructuring and realignment of the major American political parties that lasted for generations. I believe that the 2016 and 2020 elections can repeat the sequence of the 1928 and 1932 resulting in sustained Democratic political domination and a potential long-term hemorrhage of Republican party support on the national level.

There are three reasons for the realignment that is already underway. First, the new demography of the United States is dramatically changing party identification and the current Republican Party doesn’t look or think like the new America. Second, the Trump phenomenon has ruptured the Republican political brand and accelerated the party’s fatal weaknesses with the expanding constituencies of this new America. Third, the coincidence of the 2020 decennial census and a presidential election will swell Democratic turnout for down ballot elections of Governors and state legislatures that will subsequently redistrict the House of Representatives for a decade.

The 1928 campaign of Governor Al Smith of New York expanded the demography of the Democratic Party to embrace urban voters, workers, blacks, academics, the senior citizens and Jews. The campaign began to uproot the Republican political dominance that had been in place since 1896. Political scientists label 1928 a “critical election” because it signaled the beginning of a structural change that culminated in the 1932 “realigning” election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

Data on the American electorate since 1988 shows a dramatic demographic shift that has now reached critical mass: the white electorate has shrunk from 88% of overall turnout to an anticipated 69% this year. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are expected to comprise 31% of the 2016 electorate, with Hillary Clinton expected to receive between 80-92% of the non-white vote. Voters under 30 have single digit support for the Republican ticket and single women are repudiating not only Trump, but traditional Republican ideology by dramatic margins. These increasingly powerful demographic constituencies identify and vote significantly Democratic, thus making a Republican national election victory — even if Republicans had a strong, non-controversial candidate — improbable.
The Republican Party conducted an “autopsy” after its 2012 defeat. That RNC report concluded that the Party must reach out, programmatically and symbolically, to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women. Yet, the only response by Republican State parties to these recommendations has been not to reach out to these growing constituencies, but rather to adopt voter suppression legislation to prevent them from voting. And as the Republican base of old white men dies off, the demographic base of the Democratic Party continues to attract the expanding constituencies of the new American electorate.

The votes of the Electoral College states that consistently vote Democratic has now swelled to a reliable 244, just 26 electoral votes from the majority needed to win. For Republican presidential candidates to prevail in the Electoral College, they must thread the needle of marginal “purple” states, needing to win ALL of them to succeed.

Current demography makes a Republican win increasingly difficult, exacerbating recent historical trends. In the last six presidential elections Republicans have lost the popular vote five times. They prevailed in the Electoral College in 2000 and 2004 with 284 and 286 Electoral College votes, a margin of 14 and 16 electoral votes out of 538. In the last four elections won by Democrats, they received 370 Electoral College votes in 1992, 379 in 1996, 365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012, margins of victory ranging from 52 to 109. Democrats can afford to lose almost all purple states and still top 270.

The Trump-ization of the Republican Party in 2016 makes the future of the party even more problematic. The outlook for Trump’s candidacy points to the same losing Electoral College pattern — or worse — with even the “red” states of NC, AR, GA and MO now in play. And demographic projections currently predict that Texas, the most critical Republican prize of all, with 32 electoral votes, will slip from “red” to “purple” to “blue” within two cycles as a result of of the rapid acceleration of the Hispanic electorate. When — not if — Texas turns blue, the Republicans, under the best of conditions, will cease to be a competitive national political party in presidential elections.

But what about the future control of the House of Representatives? The Republicans, principally because of skillful redistricting, have a 30-vote majority. This is where the coincidence of the census and presidential elections comes into play. The Republican Party, in the tsunami of the 2010 midterm election, took control of 22 state legislatures. In the reliably blue states of MI, PA and WI, Republicans seized control of the redistricting process. They also controlled redistricting in the purple states of OH, FL and NC. In these six states combined, the Republicans gerrymandered the map to create 34 new (and non-competitive) safe Republican House seats.

For example, as a result of this off-year election gerrymandering, in blue Pennsylvania Republicans control 13 of the 18 House seats despite the fact that Democrats cast 100,000 more popular votes for House candidates than Republicans in 2014. In Florida, Republicans have 63% of the House seats, in Michigan 64%, in OH 75% in NC 77% and in WI 63%. A Democratic controlled redistricting in some or all of these states after the 2020 elections and census could very well reverse party control of the House of Representatives for at least a decade.

All of these factors make it reasonable to predict that 2016-2020 will give political scientists what they have not seen for almost a century: a “critical election” (2016) followed by a “realigning election” (2020) resulting in Democratic domination on the national level of the emerging era of American politics.

Oh, do I wish this were true.

Just to remind you  -- the Republican Party has achieved an ominous resemblance to the racist Nationalist party of Apartheid-era South Africa, and in a very short time.  Beyond any question the demographics of South Africa under Apartheid were such that the Nationalist Party could never win a free election. It got electoral results much like those of Commie states except for being a racist, ultra-capitalist party with a populist veneer. Does that sound familiar?

Republicans have mastered the art of gerrymandering to ensure that the House of Representatives will represent rural areas very well (rural voters vote like European peasants -- keep taxes and government services small) and people elsewhere badly. It isw safe to say that about 20% of the electorate does not matter in Congressional politics -- ever, at least since 2010. The right-wingers can get away with just about anything short of calling for genocide or a restoration of slavery, and in practice they are but stooges for corporate lobbyi9sts responsible only to their paymasters.

I expect the current Congress, most state legislatures, and the President to be so corrupt that they dare not lose. Should they lose they will face prison terms -- so they would rather criminalize dissent as prevention and ensure their re-election in a rigged election. I expect violence against Democratic politicians who challenge Republicans meaningfully.

There is no historical analogue to Donald Trump in American history. That's scary. He is a wild card in the worst possible way. At best he is Horthy. At worst he is Duvalier.

Can you really predict that? There are problems with that opinion. Many Republicans in Congress don't support Donald Trump on a lot of things. Also, in 2020, many of Trump's working class and middle class supporters will probably have turned against him when they realize they have been tricked. There is also the possibility of Trump being impeached by Congress which is becoming more likely as we speak given recent events.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-08-2017, 01:10 AM)naf140230 Wrote: Can you really predict that? There are problems with that opinion. Many Republicans in Congress don't support Donald Trump on a lot of things. Also, in 2020, many of Trump's working class and middle class supporters will probably have turned against him when they realize they have been tricked. There is also the possibility of Trump being impeached by Congress which is becoming more likely as we speak given recent events.

Good question.  I am very concerned for the country should Trump try to govern in the same way he campaigned.  I am trying not to be too optimistic or too pessimistic.  I'll wait for a while before pushing any panic buttons or releasing red white and blue balloons.

But I'm for sure keeping the velvet cloth snugly covering my crystal ball.  This doesn't seem to be a good time for predicting the immediate future.

[pbrower2a]

(01-08-2017, 01:10 AM)naf140230 Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 12:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 11:55 PM)naf140230 Wrote: I found this article I think you shuold see. Here is the URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siege...92304.html

Here is the article:

Quote:In 1928, despite Democrat Al Smith’s loss to Republican Herbert Hoover, political scientists found critical changes in American electoral and demographic patterns that began the reversal of the three decade Republican lock on party identification. These changes led to a restructuring and realignment of the major American political parties that lasted for generations. I believe that the 2016 and 2020 elections can repeat the sequence of the 1928 and 1932 resulting in sustained Democratic political domination and a potential long-term hemorrhage of Republican party support on the national level.

There are three reasons for the realignment that is already underway. First, the new demography of the United States is dramatically changing party identification and the current Republican Party doesn’t look or think like the new America. Second, the Trump phenomenon has ruptured the Republican political brand and accelerated the party’s fatal weaknesses with the expanding constituencies of this new America. Third, the coincidence of the 2020 decennial census and a presidential election will swell Democratic turnout for down ballot elections of Governors and state legislatures that will subsequently redistrict the House of Representatives for a decade.

The 1928 campaign of Governor Al Smith of New York expanded the demography of the Democratic Party to embrace urban voters, workers, blacks, academics, the senior citizens and Jews. The campaign began to uproot the Republican political dominance that had been in place since 1896. Political scientists label 1928 a “critical election” because it signaled the beginning of a structural change that culminated in the 1932 “realigning” election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
.......


All of these factors make it reasonable to predict that 2016-2020 will give political scientists what they have not seen for almost a century: a “critical election” (2016) followed by a “realigning election” (2020) resulting in Democratic domination on the national level of the emerging era of American politics.

Oh, do I wish this were true.

Just to remind you  -- the Republican Party has achieved an ominous resemblance to the racist Nationalist party of Apartheid-era South Africa, and in a very short time.  Beyond any question the demographics of South Africa under Apartheid were such that the Nationalist Party could never win a free election. It got electoral results much like those of Commie states except for being a racist, ultra-capitalist party with a populist veneer. Does that sound familiar?

Republicans have mastered the art of gerrymandering to ensure that the House of Representatives will represent rural areas very well (rural voters vote like European peasants -- keep taxes and government services small) and people elsewhere badly. It isw safe to say that about 20% of the electorate does not matter in Congressional politics -- ever, at least since 2010. The right-wingers can get away with just about anything short of calling for genocide or a restoration of slavery, and in practice they are but stooges for corporate lobbyi9sts responsible only to their paymasters.

I expect the current Congress, most state legislatures, and the President to be so corrupt that they dare not lose. Should they lose they will face prison terms -- so they would rather criminalize dissent as prevention and ensure their re-election in a rigged election. I expect violence against Democratic politicians who challenge Republicans meaningfully.

There is no historical analogue to Donald Trump in American history. That's scary. He is a wild card in the worst possible way. At best he is Horthy. At worst he is Duvalier.

Can you really predict that? There are problems with that opinion. Many Republicans in Congress don't support Donald Trump on a lot of things. Also, in 2020, many of Trump's working class and middle class supporters will probably have turned against him when they realize they have been tricked. There is also the possibility of Trump being impeached by Congress which is becoming more likely as we speak given recent events.

I wish that I could share that hope. Herbert Hoover was a man of integrity who got caught with an economy that he could not deal with due to his rigid ideology. Donald Trump is a thoroughly-awful human being. Yes, he will quickly betray the working class, and he will be very unpopular. But the Republican-dominated House and Senate are well-entrenched wi9th gerrymandering that dilutes much would-be liberal vote with conservative rural voters. The Republican Party has practically no moderates anymore, and Republican po0liticians can get away with nearly-fascist ideology because of 55-45 ideological splits in most of their districts. Those pols can get away with much, especially with subservience with corporate elites through lobbyists. Republican pols can now get away even with garden-variety racism... so far.

(What is the term for "government by lobbyists"?).

It is up to the Republicans to decide in 2018 whether they are willing to lose some Governors' races that take out loyal soldiers in Republican Presidential campaigns. Should they deny a free and fair election in 2020, then they could get away with an economic meltdown as severe and protracted as that between 1929 and 1932, a military debacle, and even systematic corruption. Just think of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, a country with a political system designed to imitate ours.  Marcos won several elections despite the horrid economic performance of the Philippines in contrast to such neighbors and near-neighbors as Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Meet Filipino-Americans and you will find it hard to believe that the Philippines could be a very poor country.

Economic elites do not surrender their class privilege or the power  that underpins that privilege except when physically overthrown or when they fear being dispo9ssessed and killed... and must choose which revolutionaries are to take over. Those elites are going to have it great under Donald Trump, and that is what I believe Donald Trump really means by "Make America Great Again". The fools who wore those silly red hats with that vapid slogan never asked such questions as I made as:

Who in America?
By what means?
What does one really man by "greatness"?
And what time was without qualification better?

We get to find out what he means. Most of us will be disappointed. The question will be whether we get to respond with elections to throw the bums out. Those bums have big money behind them.

Bringing back the sorts of economic norms of the 1920s -- which includes no unions, no Social Security, no Medicare, lots of working-class kids dropping our after the eighth grade to do farm and factory work, Jim Crow in the South, WASP dominion over such peoples as Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans*, let alone Hispanics and blacks, no minority middle class, government representing only property owners... I could update a book:



Bettmann stopped with 1900, before the Pure Food and Drug Act and the extensive outlawry of child labor. But I could go on about 30 years, recognizing that the Great Depression, harsh as it was, forced institutional changes that made life better for most Americans even while the Depression was still around in the late 1930s.

I have known plenty of GIs, and those born in the first and second decades of the twentieth century never shared any fond memories of the 1920s other than love, marriage, having children, and school completion (to the 'solid eighth-grade education that was then the norm). Prohibition and the dangerous, fascistic Klan... no thanks. Elderly people holding onto industrial jobs for dear life until they dropped dead on the shop floor or died in industrial accidents? No thanks. Social Security put that largely to an end. The intellectual quackery known as eugenics that established a hierarchy of economic opportunity by ethnic group? Unthinkable now, but when it was fashionable it did great harm to anyone consigned to the 'inferior' peoples, especially blacks. No industrial unions to keep employers from driving wages down even in machine-paced jobs based upon the bargaining weaknesses of workers? Collective bargaining is enough to justify the union dues. Don't forget the economic meltdown that put an abrupt end to the supposed good times.

OK, there has been technological progress... and I would not want to use the dangerous cars on the Blood-Alley roads of the time. But if you are discussing the technologies of entertainment of the 1920s, those are the least objectionable features of the time.

....I have no reason to believe that Donald trump either can or will stop GOP designs to eviscerate (if not outlaw) labor unions, allow polluters to go unchecked, exempt the rich from taxation, replace Obamacare with "Get sick, tun out of money, and die" medicine, privatize Social Security and Medicare... I expect the worst from greedy people who have neither conscience nor empathy, and such people will rule America.

We can no longer expect certain norms to hold with the words "This is America". We have never had a President like Donald Trump, so we must look elsewhere for analogues with a semi-fascist head of state and a legislature that believes in the purest possible inequality. Trump barks out orders like a dictator. It will not work well.

The worst is of course that the elites will allow no effective challenge to their economic and political power. I expect much corruption because the politicians in power will be able to get away with almost anything. They risk losing much if they lose any of their political power -- like cheap labor, harsh management, and soft regulation.

The best that can happen is for us liberals to make America ungovernable if the President and Congress try to establish a dictatorial order -- and ensuring that America can get a renewal of liberty and equity.

We are approaching the maximal point of danger. In the last one, the great heels ruled Germany, Italy, and Japan. This year they are already in America. We Americans solved the fascist menace by defeating foreign powers.


*Probably because the WASP group includes lots of wretchedly-educated, unskilled people of the Mountain and Deep South, WASPs as a group do not fare as well on the average as the more urban Polish-Americans (the best-faring white ethnic group except for Jews) and Italian-Americans. There is a large black middle class and a fast-growing Hispanic middle class... and I could make the case that Mexican-Americans, still statistically a poor group, are rapidly adopting values (like having a strong community, taking formal education seriously and participating in entrepreneurialism) inconsistent with remaining poor. And that's before I discuss groups from South, Southeast, an East Asia.

[Odin]

Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

[Eric the Green]

The Demographic theory didn't work in 2016. The article, although its projections were wrong, compared as I read it to 1928, and that could be true.

But in 2016, states where hispanic voters counted strongly (mostly in The West) did not have enough electoral votes to defeat the states in the Rust Belt where old whites predominate, in an ethnically-charged election. Trump was able thus to use resentment against Mexicans and Muslims to win the electoral vote narrowly while losing the popular vote substantially. Gerrymandering in these same states since the 2010 disaster has kept the House more Republican than the electorate is.

Millennials at this time do not seem to be a reliable Democratic constituency. Their civic awareness has not been demonstrated, except in 2008. They appear to be ripe targets for the older whites peddling neo-liberal economics and blowing racist dog whistles like "taxes are theft for freeloaders." The deceptive appeal of "less government" slogans remains the greatest obstacle facing Democrats.

It's true that the Democratic candidate for president in 2016 was inadequate. I don't know if a better candidate will run. According to my crystal ball, Terry McAuliffe and Sherrod Brown are possibilities. I would not predict the 2020 election until I know who the nominee is.

[Odin]

IMO a big problem the Dems have is that there is a good portion of the Left that is very fickle and self-absorbed and prefers to throw a temper tantrum and sit out the election rather than vote for a candidate that they don't think is "good enough". We saw this in 2000 and we saw that again in 2016. Or they will have delusionally high expectations and will throw a tantrum when those expectations are not met, like in 2010. Meanwhile the Republicans get out and vote even if their candidate is a ham sandwich (or a talking yam).

I think a lot of this goes right back to the last 2T, the Democratic Party is still suffering from the loss of trust triggered by the 1968 Convention, as the constant hysterical screaming about the DNC supposedly "rigging" the primaries in Clinton's favor shows. A lot of people on the Left still assume the party is going to fuck them over and due to confirmation bias will always find "proof" that they are being fucked over.

[Eric the Green]

(01-08-2017, 04:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 01:10 AM)naf140230 Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 12:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 11:55 PM)naf140230 Wrote: I found this article I think you shuold see. Here is the URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-siege...92304.html

Here is the article:

Quote:In 1928, despite Democrat Al Smith’s loss to Republican Herbert Hoover, political scientists found critical changes in American electoral and demographic patterns that began the reversal of the three decade Republican lock on party identification. These changes led to a restructuring and realignment of the major American political parties that lasted for generations. I believe that the 2016 and 2020 elections can repeat the sequence of the 1928 and 1932 resulting in sustained Democratic political domination and a potential long-term hemorrhage of Republican party support on the national level.

There are three reasons for the realignment that is already underway. First, the new demography of the United States is dramatically changing party identification and the current Republican Party doesn’t look or think like the new America. Second, the Trump phenomenon has ruptured the Republican political brand and accelerated the party’s fatal weaknesses with the expanding constituencies of this new America. Third, the coincidence of the 2020 decennial census and a presidential election will swell Democratic turnout for down ballot elections of Governors and state legislatures that will subsequently redistrict the House of Representatives for a decade.

The 1928 campaign of Governor Al Smith of New York expanded the demography of the Democratic Party to embrace urban voters, workers, blacks, academics, the senior citizens and Jews. The campaign began to uproot the Republican political dominance that had been in place since 1896. Political scientists label 1928 a “critical election” because it signaled the beginning of a structural change that culminated in the 1932 “realigning” election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
.......


All of these factors make it reasonable to predict that 2016-2020 will give political scientists what they have not seen for almost a century: a “critical election” (2016) followed by a “realigning election” (2020) resulting in Democratic domination on the national level of the emerging era of American politics.

Oh, do I wish this were true.

Just to remind you  -- the Republican Party has achieved an ominous resemblance to the racist Nationalist party of Apartheid-era South Africa, and in a very short time.  Beyond any question the demographics of South Africa under Apartheid were such that the Nationalist Party could never win a free election. It got electoral results much like those of Commie states except for being a racist, ultra-capitalist party with a populist veneer. Does that sound familiar?

Republicans have mastered the art of gerrymandering to ensure that the House of Representatives will represent rural areas very well (rural voters vote like European peasants -- keep taxes and government services small) and people elsewhere badly. It isw safe to say that about 20% of the electorate does not matter in Congressional politics -- ever, at least since 2010. The right-wingers can get away with just about anything short of calling for genocide or a restoration of slavery, and in practice they are but stooges for corporate lobbyi9sts responsible only to their paymasters.

I expect the current Congress, most state legislatures, and the President to be so corrupt that they dare not lose. Should they lose they will face prison terms -- so they would rather criminalize dissent as prevention and ensure their re-election in a rigged election. I expect violence against Democratic politicians who challenge Republicans meaningfully.

There is no historical analogue to Donald Trump in American history. That's scary. He is a wild card in the worst possible way. At best he is Horthy. At worst he is Duvalier.

Can you really predict that? There are problems with that opinion. Many Republicans in Congress don't support Donald Trump on a lot of things. Also, in 2020, many of Trump's working class and middle class supporters will probably have turned against him when they realize they have been tricked. There is also the possibility of Trump being impeached by Congress which is becoming more likely as we speak given recent events.

I wish that I could share that hope. Herbert Hoover was a man of integrity who got caught with an economy that he could not deal with due to his rigid ideology. Donald Trump is a thoroughly-awful human being. Yes, he will quickly betray the working class, and he will be very unpopular. But the Republican-dominated House and Senate are well-entrenched wi9th gerrymandering that dilutes much would-be liberal vote with conservative rural voters. The Republican Party has practically no moderates anymore, and Republican po0liticians can get away with nearly-fascist ideology because of 55-45 ideological splits in most of their districts. Those pols can get away with much, especially with subservience with corporate elites through lobbyists. Republican pols can now get away even with garden-variety racism... so far.

(What is the term for "government by lobbyists"?).

It is up to the Republicans to decide in 2018 whether they are willing to lose some Governors' races that take out loyal soldiers in Republican Presidential campaigns. Should they deny a free and fair election in 2020, then they could get away with an economic meltdown as severe and protracted as that between 1929 and 1932, a military debacle, and even systematic corruption. Just think of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, a country with a political system designed to imitate ours.  Marcos won several elections despite the horrid economic performance of the Philippines in contrast to such neighbors and near-neighbors as Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Meet Filipino-Americans and you will find it hard to believe that the Philippines could be a very poor country.

Economic elites do not surrender their class privilege or the power  that underpins that privilege except when physically overthrown or when they fear being dispo9ssessed and killed... and must choose which revolutionaries are to take over. Those elites are going to have it great under Donald Trump, and that is what I believe Donald Trump really means by "Make America Great Again". The fools who wore those silly red hats with that vapid slogan never asked such questions as I made as:

Who in America?
By what means?
What does one really man by "greatness"?
And what time was without qualification better?

We get to find out what he means. Most of us will be disappointed. The question will be whether we get to respond with elections to throw the bums out. Those bums have big money behind them.

Bringing back the sorts of economic norms of the 1920s -- which includes no unions, no Social Security, no Medicare, lots of working-class kids dropping our after the eighth grade to do farm and factory work, Jim Crow in the South, WASP dominion over such peoples as Polish-Americans and Italian-Americans*, let alone Hispanics and blacks, no minority middle class, government representing only property owners... I could update a book:



Bettmann stopped with 1900, before the Pure Food and Drug Act and the extensive outlawry of child labor. But I could go on about 30 years, recognizing that the Great Depression, harsh as it was, forced institutional changes that made life better for most Americans even while the Depression was still around in the late 1930s.

I have known plenty of GIs, and those born in the first and second decades of the twentieth century never shared any fond memories of the 1920s other than love, marriage, having children, and school completion (to the 'solid eighth-grade education that was then the norm). Prohibition and the dangerous, fascistic Klan... no thanks. Elderly people holding onto industrial jobs for dear life until they dropped dead on the shop floor or died in industrial accidents? No thanks. Social Security put that largely to an end. The intellectual quackery known as eugenics that established a hierarchy of economic opportunity by ethnic group? Unthinkable now, but when it was fashionable it did great harm to anyone consigned to the 'inferior' peoples, especially blacks. No industrial unions to keep employers from driving wages down even in machine-paced jobs based upon the bargaining weaknesses of workers? Collective bargaining is enough to justify the union dues. Don't forget the economic meltdown that put an abrupt end to the supposed good times.

OK, there has been technological progress... and I would not want to use the dangerous cars on the Blood-Alley roads of the time. But if you are discussing the technologies of entertainment of the 1920s, those are the least objectionable features of the time.

....I have no reason to believe that Donald trump either can or will stop GOP designs to eviscerate (if not outlaw) labor unions, allow polluters to go unchecked, exempt the rich from taxation, replace Obamacare with "Get sick, tun out of money, and die" medicine, privatize Social Security and Medicare... I expect the worst from greedy people who have neither conscience nor empathy, and such people will rule America.

We can no longer expect certain norms to hold with the words "This is America". We have never had a President like Donald Trump, so we must look elsewhere for analogues with a semi-fascist head of state and a legislature that believes in the purest possible inequality. Trump barks out orders like a dictator. It will not work well.

The worst is of course that the elites will allow no effective challenge to their economic and political power. I expect much corruption because the politicians in power will be able to get away with almost anything. They risk losing much if they lose any of their political power -- like cheap labor, harsh management, and soft regulation.

The best that can happen is for us liberals to make America ungovernable if the President and Congress try to establish a dictatorial order -- and ensuring that America can get a renewal of liberty and equity.

We are approaching the maximal point of danger. In the last one, the great heels ruled Germany, Italy, and Japan. This year they are already in America. We Americans solved the fascist menace by defeating foreign powers.


*Probably because the WASP group includes lots of wretchedly-educated, unskilled people of the Mountain and Deep South, WASPs as a group do not fare as well on the average as the more urban Polish-Americans (the best-faring white ethnic group except for Jews) and Italian-Americans. There is a large black middle class and a fast-growing Hispanic middle class... and I could make the case that Mexican-Americans, still statistically a poor group, are rapidly adopting values (like having a strong community, taking formal education seriously and participating in entrepreneurialism) inconsistent with remaining poor. And that's before I discuss groups from South, Southeast, an East Asia.

[Eric the Green]

(01-09-2017, 02:01 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 08:19 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO a big problem the Dems have is that there is a good portion of the Left that is very fickle and self-absorbed and prefers to throw a temper tantrum and sit out the election rather than vote for a candidate that they don't think is "good enough". We saw this in 2000 and we saw that again in 2016. Or they will have delusionally high expectations and will throw a tantrum when those expectations are not met, like in 2010. Meanwhile the Republicans get out and vote even if their candidate is a ham sandwich (or a talking yam).

I think a lot of this goes right back to the last 2T, the Democratic Party is still suffering from the loss of trust triggered by the 1968 Convention, as the constant hysterical screaming about the DNC supposedly "rigging" the primaries in Clinton's favor shows. A lot of people on the Left still assume the party is going to fuck them over and due to confirmation bias will always find "proof" that they are being fucked over.

"Revolution .... MAN!!!! What, my revolutionary candidate didn't get nominated? Well then, may the revolution come from the other side. And burn it all down ... MAN!!!

(Shout out to Marypoza and some others here ... )

These pathologies on the Left are self-defeating. We have much to learn, along with our friends (?) on the Right.

[David Horn]

(01-08-2017, 11:38 AM)Odin Wrote: Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

Yes and no.  Hillary can't be blamed for the loss of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.  That falls directly on the Party itself, and to its leader BHO.  The Dems have sucked for a long time; the GOP is suckier though successful.  Politics is at a nadir.

Assume major changes or lethargic nothingness.  Either is possible.  Let's be honest, private interests prefer inept and ineffective government ... until they need to be bailed-out.  Right now, they are giddy.  Let's see how that plays in a few months.

[David Horn]

(01-09-2017, 08:19 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO a big problem the Dems have is that there is a good portion of the Left that is very fickle and self-absorbed and prefers to throw a temper tantrum and sit out the election rather than vote for a candidate that they don't think is "good enough". We saw this in 2000 and we saw that again in 2016. Or they will have delusionally high expectations and will throw a tantrum when those expectations are not met, like in 2010. Meanwhile the Republicans get out and vote even if their candidate is a ham sandwich (or a talking yam).

I think a lot of this goes right back to the last 2T, the Democratic Party is still suffering from the loss of trust triggered by the 1968 Convention, as the constant hysterical screaming about the DNC supposedly "rigging" the primaries in Clinton's favor shows. A lot of people on the Left still assume the party is going to fuck them over and due to confirmation bias will always find "proof" that they are being fucked over.

All good points.  I would add the party-of-cats meme too.  Every group with an issue thinks that what they are advocating is paramount.  They expect full support and devotion, yet they feel no compunction about leaving other issues and their advocates to their fate.  The Dems are less a coalition than an aggregation with no common goals other than winning.  Even winning is less important than being right.

[Odin]

(01-09-2017, 02:01 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 08:19 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO a big problem the Dems have is that there is a good portion of the Left that is very fickle and self-absorbed and prefers to throw a temper tantrum and sit out the election rather than vote for a candidate that they don't think is "good enough". We saw this in 2000 and we saw that again in 2016. Or they will have delusionally high expectations and will throw a tantrum when those expectations are not met, like in 2010. Meanwhile the Republicans get out and vote even if their candidate is a ham sandwich (or a talking yam).

I think a lot of this goes right back to the last 2T, the Democratic Party is still suffering from the loss of trust triggered by the 1968 Convention, as the constant hysterical screaming about the DNC supposedly "rigging" the primaries in Clinton's favor shows. A lot of people on the Left still assume the party is going to fuck them over and due to confirmation bias will always find "proof" that they are being fucked over.

"Revolution .... MAN!!!! What, my revolutionary candidate didn't get nominated? Well then, may the revolution come from the other side. And burn it all down ... MAN!!!

(Shout out to Marypoza and some others here ... )

Marypoza is a good example of that type here.

[Odin]

(01-10-2017, 06:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 11:38 AM)Odin Wrote: Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

Yes and no.  Hillary can't be blamed for the loss of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.  That falls directly on the Party itself, and to its leader BHO.  The Dems have sucked for a long time; the GOP is suckier though successful.  Politics is at a nadir.

Assume major changes or lethargic nothingness.  Either is possible.  Let's be honest, private interests prefer inept and ineffective government ... until they need to be bailed-out.  Right now, they are giddy.  Let's see how that plays in a few months.

The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

[Odin]

(01-10-2017, 06:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 08:19 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO a big problem the Dems have is that there is a good portion of the Left that is very fickle and self-absorbed and prefers to throw a temper tantrum and sit out the election rather than vote for a candidate that they don't think is "good enough". We saw this in 2000 and we saw that again in 2016. Or they will have delusionally high expectations and will throw a tantrum when those expectations are not met, like in 2010. Meanwhile the Republicans get out and vote even if their candidate is a ham sandwich (or a talking yam).

I think a lot of this goes right back to the last 2T, the Democratic Party is still suffering from the loss of trust triggered by the 1968 Convention, as the constant hysterical screaming about the DNC supposedly "rigging" the primaries in Clinton's favor shows. A lot of people on the Left still assume the party is going to fuck them over and due to confirmation bias will always find "proof" that they are being fucked over.

All good points.  I would add the party-of-cats meme too.  Every group with an issue thinks that what they are advocating is paramount.  They expect full support and devotion, yet they feel no compunction about leaving other issues and their advocates to their fate.  The Dems are less a coalition than an aggregation with no common goals other than winning.  Even winning is less important than being right.

"Even winning is less important than being right." I think sums it up.

[Warren Dew]

(01-10-2017, 07:48 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 06:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 11:38 AM)Odin Wrote: Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

Yes and no.  Hillary can't be blamed for the loss of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.  That falls directly on the Party itself, and to its leader BHO.  The Dems have sucked for a long time; the GOP is suckier though successful.  Politics is at a nadir.

Assume major changes or lethargic nothingness.  Either is possible.  Let's be honest, private interests prefer inept and ineffective government ... until they need to be bailed-out.  Right now, they are giddy.  Let's see how that plays in a few months.

The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

Republicans have the same problem at the local level on the coasts.  At the state level they've won a few governorships with socially moderate to liberal candidates, but that's mostly because a gubernatorial campaign can be run without the support of the party.

[David Horn]

(01-10-2017, 07:48 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 06:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 11:38 AM)Odin Wrote: Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

Yes and no.  Hillary can't be blamed for the loss of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.  That falls directly on the Party itself, and to its leader BHO.  The Dems have sucked for a long time; the GOP is suckier though successful.  Politics is at a nadir.

Assume major changes or lethargic nothingness.  Either is possible.  Let's be honest, private interests prefer inept and ineffective government ... until they need to be bailed-out.  Right now, they are giddy.  Let's see how that plays in a few months.

The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

This election should have been a learning experience.  Whether it was or not will become more obvious in the next year or two.

[David Horn]

(01-10-2017, 01:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 07:48 AM)Odin Wrote: The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

Republicans have the same problem at the local level on the coasts.  At the state level they've won a few governorships with socially moderate to liberal candidates, but that's mostly because a gubernatorial campaign can be run without the support of the party.

Here in CA we have a microcosm of the US. Our coastal counties plus a few more urbane ones inland are deep blue meanwhile the others are deep red. There is a portion of the inland North that wants to revive the notion of "The State of Jefferson" which was a mid 20th century movement to carve out a new state from that area plus similar areas in Southern Oregon. Without fail, there were Trump signs everywhere in those counties last summer. Such physical regions dominate the CA GOP. There is no hope for a moderate or urbane candidate to succeed. The state party will not help such candidates.

On balance, the rejection of liberals by conservatives is more pronounced than the opposite, though the gap is closing fast.  The reason is simple enough: Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves early, and built a cult following.  Liberals assumed that NPR met the same need for them, but the two were always very different.  RW Talk Radio was intended to indoctrinate and build a following for the "right kind" of political views, not provide news coverage, unbiased or otherwise.  After a few decades of being demonized, and watching a slam-dunk election go south, the patience of liberals is now pretty well destroyed too. 

Partisanship is about to get even more intense, and its hard to know what that means.  Let's hope it doesn't mean violence.

[Eric the Green]

(01-10-2017, 04:04 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 01:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 07:48 AM)Odin Wrote: The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

Republicans have the same problem at the local level on the coasts.  At the state level they've won a few governorships with socially moderate to liberal candidates, but that's mostly because a gubernatorial campaign can be run without the support of the party.

Here in CA we have a microcosm of the US. Our coastal counties plus a few more urbane ones inland are deep blue meanwhile the others are deep red. There is a portion of the inland North that wants to revive the notion of "The State of Jefferson" which was a mid 20th century movement to carve out a new state from that area plus similar areas in Southern Oregon. Without fail, there were Trump signs everywhere in those counties last summer. Such physical regions dominate the CA GOP. There is no hope for a moderate or urbane candidate to succeed. The state party will not help such candidates.

On balance, the rejection of liberals by conservatives is more pronounced than the opposite, though the gap is closing fast.  The reason is simple enough: Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves early, and built a cult following.  Liberals assumed that NPR met the same need for them, but the two were always very different.  RW Talk Radio was intended to indoctrinate and build a following for the "right kind" of political views, not provide news coverage, unbiased or otherwise.  After a few decades of being demonized, and watching a slam-dunk election go south, the patience of liberals is now pretty well destroyed too. 

Partisanship is about to get even more intense, and its hard to know what that means.  Let's hope it doesn't mean violence.

Exactly so.

[Eric the Green]

(01-10-2017, 01:38 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 11:35 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 07:48 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 06:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-08-2017, 11:38 AM)Odin Wrote: Trump was a fluke caused by the Dems having a terrible candidate. The real problem is that the congressional districts and state legislatures in Republican-controlled states are gerrymandered to all hell and Republicans engage in blatant voter suppression in the states they control.

Yes and no.  Hillary can't be blamed for the loss of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.  That falls directly on the Party itself, and to its leader BHO.  The Dems have sucked for a long time; the GOP is suckier though successful.  Politics is at a nadir.

Assume major changes or lethargic nothingness.  Either is possible.  Let's be honest, private interests prefer inept and ineffective government ... until they need to be bailed-out.  Right now, they are giddy.  Let's see how that plays in a few months.

The Dems have two big problems at the local level, the Republicans have a better messaging machine (a local candidate, no matter how moderate, will be slammed as a "loony liberal with San Francisco Values"), and the national party is stuck in a coastal bubble and often reluctant to give support to local candidates in more socially conservative areas that are seen as "too conservative" on certain hot-button social issues like abortion and would rather just not run a candidate in those races.

Republicans have the same problem at the local level on the coasts.  At the state level they've won a few governorships with socially moderate to liberal candidates, but that's mostly because a gubernatorial campaign can be run without the support of the party.

Here in CA we have a microcosm of the US. Our coastal counties plus a few more urbane ones inland are deep blue meanwhile the others are deep red. There is a portion of the inland North that wants to revive the notion of "The State of Jefferson" which was a mid 20th century movement to carve out a new state from that area plus similar areas in Southern Oregon. Without fail, there were Trump signs everywhere in those counties last summer. Such physical regions dominate the CA GOP. There is no hope for a moderate or urbane candidate to succeed. The state party will not help such candidates.

Yes. Non-urbane, anti-progressive white/red types ("rednecks" or what have you) or whatever you call Republican-leaning rural voters, are common to states like California and to the Rust Belt, the Farm Belt, the Mountain West and Deep South. The South may have a longer and deeper racist heritage, but basically it's all the same folks; just in different relative proportions in almost every state in the USA. You go to "Jefferson" CA or Kern County CA where a friend of mine lives that I see every week, and the views and lifestyles are not much different than those in rural Ohio, North Dakota or Alabama.