(12-13-2016, 06:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:16 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

Your last sentence hit the point exactly.  The herd-of-cats party is so incoherent that it is literally a organ for spouting the talking point of the minute from the cause of the hour.  Worse, the special pleaders that feel fully entitled to petition for full and unwavering support of the party have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) that reciprocity is mandatory ... unless losing is the goal.

The Dems need to move the social issues off page one, and focus on two issues 95% of the time: inequality and upward mobility as their economic message and global warming as the primary foreign policy objective.  It also wouldn't hurt to show some cojones when threatening foreign powers try to play them.  I don't expect it will happen, but I can hope.

(12-14-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO one of the huge mistakes the Clinton campaign made was not attacking Trump the same way Obama attacked Romney as a evil rich POS. She should have spammed the airwaves with ads with stories from all the people and companies fleeced by him. No, instead the campaign made it about "we are oh-so enlightened, they are all deplorable bigots".

(12-14-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 06:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:16 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

Your last sentence hit the point exactly.  The herd-of-cats party is so incoherent that it is literally a organ for spouting the talking point of the minute from the cause of the hour.  Worse, the special pleaders that feel fully entitled to petition for full and unwavering support of the party have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) that reciprocity is mandatory ... unless losing is the goal.

The Dems need to move the social issues off page one, and focus on two issues 95% of the time: inequality and upward mobility as their economic message and global warming as the primary foreign policy objective.  It also wouldn't hurt to show some cojones when threatening foreign powers try to play them.  I don't expect it will happen, but I can hope.

IMO one of the huge mistakes the Clinton campaign made was not attacking Trump the same way Obama attacked Romney as a evil rich POS. She should have spammed the airwaves with ads with stories from all the people and companies fleeced by him. No, instead the campaign made it about "we are oh-so enlightened, they are all deplorable bigots".

(12-14-2016, 01:13 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote: IMO one of the huge mistakes the Clinton campaign made was not attacking Trump the same way Obama attacked Romney as a evil rich POS. She should have spammed the airwaves with ads with stories from all the people and companies fleeced by him. No, instead the campaign made it about "we are oh-so enlightened, they are all deplorable bigots".

Odin, you got it exactly right.  The campaign should have presented Trump as the con man he is.

(12-14-2016, 02:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:21 PM)Odin Wrote: What's Tammy Duckworth's score, Eric?

I always respond to these requests. OK, let's see:

Well, first of all, I don't think she's eligible.

"Tammy Duckworth was born on March 12, 1968, in Bangkok, Thailand"
http://www.biography.com/people/tammy-duckworth-21129571

In any case, not good: 9-10.

Maggie Hassan and Ms. Cortez-Masto actually won their races; it might be more worth checking their scores. (Well, I got Duckworth mixed up with the one from PA, yes she did win a senate seat in IL.)

Well, Maggie Hassan's score is not good either, 7-7. Catherine Cortez Masto, 10-11

Scores subject to some change if birth times become known.

Corrected scores:
Duckworth: 9-10
Hassan: 7-7
Cortez Masto 10-11
I have to remember that for 12 Noon charts (birth time unknown) I can't give as many points to lunar aspects; they are uncertain.

Mike Pence corrected to 8-7

(12-14-2016, 01:13 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(12-14-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 06:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:16 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

Your last sentence hit the point exactly.  The herd-of-cats party is so incoherent that it is literally a organ for spouting the talking point of the minute from the cause of the hour.  Worse, the special pleaders that feel fully entitled to petition for full and unwavering support of the party have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) that reciprocity is mandatory ... unless losing is the goal.

The Dems need to move the social issues off page one, and focus on two issues 95% of the time: inequality and upward mobility as their economic message and global warming as the primary foreign policy objective.  It also wouldn't hurt to show some cojones when threatening foreign powers try to play them.  I don't expect it will happen, but I can hope.

IMO one of the huge mistakes the Clinton campaign made was not attacking Trump the same way Obama attacked Romney as a evil rich POS. She should have spammed the airwaves with ads with stories from all the people and companies fleeced by him. No, instead the campaign made it about "we are oh-so enlightened, they are all deplorable bigots".

Odin, you got it exactly right.  The campaign should have presented Trump as the con man he is.

(12-21-2016, 05:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We have to fight back, says Michael Moore

(12-22-2016, 03:10 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 05:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We have to fight back, says Michael Moore

I can't stand that guy.

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

(12-22-2016, 04:20 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 03:10 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 05:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We have to fight back, says Michael Moore

I can't stand that guy.

He is an idiot.  Always has been which is why Eric the Obtuse listens to him.

(12-22-2016, 08:49 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote: The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

I don't think that will work.  White working class folks see Democrats as the party of minorities (particularly blacks) and progressives.  Under Donald Trump the Republicans have emerged as the white people's party. There is much evidence to support this idea.  First of all, self-described progressives almost never vote for Republicans.  Ninety percent of blacks vote for Democrats and large majorities of other minorities do as well.  So these folks are not wrong.

If you are white and not progressive how is the Democratic party the party for you?  Sure the Republicans are the party of the rich, of corporate management whom you hate, but are the Democrats much better?  After all, NAFTA, and MFA status for China happened under Clinton and so did the elimination of Glass-Steagall.  And a lot of the stuff management makes you do, like diversity and sensitivity training, are the sort of stuff Democrats like.
Then take groups like the KKK, the Nazis and other white power groups.  They weren't particularly big fans of Romney or McCain, both of whom seems to be shills for elites (corporate or military-industrial), but they sure do love Trump.  Are they on to something, maybe Trump really is for white folks, who have been getting the short end of the stick of late.  They are not crazy for thinking this.

Democrats simply have nothing to offer white working class folks. And so a Sanderesque economic appeal is not going to work--anymore than it did for Sanders. If white working class folks had flocked to Sanders (who really had the economic message) instead of Trump, Sanders would have handily beat Clinton in the primary.  Didn't happen.
So what should Democrats do?  It's really simple.  In due time Democrats will get swept back into power like they were in 2008.  This time be bold!  Look Obama won the 2008 primaries and election on his public option. he didn't get it because Congressional Democrats wouldn't support him. Hell Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, why not just extend Medicare to everybody? Don't worry about paying for it, Republicans don't.

Republicans are bolder in policy, they will cut taxes, go to war, whatever, damn the consequences. People sense this.  They know Romney and the rest including Trump are about tax cuts.  But Trump is also about white power in a way Romney and the rest were not.  Maybe Trump really is serious about clamping down in immigration, Muslims, and Black Lives Matter as well as the standard tax cuts.  If he's not and all they get is tax cuts, well they've lived with this before.

(12-22-2016, 02:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 04:20 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 03:10 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2016, 05:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We have to fight back, says Michael Moore

I can't stand that guy.

He is an idiot.  Always has been which is why Eric the Obtuse listens to him.

You got to admire him in a way, you makes cheap movies tailored for blue idiots which make him a lot of money which allows him to screw off for several years regardless of the outcome. In a way, it kinda makes one mad about being born and raised with scruples.

(12-22-2016, 02:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Michael Moore is a hero who tells the truth. And I think he has gotten less bombastic than he was at the Oscars some years ago. He does good work, and according to his horoscope, even has some potential as a candidate in a society that elects people in show business to run the "show." And one thing that he has made clear, is that he understands the white working class and how they feel.

(12-22-2016, 02:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: A significant percentage perhaps a majority of white working people don't give a rat's ass about transgender bathrooms, CO2 footprints, welfare / AFDC, geopolitics, etc. These are the province of more wealthy whites. As the nature of the typical wealthy white shifted from some sort of "Thurston Howell III" stereotype to people like those who attend Democratic political fundraising dinners on Billionaires' Row, the Democrats re-tuned their platforms accordingly. The problem with this is the typical white working stiff in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Wheeling, etc, was essentially left behind by this shift.

(12-22-2016, 07:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 02:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: A significant percentage perhaps a majority of white working people don't give a rat's ass about transgender bathrooms, CO2 footprints, welfare / AFDC, geopolitics, etc. These are the province of more wealthy whites. As the nature of the typical wealthy white shifted from some sort of "Thurston Howell III" stereotype to people like those who attend Democratic political fundraising dinners on Billionaires' Row, the Democrats re-tuned their platforms accordingly. The problem with this is the typical white working stiff in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Wheeling, etc, was essentially left behind by this shift.

The only problem with this image is that polls show that wealthy whites overwhelmingly support the Republicans. Meanwhile, many working whites do care about transgender bathrooms and other culture war gimmicks and nostrums, and very much about other scapegoats like welfare and AFDC. They are susceptible to nationalist and militarist rhetoric too, because they have vicarious pride in their nation as the top dog and top bully. This may not be true of white working class folks in the Bay Area, for the most part, but it's certainly true of the majority of middle American white working class folks. The white working stiffs are easy prey for the demogogues who actually represent no-one but the oligarchs who don't care about the people at all.

I like what Sanders is doing and going out into middle America and seeking them out, helping them to see beyond their prejudices and delusions, not by insulting them (as I might do here), but honestly explaining to them who is on who's side, really. It's not ideologues like Galen. It's not Mnuchin or Rockhead Perry or Rex Tillerson or Donald Drumpf. It's people like Bernie who are on their side, and they need to know it. More of this kind of activity will be needed.

Eric, not sure where you are getting this notion that wealthy whites are Reps. Look at Pelosi's district.

Plus I think you misunderstood what I meant about working stiffs not caring about SJW stuff. They don't care for it. It is not their cause.

(12-22-2016, 08:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 08:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 07:57 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 05:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-22-2016, 02:59 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: A significant percentage perhaps a majority of white working people don't give a rat's ass about transgender bathrooms, CO2 footprints, welfare / AFDC, geopolitics, etc. These are the province of more wealthy whites. As the nature of the typical wealthy white shifted from some sort of "Thurston Howell III" stereotype to people like those who attend Democratic political fundraising dinners on Billionaires' Row, the Democrats re-tuned their platforms accordingly. The problem with this is the typical white working stiff in Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Wheeling, etc, was essentially left behind by this shift.

The only problem with this image is that polls show that wealthy whites overwhelmingly support the Republicans. Meanwhile, many working whites do care about transgender bathrooms and other culture war gimmicks and nostrums, and very much about other scapegoats like welfare and AFDC. They are susceptible to nationalist and militarist rhetoric too, because they have vicarious pride in their nation as the top dog and top bully. This may not be true of white working class folks in the Bay Area, for the most part, but it's certainly true of the majority of middle American white working class folks. The white working stiffs are easy prey for the demogogues who actually represent no-one but the oligarchs who don't care about the people at all.

I like what Sanders is doing and going out into middle America and seeking them out, helping them to see beyond their prejudices and delusions, not by insulting them (as I might do here), but honestly explaining to them who is on who's side, really. It's not ideologues like Galen. It's not Mnuchin or Rockhead Perry or Rex Tillerson or Donald Drumpf. It's people like Bernie who are on their side, and they need to know it. More of this kind of activity will be needed.

Eric, not sure where you are getting this notion that wealthy whites are Reps. Look at Pelosi's district.

Plus I think you misunderstood what I meant about working stiffs not caring about SJW stuff. They don't care for it. It is not their cause.

The worst of them are racists. The better ones are more interested in their economic concerns.

The polls is where I got it. Posted here some time ago.

People in SF have to pay a lot to live there. But most of them are not the wealthy. It's probably true that many of the richest tycoons get the people in middle America to vote for their Republican representatives, but themselves live in blue places like the California Coast, Connecticut, Manhattan penthouses, southern Florida....

The wealthy whites are as Republican as they've ever been. The own the country, and they get their representatives and executives in office because they own the system and deceive the people with racism and slogans of freedom.

Eric, Pelosi's district has almost no poor people in it. It's mostly 1%ers. Why do you think Obama and Clinton were at fundraising dinners on Billionaires' Row? I know someone who made it really big in venture capital. He was at one of the Clinton dinners earlier this year, at one of the mansions there.