Those people in the upper midwest

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 12:31 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-15-2016, 04:32 PM)Odin Wrote: Scared, desperate people are easy prey for demagogues promising easy solutions, scapegoats, and a return to the "good old days". The blame falls on the Dems for not putting forward a populist message to counter Trump's BS.

But there is no all-powerful Party boss in either party deciding who can run and who must not. The alleged Establishment of the GOP would have rather had Mitt Romney, who is much less abrasive and more likely to make deals. Guess where that went? Romney did not run.

The establishment choice this time around was Jeb Bush.  Fortunately the Republican primary voters realized that Bush v Clinton was not what the electorate was looking for, even if Democratic primary voters did not.

If Trump is not the establishment choice, then he is worse than any establishment choice. Hitler was not the establishment choice when he ran either. Being the establishment choice or not is not the sole basis for judging a candidate, unless you are being irrational, which clearly many voters in 2016 were.

Quote:

Quote:I would feel far better knowing that Mitt Romney were President-elect. Disappointed that my side lost -- but much would be safe that is in gross peril now. I might contrast Donald trump from the primaries and say "at least we did not get that".

Pity he wasn't elected in 2012, eh? Romney would have been a great president.

Quote:Throughout most of the twentieth century, economic growth corresponded with improving lives for working people. Strong unions forced wages to keep pace with increases in productivity; that kept consumption high. (Don't blame imports; the material objects imported are now far less important than the services that one pays for to make those objects valuable. Ask yourself whether you have spent more on cable television than on the television sets that you have watched cable TV on. Ask yourself whether you have paid more on a cell phone than you can expect to pay for cell phone access or for your computer than for the Internet access).

What kept wages high was limited immigration.  Once the floodgates were opened, wages plummeted.

No, higher population is a net positive for economic growth. The market is larger, so business increases, wages rise. What helped to keep wages low was flattening the minimum wage as Reagan-Bush and Bush did, along with the other trickle-down policies, including the decline of unions. Kennedy opened immigration; that's not when wages started to go flat and decline relative to inflation. Reagan did that; the record is clear.