The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(09-26-2020, 03:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 05:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-20-2020, 04:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I am not saying the unraveling Republican presidents met my approval.  I just think they had a better ear to the American people.  We were in a selfish racist sexist time frame, and got the government we deserved.

Largely true. The Republicans also got lucky in 1980, gaining the services of a great communicator for the 1980 election for their corporate agenda (who scores 22-6 on my system). We got into the frame we did partly because he was able to deceive people that his neo-liberal trickle-down economics worked, although it did not. Even today a bare majority subscribe to Reaganomics. Partly that also consists of the welfare scapegoating dog whistle of the sort that the closet-racist Classic Xers like.

But the salesmanship and skill of the candidate (as opposed to the president) matters. That is why I am concerned about a future Kamala Harris nomination (score 4-16, you recall).

Eisenhower 18-8
Nixon 18-7
Reagan 22-6
Bush 14-6
Bush 17-2
Trump 9-4

JFK 13-6
Carter 12-4
Bill Clinton 21-3
Barack Obama 19-2

Ford 12-8
Dole 12-19
McCain 15-13
Romney 4-10

Stevenson 5-21
Humphrey 9-5
McGovern 9-10
Mondale 12-12
Dukakis 2-10
Gore 10-9
Kerry 8-12
Hillary Clinton 9-11

Can the Democrats pick 'em, or what?

It's worked for most, Biden's candidacy is proof that Reaganomics works for most Americans these days. It doesn't seem to have worked as well for Berniecrats/ quasi socialist/ Marxist/ BLM /Antifa/ identity politics/ social justice/ open boarders wing of the Democratic party these days. Honestly, I don't see how anything American related is ever going to work very well with them at this point. So, why do you keep using race against me when I don't give a shit if you're black or white or Hispanic or whatever race you identify with these days? Like I said, we KNOW which party is more racist and racially driven today. You're right about Harris because Harris represents the end of the Democratic party. I'm sorry but the racist whites with all the money and power associated with the bulk of the Democratic party's funding needs a minority to blame for the party's demise.

No, Reaganomics works only for the rich. That is clear in all the data. That is the minority to blame; the 1%. That's all who ever benefits from Reaganomics and trickle-down. It never trickles down, it tinkles down on us. Biden is irrelevant to that fact. 

You are a racist, but you keep it in the closet by saying "I don't give a shit if you're black or white or Hispanic or whatever race you identify with," but many times your other statements reveal your racism and I have already cited these.

Harris could represent the end of the Democratic Party if she is ever nominated for the presidency, because she is a weak candidate, and no she does not attract funding, which dried up during her campaign along with her audience. She does appeal somewhat to the identity politics wing of the Democrats, but there's not a whole lot of difference among the Democrats despite what their ideological opponents like yourself and CH86 say. As I said, anti-racism is part of the Democratic and liberal coalition, and that's how it's a gonna stay. The Democrats can't win without it, but the Democratic Party is also more than it. It's all part of the liberal package. If you don't like anti-racism, then that is racist. As long as racism and racial welfare and justice gaps exist, anti-racism will exist and be expressed. And those like you who don't want it expressed will continue to object and oppose it.