CDZ Democrats need to regroup

[oldsoul]

Well, you got more votes than the GOP so I don’t think a total overhaul is needed.

I would disagree. Clinton received ~ 60 million votes, Trump received ~ 59 million votes, and ~90 million people simply did not vote. BOTH parties need to rebuild. Neither candidate reached 43% of voters enough to, at least, get them to have an opinion. This tells me that ~90 million people simply did not care who won.

90 million.
Didn't care.
That's a problem.
When 43% of the voters simply do not care, there is a HUGE problem.

 

[Disir]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure that too many Americans give much thought to the problem of assimilating the new arrivals. But those who do are clearly alarmed at the prospect of altering the ethnic makeup of America so completely. Most Americans don't oppose some legal immigration. But the situation is out of control, and Americans are turning to candidates who are promising relief.

I believe that the overriding concern about immigration is that there are simply too many newcomers – legal and illegal – and that the economy and our communities cannot absorb them fast enough. Yesterday, I posted the startling numbers from the Center for Immigration Studies that showed the number of legal and illegal immigrants in America at 60 million – almost 19% of the population – with 15.7 million being illegal. In 1970, the percent of immigrants in the U.S. was 6.6%.

The Republican candidates are, for the most part, on the side of the American people on this issue. You will note that the Democrats rarely even mention immigration in their debates. No doubt, they wish the issue would just go away. But no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, you are going to see him or her moving toward the Republican view of the issue. Otherwise, they risk a backlash by the voters that could cost them the election.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/poll_61_of_americans_believe_all_immigration_detrimental_to_the_country.html#ixzz4PdX040uV
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

All the DNC see's when they look at immigrants either legal or illegal is a potential voting base...

Coyote sure would have been nice if you would have used all of the info in the blog...

Is that not just as false a statement as you accuse me of saying?

 

[Coyote]

If they want to bring in Hispanics, they're going to have to tone down some the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and emphasize common values: family, church, jobs.

Again with the anti-immigrant BS... It is illegal immigration that is opposed...

Blog: Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

By Rick Moran

Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."...​

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

 

[Coyote]

Ok, for the people who disagreed with my claim that most Republicans oppose ALL immigration.

Would this be a fair assessment of your position?

Most Republicans oppose illegal immigration and/or support a more limited immigration that focus' on strict vetting and limits on immigrants from terror-prone areas, and focus' on encouraging the immigration of those who have skills that could benefit the country?

Is that fair?

If so, then I would like to repudiate another claim that is repeatedly floated but is also just as much a lie: that Democrats are for open borders.

Democrats are not for open borders - other than perhaps a lunatic fringe but everyone has their lunatics.

Democrats are for an immigration programs that works in the modern world - one that is realistic and compassionate. Realistic in that legal immigrants should not have to wait for years to immigrate. The system is so antiquated and bottle necked - it doesn't work, and the lack of enough pathways to legally immigrate encourages illegal immigration. You can't fix the problem by simply building up the border - you need to fix the entire system.

Democrats don't oppose vetting of people from terror-prone countries. Where they differ from the Republicans is in the degree of what is acceptable in terms of risk.

On the compassionate side - and this is where I place a high priority - are ways to help certain categories of people.

We've long had a wet foot/dry foot law regarding Cuban illegal immigrants but it has never been expanded to other immigrant groups. One would be unaccompanied minors, such as the mass influx we had of those escaping horrific violence and conditions in parts of Latin America. No parent sends their child on such a dangerous route if they didn't feel it was the only way to save their children. They've been through hell to get here. When they got here, they were faced, on one side, with angry protesters and ugly signs telling them to go home. These kids. And on the other side - by a collection of American CHURCHES - opening their arms. Two sides of conservative America - to drastically different messages. These are one of the groups of people who I think should be given the benefits of a wet foot/dry foot policy.

Another group, is the group Obama called "dreamers". Many of those kids are here through no act of their own, why should they be punished? Many are going to school, trying to get a higher education, shown themselves to be hard working, with a desire to succeed in spite of the difficulties created by their lack of legal status (roadblocks to college, financial assistance and, jobs once they get that degree). These people have the skill set and attitude that would be a benefit to this country, not a detriment.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

You really shouldn't buy into the Democrat party talking points so wholeheartedly. Republicans are NOT against immigration. They ARE for following immigration laws.

There is a substantial portion that is against immigration in it's entirety - that feel we have enough people, and that they take jobs.

As for blacks, when they come to the realization that the Democrats are simply using them to maintain power, they'll once again become a block of voters who will weigh the merits of a candidates argument and vote based upon what is best for the country and themselves. The bigotry of expecting blacks to vote based upon the benefits they receive from government is actually rather vile and repugnant.

I don't consider it "bigotry" - but rather an arrogance that assumes blocks of voters all WANT to vote the same because of their race/ethnicity/gender/religion and that they will support the party regardless of who is on the ticket. And is that any different than the arrogance of the Republicans when it comes to the blocks of voters that they expect to vote for them rather than what's best for the country and themselves? This came into this election when many evangelicals were confronted with a candidate that was anthithical to their beliefs?

Substantial? I'd be interested in your definition of substantial.

I have always maintained that any subset of people (blacks, hispanics, asians, whites) do not vote as a block and it has been My experience that the GOP thinks this too. Are there outliers? Of course. In both parties.

However, the entire notion that the GOP is bigoted or racist is just more proof that many people simply follow what they are told and are sheep. Or their definition of bigoted and/or racist is utterly wrong.

I totally agree with that, and it's frustrating to see the regularly scheduled threads on "How the Republicans are the Party of Racism" and "How the Democrats are the Party of Racism", it's not even worth responding to anymore.

I don't think the parties are, I think individuals within the parties can be - in both parties.

But I don't think racism is that simple and I think the term is thrown around to lightly - like Nazi, Fascist etc.

From my own perspective - I'm trying to understand the other side better, while not going into knee-jerk defense of my own side or values.

I think that Democrats (and maybe liberals in general) have for too long felt "entitled" to the Black Vote, and part of that "entitlement" is maintained by defining issues in terms of racism.

This has caused them to lose sight of what really matters (or used to matter) and that is tolerance, equality, fairness, justice and a universal respect for human dignity. I think that they've gotten to the point where they apply those core values to ONLY select groups.

Those values should be applied to all regardless of whether they are a Christian or a Muslim, LGBT or straight, a single black mother on welfare, or a white family seeing no future for their children in the town they grew up in. But they haven't been. So we've ended up with a party of special interests that now excludes rather than includes. That goes against what I value, what I consider liberal values.

One of the things about racism is it's not easy to define, and it's definition depends on perspective. I'm using racism in the broadest meaning of the word to describe all "isms".

I do think racism requires intent. And too often intent is lacking when accusations are flung. I also think sometimes you have to dig down deeper, and try to find out what is driving it, what people really think before throwing labels at them (I'm guilty of this also). That doesn't mean not fighting hatred, intolerance and bigotry. But maybe holding back on the labels.

Label's stop conversations - plain and simple. It means you've put that person in a category and you no longer have an interest in who they are, what their concerns are and what is driving them. The Democrats have, unfortunately engaged heavily in this - to their detriment. It's cost them the traditional support of working class white Americans.

 

[OldLady]

Well, you got more votes than the GOP so I don’t think a total overhaul is needed.

I would disagree. Clinton received ~ 60 million votes, Trump received ~ 59 million votes, and ~90 million people simply did not vote. BOTH parties need to rebuild. Neither candidate reached 43% of voters enough to, at least, get them to have an opinion. This tells me that ~90 million people simply did not care who won.

90 million.
Didn't care.
That's a problem.
When 43% of the voters simply do not care, there is a HUGE problem.

I don't think it's that they did not care. A lot of them did not APPROVE of either candidate. I wondered if this would happen. The two most disliked candidates in history, and the voters unremarkably voted with their feet.

 

[OldLady]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

You really shouldn't buy into the Democrat party talking points so wholeheartedly. Republicans are NOT against immigration. They ARE for following immigration laws.

There is a substantial portion that is against immigration in it's entirety - that feel we have enough people, and that they take jobs.

As for blacks, when they come to the realization that the Democrats are simply using them to maintain power, they'll once again become a block of voters who will weigh the merits of a candidates argument and vote based upon what is best for the country and themselves. The bigotry of expecting blacks to vote based upon the benefits they receive from government is actually rather vile and repugnant.

I don't consider it "bigotry" - but rather an arrogance that assumes blocks of voters all WANT to vote the same because of their race/ethnicity/gender/religion and that they will support the party regardless of who is on the ticket. And is that any different than the arrogance of the Republicans when it comes to the blocks of voters that they expect to vote for them rather than what's best for the country and themselves? This came into this election when many evangelicals were confronted with a candidate that was anthithical to their beliefs?

Substantial? I'd be interested in your definition of substantial.

I have always maintained that any subset of people (blacks, hispanics, asians, whites) do not vote as a block and it has been My experience that the GOP thinks this too. Are there outliers? Of course. In both parties.

However, the entire notion that the GOP is bigoted or racist is just more proof that many people simply follow what they are told and are sheep. Or their definition of bigoted and/or racist is utterly wrong.

I totally agree with that, and it's frustrating to see the regularly scheduled threads on "How the Republicans are the Party of Racism" and "How the Democrats are the Party of Racism", it's not even worth responding to anymore.

I don't think the parties are, I think individuals within the parties can be - in both parties.

But I don't think racism is that simple and I think the term is thrown around to lightly - like Nazi, Fascist etc.

From my own perspective - I'm trying to understand the other side better, while not going into knee-jerk defense of my own side or values.

I think that Democrats (and maybe liberals in general) have for too long felt "entitled" to the Black Vote, and part of that "entitlement" is maintained by defining issues in terms of racism.

This has caused them to lose sight of what really matters (or used to matter) and that is tolerance, equality, fairness, justice and a universal respect for human dignity. I think that they've gotten to the point where they apply those core values to ONLY select groups.

Those values should be applied to all regardless of whether they are a Christian or a Muslim, LGBT or straight, a single black mother on welfare, or a white family seeing no future for their children in the town they grew up in. But they haven't been. So we've ended up with a party of special interests that now excludes rather than includes. That goes against what I value, what I consider liberal values.

One of the things about racism is it's not easy to define, and it's definition depends on perspective. I'm using racism in the broadest meaning of the word to describe all "isms".

I do think racism requires intent. And too often intent is lacking when accusations are flung. I also think sometimes you have to dig down deeper, and try to find out what is driving it, what people really think before throwing labels at them (I'm guilty of this also). That doesn't mean not fighting hatred, intolerance and bigotry. But maybe holding back on the labels.

Label's stop conversations - plain and simple. It means you've put that person in a category and you no longer have an interest in who they are, what their concerns are and what is driving them. The Democrats have, unfortunately engaged heavily in this - to their detriment. It's cost them the traditional support of working class white Americans.

Label's stop conversations - plain and simple.
I'm cross stitching that on a pillow. Or tatooing it on my forehead. So I'll not forget it.

 

[oldsoul]

Well, you got more votes than the GOP so I don’t think a total overhaul is needed.

I would disagree. Clinton received ~ 60 million votes, Trump received ~ 59 million votes, and ~90 million people simply did not vote. BOTH parties need to rebuild. Neither candidate reached 43% of voters enough to, at least, get them to have an opinion. This tells me that ~90 million people simply did not care who won.

90 million.
Didn't care.
That's a problem.
When 43% of the voters simply do not care, there is a HUGE problem.

I don't think it's that they did not care. A lot of them did not APPROVE of either candidate. I wondered if this would happen. The two most disliked candidates in history, and the voters unremarkably voted with their feet.

Obviously they did not like, or dislike, Trump or Clinton enough to vote. However, as I proved by voting 3rd party, there were other options. Either they did not care enough to know that, or they did not care who won. Either way, they did not care enough to go to the "trouble" of having their voice heard.
Imagine, if you will, if all 90 million non-voters cast their ballots for one of the various 3rd parties. Would that have changed the outcome? Maybe, maybe not. It would have sent a message loud and clear to the "establishment" if, on election night, it were a three or even four way race. Just think, if even half of the 90 million had voted for Johnson, for example, that would have gotten him ~49 million votes. If the same were true for Jill Stein she would have had ~46 million. If either of those two scenarios had played out, there would have been a very clear message sent. More likely though the ratios would have trended similarly and Johnson would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million votes! Stein would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 million! Unlikely as it sounds, if the trends had continued, and ALL 90 million non-voters had voted 3rd party, Gary Johnson may very well be our President Elect. That's how powerful voting 3rd party CAN be, if we would just realize that there are more than two options.... Unfortunately, with the strangle-hold the two biggest parties have on politics, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
election results 2016 usa - Google Search

 

[OldLady]

Well, you got more votes than the GOP so I don’t think a total overhaul is needed.

I would disagree. Clinton received ~ 60 million votes, Trump received ~ 59 million votes, and ~90 million people simply did not vote. BOTH parties need to rebuild. Neither candidate reached 43% of voters enough to, at least, get them to have an opinion. This tells me that ~90 million people simply did not care who won.

90 million.
Didn't care.
That's a problem.
When 43% of the voters simply do not care, there is a HUGE problem.

I don't think it's that they did not care. A lot of them did not APPROVE of either candidate. I wondered if this would happen. The two most disliked candidates in history, and the voters unremarkably voted with their feet.

Obviously they did not like, or dislike, Trump or Clinton enough to vote. However, as I proved by voting 3rd party, there were other options. Either they did not care enough to know that, or they did not care who won. Either way, they did not care enough to go to the "trouble" of having their voice heard.
Imagine, if you will, if all 90 million non-voters cast their ballots for one of the various 3rd parties. Would that have changed the outcome? Maybe, maybe not. It would have sent a message loud and clear to the "establishment" if, on election night, it were a three or even four way race. Just think, if even half of the 90 million had voted for Johnson, for example, that would have gotten him ~49 million votes. If the same were true for Jill Stein she would have had ~46 million. If either of those two scenarios had played out, there would have been a very clear message sent. More likely though the ratios would have trended similarly and Johnson would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million votes! Stein would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 million! Unlikely as it sounds, if the trends had continued, and ALL 90 million non-voters had voted 3rd party, Gary Johnson may very well be our President Elect. That's how powerful voting 3rd party CAN be, if we would just realize that there are more than two options.... Unfortunately, with the strangle-hold the two biggest parties have on politics, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
election results 2016 usa - Google Search

I don't disagree, hypothetically. Probably a lot of people didn't want to vote for Johnson or Stein, either, though. I looked into the Libertarian ticket, but was not very impressed. I've voted third party before (I'm an independent) but this time I felt it was more important to cast an anti-vote. However, a lot of people feel that whole system is so rigged that they don't even pay attention. Not even Trump can convince them life will be better with such and such a POTUS at the helm. In that respect, you're right. They didn't care.

 

[oldsoul]

Well, you got more votes than the GOP so I don’t think a total overhaul is needed.

I would disagree. Clinton received ~ 60 million votes, Trump received ~ 59 million votes, and ~90 million people simply did not vote. BOTH parties need to rebuild. Neither candidate reached 43% of voters enough to, at least, get them to have an opinion. This tells me that ~90 million people simply did not care who won.

90 million.
Didn't care.
That's a problem.
When 43% of the voters simply do not care, there is a HUGE problem.

I don't think it's that they did not care. A lot of them did not APPROVE of either candidate. I wondered if this would happen. The two most disliked candidates in history, and the voters unremarkably voted with their feet.

Obviously they did not like, or dislike, Trump or Clinton enough to vote. However, as I proved by voting 3rd party, there were other options. Either they did not care enough to know that, or they did not care who won. Either way, they did not care enough to go to the "trouble" of having their voice heard.
Imagine, if you will, if all 90 million non-voters cast their ballots for one of the various 3rd parties. Would that have changed the outcome? Maybe, maybe not. It would have sent a message loud and clear to the "establishment" if, on election night, it were a three or even four way race. Just think, if even half of the 90 million had voted for Johnson, for example, that would have gotten him ~49 million votes. If the same were true for Jill Stein she would have had ~46 million. If either of those two scenarios had played out, there would have been a very clear message sent. More likely though the ratios would have trended similarly and Johnson would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million votes! Stein would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 million! Unlikely as it sounds, if the trends had continued, and ALL 90 million non-voters had voted 3rd party, Gary Johnson may very well be our President Elect. That's how powerful voting 3rd party CAN be, if we would just realize that there are more than two options.... Unfortunately, with the strangle-hold the two biggest parties have on politics, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
election results 2016 usa - Google Search

I don't disagree, hypothetically. Probably a lot of people didn't want to vote for Johnson or Stein, either, though. I looked into the Libertarian ticket, but was not very impressed. I've voted third party before (I'm an independent) but this time I felt it was more important to cast an anti-vote. However, a lot of people feel that whole system is so rigged that they don't even pay attention. Not even Trump can convince them life will be better with such and such a POTUS at the helm. In that respect, you're right. They didn't care.

You make an excellent point, I didn't think ANY of the candidates I looked into would make a good President either, however, I voted for the one I felt best reflected my opinions.

 

[Darkwind]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

You really shouldn't buy into the Democrat party talking points so wholeheartedly. Republicans are NOT against immigration. They ARE for following immigration laws.

There is a substantial portion that is against immigration in it's entirety - that feel we have enough people, and that they take jobs.

As for blacks, when they come to the realization that the Democrats are simply using them to maintain power, they'll once again become a block of voters who will weigh the merits of a candidates argument and vote based upon what is best for the country and themselves. The bigotry of expecting blacks to vote based upon the benefits they receive from government is actually rather vile and repugnant.

I don't consider it "bigotry" - but rather an arrogance that assumes blocks of voters all WANT to vote the same because of their race/ethnicity/gender/religion and that they will support the party regardless of who is on the ticket. And is that any different than the arrogance of the Republicans when it comes to the blocks of voters that they expect to vote for them rather than what's best for the country and themselves? This came into this election when many evangelicals were confronted with a candidate that was anthithical to their beliefs?

Substantial? I'd be interested in your definition of substantial.

I have always maintained that any subset of people (blacks, hispanics, asians, whites) do not vote as a block and it has been My experience that the GOP thinks this too. Are there outliers? Of course. In both parties.

However, the entire notion that the GOP is bigoted or racist is just more proof that many people simply follow what they are told and are sheep. Or their definition of bigoted and/or racist is utterly wrong.

I totally agree with that, and it's frustrating to see the regularly scheduled threads on "How the Republicans are the Party of Racism" and "How the Democrats are the Party of Racism", it's not even worth responding to anymore.

I don't think the parties are, I think individuals within the parties can be - in both parties.

But I don't think racism is that simple and I think the term is thrown around to lightly - like Nazi, Fascist etc.

From my own perspective - I'm trying to understand the other side better, while not going into knee-jerk defense of my own side or values.

I think that Democrats (and maybe liberals in general) have for too long felt "entitled" to the Black Vote, and part of that "entitlement" is maintained by defining issues in terms of racism.

This has caused them to lose sight of what really matters (or used to matter) and that is tolerance, equality, fairness, justice and a universal respect for human dignity. I think that they've gotten to the point where they apply those core values to ONLY select groups.

Those values should be applied to all regardless of whether they are a Christian or a Muslim, LGBT or straight, a single black mother on welfare, or a white family seeing no future for their children in the town they grew up in. But they haven't been. So we've ended up with a party of special interests that now excludes rather than includes. That goes against what I value, what I consider liberal values.

One of the things about racism is it's not easy to define, and it's definition depends on perspective. I'm using racism in the broadest meaning of the word to describe all "isms".

I do think racism requires intent. And too often intent is lacking when accusations are flung. I also think sometimes you have to dig down deeper, and try to find out what is driving it, what people really think before throwing labels at them (I'm guilty of this also). That doesn't mean not fighting hatred, intolerance and bigotry. But maybe holding back on the labels.

Label's stop conversations - plain and simple. It means you've put that person in a category and you no longer have an interest in who they are, what their concerns are and what is driving them. The Democrats have, unfortunately engaged heavily in this - to their detriment. It's cost them the traditional support of working class white Americans.

I have no time right now to reply, but I will get back to you on this. Thanks.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

If they want to bring in Hispanics, they're going to have to tone down some the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and emphasize common values: family, church, jobs.

Again with the anti-immigrant BS... It is illegal immigration that is opposed...

Blog: Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

By Rick Moran

Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."...​

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

 

[Disir]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

I agree neither have listened to the people. There are two primary issues. They feed into each other.

Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy. Progress is being made.
Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

And then came Rahm who hated Dean Howard and screwed him as hard as he could. The reason I mention Rahm is because Rahm destroyed the Chicago Public education system. Not a word was spoken about it. In fact, Obama and other Democrats were in the process of destroying the public education system. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats were involved in destruction of the US Post Office. Not a word was spoken about it. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation----and one that has been dominated by African Americans----and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats pay lip service to unions at the same time they are stabbing them in the back under a Democratic President. Offshoring and outsourcing jobs. The Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats support the H1B program that devastated another industry and they support unlimited immigration. Registered Democrats said nothing.

Under a Democrat President, multiple attempts (and some success) to overthrow South, Latin and Caribbean governments occurred. When it was discovered the Democrats had been involved in the numerous "Springs", registered Democrats said nothing.

After orchestrating Libya and thousands of people dying to reach the shores of Italy under a Democrat president, registered Democrats said nothing. In fact, after orchestrating Syria nobody says anything until a picture of a dead child shows up. Oh, the love.............and the desire for the American public to show support and seriously fund the continuation of creating refugees. Then the desire to bring refugees..............that the Democrats (and Clinton) created...........into the US is met with the resistance the Democrats came out with all kinds of crappy memes but nobody said anything. Registered Democrats didn't.

Drone anyone? How about whistle blowers?

Wasserman-Shultz managed to focus on nothing but blaming Republicans and fearing Republicans rather than focus on the issues. She didn't want anyone focusing on the issues. "Identity politics" was about making sure that no one focused on the issues. Divide and conquer strategy. In part, it worked out well to hide her poverty pimp status. Then there is the Fracking. Etc., The Democrats are corporate whores. The vast majority of Bush's policies were continued under Obama. They absolutely would have been continued under Clinton. But the great "evil" is always the other guy.

Surpassed mid-life crisis and well into burn that shit down. The Democrats don't have any principles so there really isn't anything for them to rally around and create at this point. They made it clear they support neoliberal policies and an oligarchy.

 

[Coyote]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

That's not true. The Democrats have refused to listen for many years. It's called denial. The Democrats have surpassed "midlife crisis" and are now in the burn it down stage.

What specifically isn't true? I'm seeing the Pubs and Dems at the same stage - not sure it's "burn down" though. Neither has been listening to the people.

I agree neither have listened to the people. There are two primary issues. They feed into each other.

Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy. Progress is being made.
Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

And then came Rahm who hated Dean Howard and screwed him as hard as he could. The reason I mention Rahm is because Rahm destroyed the Chicago Public education system. Not a word was spoken about it. In fact, Obama and other Democrats were in the process of destroying the public education system. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats were involved in destruction of the US Post Office. Not a word was spoken about it. They were willing to lie to the public, destroy a middle class occupation----and one that has been dominated by African Americans----and continue to finger point at the Republicans. Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats pay lip service to unions at the same time they are stabbing them in the back under a Democratic President. Offshoring and outsourcing jobs. The Registered Democrats said nothing.

The Democrats support the H1B program that devastated another industry and they support unlimited immigration. Registered Democrats said nothing.

Under a Democrat President, multiple attempts (and some success) to overthrow South, Latin and Caribbean governments occurred. When it was discovered the Democrats had been involved in the numerous "Springs", registered Democrats said nothing.

After orchestrating Libya and thousands of people dying to reach the shores of Italy under a Democrat president, registered Democrats said nothing. In fact, after orchestrating Syria nobody says anything until a picture of a dead child shows up. Oh, the love.............and the desire for the American public to show support and seriously fund the continuation of creating refugees. Then the desire to bring refugees..............that the Democrats (and Clinton) created...........into the US is met with the resistance the Democrats came out with all kinds of crappy memes but nobody said anything. Registered Democrats didn't.

Drone anyone? How about whistle blowers?

Wasserman-Shultz managed to focus on nothing but blaming Republicans and fearing Republicans rather than focus on the issues. She didn't want anyone focusing on the issues. "Identity politics" was about making sure that no one focused on the issues. Divide and conquer strategy. In part, it worked out well to hide her poverty pimp status. Then there is the Fracking. Etc., The Democrats are corporate whores. The vast majority of Bush's policies were continued under Obama. They absolutely would have been continued under Clinton. But the great "evil" is always the other guy.

Surpassed mid-life crisis and well into burn that shit down. The Democrats don't have any principals so there really isn't anything for them to rally around and create at this point. They made it clear they support neoliberal policies and an oligarchy.

Thanks Dis, for putting this all together.

Personaly - I don't feel the Republicans are any better. You've confirmed the Dems aren't any DIFFERENT.

Now, I like Obama. I love Obama. And I no longer care if I am castigated for that. But Clinton...the establishment...the big parties - you've given me a lot to mull over.

Thank you.

 

[Coyote]

If they want to bring in Hispanics, they're going to have to tone down some the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and emphasize common values: family, church, jobs.

Again with the anti-immigrant BS... It is illegal immigration that is opposed...

Blog: Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

By Rick Moran

Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."...​

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

 

[Bush92]

Again with the anti-immigrant BS... It is illegal immigration that is opposed...

Blog: Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

By Rick Moran

Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."...​

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

The methodology of the polls eas flawed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I had posted on that for weeks. Post election, some Democrats get it, some do not. Working class industrial families were abandoned by Democratic Party. Democrats used to be their champion. Bring back industrial jobs to the USA.

 

[Coyote]

Blog: Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

Poll: 61% of Americans believe all immigration detrimental to the country

By Rick Moran

Compared to previous polls on the subject of immigration, this survey commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney shows a markedly negative attitude by Americans toward all immigration – not just illegal.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in the survey believe that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States."...​

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

The methodology of the polls eas flawed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I had posted on that for weeks. Post election, some Democrats get it, some do not. Working class industrial families were abandoned by Democratic Party. Democrats used to be their champion. Bring back industrial jobs to the USA.

Agree. Election polls were clearly WAAAAAY out of whack.

And I agree with what you said that I had bolded.

The issue is in..."bring back industrial jobs"....but the real question is ...what if we can't?

It's been brought up that a big loss in manufacturing jobs is LESS in that they were outsourced but that they were automated. In a news story recently I recall that being discussed...one industry returned but, instead of providing thousands of jobs...it was 500. Due to automation.

So the question is - what can you do? The trend towards automation is a given. So what do you do? Families can not subsist on fast food franchise style jobs.

 

[Bush92]

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

The methodology of the polls eas flawed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I had posted on that for weeks. Post election, some Democrats get it, some do not. Working class industrial families were abandoned by Democratic Party. Democrats used to be their champion. Bring back industrial jobs to the USA.

Agree. Election polls were clearly WAAAAAY out of whack.

And I agree with what you said that I had bolded.

The issue is in..."bring back industrial jobs"....but the real question is ...what if we can't?

It's been brought up that a big loss in manufacturing jobs is LESS in that they were outsourced but that they were automated. In a news story recently I recall that being discussed...one industry returned but, instead of providing thousands of jobs...it was 500. Due to automation.

So the question is - what can you do? The trend towards automation is a given. So what do you do? Families can not subsist on fast food franchise style jobs.

We need heavy industry to produce off shoot industry. Why are we importing steel? Crank up coal production? Fracking? Go for it. If you go to Eal Mart and pick up an item it says "Made in China"' that used to be an Americans job. That was their house note, truck note, etc. Why don't we make these things here? With or without automation they are still jobs.