What Is The Democratic Road Map To The White House?

[rightwinger]

The democrat message in 2016 was "We hate you". In 2020, the democrat message will be "We really hate you." And, by the way, math is racist.

In 2020 the message will be.....

We warned you

 

[rightwinger]

I will always respect President Ford for sparing America a trial of Nixon. It was time to move on. That and his personal courage and basic decency. Carter was no improvement.

I felt sorry for Ford

He was a good man, but as President, his hands were tied
Nixon had so overstepped his authority that Ford was reluctant to use his powers as President

I agree the pardon spared us an ugly trial and would do nothing that Nixon resigning didn't do

But it cost Ford the election just like Trump pardoning either Trump Jr or Kushner would do

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, Trump is wildly unpopular. Yes, Trump is an idiot. Yes, Trump is a pathological liar. Yes, Trump is in love with Vladimir.

Quack, quack, quack.

But...if he chooses to run for re-election (which he may not), he will win again if the Democrats put up a corrupt, entitlement-minded, loser again.

In 2018, the Democrats will probably gain some ground with their "Stop Trump!" platform. That worked in Alabama and Virginia recently.

Exactly what it is about Trump they want to stop has yet to be defined.

But in 2020, the Democrats better have something for their bumper stickers besides "Stop Trump!" They better have a better plan to Make America Sane Again.

"We'll raise tax rates back to where they were."

"We'll let illegal Mexicans back into the country."

What, exactly, do they have?


At this point, I do not see a Democratic road map to the White House. At all.

I hope to Christ the Democrats aren't hanging all of their hopes and dreams on a timely economic crash.

Trump has already filed to run again!

His own party may have different ideas

So might Mueller

Put your money on it idiot just like all the other times!

I think I will

A President with an approval of 37 percent is begging a challenge from his party (think LBJ)
Mueller is slowly and methodically building his case. He will drop his charges sometime in late 2018....just in time for election
Now Trump should probably avoid prosecution unless he is guilty of obstruction (he wouldn't do that would he?) but key people like Lil Donnie, Kushner, Manafort and Flynn are going down. How Trump reacts will determine his re-electability
If Trump blatantly pardons Lil Donnie or Kushner......can he win an election?
Ford didn't

I don't think so. Republicans seem to be determined to go down with the ship. Also if a serious challenge develops, I can see the RNC creating their version of super-delegates who are beholden to Trump.

I don't think Trump has that loyalty from his party
I think they would jump at the chance to dump him from the ticket

 

[busybee01]

I predicted Trump would lose in the primaries.


Bigly

(and hoped HIllary would)

Stat and me had debates for a year and a half before the 2016 election. You can see one of his quotes in my sig.


The Democrat formula for decades has been to get 40% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote. If they hit those numbers they win most elections. Obama was able to do this, but in the 2010, 2014, and 2016 elections they were not and lost big time. Right now the Dims struggle to get 1 in 5 white men to vote for them, and they barely get a 1/3rd of white voters overall to vote for them.

I do not see the Dims winning back white voters anytime soon unless they drastically change their message and do a lot of outreach to white voters they have alienated.

They must get 40% of the white vote or they lose. It really is that simple.

You also have to break it down into white women and white men. Clinton won female voters in 2016 in Virginia. However in Virginia, Northram did even better than Clinton did among white women. Also suburban voters have been a problem for Republicans. In Alabama, Moore only beat Jones by 4 points in the Senate race.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Democrat likely will run on undoing the damage Republicans have done to healthcare.

That's a great idea! Maybe they could get me that $2500 a year that Obama was supposed to save me?

They also would likely repeal parts of the Republican tax bill. They also would run on re-regulating. They will run on amnesty and if Trump deports DACA recipients it will give Democrats red meat to run on.

Awesome!!

DEMS 2020....We're gonna raise taxes, add red tape and give citizenship to millions of illegals!!!

They'll win 12 or 15 states, easy.

Like it or not voters wanted Obamacare fixed. Republicans are doing everything that will undermine it and are responsible for the huge increase in premiums since the Republicans took over.

Fox News
What do you think should happen to the illegal immigrants who are currently working in the United States -- do you favor deporting as many as possible or do you favor setting up a system for them to become legal residents?
Deport as many as possible 14%
Set up a system to become legal 83%

Do you favor or oppose granting U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who were brought to the United States as children, provided they pass a background check?
Favor 79%
Oppose 19%

Thinking about federal income taxes, how frustrated are you about each of the following:
The wealthy paying too little in taxes:
Frustrated 78%
Not frustrated 19%

Voters might disagree on what you call red tape. Putting coal waste in rivers is not red tape. Requiring financial advisors to put the interest of their clients over their interests is not red tape. Requiring airlines to disclose hidden fees is not red tape. Just because Obama created the regulation does not automatically make it bad.

Like it or not voters wanted Obamacare fixed.

Fixed? You mean like giving me the $2500 a year that it was supposed to save me?

Republicans are doing everything that will undermine it

You mean more than reality was doing to undermine it?

What do you think should happen to the illegal immigrants who are currently working in

I agree, the Dems should definitely run on letting in as many illegal aliens as possible.
And hiking taxes. A bunch. How can they lose with that platform?

Putting coal waste in rivers is not red tape.

Sounds serious. When did Obama fix that issue?

Just because Obama created the regulation does not automatically make it bad.

I'm sure every one of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations Obama put in were all awesome.

Definitely, tell people that we need more. Lots more.

You mean more than reality was doing to undermine it?
The fact is that Democrats can point to specific Trump policies that have accelerated the increase in premiums and Trump's own words to press their case. Obamacare has a approval rating of 54%. It has gone steadily up since Republicans took over. Also interesting poll question by Fox. It asked who would get the credit if healthcare improves. Democrats in Congress got 24% to Trump's 19% and 14% for Republicans in Congress. If healthcare gets worse, 24% would blame Republicans in Congress, 19% in Trump, 14% Democrats in Congress. Also more people trust Democrats more than Republicans on healthcare.

I agree, the Dems should definitely run on letting in as many illegal aliens as possible.
And hiking taxes. A bunch. How can they lose with that platform?
Voters support amnesty for illegals and DACA. They also do not support tax loopholes for the rich. Especially ones that Trump personally benefits from. Fairness is a legitimate issue.

Putting coal waste in rivers is not red tape.
Sounds serious. When did Obama fix that issue?
That is a regulation that was overturned by Republicans. You can make fun of it but Americans are worried about the environment.


I'm sure every one of the tens of thousands of pages of regulations Obama put in were all awesome.

Definitely, tell people that we need more. Lots more.
Voters do not support every regulation Obama made but they also do not support getting rid of all regulation. They also are not partisan the way you are. I personally can look at a regulation and if it is necessary then it should be supported even if Obama did it. Conversely I can look at a unnecessary regulation and say get rid of it no matter who created it.​

Voters support amnesty for illegals and DACA.

Absolutely! That's why Bush got amnesty...ummm...that's why Obama got amnesty...ummm...

How many votes did DACA get in the House and Senate again? I can't recall.

That is a regulation that was overturned by Republicans.

Yeah, that was awful!
When did that regulation get implemented?

Voters do not support every regulation Obama made but they also do not support getting rid of all regulation.

Killing 90% of Obama's regulations would be a good start.

Absolutely! That's why Bush got amnesty...ummm...that's why Obama got amnesty...ummm...

How many votes did DACA get in the House and Senate again? I can't recall.
The fact is that if a vote had been allowed, it likely would have passed. Conservatives were able to forestall it by yelling the loudest. However as Hispanics become a larger part of the voting population, it changes the politics. If you look at the history of polling on this issue, support for deportation has collapsed.
The Fox poll shows this.

That is a regulation that was overturned by Republicans.
Yeah, that was awful!
When did that regulation get implemented?
You make light of serious issue. Would you like some water with coal waste in it so you can drink it and bathe in it.

Killing 90% of Obama's regulations would be a good start.
The trouble is that they are killing 100% of the regulations. Either Republican votes or Trump have killed regulations that protect consumers.


​

The fact is that if a vote had been allowed, it likely would have passed.

So if it comes to a vote with funding for a wall, it'll pass?

However as Hispanics become a larger part of the voting population, it changes the politics.

And if a bunch of illegal Hispanics go home, do the politics change again?

You make light of serious issue.

Serious issue? Obama must have fixed it right away, maybe the first 100 days?
Why don't you tell me when he fixed it?

Would you like some water with coal waste in it so you can drink it and bathe in it.

Obama never would have let that happen, eh?

The trouble is that they are killing 100% of the regulations.

I wish.

 

[miketx]

Yes, Trump is wildly unpopular. Yes, Trump is an idiot. Yes, Trump is a pathological liar. Yes, Trump is in love with Vladimir.

Quack, quack, quack.

But...if he chooses to run for re-election (which he may not), he will win again if the Democrats put up a corrupt, entitlement-minded, loser again.

In 2018, the Democrats will probably gain some ground with their "Stop Trump!" platform. That worked in Alabama and Virginia recently.

Exactly what it is about Trump they want to stop has yet to be defined.

But in 2020, the Democrats better have something for their bumper stickers besides "Stop Trump!" They better have a better plan to Make America Sane Again.

"We'll raise tax rates back to where they were."

"We'll let illegal Mexicans back into the country."

What, exactly, do they have?


At this point, I do not see a Democratic road map to the White House. At all.

I hope to Christ the Democrats aren't hanging all of their hopes and dreams on a timely economic crash.

Don't worry Oprah will save us all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, suburban voters are gonna hate their tax cuts. DERP!

You are the DERP!!! What they are going to hate are the loophole that the rich will be able to use to lower their taxes. Also the fact that Trump benefits mightily with the new rules on real estate trusts. Reagan closed loopholes for everyone. Republicans closed loopholes for the middle class but not the rich. Suburban voters are the likeliest to face tax increases.

What they are going to hate are the loophole that the rich will be able to use to lower their taxes.

I'm not going to look at the extra money I keep and then vote against Trump because someone else saved more.

Reagan closed loopholes for everyone.

And liberals whined about him.

Republicans closed loopholes for the middle class but not the rich.

Like what?

Suburban voters are the likeliest to face tax increases.

Show me.

I'm not going to look at the extra money I keep and then vote against Trump because someone else saved more.
The average person will when they see the rich using loopholes to reduce their taxes. Especially the last minute provision that benefitted Trump, Paul Ryan and Bob Corker who changed his no to a yes once it was inserted. Voters will not like lawmakers who line their pockets by passing legislation that benefits them personally.

Reagan closed loopholes for everyone.
And liberals whined about him.
We are not talking about liberals. We are talking about independents and moderates. They object to Republicans using tax law to get at their political enemies. The cap on SALT is so obvious that a blind man could see it. It is Republican revenge on blue states.

Republicans closed loopholes for the middle class but not the rich.
Like what?
The carried interest deduction which even Trump condemned as a sop to Wall Street. The pass through provisions especially in relationship to passive investors, and the tax break for real estate trusts.

Suburban voters are the likeliest to face tax increases.
Show me
You will never believe it because you are a Trump sycophant. If a angel of God came to you and told you that, you would not believe it. First there is simple logic. First you have the cost of living. If you live in rural Georgia, the cost of living in rural Georgia is much lower than living in the suburbs of Atlanta. The $10,000 cap on SALT could raise taxes on suburban residents. Even McConnell admits some middle class people will pay more in taxes. He negotiated it. The rich will still have loopholes to lower their taxes to make up for the cap. A New York Tines analysis of the Senate bill showed that the largest group of taxpayers that would see tax increases were in the $100,000-$500,000. Those making over $500,000 were fourth and narrowly ahead of those making $50,000 to $75,000. The final bill is slightly different than the final bill but not that different. Also the real estate trust scam that was included at the last minute was not included. That helps those making more than $500,000.
​

The cap on SALT is so obvious that a blind man could see it. It is Republican revenge on blue states.

That's awful!

The carried interest deduction which even Trump condemned as a sop to Wall Street.

Too bad Obama didn't close it.
The pass through provisions especially in relationship to passive investors,

Why are they bad?

and the tax break for real estate trusts

Why are they bad?

The $10,000 cap on SALT could raise taxes on suburban residents.

And the larger standard deduction with the doubled child tax credit could reduce taxes on suburban residents.
Not to mention the lowered rates and the wider brackets.

York Tines analysis of the Senate bill showed that the largest group of taxpayers that would see tax increases were in the $100,000-$500,000.

$100,000-$500,000 is middle class? ​

The carried interest deduction which even Trump condemned as a sop to Wall Street.
Too bad Obama didn't close it.
The Republicans controlled at least 1 house of Congress for 6 of Obama's years. Trump had control of Congress. I could see a ad of Trump talking about getting rid of the carried interest deduction and pointing out he signed a bill containing it.

The pass through provisions especially in relationship to passive investors,
Why are they bad?
It rewards the rich who are already getting a tax cut due to the rate cut. The goal of reform is to get rid of loopholes in exchange for rate cuts. This is clearly a violation of it. Also if a entrepreneur works in the business, only a small portion of that income is subject to the pass-through rate while 100% of income to passive investors is subject to the lower pass-through rate. Also small businesses are likely to be better of using the individual rates rather than the pass-through rate.

and the tax break for real estate trusts
Why are they bad?
They are another loophole for the rich. It again violates the principle of tax reform. This loophole should be ended. Also the fact that it enriched Paul Ryan, Bob Corker who changed his vote from no to yes, and Donald Trump makes it all the more damning. This was not in the House or Senate bills but was added at the last minute. It shows the swamp has not been drained but just stocked with different creatures.

York Tines analysis of the Senate bill showed that the largest group of taxpayers that would see tax increases were in the $100,000-$500,000.
$100,000-$500,000 is middle class?
If the rich are supposed to be paying more then should those making more than $500,000 should have the largest groups of taxpayers paying more. Instead they finish 4th. Depending on where you live, you can be making $100,000 to $250,000 and be middle class. It depends on the cost of living in your state or local area. ​

The Republicans controlled at least 1 house of Congress for 6 of Obama's years.

I know, Obama failed to close it when he had complete control for 2 years.
I don't remember Obama pushing Reid to try to do anything, do you?

It rewards the rich who are already getting a tax cut due to the rate cut.

Can you be more specific about the badness?

The goal of reform is to get rid of loopholes in exchange for rate cuts. This is clearly a violation of it.

So it's more a cut than a reform? Okay, I can live with that.

Also if a entrepreneur works in the business, only a small portion of that income is subject to the pass-through rate

How small a portion?

Also small businesses are likely to be better of using the individual rates rather than the pass-through rate.

Won't they use both?

They are another loophole for the rich.

Why is it bad?

It again violates the principle of tax reform.

So it's more a cut than a reform? Okay, I can live with that.
​

If the rich are supposed to be paying more then should those making more than $500,000 should have the largest groups of taxpayers paying more.​

You don't think the rich are paying more? LOL!​

 

[FA_Q2]

The 1% diatribe the socialist leaning leftists is nothing but a old worn out talking point meant to stir up the masses... There has always been the uber rich and always will be... If you don't like your lot in life, get off your ass and earn what you want... What does the economy and society look like in 30 years? Who in the hell knows? Way to many varibles to prognosticate such a question... Now bring on your farting and beer drinking crap and try to embarrass me off the thread...

im not trying to embarrass you off the thread i'm trying to have an honest conversation. And you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what our economy and society will look like in 30 years. I asked what it would look like if current trend of the top 1% sucking up the vast majority of new money and wealth in this country.

I'll give you my theory and you tell me if you agree or not... The top earners and corporations keep acquiring property and businesses. They gain more power over the marketplace and leverage that power to squeeze out their competitors. Home ownership goes down and renters go up. The number of business owners go down and the number of employees go up.

You want to promote free market capitalism and you despise Socialism, right? Well, this picture i'm painting ends in a form of capitalistic socialism where instead of the government controlling everything a handful of the rich and powerful will.

FYI. I am a business owner. I support low taxes and small government and limited regulation. But I also understand the roll of government and can identify the dangers that can result from an unregulated free market.

Thoughts?

In a way I did answer your question... I said that the 1% have always been around and they have... Since the beginning of time man has been stashing away fur and food... You seem intelligent enough to be able to go back through history and name wealthy families. Vanderbilt, Rockefeller just to name a few... These 1%'ers never stopped Jeff Bezos from driving across the country with a few boxes of books and a dream... Don't fear big business or competition, learn from it...

And the capitalistic Socialism you speak of has a name, Feudalism... It did not work in medieval times and would not work now...

Technology and globalism has evolved a lot since medieval times. Our world has become very saturated and though you are correct that there has always been the top 1% the inequality of wealth when looking at how much the top owns compared to the rest of society has never been worse.

That is about as false and misleading as humanly possible. The idea that wealthy redistribution is worse now than ever before is ludicrous. Rockefeller represents a wealth disparity that far exceeds anything that we have today - his wealth is compared to GDP - that is how massive it was. No one since has come close in this country. Rockefeller does not even represent anything even close to the past either. Nobility used to own everything while the general populous was little more than chattel.

Wealth inequality is a problem - it is nowhere near where it has been in the past though.

I was speaking to wealth AND power in the terms of ownership and global reach. Back in the time of Rockefeller his power was much more concentrated and effected a much smaller portion of the population. We also created anti-trust laws to protect citizens from the possible abuses that the ultra powerful could inflict on our market. Compare Rockefeller to Walmart, google, and amazon. Look at the reach that just those three companies have as far as owning our personal information and controlling the price of goods. I don’t think we’ve hit critical mass yet, there is still a ways to go, but we’ve seen the effect that it has had in small Mom and pop businesses and have also seen similar problems and squeeze out in the farming and ag industry.

Still incorrect. Rockefeller had enough power and reach that he could essentially erase a town off the map and there was nothing that could be done about it.

And again, the power they have now doe not compare to that of power that the rich had in times past when slavery and classes truly did exist.

I’m only suggesting that this be an important part of our national conversation because it is trending towards dangerous waters and I hear a lot of people laugh and shrug off “wealth inequality” as a meaningless partisan issue

I agree with this. Concentration of all the wealth does present a real problem and, more importantly IMHO, a runaway one at that.

The idea that it is 'the worst it has ever been' though is little more than the seeing things from a perspective rooted in the present. Such is far from the case.