SDCowboy
Member
Pretty much. Two major points the Democratic candidate needs it border and immigration toughness (but fairness), and to not ignore, or borderline ostracize the white middle-America voter.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do the Democrats have a viable candidate who can beat Trump?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
Do you think the transgender military ban doesn't fall under that? Especially the blanket ban from 2017.
TheShadowLord
Member
what type of immigration toughness that is also fair at the same are you thinking about?
No illegal immigrants everyone has to apply maybe even some contingent to have everything under control. Illegal new immigrant will face deportation,
You think Democrats have been ignoring the white, middle-America voter? All the political parties and the media love to do is wax poetic about the "real America". But this almost always means leaving behind disenfranchised groups. Unfortunately, a big chunk of the Democratic party is made up of minorites. This conflict isn't new at all.
"“I’ve never known a better night in electoral politics for the Republican Party, and the best is yet to come,” shouted Bob Dole at RNC headquarters to chants of “‘96! ‘96! ‘96!”
After their party’s sweeping defeat, a group of strategy-minded Democrats began meeting secretly. They decided to form a new coalition. The coalition of mostly Southern House Representatives wanted a return to moderate positions in the name of collaboration and bipartisanship. They called themselves the Blue Dog Democrats."
"The Blue Dogs didn’t utter a peep about social issues. Their rural Southern constituents’ biggest concerns were agricultural policy and farm programs, not same-sex marriage, equal rights, or gun control."
"“We have become a party of assembling all these different groups, the women’s caucus and the black caucus and the Hispanic caucus and the lesbian-gay-transgender caucus and so forth, and that doesn’t relate to people out in rural America,” said Minnesota Rep. Collin C. Peterson, a Blue Dog Dem, in November 2016. “The party’s become an urban party, and they don’t get rural America. They don’t get agriculture.”"
https://timeline.com/blue-dog-democrats-30cfb6d2624d
What in the heavens does agriculture have to do with supporting progressive causes?
It's always the same nonsense in America. You have people in politics who want to do the right thing but they have to appease the racists and bigots that are still out there. It's why Obama was "evolving" for so long on same-sex marriage.
So farmers have to either agree that "progressive and liberal" concerns are more important than local agricultural concerns, or get branded a racist or bigot? I suppose that's one way to try winning elections. Seems to be working well so far.
I'm not sure how you misinterpreted my post. I'm saying that rural voters are put off by the party supporting women, blacks, and the LGBT. It's right there in the quote I gave you; a blue dog is pretty much spelling it out for you.
By the way, Democrats don't ignore the white working class.
"President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating funding for economic development programs supporting laid-off coal miners and others in Appalachia, stirring fears in a region that supported him of another letdown on the heels of the coal industry’s collapse."
"
The cuts to its funding were recommended to the administration by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank. Nick Loris, an energy fellow at the foundation, said the work that ARC and the Economic Development Administration do should be devolved to state and local governments "to encourage transparency and reduce duplicative federal spending."
States have said their budgets are already strapped."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-appalachia-idUSKBN16N2VF
"It turns out that one of the best ideas for how to rescue the region came from the same people who have been reviled for their role in burying the coal industry.
On February 2, in one of his first acts as Senate majority leader of the 115th Congress, Mitch McConnell ushered through the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule. The Obama-era regulation had taken eight years to write, emerging on the last day of the Obama administration, only to be snuffed out two weeks later. In the so-called War on Coal, this was the first time coal had punched back, drawing cheers from Washington to Appalachia.
“We cannot allow the legacy of the Obama administration to continue damaging our communities.” McConnell wrote in a self-congratulatory op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Story Continued Below
The Stream Protection Rule, and “a wave of environmental regulations” like it, according to a spokesperson for the American Public Power Association, have long been the source of Republican anger toward Obama-era energy policy, which conservatives contend is the reason 40,000 coal miners have lost their jobs, 11,000 in Kentucky alone, since 2011. That was the year the EPA announced a stricter air standard that had the effect of forcing coal-fired power plants to shift to natural gas at a time when the price of gas had fallen to historic lows.
“This tragedy in central Appalachia is a direct result of government action,” said former governor of Kentucky, Paul Patton, a Democrat, and currently the chancellor of the University of Pikeville in Pike County, which has lost 80 percent of its coal jobs over the past five years. “I can tell you that we’re paying the price for it.”
But since that much-ballyhooed vote in early February, this is how many new coal jobs have been created in Appalachia: Zero. And there are no signs there are any coming anytime soon: Tyler White, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, couldn’t say how many jobs he thought the repeal of the rule would create, “but I can tell you that it definitely will help stop the bleeding.”
Even if every one of Obama’s environmental regulations—the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; the Cross State Air Pollution Rule; the Coal Ash Rule; the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for wastewater discharge, and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act —were all struck down tomorrow, the effect on jobs in Appalachia would still be negligible. That’s because global demand for coal is slowing, and coal from Wyoming costs a fraction of the coal from Appalachia. Even without the Stream Protection Rule, the Appalachian economy still needs to be remade.
It turns out that one of the best ideas for how to rescue the region came from the same people who have been reviled for their role in burying the coal industry.
ADVERTISING
As part of the 2016 budget, the Obama White House created something called the POWER Plus plan specifically to help Appalachian communities that were getting left behind because of the rapidly changing energy market. The acronym stands for Partnerships for Opportunity and Workforce and Economic Revitalization, and it proposed a suite of projects including to convert $1 billion from the Abandoned Mine Lands reserve—a pot of money that had been growing since the Carter administration—funding for projects to clean up abandoned mine lands, mostly underground, that are linked to local economic development strategies. For Kentucky alone, that would mean $20 million a year for five years. The money would likely have gone to promote other businesses sectors like manufacturing and tourism and to retrain miners for new jobs like writing computer code.
This potential windfall was met with disinterest, if not skepticism, in the Republican-controlled Congress."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ministration-idea-to-save-coal-country-214885
It's like you have it all backwards.
I'm not sure what you are saying even now. I thought you were saying that the agricultural focused voters are racists and bigots because they don't care about the rest of the platform. Perhaps I read that wrong. If not, my point was putting your own concerns and issues that affect you the most at the top, is not what makes someone a racist of bigot.
Think carefully about what the quote is saying and about the history of this country. Gaining support from disenfranchised groups makes the rural voters feel alienated and that the party doesn't care about them (despite evidence to the contrary). These voters would prefer to be the sole focus of attention and for the rest of the non-white, non-male, non-straight groups to be abandoned.
Now, is this or is this not consistent with the American experience throughout the country's history? Be honest with yourself, I just want you to reflect on that.
That much projection into the meaning of a simple sentence, followed by a loaded question of the sort, only coerces the answer you are looking for when the person speaking is assumed to fail or give shitty grades to anyone who does not agree with the professor.
If you are unaware of the history of this country and how that affects current politics then I can't help you. I would encourage you to educate yourself before engaging in this topic though.
Disagreeing with you is not evidence that I lack education, historical awareness, or an understanding of politics. That you would assume so based on my disagreement with your absolute certainty that farmers are racist, suggests that you have spent way too much money on your "education." And suggesting in a thread about how to beat trump, that the dems should double down on calling middle America a bunch of racists, suggests you may want to brush up on your 2016 history before re-engaging in this topic.
Spheyr
Banned
Which is why liberals love open borders.
GAFDooMsDaY
Banned
So first my comment was directed at you personally an dog no worries it's everyone?
You aren't smart enough to continue to discuss anything with me.
GAFDooMsDaY
Banned
*"and now it's everyone?"
Typo^
Typo^
I literally showed you how Obama supported the WWC and how Trump and the Republican party are directly working against his programs. I also showed you how a blue dog spelled out how support of women, blacks, and the LGBT alienates the rural voters. All which is consistent with the rural voters supporting the racist party but sure, I'm pulling this out of nowhere.
You can show me ten more quotes, 100 more programs that Obama supported, and whatever else you want. But it will not change this simple premise. We have an electoral college system, and in a thread about who can beat Trump, advocating to call the same people who already swung the last election to Trump, either a racist, stupid, bigot, etc., is bad advice from someone who is really grasping at straws to explain why the same failed strategy will really work next time.
TheLaughingStock
Member
None of what you described is bad. Also, you may find the video below helpful when it comes to trade.
Is Comparative Advantage the Ideology of the Comparatively Advantaged?
Raising tariffs against other protectionist countries to protect American interests is a bad thing? Pulling the cord on deals like the TPP which promote the most economically damaging forms of protectionism is bad? Those are good things.
Free trade is not a label Pres. Trump should take pride in or feel ashamed that he's not a part of. It's ideological garbage that's hurting America and its people. It's a scheme to redistribute wealth, dole out rents, and rig the laws of nation states. And a big reason why Pres. Trump is in charge is because people are tired of it.
What they do and how they promote in these election periods are vastly different. I have seen so much hatred with Clinton voters and herself going after the so evil white patriarchy. Only promoting how cool it were to have the first female president etc. IT was completely modern feminism driven and when less than 18% consider themselves in America a feminist then you are losing tons of voters.
And the media did play their game too. You had Trump as contender for fucks sake and all these people tried to do was to shame him out of existence, how he looks, walks, his hands etc. And for Clinton it was always about she was a women bla bla bla.
Again Bernie Sanders did include everyone with Clinton and the media it seems that she tried to count out and shame as many as possible.
PS: Also we know how little she spoke in these "white" working countryside areas. Almost NONE. She did not even care
Last edited:
That's a strawman. I'm obviously not saying the strategy should be to call voters racists, but we do need to to acknowledge that the criticism about the Democratic party not caring about the WWC is obviously false. I showed how Obama had programs that tried to directly address the issue of jobs for WWC while Trump and the Republicans had nothing better to offer and instead took them away. Also, showing the WWC that Democrats care shouldn't be at the expense of women, POC, and the LGBT, which, as I showed, is something that the party has a history with.
TheShadowLord
Member
edit: double post, sorry
Last edited:
TheShadowLord
Member
Apply? As in for citizenship or to get a green card? If so then sure I have no problem as long as the current immigration system is also fixed so people don't have to wait so long.
TrainedRage
Banned
I hope Joe runs....
rokkerkory
Member
SDCowboy
Member
Fair enough. My point was mainly in regards to Hillary's campaign (not Dems as a whole), which I feel could have done a much better job to reaching out to the demographic.
Corrik
Member
Trump is referring to a leaked speech excerpt in which Clinton purportedly says, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
Edit: There is no way her plan was to actually do this, but it stands to say that she knew her audience and was telling them what she thought they wanted to hear probably. Clinton pivoted further right during the campaign. She was not a liberal.
Last edited:
n0razi
Member
Don't make promises you can't keep
Green cards citizenship would require more imo. For example learn the language (test) etc. I would use the way Canada does it. But for the rest you should be able to legally work and live in the US. But again this is impossible for everyone. That why you need a selected amount each year.
Last edited:
Shouldn't you be busy plastering more MAGA stickers over your guns?
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
lol wait, that’s the example?
So 1) there’s no proof it even occurred and 2) in her alleged quote, she’s not talking about immigration at all, but trade (i.e. free flow of goods/services)
Got it.
pramod
Banned
Why do you need a direct quote? What point are you trying to prove? We're not here to convince you the Democrats want open borders. Anyone with a brain already knows they do.
Where's the direct quote that Republicans hate black and poor people? But yet isn't that what everyone believes?
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Member
Pramod, politicans are by and large actually good socializers.
They don't normally outwardly say that they hate poor people or blacks (I mean some have let it slip even in 2017).
When Jim Crow came they didn't say that they despised black people and so here it is, but the laws fucked them over, now didn't it? The cruelty behind the laws and policies reveal hostility. Although they prefer it to be hidden and unacknowledged, and they would rather you mindfuck yourself into believing otherwise ("compassionate conservatism"), those with willed indifference like Paul Ryan tell us all that we need to know
They don't normally outwardly say that they hate poor people or blacks (I mean some have let it slip even in 2017).
When Jim Crow came they didn't say that they despised black people and so here it is, but the laws fucked them over, now didn't it? The cruelty behind the laws and policies reveal hostility. Although they prefer it to be hidden and unacknowledged, and they would rather you mindfuck yourself into believing otherwise ("compassionate conservatism"), those with willed indifference like Paul Ryan tell us all that we need to know
generaldane
Member
This whole democrats wanta open border thing always sounds like horseshit to me, Obama was a Democrat and he spent his presidency deporting more people than any other President
D
Deleted member 12837
Unconfirmed Member
Hmm I dunno. It's nice to have evidence when making claims, I guess?
Propping up caricatures and strawmen of "the other side" is a disservice to reasonable discussion. Just calling it out when I see it, is all.
I'm allowed to ask someone to back up a claim being made. It's their choice whether or not to answer.
and :eyeroll: at the bolded
No, it's not what everyone believes.
That's because it is. Just like "Obama is going to take away yer guns" and "Democrats are pro-killing babies".
LegendOfKage
Gold Member
So for people who oppose racism but agree with conservative ideology, what would you suggest that they do?
Trump is done. He lost the popular vote in 2016, just scraped the electoral college. Every poll since then suggests he has lost support amongst key sections of his base, and that he/the Republicans have completely alienated the youth vote. Pretty much any Democrat is going to destroy him. The mid-terms may even be enough to spook Republicans into some sort of action. If they want to get back into the White House in the next 20 years they need to cut their losses in 2020 and dump Trump, take the hit with the crazy racists he brings in, and try and move back towards the middle in time for 2024.
Try to change the American election system
Would be funny if it were Clinton again and she would lose again XD
The problem is king to their identity politics and cast out everyone who disagrees than Trump even could win a second time as long he will not start a war.
sometimes i game
Member
Connor Lamb is providing a blueprint, I'm sure they'll figure it out this time.
Really? Because Obama Care isn't repealed and replaced, Carrier employees aren't doing so hot, Isis was not defeated in 30 days or to this day, The Wall is not a thing in any stage of planning or execution, I can go on and on. He did a Tax bill, and even his side of the house hates it.
Saying the only thing stopping him is the opposition party...yeah, welcome to politics. Trump promised you and his voters that he knew how to make masterful deals and rise above politics. Now all you guys say "if it weren't for democrats he could get stuff done!"....what? Let's see those amazing deals he makes. Still waiting on 'em.
Really? Because Obama Care isn't repealed and replaced, Carrier employees aren't doing so hot, Isis was not defeated in 30 days or to this day, The Wall is not a thing in any stage of planning or execution, I can go on and on. He did a Tax bill, and even his side of the house hates it.
Saying the only thing stopping him is the opposition party...yeah, welcome to politics. Trump promised you and his voters that he knew how to make masterful deals and rise above politics. Now all you guys say "if it weren't for democrats he could get stuff done!"....what? Let's see those amazing deals he makes. Still waiting on 'em.
Last edited:
appaws
Banned
Not Democrats. The left. They still aren't one and the same, although they get more completely intertwined with each passing year.
The left learned through a lot of electoral losses that some of their priorities are simply not going to fly with the American public. So they had to try different, non-electoral strategies to get some of them through. First, the courts, where so much was accomplished for Civil Rights for racial minorities. But that is an imperfect solution, because conservatives can still muster enough power at the Presidential level to get judges onto federal courts, as Trump is doing.
But as a larger existential issue for the left, they had to approach the idea of changing the electorate. You see, the White American voter is the only voting block in the entire world that will consistently vote for limited government. (for various historical reasons) That just won't do for the "progressive" agenda. So whites as a share of the electorate have to be whittled down. And the left has been successful in doing just that over the last 50 years, allying with Republican businessmen who love the cheap labor.
They are close to pulling it off actually. Many on the right saw the Trump election as the "Flight 93" election, the last chance to save the country before demographic doom sets in. They are probably right, because Texas and Georgia are going Blue eventually....and at that point it is nullification and secession movements or just give up and start rent seeking along with everyone else.
(Disclaimer: None of this is meant to devalue the contributions of POC who believe in limited government, or are conservatives. I am just pointing out that electoral victory can only come to "conservatives" by winning an overwhelming share of white voters.)
To a leftist, there is no such thing. All positions on the right are rooted in hate.
Guns=Fear of Black People
Low taxes=Resentment of Wealth Transfer to Black People
Pro-Life=Hatred of Women
In my opinion, we on the right should stop even looking for them to approve of us and certify us as "non-racist." We can't seek the approval of our ideological opponents for our positions, it can never work. I've tried a million times, arguing for individualism and colorblindness as ideals. They just chalk it up to secret racism and "dog whistling." They have actually managed to turn the tenets of "Content of their character" into a racist position, which is pretty remarkable when you think about it.
Thickandblack
Banned
I do not think Hillary was as hated as many of you think. A ton of women voted for her just because she is a woman.
Frozen Bagel
Neo Member
If you really believe that I am equivilating Trump to Clinton on pretenses of reelection, then Lol. Considering that Clinton was impeached on the second term of his presidency, not the first. But y'all can just keep covering your ears & eyes and continue to run your eyes wide shut parties on this forum, because the question is a matter of when, not if, Trump's gonna go.
Similar threads
- Locked