Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent/Trumpism and Clintonism

[RINO Tom]

Anyone saying Wall Street is more Democrat-friendly than GOP-friendly is either a painfully oblivious dreamer who yearns for a party that suits them or downright stupid.

Yep. And most Democrats--and voters in general--would strongly agree.

This is not a Republican strength.

Being associated with business and enterprise is not a bad thing, IMO ... certainly better than being viewed as a culturally intolerant party that openly welcomes xenophobia or racial resentment.  Non-"rich" people can become rich; non-White people can't become White.  Having working class White voters is wonderful, but we can't become a party of only working class White voters or even primarily of working class White voters ... there aren't enough of them, and their share of the population will continue to decline.

There should be absolutely zero reason that a college-educated, affluent Asian or Latino family shouldn't be mostly Republican, but we seem to be trying to give them a new one each week.

[RINO Tom]

I can't see this happening. The Democrats would be a party that is economically neoliberal, socially SJW, and foreign policy neoconservative--it's like a mashup of all the least popular political views.

They virtually already are that way, at least with Hillary Clinton the nominee this year.

They're literally not.

[136or142]

1.The Democratic Party for the most part, since Bill Clinton in 1992 and the DLC and '3rd way' politics' has been the party for the 'middle class' (whatever that is) and not primarily the party for the working class or the poor/unemployed.  I don't the Barack Obama Presidency fundamentally altered that.

2.The problem with the rest is that Rapist Trump's policies are incoherent so either his idiot supporters are incoherent or he's appealing to two different idiot groups that don't realize he's making contradictory promises.

A.He says he dislikes the neo-cons and promises a 'non interventionist' foreign policy (though he lies when says he opposed the Iraq war.) But, at the same time, he also promises to 'destroy ISIL  quickly' in some way that he also says he can't explain.  Obviously a non interverventionist foreign policy would mean relying on allies to defeat ISIL (which is already being done with quite a bit of success), but the only way I can think of to 'destroy ISIL quickly' would involve sending in U.S troops to fight ISIL.  After this there are a number of other radical groups that also threaten or potentially threaten the U.S.  So, if he's consistent, he would presumably need to send in U.S troops to defeat them as well. So, I guess he's an interventionist non-interventionist or an non-interventionist interventionist.

B.He says he's against Wall Street but now that he wants to raise money from them, he also says that he'd try and repeal 'most' of Dodd Frank.  My guess is he said 'most' because he doesn't actually have a clue what's in the legislation.

He also claims to be against 'big money' in elections but has said nothing about overturning Citizen's United or lobbying reform and presumably those eleven judges that he says might be his leading choices to the Supreme Court agree with the Citizen's United ruling.

For that article's predictions to have a chance of being correct, I think they'd need a coherent candidate who genuinely wants to change his party's policies.