I think that the arguments in politics need to change

[freepcrusher]

its difficult for democrats to try to play the class warfare card because it really isn't an economic issue anymore. Poor and rich people alike vote for both parties. You have Highland Park, Texas; Boyle Heights, California; Eastern Kentucky; and Fairfax County, Virginia. What I think the Ds need to do is to make it more of a traditionalist vs. non-traditionalist argument. I became a democrat because whenever I heard republicans talk they would say things like "I got where I am today because of hard work and I earned everything I got and I don't want it going to any of those people. Well I want the democratic party to become the party of those people. I became a democrat because I am into extreme sports like skateboarding, surfing and I like punk rock and I felt that the democratic party was the party of those types. I think the democratic party should sort of be the antithesis of the "hard working married churchgoing" Americans.

We should sort of be the alternative lifestyles party like the people who choose not to get married or have children (or if they do to not do it until they are well entrenched in their career) the people who choose not to go to church ; the people who choose not to work in traditional professions and instead working in careers like graphic design or organic farming; and people who want to try something different such as trying a new religion (like buddhism); trying a new drug; trying a new fashion etc. We should not become the blue collar party but instead the no-collar party based on people who don't want to be labeled and want to live by their own rules.

[Username MechaRFK]

The Dems are the alternative lifestyle party though..

[Bacon King]

The United States, due to its electoral structure, is by necessity a two-party system. Because of this, both parties have to be "big-tent" parties. The groups you're talking about are all already in the Democratic tent. 

[freepcrusher]

The United States, due to its electoral structure, is by necessity a two-party system. Because of this, both parties have to be "big-tent" parties. The groups you're talking about are all already in the Democratic tent. 

that's why the Hart-Cellar Act was passed. We knew in the 1960s that we would see mass defections so we needed a lot of new voters to offset that.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The people who choose to have guns, the people who choose not to have guns, the people who choose to use their wealth to buy one thing, the people who choose their wealth to buy another, the people who choose to drive hummers, the people who choose to not, I see where you're going. You're sick and tired of people being criticized for their big cars, their money, and their guns, and you wanna go against the norm and defend them, right?

[lowtech redneck]

I became a democrat because I am into extreme sports like skateboarding, surfing and I like punk rock and I felt that the democratic party was the party of those types. I think the democratic party should sort of be the antithesis of the "hard working married churchgoing" Americans.

You realize that is every Republican's wet dream, right? 

[freepcrusher]

I became a democrat because I am into extreme sports like skateboarding, surfing and I like punk rock and I felt that the democratic party was the party of those types. I think the democratic party should sort of be the antithesis of the "hard working married churchgoing" Americans.

You realize that is every Republican's wet dream, right? 

why?

[lowtech redneck]

Because a Democratic party with that overt message would doom itself to perpetual minority status (though their popularity among college students would remain solid).  Most people will see opposition to at least one of your 'Republican' characteristics as offensive to themselves, their values or their aspirations.  And one of those groups will be the people who have the most children.

Ironically, I'm lazy, unmarried, and agnostic, and would never vote for a party explicitly opposed to hard work, marriage, or attending Church.

[freepcrusher]

Because a Democratic party with that overt message would doom itself to perpetual minority status (though their popularity among college students would remain solid).  Most people will see opposition to at least one of your 'Republican' characteristics as offensive to themselves, their values or their aspirations.  And one of those groups will be the people who have the most children.

Ironically, I'm lazy, unmarried, and agnostic, and would never vote for a party explicitly opposed to hard work, marriage, or attending Church.

As I said earlier that's why the Hart-Cellar Act was passed so we could gain a new constituency to offset that.

[lowtech redneck]

Because a Democratic party with that overt message would doom itself to perpetual minority status (though their popularity among college students would remain solid).  Most people will see opposition to at least one of your 'Republican' characteristics as offensive to themselves, their values or their aspirations.  And one of those groups will be the people who have the most children.

Ironically, I'm lazy, unmarried, and agnostic, and would never vote for a party explicitly opposed to hard work, marriage, or attending Church.

As I said earlier that's why the Hart-Cellar Act was passed so we could gain a new constituency to offset that.

Most immigrants are hard-working, married or intend to marry, and consider themselves at least somewhat religious.

[King]

I think the shift and punctuation keys should be hit more frequently in this thread or, at the very least, double-spacing become a practice of freepcrusher.

[TJ in Oregon]

If the Democrats threw the poor/labor/working class under the bus, the political map would look something like this:

A fine outcome for Republicans. I'll take it; please do.

Note: I'm assuming the Democrats keep minoritites becase minorities are "different".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Because a Democratic party with that overt message would doom itself to perpetual minority status (though their popularity among college students would remain solid).  Most people will see opposition to at least one of your 'Republican' characteristics as offensive to themselves, their values or their aspirations.  And one of those groups will be the people who have the most children.

Ironically, I'm lazy, unmarried, and agnostic, and would never vote for a party explicitly opposed to hard work, marriage, or attending Church.

As I said earlier that's why the Hart-Cellar Act was passed so we could gain a new constituency to offset that.

Most immigrants are hard-working, married or intend to marry, and consider themselves at least somewhat religious.

And by virtue of necessity, as they get bigger in number, the Republicans will seek to peel off more and more groups to try and even the numbers amongst minorities. Like Cubans and the Evangelical Hispanics, oh wait, they already win those.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the Democrats threw the poor/labor/working class under the bus, the political map would look something like this:

A fine outcome for Republicans. I'll take it; please do.

Note: I'm assuming the Democrats keep minoritites becase minorities are "different".

Why is Idaho and Wyoming so weak?

[TJ in Oregon]

Slightly more libertarian-ish. Having the Democrats stopping being the 'party of the poor' may help them some there (in the long term, in the short term they'd just get crushed in every swing state).

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why do you keep posting these stupid threads, all of them with the same theme of the Democrats detaching themselves from the working class? You do realize that that happened a long time ago, right?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why not Utah, also?

The number of mormons is slowly declining and the non mormons are as Dem as mormons are Republican.

This divide is not as pronounced in Idaho where the non-mormon part of the state votes like Eastern Washington does. A decline in Idaho's mormon population wouldn't affect the state politically as it will Utah.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why not Utah, also?

The number of mormons is slowly declining and the non mormons are as Dem as mormons are Republican.

This divide is not as pronounced in Idaho where the non-mormon part of the state votes like Eastern Washington does. A decline in Idaho's mormon population wouldn't affect the state politically as it will Utah.

Well it wouldn't affect it as dramatically but Boise is moving towards the Democrats at lightning speeds right now. Ada County is fairly socially liberal and is still hotspot for new development. The northern end of Boise is quickly gentrifying and is still attracting yuppies from across the country and the suburbs are developing their own political culture. Give Ada County ten more years and it will be Democratic leaning.

As for the north well, it's days of identification with the Democrats are long over.

[Foucaulf]

I became a democrat because whenever I heard republicans talk they would say things like "I got where I am today because of hard work and I earned everything I got and I don't want it going to any of those people. Well I want the democratic party to become the party of those people.

By "those people" I suppose you mean the blue-collars, the immigrants and the indebted classes-

I became a democrat because I am into extreme sports like skateboarding, surfing and I like punk rock and I felt that the democratic party was the party of those types.

What do you mean by "those types"? Obviously youth exist in both Democratic and Republican parties, but they're not leading either for a very long time. The Democrats are only distinguished these days for at least paying lip service to the American underclass. If you want neither party to represent these people, then admit you're undermining social mobility for your middle-class interests. Maybe join the Young Republicans while you're at it.

We should not become the blue collar party but instead the no-collar party based on people who don't want to be labeled and want to live by their own rules.

You sound like a goddamn Miracle Whip ad. Stop it.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm pretty sure that he's a troll, all he does is post about why Democrats need to be the party of hipsters, yuppies and upscale atheists and ditch the workers.

[Link]

I think the democratic party should sort of be the antithesis of the "hard working married churchgoing" Americans.

So we should kick Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama out of the party?!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If the Democrats threw the poor/labor/working class under the bus, the political map would look something like this:

A fine outcome for Republicans. I'll take it; please do.

Note: I'm assuming the Democrats keep minoritites becase minorities are "different".

Democrats wouldn't win IA or VA either.

[freepcrusher]

I should explain that I'm an aspie so you understand why I sound like a troll a lot of the time.

Anyways, I remember watching the movie "Capitalism: A Love Story". Michael Moore talks about how great his childhood was in the early 1960s. Michael Moore has good intentions but he is wrong. I hated (most) of the 60s because there was some type of overtly smug optimism. The quote from John Lennon is pretty much spot on: "Maybe in the sixties we were naïve and like children and later everyone went back to their rooms and said, 'We didn't get a wonderful world of flowers and peace.... The world is a nasty horrible place because it didn't give us everything we cried for.' Right? Crying for it wasn't enough."

The problem with JFK was that he had an overly naive view that we could create some perfect country with unicorns et al. That was the problem of the 60s. What I want is a candidate with a 1970s mindset. By that I mean somebody like Eric Idle who is funny and likeable, but is also brutally honest and cynical and not going to bs you.

[The Mikado]

I should explain that I'm an aspie so I understand I sound like a troll a lot of the time.

That's no excuse.

[Username MechaRFK]

I should explain that I'm an aspie so I understand I sound like a troll a lot of the time.

That's no excuse.

Exactly. BTW, I will PM about this subject later.