Why didn't the Democrats run more aggressively on the economy this year?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats should have ran more aggressively on the economy, but not by shoving in your face "The economy is great and if you don't feel it you are just stupid", yea that would probably work wonderfully.

Incomes have fallen for years, and Democrats cannot take a victory lap on the economy without surrendering every last bit of what it means to be a Democrat by any definition relative to the economy and social economic matters. I mean for heavens sake you got hacks citing the stock market, the F-ING stock market to justify taking a victory lap on the economy in an election cycle. And you wonder why none-minority working class voters don't give a damn for you anymore. Its like Romney in 2012, only getting those working class voters he could win on social issues and coal, Dems in 2014 could only get minority ones.

Look up Chuck Schumer's remarks at the NAtional Press Club on Tuesday I think, aired yesterday on C-Span.

The only thing he should have changed was instead of saying Democrats are the party of/for Government, he should have said Party of/for more pay for working/middle class people and that Democrats must embrace more Gov't as the only way to level the playing field. The message is 95% right for what the Democrats should be doing, but you never define you party based on the means (more Gov't) as opposed to the ends (high wages for working and middle class peoples).

In 1832, Jackson organized your Party around 100% purity on the issue of opposing the national bank and those who didn't were shown the door. It was a populist issue, blatantly stupid, but it made the Democrats the party of common man for over a century and a half. You don't even need to do something like that, that the faculty lounges at Harvard and Columbia will revolt over to achieve the same effect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Incomes have fallen for years, and Democrats cannot take a victory lap on the economy without surrendering every last bit of what it means to be a Democrat by any definition relative to the economy and social economic matters. I mean for heavens sake you got hacks citing the stock market, the F-ING stock market to justify taking a victory lap on the economy in an election cycle. And you wonder why none-minority working class voters don't give a damn for you anymore. Its like Romney in 2012, only getting those working class voters he could win on social issues and coal, Dems in 2014 could only get minority ones.

Minority voters are actually far more optimistic about the economy and their personal prospects, going by exit polls, than white voters are. They were often among the hardest hit in the housing crisis, but their long-term (intergenerational) trajectory has been an upward one in terms of their incomes and their opportunities for jobs.

Working class whites have a negative view of the economy, but so do wealthy whites, which is downright bizarre and suggests less charitable reasons for being pessimistic about the economy.

As for the stock market, your party cannot have it both ways. If you're so upset that "Wall Street is doing better than Main Street" then pass some legislation to actually help the people who work on Main Street instead of doing everything you can to deregulate Wall Street and give those who make their money that way another tax cut. And no, Big Oil is not Main Street. Some rural Southern slaughterhouse/factory demanding more "flexibility" to keep their workers less safe and less protected against discrimination is not Main Street.

Your party ran on how bad the economy is and has offered zero ideas for tangibly improving the lives of "real Americans." Defunding the EPA isn't going to put more money in their pockets. If it does, that money will go to asthma medication and copays for cancer treatments. A "flatter" tax code is going to result in people like them paying more to the government so that the people who write checks to your party can pay less. Look at Kansas and see how well that worked out over the past few years. The Republicans already want to reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit - you want one of your first actions in total control of the legislative branch to be to raise the net tax bill of poor Americans so that you can really stick it to those "moochers" and "takers."

1. I wasn't responding to your so much as to Clinton, KCDem and Democrats in general.

2. I could have sworn this was about the Democratic Party and what they ran on in 2014. Last I checked Republicans were supposed to be the Party of the Rich, that entails that the Democrats are not, and yet... That is my point.

3-something. I supported regulating wall street, I have been railing against big oil for almost a decade, big agra on subsidies and big business in general on immigration. I also support raising the minimum wage in conjunction with a likwise increase in EITC, medicaid expansion (though the program has long term structural problems that need to be fixed)...

The Democrats didn't do much better, not just for the reasons I stated above but because they offered an agenda that doesn't help most Americans. A higher minimum wage is great for the small slice of the country whose wages are so low that it would actually make a difference for them. Is a middle-aged family with kids supposed to be swayed by the prospect of cheaper, easier access to birth control?

No, that is the point. You need a platform that across the board focuses on an emphasizes rising wages through gov't actions (infrastructure, education, minimum wage) and need you someone that doesn't come across as a condescending elitist to do it. Unfortunately, all your candidates with a southern accent are bought off by Wal-Mart. Not many LBJ's left.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

3-something. I supported regulating wall street, I have been railing against big oil for almost a decade, big agra on subsidies and big business in general on immigration. I also support raising the minimum wage in conjunction with a likwise increase in EITC, medicaid expansion (though the program has long term structural problems that need to be fixed)...

The problem on here unfortunately is that many posters argue against the GOP platform rather than the conservative they're talking to. I can't tell you how many times Link said something like "but conservatives don't believe in government action" to me back when he was still here.

I don't keep a notebook of the policy positions of everyone who posts on here.

Policy positions my foot.  You've been here for years. You ought to know that Yankee =/= Rush Limbaugh.

No, but Yankee = John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, et al by choosing the partisan identity that he does. So do you, for that matter.

I get really tired of, "Well, I happen to disagree with my party on [basically every major issue]." If you don't want to have to apologize for what your party says and does, then find a different one or better yet none at all.

The US has been dominated by the two party system for about 95% of its political life. The only road to achieving goals is to associate with the ones who will advance most of what you want. I am pro-life, pro-gun (though I do support Manchin-Toomey), oppose cap and trade, and support entitlement and pension reform, also my immigration views are to the right of every Democrat (somewhere between Marco Rubio and Mike Pence) now. Aside from a few exceptions, the Democrats are 95% hostile to what I want whereas the Republicans are with me about 75%-80% of the time.

No offense, but independent is the path of disgusted protested and disengagement from Parties, which perpetuates the problems the Parties have, not solve them. You are free to hold with disdain the non-purists within Parties for not leaving, but I hope you will understand that such comes from a perspective that views independent as a viable option. I don't share that approach, even as I different significantly with my own party in certain areas. The Parties will never be destroyed and leaving them will only make them worse.

And ftr I actually sent emails to GOP congressmen about not voting to reelect John Boehner as GOP leader in the House. I expect to have to own support for Mittens because yes, I supported him for President for six years, except when I cosnidered Pawlenty for about a month.