Things Clinton Democrats don't seem to get

[RaphaelDLG]

A lot of great stuff in this thread, especially on the first page.

I would add: 

Especially in the long-term (2-3 election cycles), economic populism is a winning election strategy.  The whole Slick Willy DLC strategy of outflanking the Republicans on deregulation and cuts to SS/medicare may help bring in $ for your campaign coffers and give you the air of being a "very serious adult," but in the long-term it damages your brand!

In the 30s-60s, the Democratic party was synonymous with the working man.  Nowadays, it does not enjoy that reputation - despite the fact that, though they are doing badly under both regimes, working class folks pretty obviously do better under Democratic leadership.

Why did this happen?  I believe that a lot of it is due to the failure of Democratic party leadership to resist structural forces/corporate power in pursuit of short-term gains (of course, there are a lot of threads to disentangle, like racism, etc).

[SillyAmerican]

Other than that i cant criticise the . It's just an emoticon.

It's a terrible, two-timing emoticon that reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness. It's clearly aiding and abetting his posts.

It's merely comic relief, to help keep people from breaking down in tears...

[VPH]

I understand the sentiment against trade agreements but we should tolerate the racism of the white working class?

This kind of condescension is precisely why Democrats lose.

[pikachu]

How much of the Democrats' problem is messaging and how is because their candidate just isn't very good? She's at ~40% favorability, has 24 years of scandals and baggage, and all of her husband's problems. If a generic D like Hickenlooper, Klobucher, Kaine, Jerry Brown, Gillibrant, etc, was running against Donald Trump, with a similar message, would he/she be having the same problems? On the converse, I'd bet that boring, standard generic R would have a solid lead over Hillary right now.

[IceSpear]

How much of the Democrats' problem is messaging and how is because their candidate just isn't very good? She's at ~40% favorability, has 24 years of scandals and baggage, and all of her husband's problems. If a generic D like Hickenlooper, Klobucher, Kaine, Jerry Brown, Gillibrant, etc, was running against Donald Trump, with a similar message, would he/she be having the same problems? On the converse, I'd bet that boring, standard generic R would have a solid lead over Hillary right now.

Because the GOP hate machine and the media would let Jerry Brown or Hickenlooper claim the presidency unscathed. LOL.

It's like some of you guys don't even realize how elections work. Everyone looks like a stronger candidate...until they actually run.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

when are you gonna drop this talking point, icespear? president obama has been just as much of a target (more, really) than clinton, and yet his approvals are a full twenty points better.

[pikachu]

How much of the Democrats' problem is messaging and how is because their candidate just isn't very good? She's at ~40% favorability, has 24 years of scandals and baggage, and all of her husband's problems. If a generic D like Hickenlooper, Klobucher, Kaine, Jerry Brown, Gillibrant, etc, was running against Donald Trump, with a similar message, would he/she be having the same problems? On the converse, I'd bet that boring, standard generic R would have a solid lead over Hillary right now.

Because the GOP hate machine and the media would let Jerry Brown or Hickenlooper claim the presidency unscathed. LOL.

It's like some of you guys don't even realize how elections work. Everyone looks like a stronger candidate...until they actually run.

I've supported Hillary since it became clear that Bernie was the only alternative, but it's not that crazy to think that another Democratic candidate could have favorables close to Obama and be coasting to victory over Trump right now. The fundamentals are still good for her and I think she'll win, but a Democratic presidential candidate should be doing better in these conditions.

[IceSpear]

when are you gonna drop this talking point, icespear? president obama has been just as much of a target (more, really) than clinton, and yet his approvals are a full twenty points better.

Compare Obama's approval vs. Hillary's favorability in 2014 and get back to me.

Obama still gets attacked, but Hillary is by far the main target, and that allows him to float above the fray. The opposite dynamic was at play from 2009-2015.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

[RaphaelDLG]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We do agree that more needs to be done to help transition workforces.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

-- The Democrats are never going to win on racial issues alone because minorities are still a minority of the electorate.

-- The Democrats' base is the working class, and the vast majority of that is working class whites. That has never changed, nor should it ever change, given the positions of the parties.

-- Trump has made a strong red meat appeal to working class whites on immigration and trade. He positions himself as making a business proposition (which he certainly understands): their vote in exchange for promising to look out for their 'interests'.

-- The Democrats have traditionally made this exact same kind of appeal on economic issues, but are letting themselves get outflanked.

-- There are a lot of people out there who aren't thrilled about Trump, but all they're hearing from the Democrats is, "shame on you for being a racist". Human nature suggests this doesn't work.

Sorry, I just can't get on board with blatant lying to the electorate, low tech manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, coal (especially Appalachia coal)  isn't coming back.  Retraining and a safety net is the best one can offer.  If the working white class can't comprehend or accept this, then I guess everyone should just prepare for the consequences.

The democrats aren't offering retraining as far as I can tell. You have to actually campaign on an issue for it to be a plus for your side.

Bullcrap, even back when Hillary made the speech about putting miner's out of work, she was talking about the need for retraining.  Retraining has been a constant Democratic effort for God knows how long

You know damn well that all the "retraining" programs are going to be earmarked to reliably Democratic areas. It'd be the same if a Republican proposed the program. West Virginia coal miners aren't gonna anything more than some lipservice under a Clinton presidency.

The money has been put out there by Obama the last two years, but most of it hasn't made it through Congress, mainly thanks to McConell (some has via coal reclamation funds).  Hilary rolled out a 5 Billion detailed program after the blowback from miners out of work speech.  Trump has nothing, because he's gonna make coal great again so why retrain?  And I guess the dumbs left in WV after watching people leave for seven decades (including your family) actually believe it.

See, why should West Virginians think Hillary cares for them when her supporters like you call them "dumbs." Hillary doesn't care for WV. Trump doesn't much care either, but he'll at least protect their industry. Bernie does care, and I think Bernie would have actually passed a job retraining program that helps all Americans, not just his favorite Americans. Which is why WV, which went from being a Hillary stronghold to being a Bernie one?

Americans see through Hillary's persona. That is why a non-marginal amount of Democrats backed Bernie and why Trump is ahead (seriously, we nominated Donald freaking Trump and he's leading!) in the polls.

 

Watching this horrible Hillary Show makes me wish Bernie had won.

To those who refer to the white working class voters as "racist":  Racist or not, these are folks that have worked, have obeyed the law, have paid their taxes, have shown up for America's wars, and have only asked that the Social Contract be kept.  And it hasn't been kept.  

Should the "racism" of these folks be tolerated?  The person who asked this question is a complete idiot, and I'm not one for insulting posters on Atlas.  These folks do wonder why their hard work is not valued, why their law abiding lifestyles aren't even acknowledged, let alone respected, and why there seems to be more respect for folks who are struggling, but are struggling because of the irresponsible choice to have children out of wedlock, then there is for their struggles, where their families struggle with them, but without much assistance from government.  Racism is wrong; indeed, it's a sin, but what about the contempt for the white working class that is often expressed here?  Is it not a sin because there's not a simple term for it?

[win win]

What they don't get is to stop making RACE their MAIN ISSUE.
I don't care one lick about racial issues, minority rights or political correctness.
The thing people like me care about the most are:
the ECONOMY
and FOREIGN AFFAIRS

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

[RINO Tom]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

It's very sad, and I feel for those people.  I'm worried about the same thing, as my current job is in commercial banking and my career goal is wealth management ... both those fields might find fewer and fewer job openings as technology progresses.  I'd be devastated if that's what I devoted my life to and one day, I couldn't do anything else OR that.

However, what is your solution?  Stop all beneficial economic ideas that might displace any workers?  Put restrictions on technological advances?

[RaphaelDLG]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

Are you trying to suggest that we should permanently suspend the economy at our current level of technology and development and prevent technological advances for the sake of preserving old jobs?

Would you be satisfied if hypothetically the government gave people who lost their jobs the opportunity to go back to school for free or close to free to learn how to adapt their skills into a slightly different position, and provided bedrock necessities like healthcare and high quality education for their children?

Of course (like we complained in the discussion you quoted) the government currently doesn't provide anything like any of those three things, and SHOULD, to serve the heartbreaking cases that you describe.

But I DON'T think that we should be telling people that they should expect to hold the same job for their entire life anymore, or that they should not expect their industry to dramatically change.  And we should adjust our public education accordingly so that it does a much better job of preparing people for that rapidly changing kind of world.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

I don't know of a kind way to say this, but what is the difference between raising tariffs to protect jobs that can be done for less elsewhere, and just simply raising taxes and giving those people a paycheck and allowing them to do something new?  I mean seriously, what is protectionism but welfare for obsolete jobs?

Give people a chance to do something that the economy needs, rather than artificially preserving jobs.

[Intell]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

I don't know of a kind way to say this, but what is the difference between raising tariffs to protect jobs that can be done for less elsewhere, and just simply raising taxes and giving those people a paycheck and allowing them to do something new?  I mean seriously, what is protectionism but welfare for obsolete jobs?

Give people a chance to do something that the economy needs, rather than artificially preserving jobs.

Because a welfare-jobs sort of country is an ideal one. A country should focus more on job needs, than economy needs. When the place you worked, is being shipped of to Mexico and china, what are you going to do, at 40+ age. Your good paying job is gone, but instead the democrats don't seem to get that, and even if some do, they show contempt towards you and your lifestyle. Why not just learn a new skill, a new trade. When your community is being ruined under a false mammoth of globalization. When you are being called a racist, of opposing illegal immigration, amnesty and wanting controlled borders, and the government seems to be helping them at every cost, with minority focused identity politics, which does nothing to better working class, and in many cases hurts them. When their culture, and traditions are being smeared as, work and duty, are a bad thing, there is no reason to vote for a party, that does not care for your well being, but just claims to care for you, for progressive goals, many which hurt you, but some which do help you.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Right - this is a problem for Democrats politically as well as for the working-class voters who are being hurt by the consequences of this. Also, remember that what drives those voters in the rust belt are not the same, generally, as those in across Appalachia.

Personally, I find the arguments about trade to be bone-headed in their simplicity and their lack of context. But, I know how emotional this issue is. Frankly, I think just showing you're listening can be a vital step in re-building trust. What was interesting is that both Sanders and Trump were so vociferous in their opposition to free-trade and their embracing of protectionism. But, the fact is, while the TPP is not great, the US got one of the better deals out of it. What is the alternative? That's what I don't hear.

For the more socially conservative, I do think for many, this will be a generational shift. There are too many divides with these voters.

Look, I'm a free trader, but the positive economic impact of the TPP will be relatively very minor by most economic estimations compared to other trade agreements (because we already have relatively free trade), and it serves to reinforce the horrible, horrible patent laws on the books for the benefit of established multinational corporations.

I'm also okay with the TPP being used as a bargaining chip to hold hostage a political class that, rather than providing the people screwed by free trade with real, substantive economic equality of opportunity as compensation, instead decides to continue to cut entitlements, cut taxes for the rich, and redistribute wealth upward in a big "F you" to working class people.

Every word, yes.

The problem with free trade is the same as that of technological development.  The downside is very visible (displaced workers), but the upside is nearly invisible.  I have personally eliminated an army of paper clerks because of my occupation.  Which is bad for pen pushers.  But modern computer data processing has enabled the development of services, businesses, and entire industries that would have been impossible without it.  That means jobs, wealth, and prosperity.  And no one is suggesting we ban IS because what about the filing clerks.

It's the same thing with free trade.  Done the right way, not through agreements like the TPP, which is staked in favor of the powerful and special interests.  Even done right, people will lose jobs.  They will need our support.  But the benefits are largely invisible for a long time.

So tell me:  How'd you feel if at age 50, your job was eliminated, moved to Mexico, and you were qualified for your old job, but for nothing else available?  If you were receiving long term "support" but no job, and no dignity, enduring the comments you'd be certain to hear?  Is that the existence you would want for yourself?  All with the knowledge that you did what you were raised to do; you worked, worked faithfully, and put forth an effort with the idea that your faithfulness would be rewarded, at a minimum, by adherence to the Social Contract; is that OK?

I don't know of a kind way to say this, but what is the difference between raising tariffs to protect jobs that can be done for less elsewhere, and just simply raising taxes and giving those people a paycheck and allowing them to do something new?  I mean seriously, what is protectionism but welfare for obsolete jobs?

Give people a chance to do something that the economy needs, rather than artificially preserving jobs.

Because a welfare-jobs sort of country is an ideal one. A country should focus more on job needs, than economy needs. When the place you worked, is being shipped of to Mexico and china, what are you going to do, at 40+ age. Your good paying job is gone, but instead the democrats don't seem to get that, and even if some do, they show contempt towards you and your lifestyle. Why not just learn a new skill, a new trade. When your community is being ruined under a false mammoth of globalization. When you are being called a racist, of opposing illegal immigration, amnesty and wanting controlled borders, and the government seems to be helping them at every cost, with minority focused identity politics, which does nothing to better working class, and in many cases hurts them. When their culture, and traditions are being smeared as, work and duty, are a bad thing, there is no reason to vote for a party, that does not care for your well being, but just claims to care for you, for progressive goals, many which hurt you, but some which do help you.

This is the part that the current Democratic Party doesn't get.

The Democratic Party screams "Identity Politics" at Trump while using the same principles to forge a semi-permanent electoral majority.  Their "vision" of America is a coalition of ethnic and tribal groups governing America.  This is a second wrong that doesn't right the stain of White Racism over America, but it IS a strategy that will make it more difficult to appeal to Americans on the basis of the American Common Weal. 

The problem I have with the Democratic Party's "Identity Politics" is that is it based on the idea that these individual groups are America's Creditors; that America "owes them" a tangible debt, and that America is only as great as its Credit Score with them.  There is a huge difference between ending unfair advantages and "settling debts", and it goes to the question of whether or not guilt and innocence are to be applied to individuals, or to members of groups, regardless of their actions.  When I was young and a partisan Democrat I thought this talk silly, and it may have been silly back then, but it's talk that's now considered "mainstream" in "progressive" circles. 

It's also, IMO, significant that Democrats now call themselves "progressives", but not "liberals".  I've never had a problem with the term "liberal".  In truth, the Identity Politics of today's Democratic Party and its ramifications on individual vs. group responsibility is one of the most ILLIBERAL concepts I've seen advanced by the supposedly more liberal party.

[Simfan34]

Southern Gothic has a clear point on the DNC's short-sightedness: just look at their performance on the state level and during the midterms. Those could have been avoided had there been an attempt to capitalize on Obama's winning coalition and boost turnout.

Talking about winning the next two elections won't do anything to change the fact that Democrats will continue to face an obstructionist House, gerrymandered past 2020 by Republican state legislatures. Yes, the demographic trends remain in their favor and the Republicans are clearly doing nothing to change that. Hispanics and other minorities are not simply going to spontaneously start voting Republican. But that should not be an excuse to avoid formulating any kind of long-term strategy.

Also, if Hillary is unpopular now, just think how unpopular she'll be in four years' time! Given this election's failure, until now, to be the Clinton blowout one would expect it to be, I have to imagine the GOP could nominate pretty much anyone, and they'd win (especially given the fact that a mild downturn, at least, is almost certain-- unless you want to argue we're going to go a historically unprecedented 12+ years without a recession) ; even a rock, or, heck, Donald Trump again.

[Beet]

Beet, I agree with many of your points about Democratic failures to communicate effectively with the white working class in particular. However, our country is changing and we simply cannot abide by the demands of so many of Trump's supporters. The direction the party is moving in is necessary and right IMO.

Let's see how the communication problem looks after this week's convention.

Well they did a bus tour for a couple week after the convention, then forgot everything. But Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president, so it's all good.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Seems like they didn't get it soon enough.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seems like they didn't get it soon enough.

Schumer promised that for every voter we lost in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, we'd gain TWO others!

[Intell]

Cough Cough*

The working class can suck my arse, I've got the middle classes vote at last!!!