Democrats and liberals in general need to stop with civility politics

[SNJ1985]

LOL at the notion that the left is ''civil''.

[°Leprechaun]

How about running on the issues instead of all the crap that Democrats run on?

I agree. Democrats thought that they could win by attacking Trump's character, but it
didn't work. Anne Coulter actually said that his character was irrelevant and that she
supported him on the issues.
Ironically, Republicans did the same when Clinton was president and that backfired big time.
I don't get what all this impeachment talk is about. Democrats want a President Pence.
Really? Is he any better than Trump?

[Deblano]

Trump won (the electoral college) because we nominated Hillary Clinton, not because Democrats are too nice.

Finding inane excuses is the Democrat Way these days.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

How about running on the issues instead of all the crap that Democrats run on?

I agree. Democrats thought that they could win by attacking Trump's character, but it
didn't work. Anne Coulter actually said that his character was irrelevant and that she
supported him on the issues.
Ironically, Republicans did the same when Clinton was president and that backfired big time.
I don't get what all this impeachment talk is about. Democrats want a President Pence.
Really? Is he any better than Trump?

I'm skeptical that Vice President Zealot Talk-Radio-Host would be much better than President Insane Reality-Tv-Actor (and Crook), but that's almost beside the point. The same goes for his politics.

Trump has violated his oath of office, is insane, and has demonstrated himself to be both unfit and unable to carry out the duties of his office. Pence's politics might be awful, his term might be bad for my political ideals, and he might not even be a very good President. But for the sake the nation, and the integrity of our government, Trump needs to be lawfully removed and Pence given his chance to do the job. And Pence isn't obviously insane the way Trump is.

[Beet]

LOL at the notion that the left is ''civil''.

Democratic politicians are civil, the "left" isn't, of course. Unfortunately, 90% of leftist incivility is used up by infighting.

[°Leprechaun]

How about running on the issues instead of all the crap that Democrats run on?

I agree. Democrats thought that they could win by attacking Trump's character, but it
didn't work. Anne Coulter actually said that his character was irrelevant and that she
supported him on the issues.
Ironically, Republicans did the same when Clinton was president and that backfired big time.
I don't get what all this impeachment talk is about. Democrats want a President Pence.
Really? Is he any better than Trump?

I'm skeptical that Vice President Zealot Talk-Radio-Host would be much better than President Insane Reality-Tv-Actor (and Crook), but that's almost beside the point. The same goes for his politics.

Trump has violated his oath of office, is insane, and has demonstrated himself to be both unfit and unable to carry out the duties of his office. Pence's politics might be awful, his term might be bad for my political ideals, and he might not even be a very good President. But for the sake the nation, and the integrity of our government, Trump needs to be lawfully removed and Pence given his chance to do the job. And Pence isn't obviously insane the way Trump is.

Removing Trump would be a first. That doesn't mean it won't happen. However, when the GOP tried to impeach A. Johnson they fell one vote short. Since two thirds is required I can't imagine that it would happen. When the Republicans tried to remove A. Johnson it would have meant that they would have had a POTUS of their own party. Interesting history, if irrelevant.

If the Democrats move forward on this it could backfire. It is similar to what the GOP tried to do to Clinton, but they controlled both Houses. It backfired, and would likely backfire on the Dems if they try it. There are better ways to advance the agenda of the Democratic Party, starting with trying to unify the disparate elements, which may not be possible either.

[°Leprechaun]

Also, there is little chance that impeachment will go anywhere before 2019. It would be better to focus on other issues at this point in time.

Democrats don't need to get all nasty. People are concerned about the healthcare issue, why not focus on that? (Of course, that issue itself could get nasty anyway, no?)

[afleitch]

No need to stop being civil. But stop being so apologetic. Be an unashamed liberal or socialist, don't apologise for supporting rights and peoples.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Would insulting Republicans more win more votes?

Honestly? Probably. It's not like they aren't hated as well.

[This is Eharding, guys]

The notion the Democrats have suffered from excessive civility is a bizarre one. Archie Parnell did not get so close to defeating a Ted Cruz-endorsed Teapublican by being uncivil. Collin Peterson did not continue winning his McCain district even to this day by being uncivil. The main focus of the Democratic Party should be showing its policy positions match those of the people it is trying to reach. The GOP anti-Cleland ad cited by Wolverine was not uncivil at all. It was a pure policy ad, which exposed Max Cleland as not being as supportive of President Bush's "homeland security" measures as the majority of the residents of Georgia were. Almost no political ad aired today is more civil. In any case, Cleland was likely to go down in 2002, GOP ads or not. He only won by less than two points in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected nationwide by a large margin. Even a minor improvement in national environment for the Republican Party would have forced him out of office.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I would say yes* (with an asterisk). Cut the """civility""", but also cut the personal attacks. The strategy of being both ruthless and principled is a good one in this day and age.

Democrats have to stop shying away from progressive values. Economic regulation is absolutely necessary in order to develop a thriving country. Welfare is a good thing, it is not an entitlement, and we will expand it. We support a nationalized healthcare system. We support a minimum wage that is above the poverty line.

People see through this so-called "centrism", the "b-b-but this and this", and it comes off as if the Democrats don't stand for anything, as if they're too scared to fight. No one wants an unpredictable representative, or a representative who is visibly overly cautious and afraid except for maybe Kingpoleon. Then comes the Republicans, who are very clear in what they stand for, and this is much more appealing, especially for apolitical people. This is why the Democrats are so incompetent.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

wait wait wait, you think your side is being civil?

It's a matter of serious difference in degrees I'd say.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Democrats have to stop shying away from progressive values. Economic regulation is absolutely necessary in order to develop a thriving country. Welfare is a good thing, it is not an entitlement, and we will expand it. We support a nationalized healthcare system. We support a minimum wage that is above the poverty line.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/162305/coloradocare-amendment-69

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only Tea Party House members from Hillary Clinton districts were Pete Sessions, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher (I count him as Tea Party even though he's not in the Tea Party caucus), and John Culberson, all of whose districts went for Romney overwhelmingly. Tea Party Republicans did not win the nation as a whole. They were just the majority of the majority in 2010.

[°Leprechaun]

Democrats have to stop shying away from progressive values. Economic regulation is absolutely necessary in order to develop a thriving country. Welfare is a good thing, it is not an entitlement, and we will expand it. We support a nationalized healthcare system. We support a minimum wage that is above the poverty line.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/162305/coloradocare-amendment-69

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last Democratic nominee to win by over eight points was Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't even replicate that even though the Democrats won the House popular vote by double digits in 2008, rather than tying it as in 1996. Why? Because Obama was viewed by too many Americans as extreme. Admit it: centrism wins. McGovernism can't win the country, no matter how much its proponents want it to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only Tea Party House members from Hillary Clinton districts were Pete Sessions, Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher (I count him as Tea Party even though he's not in the Tea Party caucus), and John Culberson, all of whose districts went for Romney overwhelmingly. Tea Party Republicans did not win the nation as a whole. They were just the majority of the majority in 2010.

McGovern lost to an incumbent, and it's very difficult to beat an incumbent. Centrism on the other hand has failed. Clinton never go a majority. Gore lost. Kerry lost. Hillary lost. Jimmy Carter won with a very liberal VP. I don't think that the "go right" mentality is the correct one. Besides, the fact that HClinton voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq couldn't have helped her, so the hawkish nature of Democrats needs to just go away for good.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Both Carter and Clinton beat incumbents due to their moderate positions. Vice presidential picks don't affect votes much. When Mondale ran on his own, he suffered the same fate as McGovern. Clinton was beating Bush in the polls even during the time Perot dropped out.

Gore and Hillary both won the popular vote, it's just that they wrongly thought their votes would be as well distributed as Carter's, a very easy mistake to make when looking at polls. They were both running after two terms of a presidency of the same party as them, and it is very difficult to win the popular vote in such conditions, especially in the presence of left wing third party spoilers.

[Coraxion]

LOL at the notion that the left is ''civil''.

Democratic politicians are civil, the "left" isn't, of course. Unfortunately, 90% of leftist incivility is used up by infighting.

[°Leprechaun]

Both Carter and Clinton beat incumbents due to their moderate positions. Vice presidential picks don't affect votes much. When Mondale ran on his own, he suffered the same fate as McGovern. Clinton was beating Bush in the polls even during the time Perot dropped out.

Gore and Hillary both won the popular vote, it's just that they wrongly thought their votes would be as well distributed as Carter's, a very easy mistake to make when looking at polls. They were both running after two terms of a presidency of the same party as them, and it is very difficult to win the popular vote in such conditions, especially in the presence of left wing third party spoilers.

Yes, you have a decent argument, but part of the problem is that the Democrats have been moving further and further to the right for decades now and although they may have done ok in the POTUS elections they have been doing terrible down ballot, due, I would suggest to this rightward trend. McGovern and Mondale are the only examples that you have for your theory and they both lost to incumbents. Then you point out that Carter won and suggest that he was a moderate, but he lost in 1980 and Reagan was to the right of Ford. Also, should it be simply be "right" vs "left" aren't there any compromise candidates, that could appeal to both wings of the party, or would that make things even worse, since nobody would be happy?

[°Leprechaun]

By decent argument, I mean that it sounds plausible, however, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2016 were all years that the Democrat won with less than a majority. 2000, and 2016 were unusual because the popular vote winner lost the electoral college. Left out is the fact that FDR won four times.
He was no conservative, at least for his time. The going "moderate" strategy has alienated liberals and many have gone with third party candidates. It's a question of strategy vs. principle and some things just shouldn't be compromised. If given the choice between a genuine liberal and a genuine conservative, all other things being equal, I think that the liberal would win the POTUS election.
Going "right" seems to work for the GOP (Reagan, Trump) and if the going center strategy worked neither of them would have done so well. If going "right" works for the GOP it will work for the Dems. to go left.
The "McGovern/Mondale theory" is the same as the "Goldwater" theory. Yet Reagan and Trump succeeded where Goldwater failed and McGovern and Mondale were a long time ago, so that theory lacks some credibility.

[°Leprechaun]

Also the go right strategy is based on the fallacy that it is simply about being "moderate" and ignores all other factors, the biggest one being the personality of the candidate and whether such a person can inspire (Obama for example), whether he was left or right wasn't as big a selling point as his personality.

[°Leprechaun]

As far as the VP choice not being that important. I have heard that argument, but I am skeptical because so many VPs have become POTUS due to the death (or resignation) of the President, so it is a very critical choice, but maybe too quickly dismissed because of the relative position of the VP who's main political power is 1/2 vote in the Senate.

[136or142]

I've been thinking this as well.  However much more high minded Democrats may think of themselves, they (I say 'they' because I'm Canadian) are no less prone to scapegoating then anybody else.

I think Democrats need to make the idiot Trump supporters as 'the others' by referring to them as 'stupid' and 'braindead cultists who mindlessly chant "fake news'" and so on, so that when the the non idiot Trump supporters finally are 100% tired of Donald Trump, Democrats can point to the Trump supporters and say 'they're to blame for this. Please make sure you turn out to vote so that you can tell them what you think of them as well as what you think of Trump, and to make sure that these idiots never get to decide an election ever again.'

[This is Eharding, guys]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Dem losses down ballot have been in the South. Bernie didn't do well there in the primary, and would not have done well there in the general election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was due to the hostage crisis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it depends on the candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR won the first time as a moderate. 1940 and 1944 were due to Hitler. FDR still always won the entirety of the Deep South, which shows he was not thought to be a left-wing extremist on social issues then. FDR's 1932 and 1936 bases were very similar, so people at the time didn't really consciously vote on the basis of FDR's changes to the Democratic party. FDR massively changed the party for the better, but people did not really understand this at the time. Of course, 1936 does show the value of concerted government action in improving people's lives, but the small government v. big government distinction was barely a partisan issue back then. Had people taken time to fully realize what FDR's transformation of the Democratic party would lead to, upstate New York in 1936 would have been far less Republican, and the Deep South far less Democrat. 1936 was a referendum on the Roosevelt administration's ability to improve people's lives, not on the Democratic Party's future.

Reagan only won re-election because, unlike FDR and Johnson, he didn't force through a right-wing agenda, except on tax cuts, the military, and air traffic controller unions. Spending wasn't cut, the budget wasn't balanced, Social Security was not eliminated. Meanwhile, Mondale was a weak candidate.

Trump's appeal was a lot more complicated than Cruz's. Trump didn't fully promise a straightforward right-wing agenda, as he promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare. He also portrayed himself as a friend of the LGBT community and the inner cities. He was extremely vague as to where he would cut spending. He supported right to work, but this was little noted during the campaign. The 2016 campaign wasn't very ideological, it was more based on education lines and tolerance v. intolerance.

The idea going moderate now alienates Berniecrats is nonsense. Maybe in 1976, when McGovern voted for Ford. But in 2016, Vermont and WI-02 voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. There is hardly any correlation between Sanders primary vote share by county and swing to Trump. There is a strong correlation between Trump primary vote share by county and swing to Trump.

Reagan's base in 1980 was a great deal more similar to Ford's than Goldwater's, so he wasn't seen as anywhere near as extreme as the latter, though he was obviously understood to be to the right of Ford (thus Reagan's losses in Chittenden and Washtenaw counties).

Maybe personality matters, but Romney still lost Loudoun and DuPage counties. Why? Because the median voter there isn't all that far to the right on the issues.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Dem losses have been in the South. Bernie didn't do well there in the primary, and would not have done well there in the general election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was due to the hostage crisis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it depends on the candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR won the first time as a moderate. 1940 and 1944 were due to Hitler. FDR still always won the entirety of the Deep South, which shows he was not thought to be a left-wing extremist on social issues then. FDR's 1932 and 1936 bases were very similar, so people at the time didn't really consciously vote on the basis of FDR's changes to the Democratic party. FDR massively changed the party for the better, but people did not really understand this at the time. Of course, 1936 does show the value of concerted government action in improving people's lives, but the small government v. big government distinction was barely a partisan issue back then. Had people taken time to fully realize what FDR's transformation of the Democratic party would lead to, upstate New York in 1936 would have been far less Republican, and the Deep South far less Democrat. 1936 was a referendum on the Roosevelt administration's ability to improve people's lives, not on the Democratic Party's future.

Reagan only won re-election because, unlike FDR and Johnson, he didn't force through a right-wing agenda, except on tax cuts, the military, and air traffic controller unions. Spending wasn't cut, the budget wasn't balanced, Social Security was not eliminated. Meanwhile, Mondale was a weak candidate.

Trump's appeal was a lot more complicated than Cruz's. Trump didn't fully promise a straightforward right-wing agenda, as he promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare. He also portrayed himself as a friend of the LGBT community and the inner cities. He was extremely vague as to where he would cut spending. He supported right to work, but this was little noted during the campaign. The 2016 campaign wasn't very ideological, it was more based on education lines and tolerance v. intolerance.

The idea going moderate now alienates Berniecrats is nonsense. Maybe in 1976, when McGovern voted for Ford. But in 2016, Vermont and WI-02 voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. There is hardly any correlation between Sanders primary vote share by county and swing to Trump. There is a strong correlation between Trump primary vote share by county and swing to Trump.

Reagan's base in 1980 was a great deal more similar to Ford's than Goldwater's, so he wasn't seen as anywhere near as extreme as the latter, though he was obviously understood to be to the right of Ford (thus Reagan's losses in Chittenden and Washtenaw counties).

Maybe personality matters, but Romney still lost Loudoun and DuPage counties. Why? Because the median voter there isn't all that far to the right on the issues.

I was 14 in 1984 (13 for most of the year, I believe I turned 14 on election day.)  I wasn't sophisticated in my understanding of politics back then (if I'm sophisticated now is not for me to judge) but I followed the events very closely even at that age.  This is revisionist history.

Ronald Reagan did not cut the deficit because he dramatically increased military spending (which you mentioned).  He may not have slashed social programs as much as some claim, but he slashed them enough that, for one famous example, in order to meet the requirement on vegetables in school lunch programs, his administration declared that pizza sauce was a vegetable.  The increase in the deficit was largely a result of his tax cuts and lower receipts to the government due to the recession.

His income tax cuts and subsequent increases in payroll taxes was also a redistribution of taxation from the upper income bracket to the middle income bracket (though this was offset for many in the lower middle class by the increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

He also slashed regulations on labor protections and the environment. His foreign policy was more aggressive than any prior President (at least until Gorbachev who came after 1984) and his economic policy also included privatization of many government owned companies and a monetary policy of fighting inflation. I personally think Reagan was totally vindicated on those last two, but especially the anti inflationary monetary policy was radical and extremely controversial at the time.

Walter Mondale was actually a reasonably strong candidate as evidenced by his take-down of Gary Hart in the primaries.  Reagan won because the economy was booming: "it's morning again in America."  Even Gary Hart campaign insiders (and Gary Hart probably would have been the stronger general election candidate than Mondale) acknowledge that he would have lost by at least 10% to Reagan and would have won no more than about 10 states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Walter Mondale against Gary Hart.  For instance, unlike Michael Dukakis who basically won the Democratic nomination by being the 'last Democrat standing' (Dukakis took out Joe Biden and inadvertently Dick Gephardt without knowing about it - without Dukakis' knowledge his campaign chief John Sasso released the video of Biden copying U.K Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches that destroyed Biden.  For some reason, the release of this video was seen as the wrong thing to do, and Sasso initially allowed the Gephardt campaign to take the blame for it, which stalled his momentum. It is true, however that the Dukakis campaign finished Gephardt off by creating an ad with a Gephardt look alike who flip flopped around on a school gym, which highlighted Gephardt suddenly discovering he was a pro-choice social liberal just as he decided to run for President.

However, Al Gore, who was Dukakis' last serious challenger, essentially destroyed himself when he did nothing to stop a rambling, vicious speech New York City Mayor Ed Koch gave while endorsing Gore for the New York Primary.

After that, Dukakis only had Jesse Jackson running against him, and the difficulty he had putting Jackson away, signaled what a weak candidate Dukakis was.

In contrast, Walter Mondale showed a very tough and somewhat dishonest campaigning streak.  His 'where's the beef?" stopped Gary Hart's Primary momentum even though Mondale knew that Gary Hart had enormous substance on pretty much every issue.  He knew, though, that Gary Hart had difficulty explaining himself in 30 second sound bites.  So that when the media asked Gary Hart in response to the ads "So, Gary, where is your beef?" all Hart could respond was "I have a lot of detailed position papers you can examine, but I can't do them justice in 30 seconds."

Then, when a tired Gary Hart made a poorly worded comment in a primary debate that could be interpreted as being soft on the Soviet Union, even though Mondale knew that Gary Hart was not soft on the Soviet Union and was, in fact, a technical expert on military policy versus the Soviets, Mondale relentlessly attacked him for his 'soft on communism' stance.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Trump won by promising all things to all his supporters, and in this he was mainly providing his supporters a rationale to vote for him.  To his wealthy supporters, he promised tax cuts for them, and to his working class supporters he promised a tax cut to them, and to both he seperately told them that they didn't have to worry about increasing the deficit because his tax cuts would be only for them.

I don't think too many people voted for Trump on the basis of his promises as much as some of his supporters may protest.  I think his supporters fit into three groups:
1.Regular Republicans

2.Nihilists who wanted him to become President so that he would 'blow the system up.'  (Just like Steve Bannon promised.)

3.Redneck Justice Warriors (most of his working class base) who, whatever else they may claim, did not want a woman to become President.

[This is Eharding, guys]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most Dem losses have been in the South. Bernie didn't do well there in the primary, and would not have done well there in the general election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was due to the hostage crisis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it depends on the candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FDR won the first time as a moderate. 1940 and 1944 were due to Hitler. FDR still always won the entirety of the Deep South, which shows he was not thought to be a left-wing extremist on social issues then. FDR's 1932 and 1936 bases were very similar, so people at the time didn't really consciously vote on the basis of FDR's changes to the Democratic party. FDR massively changed the party for the better, but people did not really understand this at the time. Of course, 1936 does show the value of concerted government action in improving people's lives, but the small government v. big government distinction was barely a partisan issue back then. Had people taken time to fully realize what FDR's transformation of the Democratic party would lead to, upstate New York in 1936 would have been far less Republican, and the Deep South far less Democrat. 1936 was a referendum on the Roosevelt administration's ability to improve people's lives, not on the Democratic Party's future.

Reagan only won re-election because, unlike FDR and Johnson, he didn't force through a right-wing agenda, except on tax cuts, the military, and air traffic controller unions. Spending wasn't cut, the budget wasn't balanced, Social Security was not eliminated. Meanwhile, Mondale was a weak candidate.

Trump's appeal was a lot more complicated than Cruz's. Trump didn't fully promise a straightforward right-wing agenda, as he promised to not cut Social Security and Medicare. He also portrayed himself as a friend of the LGBT community and the inner cities. He was extremely vague as to where he would cut spending. He supported right to work, but this was little noted during the campaign. The 2016 campaign wasn't very ideological, it was more based on education lines and tolerance v. intolerance.

The idea going moderate now alienates Berniecrats is nonsense. Maybe in 1976, when McGovern voted for Ford. But in 2016, Vermont and WI-02 voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. There is hardly any correlation between Sanders primary vote share by county and swing to Trump. There is a strong correlation between Trump primary vote share by county and swing to Trump.

Reagan's base in 1980 was a great deal more similar to Ford's than Goldwater's, so he wasn't seen as anywhere near as extreme as the latter, though he was obviously understood to be to the right of Ford (thus Reagan's losses in Chittenden and Washtenaw counties).

Maybe personality matters, but Romney still lost Loudoun and DuPage counties. Why? Because the median voter there isn't all that far to the right on the issues.

I was 14 in 1984 (13 for most of the year, I believe I turned 14 on election day.)  I wasn't sophisticated in my understanding of politics back then (if I'm sophisticated now is not for me to judge) but I followed the events very closely even at that age.  This is revisionist history.

Ronald Reagan did not cut the deficit because he dramatically increased military spending (which you mentioned).  He may not have slashed social programs as much as some claim, but he slashed them enough that, for one famous example, in order to meet the requirement on vegetables in school lunch programs, his administration declared that pizza sauce was a vegetable.  The increase in the deficit was largely a result of his tax cuts and lower receipts to the government due to the recession.

His income tax cuts and subsequent increases in payroll taxes was also a redistribution of taxation from the upper income bracket to the middle income bracket (though this was offset for many in the lower middle class by the increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.)

He also slashed regulations on labor protections and the environment. His foreign policy was more aggressive than any prior President (at least until Gorbachev who came after 1984) and his economic policy also included privatization of many government owned companies and a monetary policy of fighting inflation. I personally think Reagan was totally vindicated on those last two, but especially the anti inflationary monetary policy was radical and extremely controversial at the time.

Walter Mondale was actually a reasonably strong candidate as evidenced by his take-down of Gary Hart in the primaries.  Reagan won because the economy was booming: "it's morning again in America."  Even Gary Hart campaign insiders (and Gary Hart probably would have been the stronger general election candidate than Mondale) acknowledge that he would have lost by at least 10% to Reagan and would have won no more than about 10 states.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Trump won by promising all things to all his supporters, and in this he was mainly providing his supporters a rationale to vote for him.  To his wealthy supporters, he promised tax cuts for them, and to his working class supporters he promised a tax cut to them, and to both he seperately told them that they didn't have to worry about increasing the deficit because his tax cuts would be only for them.

I don't think too many people voted for Trump on the basis of his promises as much as some of his supporters may protest.  I think his supporters fit into three groups:
1.Regular Republicans

2.Nihilists who wanted him to become President so that he would 'blow the system up.'  (Just like Steve Bannon promised.)

3.Redneck Justice Warriors (most of his working class base) who, whatever else they may claim, did not want a woman to become President.

Ted Cruz would have been good at blowing the system up. I do not think he would have flipped Matt Cartwright's district.

The idea there is a mass base of electorally significant pure sexism or racism in America is nonsense. There were many, many counties in which Hillary Clinton got more votes in 2008 than she did in November 2016, and in which female candidates for Senate got a substantially higher percentage of the vote than did Hillary Clinton in 2016. It's the message that matters, not the sex of the candidate. Look at Tim Scott. Look at Nikki Haley. Look at Connie Johnson, a Black woman who overperformed Obama's 2008 (and obviously Hillary's 2016) performance in many rural Oklahoma counties in 2014, of all years.

Yes, the economy did help Reagan in 1984.

Reagan's erosion of labor and environmental protections was real, but not something a typical voter would be significantly affected by.

I saw the Reagan-Mondale debates on YouTube. Mondale was horrendously dull as a speaker, and was widely understood at the time to be substantially to the left of Carter.

People voted for Trump on the basis of his promises on the economy and immigration. The polling is clear here.

A sufficiently moderate candidate who focused on a few wedge issues on which Reagan made an unpopular move could probably have won well over ten states in 1984.

Ketchup/vegetable controversy ended in 1981. They would have worsened Reagan's popularity had they remained in place into 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yeah, they did that a long time ago. The problem ofc is that while people scream invectives at their political opponents, the decline of the American political sphere continues unabated.