Democrats who can unite the Country

[uti2]

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

[uti2]

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

[uti2]

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.

Actually, Trump is willing to sign any GOP bill, the problem is that the GOP itself can't send any such bill to him since the GOP is effectually unable to govern due to the internal contradictions in the party, which if anything, suggests that they were not supposed to placed in a position of governance to begin with.

I'm sure you have taken a look at the actual post-election data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There have been a number of studies that have concluded the median swing voter to essentially be economically liberal + culturally conservative. The GOP establishment plan for 2016 was to run the opposite platform, Kasich was the only candidate who tried to rehabilitate compassionate conservatism and appeal to centrism.

The GOP establishment model was to run a hardcore Ryanite platform on economic issues, and then run to the cultural left on immigration + political correctness/police brutality issues, etc.

So yes, running as a progressive on econ issues is preferable to praising paul ryan and rehabilitating ryanism, actually.

Maybe you should look at how the GOP actually won 1920-1932, they won by appealing to hardcore nativism, which no GOP candidate was wiling to do besides Trump. The Southern Strategy actually started in the 1920s.

[uti2]

We can't even agree on reality or what a "fact" is for Christ's sake. How is one suppose to unite the country with a clear mandate absent a national crisis in this kind of environment? It does not happen.

I didn't say the Democrats would unite the country in 2020. I just said even a major crisis isn't likely to unite the country in that way. After all, look at the Civil War. It was a major crisis if there ever was one, one side had a decisive victory if there ever was one, yet.... here we are, still debating Confederate statues 150 years later.

The last very polarizing era in American politics was the 1960s. How did that end? Well, it just sort of fizzled out. The center retook control in the early 1970s and the radicals were ridiculed into oblivion. All that's needed is for centrism to reassert itself.

True, though unfortunately we appear to be headed more towards internal conflict ala 1860 rather than having an external enemy to rally behind and to defeat (1941 and 1776). That's a very somber path to be headed down given that the national mood and fallout of the civil war was much more detrimental than the other two crises we had as a country.

Centrism will not reassert itself. The GOP lost control on that front by 2016 and the center-left Democrats are about to be taken over by the left. One could argue that one of these forces will win out and unite the country gradually but I highly doubt that the losing side will just cede defeat without putting up a nasty backlash. Trump could be that final backlash; or he could be the beginning of something nastier. I guess we'll see but I don't think Charlottesville will be a mea culpa for a lot of Americans.

Now do you understand why I suggested that Hillary should've won in 2016? She should've beaten a normal republican, while Trump would've made his voice heard akin to Fillmore '56 or Roosevelt '12 as a third party candidate. Then, come 2020, you would've had a unifying GOP candidate similar to someone like Cotton who would've capitulated to some Trumpian positions on trade, immigration and some centrist positions on healthcare.

1. The House GOP won the popular vote last year - Trump did not.

2. Virtually every single GOP swing state senator outran Trump last year be they Burr in NC, Johnson in Wisconsin, Portman in Ohio, Rubio in Florida, whoeverthef**k in Iowa, etc. Only Ayotte and Toomey ran the same margins as Trump.

So given the above I'm HIGHLY skeptical of this notion that Trump's centrism secured him the win when in reality "normal" Republicans did far better than he did at the state and congressional level in 2016. Who exactly does Rubio lose the general election? Even if he falls short in PA and MI he would've won Wisconsin since A. It came within a fraction of voting for Bush and twice and B. Has been Scott Walker Tea Partified into GOP hegemony. And he likely wouldn't have done so piss poor with Hispanics and could've snatched Nevada as well.

He lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, he got defeated by the same standard margin w/ non-cuban latinos GOP normally gets (lost by two-thirds). Even in the primary, he couldn't even win NV hispanic republicans, he lost them to Trump of all people. As has been pointed out by others, Hillary purposely implemented a GOP outreach strategy her own DNC warned against, on top of that, in the states she targeted like TX and AZ she was effective in improving margins, which suggests that had she focused on WI instead, she could've held it. Hillary normalized Paul Ryan w/ her strategy.

Yeah because running as a progressive helped Russ Feingold soooo much in Wisconsin.

So good to see that "If only she ran more progressive she wouldve won!" Narrative being screamed 24/7 while the Democrats were already on the verge of being in the weakest position they've been in at the local, state, and federal going into 2016 since the 1920's.

Such a great realigning President Obama was wasn't he? Putting his Party in an ungodly weak position not seen in 4 generations. Jesus Christ at least Reagan had southern Democrats who were friendly towards 80-90% of his agenda. Democrats don't have jack sh*t and are relying overwhelmingly on Trump's scandals and unpopularity to maintain the bits and pieces of his legacy.

2008 will never be a consideted a realigning election.

Actually, Trump is willing to sign any GOP bill, the problem is that the GOP itself can't send any such bill to him since the GOP is effectually unable to govern due to the internal contradictions in the party, which if anything, suggests that they were not supposed to placed in a position of governance to begin with.

I'm sure you have taken a look at the actual post-election data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html

There have been a number of studies that have concluded the median swing voter to essentially be economically liberal + culturally conservative. The GOP establishment plan for 2016 was to run the opposite platform, Kasich was the only candidate who tried to rehabilitate compassionate conservatism and appeal to centrism.

The GOP establishment model was to run a hardcore Ryanite platform on economic issues, and then run to the cultural left on immigration + political correctness/police brutality issues, etc.

So yes, running as a progressive on econ issues is preferable to praising paul ryan and rehabilitating ryanism, actually.

Maybe you should look at how the GOP actually won 1920-1932, they won by appealing to hardcore nativism, which no GOP candidate was wiling to do besides Trump. The Southern Strategy actually started in the 1920s.

Man running progressives was all the Democrats needed all along? I guess that makes sense if you ignore 2010, 2014, and 2016 entirely.

Also you never even bother to address that a noted progressive in Feingold lost in Wisconsin, the House GOP winning the popular vote last year, or the fact that virtually every single "Ryanite" (whatever the hell that means) senator outran Trump in the swing states.

But sure if we're gonna live in make believe land where the Democrats don't get relegated into the smallest minority they haven't seen since he 1920's, Trump loses in 2016, the GOP don't make big gains in 2010 and 2014, and the fact that normal Republicans far outperformed Trump in almost every swing state then sure...Obama in those circumstances did realign the country.

But in reality he did not. Your insinuation that 2008 was a realignment is complete and utter garbage when looking at the state of the Party itself.

Trump can't sign laws? Dems can't do sh*t so wow such accomplishment for the realigning majority party huh?

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?

[uti2]

^
Wasnt there a study that said alot of people voted for Congressional GOP candidates because they all figured Hillary would win.

Also, Hillary has under-preformed every election she ran in. It was like Conway vs Bevin on the Federal level.

This was a campaign refrain used in GOP congressional campaigns, and it was further emboldened by the Clinton campaign itself which suggested that 'normal republicans' were good, and that Trump was a unique evil.

[uti2]

^
Wasnt there a study that said alot of people voted for Congressional GOP candidates because they all figured Hillary would win.

Also, Hillary has under-preformed every election she ran in. It was like Conway vs Bevin on the Federal level.

This was a campaign refrain used in GOP congressional campaigns, and it was further emboldened by the Clinton campaign itself which suggested that 'normal republicans' were good, and that Trump was a unique evil.

If anything, I'd say 2016 was a one off. First, Hillary was a lousy candidate who depressed Democratic turnout but was a source of never vitriolic hatred among the GOP voters. I cant think of a single Dem that could of been run that year that would have motivated the hysterical hatred among Republicans. Hillary was walking red meat. Second, the primary obviously damaged Hillary and left half the party hating her. Third,  according to Demographic experts, the following state legislative victories showed that 2016 was a one off because quite alot of +30% to +40% Trump districts flipped Dem. This means no realignment happened.

My guess is that while Trump will never lose his cult like followers, those people only compromise 60% of the GOP and that's not alot of people. Trump has pretty much been a miserable failure at governing (along with the GOP) so nothing will really get done in the end. On top of this, there is an almost 100% chance of a recession in his term. By 2018, America will have gone its longest period in history of not having a recession and were due for one. Trump is too stupid to legislate effectively to stop the recession and the GOP is too useless. So all signs point to Trump being a one termer and no amount of race baiting is going to help him

To be fair, Obama inspired even more or at least just as much hysterical hatred.

[uti2]

Those seats lost during 2010 and 2014 were mostly blue dog seats, and guess what? They were replaced by Tea Partyers. Why would seats held formerly by moderate democrats go to the hardest of right republicans? It's because the motivation for voting for those Tea Party candidates was never about their economic positions, it was about their cultural positions.

If you praise Republicans as a campaign strategy to distance them for their nominee, does that not rationally suggest that such a strategy would have outsized impact on the downballot? Why was the DNC so concerned about Hillary trying to distance Trump from the GOP?

Of course Democrats in the most vulnerable seats ended up losing those seats in 2010 and 2014. That's not groundbreaking stuff. Was the supposed Obama 2008 realignment only powerful enough to keep already deep blue seats safe in 2010 while losing swing districts? Because that's not impressive and is quite a letdown.

It's a fact that normal Republicans outperformed Trump at the congressional and senate swing state level by running as Reaganite Republicans who often times distanced themselves from the populist in Trump. Your "2008 realignment" theory has no way of reconciling that. How did Obama end the Reaganite era when Reaganite Republicans are so powerful right when he leaves office? Why was Obama's signature accomplishment a centrist healthcare plan that was crafted as a conservative alternative to single payer/a public option? Where's the Reagan/Rooseveltin style agenda that revolutionized our politics?

Is this what Obama realigned us into? Being more polarized, more unequal as a country in terms of inequality/income, banks bigger than prior to 2008, etc. Is this the Obama realignment? Because if so it's really pathetic and looks a lot more like Reagan's vision of the country than any self respecting progressive's vision.

He ran as a progressive populist - after he abandoned that agenda, the GOP responded with the populist Tea Party movement. You had a ton of Koch-bankrolled candidates pretending to be populists as a response. This contradiction exists to be exploited (like it was by Obama who was relatively more economically populist than his opponent) because the establishment/Kochs refused to give concessions on economic issues.

[uti2]

^ By the way, in 1920, Mcadoo was the progressive running, Cox ran as as conservative dem who distanced himself from Wilson and we know Davis in 1924 was a conservative as well. In contrast, Hillary was basically running as an extension of Obama, she had fully embraced his platform.

Making comparisons to 1920 doesn't work because Hillary didn't run on her '08 platform, she ran as an extension of Obama.

[uti2]

I have to ask at this point are you being paid by Obama or some Democratic Party official to justify why Obama and Clinton were secretly these totally awesome political figures who revolutionized politics? Are you just here to defend the carnage the Democrats experienced the last 6 years?

What I'm saying is that relative to who they would be against, they would be well-positioned. They would struggle against even centrist-adjacent republicans like Huntsman/Kasich, and Obama's team was particularly worried about Huntsman in 2012, but relative to the crop of right-wing tea party republicans, their positioning is easier to take.

[uti2]

^ That's why pre-Lehman Brothers, Mccain polled much better swing state wise than Romney ever did.