Fixing the The United States Democratic Party

[Rattlesnake88]

5 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The South is leading in population growth though.  Not necessarily in rural areas, but in Southern cities and metro areas.  Places like Greenville South Carolina.  A big part of it is the weather, but the biggest part of is cost of living.  It's too ****ing expensive in blue regions.  People want to own houses.  That is THE core ambition of the American dream.

 

And yes people do change places when they migrate in waves, so maybe a red stronghold like Southwestern South Carolina might start to turn a little purple in time.  But people also start changing to conform to the existing cultures of where they move.  People are herd animals and life generally follows the path of least resistance.  Democrats have got to start competing in the Greenvilles of America if they want to win at the national level.

We don't want them in SC ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

18 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Before I fully push back on some of this, when you talk about anti-business local policies are you talking about specific sectors? 

Let's start with the sector I know best, real estate. Local P&Z boards that have stagnated development of subdivisions because they "want to keep things the way they are", these protectionist attitudes hurt buyers by creating artificial demand, they hurt the industry by causing inflated sale prices, and they hurt sellers because there are fewer buyers who can afford inflated homes.

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

he sounds like a rural Republican don't he?

How many times do I have to say that I could/would have voted for a Moderate Republican over either candidate in 2016...that said I would have voted for a moderate Democrat too.

I most clearly fit in the Blue Dog Democrat category, but the Tea Party killed them all off and the Dems pushed further Left.

[twa]

I remember Blue Dogs....and who really killed them.

 

I certainly can't blame you .

 

 

 

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Let's start with the sector I know best, real estate. Local P&Z boards that have stagnated development of subdivisions because they "want to keep things the way they are", these protectionist attitudes hurt buyers by creating artificial demand, they hurt the industry by causing inflated sale prices, and they hurt sellers because there are fewer buyers who can afford inflated homes.

 

Where abouts are you talking about? In places like Raleigh there has been a lot of redevelopment and building. There is also a lot of startup business encouragement and job creation taking place in Democratic strongholds in NC. I'm not saying that's the case where you are and I certainly understand why people move further out. Just saying that I don't view Dems as being anti-business everywhere one goes. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, twa said:

I remember Blue Dogs....and who really killed them.

 

I certainly can't blame you .

The Tea Party revolution did. Blue Dogs always existed in traditional red states when the GOP swung far Right most if not all Blue Dogs lost their seats in favor of "real" GOPers.

 

The Dems pushing Left certainly made it harder because it was easier to categorize every Dem as a Left Coast liberal.

[No Excuses]

26 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The South is leading in population growth though.  Not necessarily in rural areas, but in Southern cities and metro areas.  Places like Greenville South Carolina.  A big part of it is the weather, but the biggest part of is cost of living.  It's too ****ing expensive in blue regions.  People want to own houses.  That is THE core ambition of the American dream.

 

And yes people do change places when they migrate in waves, so maybe a red stronghold like Southwestern South Carolina might start to turn a little purple in time.  But people also start changing to conform to the existing cultures of where they move.  People are herd animals and life generally follows the path of least resistance.  Democrats have got to start competing in the Greenvilles of America if they want to win at the national level.

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most rapid growth in the Democrat base has been in the South as well.

 

VA is essentially a full on blue state at this point. At one point in time London County used to be a Republican stronghold, which is pretty remarkable that it's swung so sharply to the left recently. NC is basically a swing state at this point in large part due to the growth of the research triangle. I think we are seeing similar trends in Georgia, which had a 5% (!!!) margin this past election. 

 

The cost of living issue is something that is an issue in pretty much every major city in the West. It's mostly the result of a good thing, that has unfortunately created a really challenging problem.

 

The good thing: the cost of living is high because more people want to live in a high population density area because the quality of life is better.

 

The bad: it's pricing out a lot of people and creating areas with deep economic segregation.

 

But ultimately I think people are coming to realize that living in low population density areas is extremely unproductive and time consuming: Living in a suburb and commuting into the city to work is a ****ing dreadful experience. I'm sorry but this ****ing sucks:

 

 

I don't care how cheap the housing is 15 miles out of the city. People are right to look into living in more densely populated communities where you don't have to rely on cars as much.

 

Before I left DC, there were some encouraging signs from the local DC government on policies that put in stricter rent control and gave better options for affordable housing for poorer residents. 

 

The cost of living issue in urban places is partly a policy problem, and the other a technological/innovation one, where we need to figure out how to reduce the cost of living, while increasing the quality of life by offering things like better public transportation.

 

On a side note:

 

I am currently living in Toronto where the state government of Ontario just passed a set of measures to stabilize housing and apartment costs in the city. I think it will largely have a positive effect because they've done a great job of easing up housing regulations to allow the development of more high rise condos.

 

In general, I am really impressed with how Toronto is actively working on making more and more densely populated neighborhoods, but also linking them to public transportation, green spaces etc, that make urban living pleasant.

[twa]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The Tea Party revolution did. Blue Dogs always existed in traditional red states when the GOP swung far Right most if not all Blue Dogs lost their seats in favor of "real" GOPers.

 

The Dems pushing Left certainly made it harder because it was easier to categorize every Dem as a Left Coast liberal.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-the-blue-dogs-decline-was-inevitable/2012/04/25/gIQAhOw8gT_blog.html?utm_term=.4722e51158ac

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/12/bye_bye_blue_dog_democrats_what_the_end_of_conservative_dems_means_for_america/

 

while the Tea Party played a part they are not who cut the legs from under them.

If Dems keep it up they will continue to lose despite population/demographic shifts.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think they need messengers who aren't household names for their opposition. Also who aren't old and white. The irony of that is sometimes brutal.

 

They need to not pander to the far-left and instead aim for the middle as much as possible.

 

Like I said already. Identify the most simple easy to explain positions and camp out there. I have no idea how they can't sell clean water and air. But they can't. In the time between now and next year. Take those topics that would be mostly popular and push them constantly. Either you're going to own them because the opposition will be smart enough to not comment. Or they will oppose it because you suggested it. Tax breaks for companies who employ more than X% of their workforce in the US while offsetting it by higher taxes on those who are below that %. How is that not popular in middle America? "Hey, we want to cut taxes for companies who are hiring you....and not on those who are outsourcing it another country." 

 

They need to focus from the ground up. They had an independent like Bernie deciding to run for the Dem nomination in a weak field. Well, you have a year before mid-terms and on top of looking for House/Senate wins there. They need ti put a ton of effort into everything from school board to town hall to state level positions. They've had their asses kicked on this level for a long time now.

 

Kindly ask celebs and musicians to STFU. It's not helping. 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

As far as cost of living issues go, I remember before the real estate bubble burst a little over a decade ago one of the main issues for us in California was that housing prices were rising so rapidly that wages in your actual city couldn't support them.  For anyone outside of Los Angeles general area, San Francisco, Silicon Valley the wages simply weren't there to support paying upwards of 400,000 for a 3 bedroom home.  Prices in the previous regions were even more out of control so you actually had people selling in their homes in those regions for 2-3 times the price I listed and then moving to regions just outside the metropolitan areas.  It was a big thing in Sacramento, where a lot of the new home sales were bay area residents selling their property for a million or so and then buying homes here for half that.   I was lucky in being too young to even think about buying at the time.  I ended up buying a 4 bedroom home last year (This June will mark 1 solid year of home ownership) for about $280,000.  Real Estate is starting to climb again.  Nothing outrageous for the time being but who knows what and when will create the next accelerated bubble. 

 

Ok now onto the (D) platform.  I've said this before, but I truly feel like the Dems are at somewhat of a disadvantage, especially in their economic messaging because they basically have to rally against some of the big money interests that they are beholden to if they actually want to win an election.  It's walking a tight rope when it comes to issues like income tax, corporate tax, regulation, etc etc etc....when after the campaign speech, you have to make calls to these corporations and individuals for contributions.  

 

The way I approach this issue is that it isn't about the Dems so much as it is the system itself.  Real change will not come until the free flow of money is removed from the equation. It's simply just too influential for swaying both parties to write legislation that helps the top 1%.  Once in awhile we get some cracks in that formula, but overall the past 30+ years has been a huge march in one direction when it comes to where the money is going.  That is a bi-partisan thing at this point, unfortunately. It feels like we have a "go to hell, everyone" and a "go to hell, but here is some ice water for your trip" party.  And no, I am not saying both parties are the same thing, they have clear stark differences on a lot of issues that matter, I am more making the point that the constant influence and pull is going to be present regardless of whether it is an (R) or a (D).

[zoony]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

i know one thing. the dems are not tired of winning. 

 

 

my first thought seeing the title was "gee, a thread like that already exists, because i started it" but it's not exactly the same, and no big anyway

 

my second thought was that that zoony would come in to make "whiny ****" post(s)

 

 predict some idjit thinking they're clever will take that last line and say something like "we're fine, we won" more or less

 

I know most libtards dislike Bill Maher, but I would hold him up as possibly the only example of an outspoken liberal who has shown you dont need to be a weakling.  Show me a strong, charismatic liberal.  They do not exist.

 

The lefts entire platform is summed up by fear nowadays

Afraid of guns

Afraid of global warming

Afraid of religion

Afraid of bullying

Afraid of what the world thinks of us

Afraid of Russians

Afraid of Trump

 

Stop hitching your wagon to the looney bin.  Trannys taking ****s at Target should not be hijacking liberal platforms or part of the conversation

Stop fighting for the poor, start fighting for the working class, because you cannot do both (Repubs have stumbled on to this.  Dems, still too stupid.  They do not understand the resentment between the two classes)

Religion and guns are not your enemy, and are the two most sacred pillars of the largest segment of the American Public that could benefit from liberal policy.  You have alienated them before youve uttered your first sentence.

The PC nonsense and post modernist philosophy needs to be burned.  Americans hate this.  

Stop treating corporations and banking and finnce like criminals.  They are not perfect and can benefit from reform, just like evryone and everything, ever.  However, they are also the reason you have the ability to live the life of a pillow soft 21st century, man shouting at wall street from your twitter account and posting anti corporate memes on facebook while you work roughly 20 hours per week

 

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

The good thing: the cost of living is high because more people want to live in a high population density area because the quality of life is better.

 

 

I dont think this is close to true.  People flock to high density areas because thats where the jobs are.  The quality of life is miserable, which explains why people with means never retire in northern new jersey

 

That said, i think it is and always has been that population densities breed liberalism for obvious reasons.  Which, imo, is a big part of the problem with the Dems.  The entir platform is being run from Sn Fran and NYC.  Most of the country is small to medium sized cities and rural areas.  The entire Dem brain trust js COMPLETELY out of touch with this demographic

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

And it starts with listening, and yes it's going to involve pandering, AKA finding the workable common ground between diverse progressive movements/causes.  DogOfWar's suggestion is definitely not the way.  Democrats shouldn't patronize anybody, but also don't tell them their ****ing way of life is obsolete and they just need to get over it, Jesus Christ.

 

So, lie to people?

 

Republicans are better at that by miles.  Dems can't win like that.  Nor should they try.

 

You know why?  Because even if they won by lying and pandering, when things don't work within the next 2 years, the people out there will be right back there, voting GOP once again, and ****ing themselves again and again cycle after cycle.  And they'll remember the time Democrats "betrayed" them, but will have very short memories for all the times the GOP ****ed them over.

 

I've seen this dynamic happen in blue collar/rural places where Dems try to beat Republicans.  They talk the folksy talk and walk the folksy walk and at the end of the day they win once, don't deliver paradise, and are scorned for it.

 

You think Rob Quist would have become a Montana rep for 20 years if he had won?  Lol, hell no.  If he wins, he's probably out within a couple cycles.  The moment the anti-Trump tide subsides, the GOP is right back in there.

 

It's the Blue Dog dems from 2006 all over again.  (This isn't to say Blue Dogs pandered or lied, but that they played to their localities and then lost because the next wave of GOP played to their localities better)

 

 

Don't lie and pander to the people.

 

Tell them the harsh truth.  That factory is closed.  That factory job is gone.  It's not coming back.  Any "saving" is temporary, and we don't mean "20 years" temporary, we mean like "6 months" temporary.  They can either cling to the past and end up with nothing or they can look to the future and prepare themselves for it.

 

Donald Trump can't save their old way of life.  No one can.  This is their future if they keep clinging on and on: http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/news/companies/carrier-layoffs/

 

How many people getting pink slips voted for Trump?  How many would vote for him again in 2020?

 

The ones who would vote for him again in 2020?  Leave.  Them.

 

The ones who recognize they were bamboozled?  Work.  With. Them.

 

If people are so willfully deluded so as to not believe the truth about automation and the new economy, leave them.  You can't save everyone.  Well, they'll be saved alright, by the government teat they scream about so much, because the social contract of America long ago wrote in stone that we should work hard to avoid having people die of hunger in the streets.  But in terms of political participation, they can't be saved.  They are who they are and they will reject the truth.  Leave them be.

 

If we have to lie to people to get them to vote for you, something is very very wrong at some level.

 

Emotions are the problems generally.  People get emotional about all sorts of issues and vote with their heart instead of their head.  And their heart can and has been manipulated to the point where their hearts are useless to them for real world issues.

 

Don't compete on emotion.

 

Override the emotion.  Show them the data.  Make it easily digestible.  Demonstrate how things can be improved and keep communicating with them constantly with status updates and the like.

 

Think about Obamacare.  It struggled to get positive approval ratings for years.  Then suddenly, when there was a real chance it could disappear, it was suddenly above water in popularity.  Why?  Because people actually turned off their chosen propaganda and checked what the hell the thing did in the real world.  And they realized, oh snap, maybe they liked most of that stuff.  And suddenly, the "keep but tweak" crowd grew by leaps and bounds.

 

Override the emotion.  That's how you get good policy that survives cycle after cycle and actually improves the lives of everyday Americans.

 

But don't pander.  That's how you get short term victories with fair weather alliances and voters.  That **** never lasts.  It leads to bad policies and the GOP is better at pandering anyway.

 

 

Be the party of sound logic and good policies and demand that your voters be the same way.  And get an army of Bill Nyes and Neil Degrasse Tysons out there helping the average voter get there.

[LadySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Ok now onto the (D) platform.  I've said this before, but I truly feel like the Dems are at somewhat of a disadvantage, especially in their economic messaging because they basically have to rally against some of the big money interests that they are beholden to if they actually want to win an election.  It's walking a tight rope when it comes to issues like income tax, corporate tax, regulation, etc etc etc....when after the campaign speech, you have to make calls to these corporations and individuals for contributions.  

 

The way I approach this issue is that it isn't about the Dems so much as it is the system itself.  Real change will not come until the free flow of money is removed from the equation. It's simply just too influential for swaying both parties to write legislation that helps the top 1%.  Once in awhile we get some cracks in that formula, but overall the past 30+ years has been a huge march in one direction when it comes to where the money is going.  That is a bi-partisan thing at this point, unfortunately. It feels like we have a "go to hell, everyone" and a "go to hell, but here is some ice water for your trip" party.  And no, I am not saying both parties are the same thing, they have clear stark differences on a lot of issues that matter, I am more making the point that the constant influence and pull is going to be present regardless of whether it is an (R) or a (D).

 

Why we need to get real campaign finance reform and also pass a law to circumvent the Citizens United decision. If corporate and other organizations money is outlawed, then we will see some real progress for humans, which after all the that's the premise our country was created on, of, by, and for People, not non-human entities.

 

 

Zoony, I find your "flapping vagina" remark highly offensive and misogynistic. Please consider something less disrespectful. 

[Burgold]

I don't know that the Dems can be as shameless, ruthless and lie without conscience to the degree that the Trumpian Republicans do (not sure that many Republicans can sink that low either), but in the short term... I wonder if the D's need to engage in Trump/Trench  warfare to get anywhere? People seem far quicker to embrace insults and scapegoating than policy, competence, reason, or compromise.

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

I dont think this is close to true.  People flock to high density areas because thats where the jobs are.  The quality of life is miserable, which explains why people with means never retire in northern new jersey

 

This may have been true a decade or so ago but there is a clear trend that shows that the more well-to-do segments of the US population are moving to higher density urban cities.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-shift-to-the-suburbs-sped-up-last-year/

 

I think it's a fair assumption that educated people with money and access to high paying jobs are flocking to urban areas because the quality of life is better, provided you can afford to pay the higher costs.

 

From everything I've read, the new shift towards the suburbs is likely being driven by the fact that housing is unaffordable/unavailable for a lot of families in urban places.  Hence the shift to low-density suburbs where costs are lower.

 

But lower cost of living doesn't necessarily equate to higher standard of living, especially when you are having to spend hours and hours per week commuting through horrendous traffic and dealing with all the other inefficiencies of suburban living.

 

At least in DC, even suburban areas are trying to emulate cities by creating pockets which are essentially mini-city replicas (Merrifield, Reston Town Center) and on a larger scale, the northern Arlington corridor. 

[BornaSkinsFan83]

4 hours ago, Bang said:

 

If it isn't obvious, i don't see any of this ending well.. and by well, i mean peacefully.

 

~Bang

 

Glad I'm not the only one who sees the writing on the wall. Unfortunately i think we've crossed the point of no return. That electing Trump is going to be seen in history as that moment. There's no way the level of propoganda and hate and vitriol that has been thrown around on the right can be walked back at this point. It's going to continue to accelerate. We're already seeing the violence. That will expand. Assassinations are next on the list after that. It's going to get real ugly. 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Democrats, I'm just going to free flow off the top of my head so bare with me....

 

be the opposite of the bull****. Be the adults. Pragmatic. **** purity tests. Smart. If America is a child, be the always loving, always caring parent that shows up to all the games and tucks her into bed at night but is also a disciplinarian through and through. Let the GOP be the sad one with the meth addiction who steals the kids bday presents to pawn and spends every other Xmas in the drunk tank and every Thanksgiving smelling like a sour fungus. Take no ****. Bow down to no ****. Always call a spade a spade. Never **** foot around the truth. Crush any bull**** and corruption within the party swiftly. And learn how to talk **** and clown the GOP every single chance you get. Expose them for the dysfunctional, heartless ****show they are. Stop treating them as equals. Take back the definition of patriotism. Don't turn a blind eye to uncle jim bob ****stain's racism just because his factory job left and he used to vote for you. Above all be an all inclusive, all encompassing pragmatic political party that's focused on the truth, the future and legitimate solutions. 

[zoony]

25 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This may have been true a decade or so ago but there is a clear trend that shows that the more well-to-do segments of the US population are moving to higher density urban cities.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-shift-to-the-suburbs-sped-up-last-year/

 

I think it's a fair assumption that educated people with money and access to high paying jobs are flocking to urban areas because the quality of life is better, provided you can afford to pay the higher costs.

 

From everything I've read, the new shift towards the suburbs is likely being driven by the fact that housing is unaffordable/unavailable for a lot of families in urban places.  Hence the shift to low-density suburbs where costs are lower.

 

But lower cost of living doesn't necessarily equate to higher standard of living, especially when you are having to spend hours and hours per week commuting through horrendous traffic and dealing with all the other inefficiencies of suburban living.

 

At least in DC, even suburban areas are trying to emulate cities by creating pockets which are essentially mini-city replicas (Merrifield, Reston Town Center) and on a larger scale, the northern Arlington corridor. 

 

This might be true, but i would argue that those people are trying to make the best of a bad situation in some respects.  If youre gonna have to live in the city, might as well be the east village.  Lets make Arlington the east village.

 

That said,  look at a map.  The entire country is one big sprawl.  Even in medium large cities like Des Moines, Columbus, Indianapolis, Dallas.... the congestion is nowhere close to San Fran, Dc, NYC.  In these inland cities, you can drive 30 minutes outside of town and buy a house for 60 bucks.  This is the vast majority of America, completely unrelatable on so many levels from the democratic brain trust operating out of the liberal triangle.  

[SkinsHokieFan]

What does fixing mean? Win elections or actually govern?

 

If it means "fix" to win in 2018: Just run ads from now until Nov 2018 about how poor people are going to lose health insurance and pre existing conditions protection while Congress is exempt

 

2020? Run Gregg Poppovich for POTUS. Trump will **** his pants 

 

Beyond 2020? Remember that future looks more like me and my kids living in Raleigh, than a "white working class" person in the midwest

[Corcaigh]

2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

VA is essentially a full on blue state at this point. At one point in time London County used to be a Republican stronghold, which is pretty remarkable that it's swung so sharply to the left recently. NC is basically a swing state at this point in large part due to the growth of the research triangle. I think we are seeing similar trends in Georgia, which had a 5% (!!!) margin this past election. 

 

 

 

FYI, it's Loudoun County and it's a fascinating example of development, good and bad. There was a time when the county officials and developers were stacking up houses as fast as they could, as a cheaper version of Fairfax. There's a  greater desire now to try to retain the rural west as a quality of life selling point for the majority of people living in the east of the county. That requires a viable rural economy and also requires careful zoning and management so that the small vineyard/brewery that can sell its product to visitors at the weekends doesn't morph itself into a concert venue with thousands of cars driving down small rural roads and destroying the rural experience for everyone else. 

 

Affordability of housing is a major issue though. Developers still seem to want to build luxury $800k townhomes around the new satellite cities like One Loudoun and Loudoun Station, rather than places that young professionals can afford. They still seem to think that the young families living on the new metro will need large two-car garages for their F-150 and minvan.

 

Politically, the west of the county is strongly red and very conservative with a big community of deeply religious evangelicals and home schoolers, while the populous east is very diverse, and pretty strongly blue or centrist.

 

And VA is only blue because of the relative growth of the northern part of the state with an influx of educated outsiders and immigrants. Barbara Comstock retained her NoVA seat in Congress even though Hillary won in a landslide with the same voters, so the local Dem party gets very mixed results. Both VA senators are Dems but I'd argue that in Warner and Kaine you have two pretty good centrists and former governors with broad appeal compared to some of the more extreme GoP candidates that have been offered.

 

Bottom line, the trends are strongly in favor of the Dems, but they have to put up candidates and get the ground game out. I think I had four people come to the door for Hillary, and none for Comstock's opponent who appeared to be quite electable from what I saw - a doctor and business woman. As nationally, the main local strategy for the Dems was "ZOMG ... Comstock hasn't fully renounced Trump!", and not pitching their candidate.

[Jumbo]

Meet the Press's "data download" segment today had soem good material on shifting demographics over the last decade that would be useful in this thread.

 

I can't find today's clip of that segment so far, but it may be too soon. I'll look again later, or if anyone else sees it....

 

 

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

2 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Meet the Press's "data download" segment today had soem good material on shifting demographics over the last decade that would be useful in this thread.

 

I can't find today's clip of that segment so far, but it may be too soon. I'll look again later, or if anyone else sees it....

 

 

 

 

Shifting demographics is one thing. But one of these parties has to actually show it cares about shifting demographics.

 

Why I stopped being a very partisan R? Besides the anti science, anti anything intelligent, its a party that said I do not belong in this country (despite being born here and having as American of an up bringing as possible)

 

Why I am not even close to being a partisan Dem: They still have no idea how to show they will fight for me when the chips are down. You still have former President Obama inviting the Israeli ambassador to the White House iftar and lecturing Muslms born in America about how its cool that Israel keeps doing what it does.

 

I liked the world of 1999 quite a bit. I was just an American high school senior who became on Eagle scout and was going to head to Virginia Tech. I didn't have to answer for all the other BS in the world

[DCranon21]

How to fix the party, well for starters, most of my Dems have to stop whining and stand up to the GOP. Also let's include folks in Toledo, OH, Scranton, PA, Topeka, KS, Lincoln NE, Norman, OK, etc, you know rust belt states. Everything can't be so NYC and SF because folks in the middle don't really relate. It starts with the Midwestern folks and also they need to not discriminate older white males. Diversity means everyone. @Jumbo I've seen that data download on MTP this morning, and I was like damn, that is a problem. You can have a voice that is bold and strong. I don't mind that, but at least speak with intelligence if you're going to have a bold voice. Lot's of anti-whatever that is thrown from the right makes them ignorant. I think including everyone is a start and make them feel welcomed. 

[Jumbo]

I liked 1999, too. Notably more hair. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

MTP's data dump from today. 

 

Might be too many numbers for our R friends though 

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/data-how-trump-s-election-might-be-the-product-of-a-national-party-realignment-955127363674

[@DCGoldPants]

3 hours ago, Jumbo said:

i know one thing. the dems are not tired of winning. 

 

 

my first thought seeing the title was "gee, a thread like that already exists, because i started it" but it's not exactly the same, and no big anyway

 

 

 line and say something like "we're fine, we won" more or less

 

Apologies, bruh. Merge it if you feel the need. Just looked a the last few weeks of politics and kept thinking "man, herding cats would be easier than getting these Dems on a clear clean message."

[Jumbo]

57 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

. Diversity means everyone. @Jumbo I've seen that data download on MTP this morning, and I was like damn, that is a problem. You can have a voice that is bold and strong. I don't mind that, but at least speak with intelligence if you're going to have a bold voice. 

 

I'm sort of a proponent of bold and strong voices. I may have given that away. I like them when they're informed and reasonably functional, however. I'm also a great fan of diversity. I liked Fareed's piece today on how bad it's been for the conservative voices (even "regular" conservative figures) on too many campuses.  

 

Most of the common, rationally worded, criticisms of the dems hold afaic. I think that a very large number of new and new-old people will be voting dem over the next 8-10 years and will be evoking change in that party more than people over 40 who are dems now trying to figure out what "they" should do. While I have yuge issues with the dems (being an independent since my first time---for nixon) i am pretty focused on the gop.

 

For me the dems are the like bad eating habits that need to be changed for the health of the body politic. You do have to make a couple of major changes, and then you tweak and adapt over time to keep moving forward, and you stop doing what doesn't work. Very important, but not a looming matter of life or death. Whereas the gop is like brain cancer on the body politic these days, and that's got most of my attention.

 

as i said, i expect a (prob nuke) war by donny ala wag the dog, and i'll point out that the last couple years i've been prescient on a number of matters in two forums here