Respectful discussion and debate #3- the election of 2016 (1 Viewer)

[Mr.Pack]

I think many of those people mistake political correctness with common decency.  

I think you're correct, but I also think jons post here is spot on.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As an independent who didnt vote for Trump (or Hillary) I watched this train wreck from neutral ground.  I honestly dont think it was Trump embracing per se but a final rejection of Hillary.  It was death by 1,000 cuts....she was so corrupt and flawed yet so arrogant.  They were all acting like it was an inevitable coronation....when Bernie actually became a threat they disposed of him in an even more corrupt way....it was mind boggling that the media just gave her a big pass.  

The other issue is this new holier than thou Dems philosophy.....instead of comparing positions and policies it's anyone who could possibly not be a Dem is now a racist, anti-woman, hating bigot...What the heck?!  

Almost nobody says this or acts like this.  There was plenty of policy talk from Clinton during the election and there's been a ton since then regarding various Trump actions and policies; if anything the problem that the voters seem not to care about policy at all, and frequently can't answer even the most basic questions about it.

I've spoken to a ton of people that voted Trump but would never admit it....you can't treat people like this and expect to get away with it....it's not getting any better...instead of stepping back and analyzing what the failure was to adjust policies we get constant marches and more divisive name calling/labeling.....

This is a false narrative.  There has been plenty of outrage, as there should be, but also plenty of reflection and analysis by Dems and progressives. And the marches were very much a positive force.  I can give you countless examples, but let's start with one.

how the heck can Dems be outraged at Trump's executive orders when Obama did the same thing?

I don't know whether you mean Obama did the same thing in terms or frequency or content, but either way this could not possibly be more wrong.  Obama rarely used executive orders relative to his contemporaries and obviously didn't do anything like what Trump has done with them.

And dont think Im giving the Right a pass on refusing to do anything with Obama like children the past 8 yrs......it's unreal - Until Washington is truly sick of every 4-8 yrs veering to extremes, it's time to sit down and actually compromise....doubt it will happen though....what a shame.  

If you want compromise, anger and wild over-generalizations about the parties and the Left/Right isn't a good way to make it happen.  Change starts at home.

 

[McGarnicle]

USA.   I lived in PA until I was 27 and going on 20 years in Raleigh.   People are the same everywhere.   Just because you have a different geographic location does mean things change, the only exception might be a big city where you are forced to interact with different people on a daily basis but for the most part people live in their own little bubbles.

This. Go to a bar in a working-class area in Boston or Philly, the level of discourse is not much different than you'd hear at a rural barbershop in Mississippi.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

With regards to #3, I think one reason the media gave Trump so much exposure was because they thought it would destroy his candidacy.

I think many people significantly misunderstand what drives the media. It think its misguided to think "the Media" has an agenda in favor of or against one candidate. All larger commercial media sources, from left to right, are driven by ratings and profits, above all. Trump was by far the most interesting candidate. He's a walking talking Hollywood caricature. It was like watching a live train-wreck, where the train keeps wrecking but never stops.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I think you're correct, but I also think jons post here is spot on.

I don't disagree with him either but leaves people fighting over something that they will never agree on.

If I have to hear on more idiot call up a sports radio show and cry about him not be able to use the N word............

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I don't live in a portion of the country that affords me that option Tim  

His racist, sexist and bigoted comments were lapped up around here.  It was a driving force here, no question.  It was followed closely by "not Hillary".  Anecdotes, sure.  But if you're looking closely at the fabric of America, it's easy to see how racist and sexist we really are.

Really? So, we weren't racist and sexist when Obama was elected; twice. But now, we just struck a tone of racism, sexism is super and we love it? I don't buy it. At all. 

 

[McGarnicle]

I think that when Trump fans refer to his authenticity they're really talking about his style and crudeness, which is so different from politicians. I don't believe they're speaking about his honesty. 

Yeah and it's amazing the responses you get when you point out his dishonesty. It's always a variation of one of three themes:

1. All politicians lie.

2. Don't take him literally. 

3. But Hillary...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Respectful discussion and debate

- Tim, kudos, but are there actually Trump supporters engaging?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

4. Why did Hillary's team (and most of the pollsters) get Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania so wrong?

In Wisconsin, the polls got Hillary almost exactly right. They predicted about 46-47% for her and that's what she got. Where they got it wrong was underestimating Trump and overestimating Johnson and Stein. The polls had Trump at about 40%, whereas he got 47%, and had Johnson and Stein at a combined 8% or so, and they got less than half that.

 

[timschochet]

Tobias, I tend to agree with the truth of almost everything you just wrote, but there is also no doubt that Kiddnet's perceptions are very real and shared by millions of people. 

As to the marches being a very positive force, I hope so, but whether or not they will make a political difference...well the last time we had major protest marches in this country was during Nixon's first term, and people expected it would have a big impact on the voters, especially after the Kent State shooting. But Nixon got re-elected in a landslide. 

 

[RBM]

Leave it to Toby to bring disrespect to what was actually a very good thread by basically taking a big dump on Kiddnets honest opinions. 

 

[timschochet]

- Tim, kudos, but are there actually Trump supporters engaging?

A few. Hopefully more will do so. 

 

[timschochet]

Leave it to Toby to bring disrespect to what was actually a very good thread by basically taking a big dump on Kiddnets honest opinions. 

He disagreed with Kiddnets. I don't think he was disrespectful either. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Really? So, we weren't racist and sexist when Obama was elected; twice. But now, we just struck a tone of racism, sexism is super and we love? I don't buy it. At all. 

Obama didn't win 100% of the vote.  His election doesn't give the entire country a pass on racism, nor sexism of course.

In any event, I don't see how anyone can deny there was sexism at work in the election.  Do people honestly think the election comes out the same if you reverse the candidate's genders?  You think a thrice-married overweight female real estate heir with five kids who cheated on her husbands, bragged about not changing diapers and was caught on tape at age 60 bragging about how she likes to grab men by the junk and force kisses on them could win the presidency?  I don't think she'd win a single delegate in the primaries.

 

[timschochet]

Really? So, we weren't racist and sexist when Obama was elected; twice. But now, we just struck a tone of racism, sexism is super and we love it? I don't buy it. At all. 

To be fair: if the Commish was writing specifically about the conservative South, this part of the country never voted for Obama. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

He disagreed with Kiddnets. I don't think he was disrespectful either. 

I tried to be careful not to be disrespectful to the poster.  If anything was perceived that way I'll apologize and edit accordingly.

 

[timschochet]

Obama didn't win 100% of the vote.  His election give the entire country a pass on racism, nor sexism of course.

In any event, I don't see how anyone can deny there was sexism at work in the election.  Do people honestly think the election comes out the same if you reverse the candidate's genders?  You think a thrice-married overweight female real estate heir with five kids who cheated on her husbands and was caught on tape at age 60 bragging about how she likes to grab men by the junk and force kisses on them could win the presidency?  I don't think she'd win a single delegate in the primaries.

That's a fair point. 

But if Hillary were a man would he have defeated Trump? Of this I'm less certain. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Oh good cripes with the apologies and timid debate. 

 

[RBM]

He disagreed with Kiddnets. I don't think he was disrespectful either. 

Please. I know everything and you don't know anything. Typical stuff. Not a big deal but just wanted to point it out only because he tried to do it to Tommy earlier. 

 

[Jayded]

I think it's a combination of many things that others have already touched on but extended one degree further: Trump spoke to those who felt left out of the "hope and change" and that other candidates didn't speak to, but his election also signals the me-first mentality continues. I think the anger that led to Trump's election was bred through the me-first culture we have now and them perceiving everyone else got something except for them and so that meant they needed to reach on the guy who said he'd finally give them something even if they thought he was less than desirable as a person.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think it's limited to "conservatives" Tim.  There are plenty liberals who feel like they aren't represented either.  I haven't felt like I am represented in any meaningful way on a national level for a very long time.  What do you label a person who believes that the government should be all in on our military/veterans, education, infrastructure and healthcare?  Those people who understand that "free choice" is required from a societal perspective even though they don't agree with it personally and can't understand how someone sees it as an option.  Those people who think the government is wasting it's time in the marriage business.  Those people who think our tax structure is completely antiquated and in need of a paradigm shift.   Those people don't have a home in today's political landscape.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's the same. Sure you feel like you're not represented- but it's different, I believe, with conservatives- it's not just misrepresentation, it's an emotional feeling of "you guys think you're so much smarter than we are". 

Not sure what distinction you are making or why it matters

There is an incredibly obvious tone of condescension that comes out of Washington DC frequently, and it's not just conservatives that hear it.  

ETA:  And I'll say that the condescension comes through loud and clear particularly in the legislation they produce for themselves vs the legislation they produce for everyone else.  Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Phase of the Game]

That's a fair point. 

But if Hillary were a man would he have defeated Trump? Of this I'm less certain. 

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/03/07/sad-in-gender-inversion-experiment-male-hillary-loses-to-female-trump/

 

[-OZ-]

Well it's different.  Obviously things have improved.  But in the south, many churches still are segregated by race.  Many neighborhoods are as well.  There are "white areas" of town and "black areas" of town.  It shouldn't be this way, and of course there are no rules on this, but it does tend to happen, by and large.

I see it a lot when it comes to school systems.  Well meaning white parents want their kids to go to "good schools".  If a school has a lot of minority (of any color) kids, it's seen as less than desirable.  Many times the parents don't even realize they are being racist, they just want their kids to go to school with other rich kids, etc.  

Yes, although our part is very white/Asian. 

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Obama didn't win 100% of the vote.  His election doesn't give the entire country a pass on racism, nor sexism of course.

In any event, I don't see how anyone can deny there was sexism at work in the election.  Do people honestly think the election comes out the same if you reverse the candidate's genders?  You think a thrice-married overweight female real estate heir with five kids who cheated on her husbands, bragged about not changing diapers and was caught on tape at age 60 bragging about how she likes to grab men by the junk and force kisses on them could win the presidency?  I don't think she'd win a single delegate in the primaries.

Sexism had 0 to do with it. That's a reach. Hillary Clinton was considered out of touch and untrustworthy. Very little of that had to do with her sex. 

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Not sure what distinction you are making or why it matters

There is an incredibly obvious tone of condescension that comes out of Washington DC frequently, and it's not just conservatives that hear it.  

We can be condescending too though.  It's not unique to one side of the political spectrum.  We all think we know better.  How many times do I quote chapter and verse of the founding to prove a point?  There is arrogance and condescension in that whether I truly mean it that way or not.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If Palin had stayed on task, she would have beat Obama in 2012. Trump's a hilariously coincidental extension of that. Forty percent of America want to know precisely what to think and everything to kick ###. The other 60% are all over the map and aint no one herded them cats yet. Populist, neo-fascist victory. nufced

I totally agree with the bolded...... though Palin was more overtly conservative in 08, but look at how she has turned her principles around for Trump.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Obama didn't win 100% of the vote.  His election doesn't give the entire country a pass on racism, nor sexism of course.

No, and that wouldn't happen in any election. Democrats have never won white voters (since '76,) and probably never will.

However, Obama pulled in the third highest white vote percentage in history for a democrat: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/19/15282553-obama-performance-with-white-voters-on-par-with-other-democrats.

The race card is getting a little too much play in all of this.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's a fair point. 

But if Hillary were a man would he have defeated Trump? Of this I'm less certain. 

That is a better question, I agree. But the fact that it's a much better/closer question is pretty clear evidence that there's sexism at play. 

I think the answer is yes, by the way.  People love narratives after the fact but the bottom line is that this was a very close election that could have swung easily one way or the other on the tiniest change.

 

[The Commish]

but also plenty of reflection and analysis by Dems and progressives

What evidence do we have of this within the DNC?  Obviously, the evidence of this happening in the electorate can be determined next voting cycle, but I am struggling to see how the DNC has done any sort of meaningful reflection/analysis as a party.  Based on their appointments it seems like they're doubling down.  With productive reflection and analysis I'd expect them to be doing what they can to get everyone united in the party....the gap seems to be growing.

 

[The Commish]

I don't live in a portion of the country that affords me that option Tim  

His racist, sexist and bigoted comments were lapped up around here.  It was a driving force here, no question.  It was followed closely by "not Hillary".  Anecdotes, sure.  But if you're looking closely at the fabric of America, it's easy to see how racist and sexist we really are.

Really? So, we weren't racist and sexist when Obama was elected; twice. But now, we just struck a tone of racism, sexism is super and we love it? I don't buy it. At all. 

Try reading my comments again

 

[TobiasFunke]

What evidence do we have of this within the DNC?  Obviously, the evidence of this happening in the electorate can be determined next voting cycle, but I am struggling to see how the DNC has done any sort of meaningful reflection/analysis as a party.  Based on their appointments it seems like they're doubling down.  With productive reflection and analysis I'd expect them to be doing what they can to get everyone united in the party....the gap seems to be growing.

What evidence do you have that they haven't? To what "gap" do you refer?

Basically the only thing we know about the DNC doing thus far is choosing its next chair.  I think people are massively oversimplifying with the Perez=Clinton and Ellison=Sanders analogy, Perez is a good man and a lifelong progressive with a pro-labor and pro-consumer record at the DOL.  And the very first thing he did was invite Ellison on as vice-chair in an obvious effort to reach out to the far left activists. They've appeared together a bunch since.

 

[The Commish]

We can be condescending too though.  It's not unique to one side of the political spectrum.  We all think we know better.  How many times do I quote chapter and verse of the founding to prove a point?  There is arrogance and condescension in that whether I truly mean it that way or not.

See my edit.....a good example is our politicians crafting healthcare legislation for themselves and then completely different legislation for everyone else.  I get that communications can be misconstrued because there's always a sender AND a receiver in a conversation.  If one's off, the message can be lost, dismissed etc.  Forget the  and look at their actions.  They speak loud and clear IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But if Hillary were a man would she have defeated Trump? Of this I'm less certain. 

2016 Trump won the male vote with 52%.

Hillary won the female vote with 54%.

2012 Romney won the male vote with 52%.

Obama won the female vote with 55%.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I totally agree with the bolded...... though Palin was more overtly conservative in 08, but look at how she has turned her principles around for Trump.

I dont care about politics anymore because i dont see the possibility of significant answers to our problems in my lifetime. But i keep telling my panicked lefty pals that having a drunk uncle at the wheel of America is nowhere near as critical to their futures as who put him there. Forty percent of this country would fairly well like to secede from the darkies and commie #####es and beardos who populate the rest of their country and there aint no goin back onnat. The confederate states were only 30% of the American population when secession occured. Dunno what the wedge issue will be but, when we do separate, 99% of the guns of North America will be in Merka, and wont Bicoastia be sweatin then?! Howzat for respectful discussion? jus'sayin'kno'm'sayin? 

remember i said this 

 

[IC FBGCav]

See my edit.....a good example is our politicians crafting healthcare legislation for themselves and then completely different legislation for everyone else.  I get that communications can be misconstrued because there's always a sender AND a receiver in a conversation.  If one's off, the message can be lost, dismissed etc.  Forget the  and look at their actions.  They speak loud and clear IMO.

Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.

Gov't pays 75% of their plan similar to most businesses.

 

[shader]

I think that when Trump fans refer to his authenticity they're really talking about his style and crudeness, which is so different from politicians. I don't believe they're speaking about his honesty. 

To that degree they are willing to cut him some slack too.  He seems like a guy you'd meet in a bar, to them.  So yeah he says some dumb stuff, but overall they believe him.

 

[The Commish]

What evidence do we have of this within the DNC?  Obviously, the evidence of this happening in the electorate can be determined next voting cycle, but I am struggling to see how the DNC has done any sort of meaningful reflection/analysis as a party.  Based on their appointments it seems like they're doubling down.  With productive reflection and analysis I'd expect them to be doing what they can to get everyone united in the party....the gap seems to be growing.

What evidence do you have that they haven't? To what "gap" do you refer?

Basically the only thing we know about the DNC doing thus far is choosing its next chair.  I think people are massively oversimplifying with the Perez=Clinton and Ellison=Sanders analogy, Perez is a good man and a lifelong progressive with a pro-labor and pro-consumer record at the DOL.  And the very first thing he did was invite Ellison on as vice-chair in an obvious effort to reach out to the far left activists. They've appeared together a bunch since.

I'm not very good proving a negative.  I don't see the point so you won't get much more than the lack of evidence for the positive.  There's an entire movement and state and local levels trying to get (for lack of a better term) "more liberal democrats" to challenge (both republicans and conservative democrats) at ever turn.  I've never seen a movement like that before.  The closest I've seen is the Tea Party movement but that's not even really similar.  There's a thread here dedicated to that movement.  I don't know of the equivalency narrative you speak of, but the narrative I hear frequently about Ellison as vice chair, is that it's a pandering effort with no real substance.

Personally, I am waiting to see how it plays out, but given the DNC's history and most recent actions, the safer assumption is that it's pandering and not really all that genuine.  Time can change that of course.  We'll see.

ETA:

Here's your face of the DNC:

Tom Perez

Wall Street Senator Chuck Schumer (38 years serving the party)

Nancy Pelosi (35 years serving the party)

 

[TobiasFunke]

2016 Trump & won the male vote with 52%.

Hillary won the female vote with 54%.

2012 Romney won the male vote with 52%.

Obama won the female vote with 55%.

I'm not sure this is relevant. The argument is about whether her gender affected the way the public (both men and women) perceived her.

To me the fact that a female Trump would have gotten absolutely nowhere (I assume we can all agree on this) is pretty clear evidence of gender bias. The question of what would have happened if they were both men seems much closer and more difficult to answer with certainty, but I think the former question shows clearly that the margin for error is far narrower for a woman than a man ... and Clinton was certainly a politician/candidate prone to error.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I dont care about politics anymore because i dont see the possibility of significant answers to our problems in my lifetime. But i keep telling my panicked lefty pals that having a drunk uncle at the wheel of America is nowhere near as critical to their futures as who put him there. Forty percent of this country would fairly well like to secede from the darkies and commie #####es and beardos who populate the rest of their country and there aint no goin back onnat. The confederate states were only 30% of the American population when secession occured. Dunno what the wedge issue will be but, when we do separate, 99% of the guns of North America will be in Merka, and wont Bicoastia be sweatin then?! Howzat for respectful discussion? jus'sayin'kno'm'sayin? 

remember i said this 

A lot of transplants in the southeast, different conglomeration of people that even 10 years ago and still changing.

 

[The Commish]

See my edit.....a good example is our politicians crafting healthcare legislation for themselves and then completely different legislation for everyone else.  I get that communications can be misconstrued because there's always a sender AND a receiver in a conversation.  If one's off, the message can be lost, dismissed etc.  Forget the  and look at their actions.  They speak loud and clear IMO.

Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.

Gov't pays 75% of their plan similar to most businesses.

Poorly worded on my part...shouldn't have used the term "legislation" here.  They've taken the time to take the measures to work within the market to make sure they have a great deal.  They've negotiated their program.  At least the last time I checked, OPM was the manager of that program and negotiated it.  If that's changed, then my bad.

 

[wikkidpissah]

A lot of transplants in the southeast, different conglomeration of people that even 10 years ago and still changing.

Didnt say it was the south, just that that segment of the population is a greater % of America than the Confederacy. If it was strictly geographical anymore, the movement would already be underway

 

[The Commish]

There are a lot of racist people in the South.  I can't speak for other parts of the country, because I haven't lived anywhere else.

Unfortunately, this is the case.  Just 50 years ago, black people used separate water fountains, for crying out loud.  

This history is really apparent when you get to parts of the South where you haven't had a lot of "move-ins".  For instance, where I live currently is a very transient area.  I have no idea how many native Tennesseans live in my neighborhood.  Not a lot, I'd say.

But when you go 30 minutes out of the city, you have people that were born and raised.  There are grandparents who lived in a time when segregation was the norm.  To be fair, this affects the attitudes of people of all races.  It's very sad, but yes you'd have to be a fool not to admit that racism exists in the South.

As for the rest of the country, I'll let you guys be honest about whether or not it exists there or not.  I'd imagine to some degree or another, it exists everywhere. 

USA.   I lived in PA until I was 27 and going on 20 years in Raleigh.   People are the same everywhere.   Just because you have a different geographic location does mean things change, the only exception might be a big city where you are forced to interact with different people on a daily basis but for the most part people live in their own little bubbles.

I have lived in NC/SC my whole life sans three years in Cincy Ohio.  The first and only time I saw a clan rally was in Cincy.  That's the most racially charged area of the country I have ever lived in.  I have been to some areas that were more charged (deep south) but never lived there.

 

[Kiddnets]

He disagreed with Kiddnets. I don't think he was disrespectful either. 

I dont think he was being disrespectful either - obviously passionate and disagrees but im ok with that.....ive seen disrespect lol

Problem is Tobias that you may disagree but a LOT of people like myself see it the way I posted.....and rather than take a step back and find a way to reassess and bring people like myself back into the mix, we get hardcore denials and saying we're wrong at every turn.  The way I see it, thats what led you to a Trump presidency....I'm someone who voted Bill clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney and finally indy in disgust.  As someone who votes the issue/person I most identify with rather than blanket policy I dont see either side trying to court indys like me - rather blanket rejection and defense of how we are all wrong.  

From what Ive seen there are a ton of dems calling out anyone who voted fro trump as a racist, anti-woman bigot....Ive seen it all over social media as well as in the news or in general socially.  I have business associates that dont disclose they like trump out of this fear...that just shouldnt be in my opinion.  Ive heard Trump compared to Hitler constantly and people that follow him Nazi's....let's take that in for a minute..think what you want about the guy, which I admit im not a big fan....but comparing him to the biggest evil doer and mass murder in our time is ridiculous and hurts any arguments Ive seen.  

While I understand wanting to voice opinions - I dont agree with the constant protests and rallies but its obviously everyone's right to do so....i just think time and efforts would be better spent focusing on dem ideas and how to win back people into the fold.  

As for Obama/Dems using executive orders and pushing things through - they used the tools at their disposal to ram things through when republicans refused to cooperate...now it's getting jammed back at the,....I hated it when Obama/Dems did it and I hate it now....each party should understand power moves back and forth so need to find some kind of middle ground then wield the sword during the time you have it....problem is that would cause one of the 2 parties to be magnanimous and not crush the minority when they have the chance so very doubtful.  

As for wild overgeneralizations of parties - we'll have to disagree....Ive never seen the parties more divided...I have friends on each side not speaking because of lack of respect for the other side...it's bad. I agree it starts at home with respect for each sides ideas and minimize the rhetoric....if you can't be convinced to open your mind to an idea from the other side how can you expect the other side to open their mind to yours....neither side is perfect but I rarely see either side open up to anything even if its obvious.  Again my own personal experience.....im open to any good ideas no matter what side....i'd like to see that sentiment more.  I think the side which takes the high road more and opens it up will reap the rewards of many indys....I'm just waiting!  

 

[tommyboy]

Obama didn't win 100% of the vote.  His election doesn't give the entire country a pass on racism, nor sexism of course.

In any event, I don't see how anyone can deny there was sexism at work in the election.  Do people honestly think the election comes out the same if you reverse the candidate's genders?  You think a thrice-married overweight female real estate heir with five kids who cheated on her husbands, bragged about not changing diapers and was caught on tape at age 60 bragging about how she likes to grab men by the junk and force kisses on them could win the presidency?  I don't think she'd win a single delegate in the primaries.

this actually was put to the test and trump still won   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/08/actors-swapped-trump-clinton-genders-in-mock-debate-guess-whose-message-won.html

 

[timschochet]

One aspect of the election I was thinking about is the simplistic one of Trump representing the new. 

This hit me today while watching Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer give a press conference about the CBO report for the health care bill. These have been two effective politicians. And today they had a message that should work for the Dems. But it's overshadowed by the fact that they are both so old...not just in age but in energy and familiarity. The Democrats desperately need to hand the reins over to a new, young energetic face- I'm not talking about the DNC, I'm talking about Congress and the Senate- those are the ones who get on the news the most. 

 

[McGarnicle]

One aspect of the election I was thinking about is the simplistic one of Trump representing the new. 

This hit me today while watching Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer give a press conference about the CBO report for the health care bill. These have been two effective politicians. And today they had a message that should work for the Dems. But it's overshadowed by the fact that they are both so old...not just in age but in energy and familiarity. The Democrats desperately need to hand the reins over to a new, young energetic face- I'm not talking about the DNC, I'm talking about Congress and the Senate- those are the ones who get on the news the most. 

But you're against term limits iirc?

 

[Dr Oadi]

1) NAFTA

2) He didn't grovel for the forgiveness of the elite.  

3) Because he called Mexicans rapists and wanted to have Muslim camps. Surely this racist idiot will grovel for our forgiveness soon.  

4) Trumps a racist bigot and educated states will never vote for racist bigots. 

 

[Gr00vus]

One party ran a candidate who was born, raised and lived his entire life in Manhattan penthouses (or the very close equivalent thereof), devoting himself to an existence of self enrichment, promotion and aggrandizement at the expense of everyone who couldn't see him for the con man he is.

That guy won because the other party ran a candidate and campaign that somehow had less appeal to working class U.S. citizens. That's how badly the Democrats handled this election cycle.

 

[timschochet]

But you're against term limits iirc?

Theoretically yeah. But I do see your point.

The Dems need to figure this out for themselves, though- changing the rules isn't necessary. Schumer and Pelosi should simply allow other people to speak in front of the cameras.

I give Harry Reid a lot of credit. He was a terrible public speaker and he knew it. So often times whenever there was a necessary speech to be made he would assign it to somebody better than he was- for instance, Barack Obama during the years 2005-2007. That's a lot of the reason Obama got to be so well known. Pelosi and Schumer should take a lesson from this and assign some of the potential young stars to these tasks.