In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 25 2018 05:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So this begs the question what is Michael Steele reasoning for not seeing the obvious?
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
I know its your shtick to dump on the Democratic Party but there is a very, very good reason why why the Senate map is bad for the Democratic Party.
26 Democratic Senators are up for election while only 8 Republican Senators are. The Democratic Party needs to win two seats while holding onto every single one of theirs that is up for election. The vast majority of Democratic Senators up for election are in swing states or states that are turning conservative like Ohio. Of those, senators like Claire McCaskill (Missouri R+9 PVI) and Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota R+16 PVI) are at most risk of losing their seat and its not because they're trash candidates. They're just Democratic Senators whose states always vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Assuming the Democratic Party holds all of their seats, they then need to flip two seats. Most of the Republican Senators are entrenched in extremely safe locations like Utah and Mississippi where no Democratic candidate has any chance of winning if we're being serious. Their best chance is to beat Jeff Flake's replacement (Arizona) and Dean Heller (Nevada), which most people predict will happen. Their next best bet is Tex Cruz in Texas, that's how bad the map is for the Democratic Party.
So its really isn't favorable setting unless you have no understanding of how Senate races go. You're basically saying a predominately urban left wing party is incompetent because they can't beat an entrenched agrarian socialist. No, its just hard to unseat incumbent candidates like that in places that would even contemplate supporting an agrarian socialist. No Democratic Senate candidate is ever going to beat Mitt Romney (Hatch's replacement) in Utah, no matter how competent the Democratic Party is and incompetent Donald Trump is.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
I know its your shtick to dump on the Democratic Party but there is a very, very good reason why why the Senate map is bad for the Democratic Party.
26 Democratic Senators are up for election while only 8 Republican Senators are. The Democratic Party needs to win two seats while holding onto every single one of theirs that is up for election. The vast majority of Democratic Senators up for election are in swing states or states that are turning conservative like Ohio. Of those, senators like Claire McCaskill (Missouri R+9 PVI) and Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota R+16 PVI) are at most risk of losing their seat and its not because they're trash candidates. They're just Democratic Senators whose states always vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Assuming the Democratic Party holds all of their seats, they then need to flip two seats. Most of the Republican Senators are entrenched in extremely safe locations like Utah and Mississippi where no Democratic candidate has any chance of winning if we're being serious. Their best chance is to beat Jeff Flake's replacement (Arizona) and Dean Heller (Nevada), which most people predict will happen. Their next best bet is Tex Cruz in Texas, that's how bad the map is for the Democratic Party.
So its really isn't favorable setting unless you have no understanding of how Senate races go. You're basically saying a predominately urban left wing party is incompetent because they can't beat an entrenched agrarian socialist. No, its just hard to unseat incumbent candidates like that in places that would even contemplate supporting an agrarian socialist.
They are running against people that are too cowardly act to remove what by most observations is seen to be quite probably the most brazenly incompetent, self-enriching, ideologically bankrupt president in our lives if not ever.
There should be no such thing as a safe seat for Republicans but for that Democrats have utterly failed to both engage the electorate with why they need to support them (beyond staving off the apocalypse, like something positive ya know?), and provide candidates that don't imitate the things people to their right detest most about their own politicians.
I know a lot of folks have given up on the 50%+ of this country that doesn't vote and think it has nothing to do with the bipartisan support of culling the electorate, but I'm of a mind that thinks a real opposition party could win any state in a given election (not that there wouldn't be favorites). Especially if Trump is even half as bad as we are all to reasonably believe.
On February 25 2018 07:32 TheLordofAwesome wrote: Dem's memo about Carter Page, the FBI, and FISC got released, if anybody cares. Would be interested to hear xDaunt and Danglars respond though.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
I know its your shtick to dump on the Democratic Party but there is a very, very good reason why why the Senate map is bad for the Democratic Party.
26 Democratic Senators are up for election while only 8 Republican Senators are. The Democratic Party needs to win two seats while holding onto every single one of theirs that is up for election. The vast majority of Democratic Senators up for election are in swing states or states that are turning conservative like Ohio. Of those, senators like Claire McCaskill (Missouri R+9 PVI) and Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota R+16 PVI) are at most risk of losing their seat and its not because they're trash candidates. They're just Democratic Senators whose states always vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Assuming the Democratic Party holds all of their seats, they then need to flip two seats. Most of the Republican Senators are entrenched in extremely safe locations like Utah and Mississippi where no Democratic candidate has any chance of winning if we're being serious. Their best chance is to beat Jeff Flake's replacement (Arizona) and Dean Heller (Nevada), which most people predict will happen. Their next best bet is Tex Cruz in Texas, that's how bad the map is for the Democratic Party.
So its really isn't favorable setting unless you have no understanding of how Senate races go. You're basically saying a predominately urban left wing party is incompetent because they can't beat an entrenched agrarian socialist. No, its just hard to unseat incumbent candidates like that in places that would even contemplate supporting an agrarian socialist.
They are running against people that are too cowardly act to remove what by most observations is seen to be quite probably the most brazenly incompetent, self-enriching, ideologically bankrupt president in our lives if not ever.
A lot of Republicans don't believe that. In CPAC is to be believed, they see people like Devin Nunes as worthy of awards. A steady diet of Fox News doesn't help in this regard either.
These are statewide elections and in states like Wyoming, a lot of people don't believe the allegations against Donald Trump or even care that he's doing it. They also don't really care about the President so long they feel their senator is doing a good job.
This is not new if you've done political work before. You're going to have a hard time unseating a National Party or Independent politician from rural Australian because they don't trust urbanites full stop. The electorate of New England still supports Barnaby Joyce, despite him being a garbage person, because he's pork-barrelled the shit out of New England, is member of the National Party and doesn't work with left wing politicians. My former electorate of Euroa is no different.
There should be no such thing as a safe seat for Republicans but for that Democrats have utterly failed to both engage the electorate with why they need to support them (beyond staving off the apocalypse, like something positive ya know?), and provide candidates that don't imitate the things people to their right detest most about their own politicians.
That's how Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp have their seats in deep red states, what are you even talking about? And in those cases, they're playing the same game as Joe Manchin.
There will always be safe seats for Republicans and Democrats. A Democrat is never, ever going to win a statewide political race in a religiously conservative state like Utah just like a Republican Senator hasn't won a senate seat in California for close to 30 years due to the national party's stance on certain issues. You think you can just find someone who can beat Mitt Romney, a very popular Mormon politician in a largely Mormon state?
I know a lot of folks have given up on the 50%+ of this country that doesn't vote and think it has nothing to do with the bipartisan support of culling the electorate, but I'm of a mind that thinks a real opposition party could win any state in a given election (not that there wouldn't be favorites). Especially if Trump is even half as bad as we are all to reasonably believe.
Again, safe seats are safe for a reason. It doesn't have anything to do with incompetency. It might not even have anything to do with Donald Trump. Some seats are just extremely difficult to unseat due to demographics and there is goddamn nothing you can do about this. The same reasons are also likely why the Democratic Party will pick up senate seats in Nevada and Arizona.
While I disagree with a lot of what Michael Steel says he was kinda like the RNC's Shep Smith but instead of being a ambiguously closeted liberal/centrist, he was an openly Black conservative with some remnants of dignity.
It was polite of The Observer to leave out the room nodding in agreement
The cake topper is the keynote at that event was none other than Judge Jeanine.
I honestly don't know which I find more pathetic, the roster of conservatives that lets someone like Judge Jeanine keynote a Reagan dinner or the roster of Democrats that can't beat them.
We'll see what happens in November. The pissed off party is the one that goes to midterms, and Republicans are not pissed off that Donald Trump is in office.
It's hard to imagine Democrats having much more of a favorable setting in which to mop the floor with Republicans but they've been remarkably cautious predicting even so much as a majority in the Senate (recently anyway, was basically a sure thing shortly after the election according to most) or some moderate pick ups. There's no indication that they can even imagine a situation where they hit a high water mark of Obama's presidency for which our grand prize was letting the banks off, 9 out of 10 people we're bombing with drones weren't the target, and enshrining insurance profits into law.
All that is to say, that even winning won't really be winning.
I know its your shtick to dump on the Democratic Party but there is a very, very good reason why why the Senate map is bad for the Democratic Party.
26 Democratic Senators are up for election while only 8 Republican Senators are. The Democratic Party needs to win two seats while holding onto every single one of theirs that is up for election. The vast majority of Democratic Senators up for election are in swing states or states that are turning conservative like Ohio. Of those, senators like Claire McCaskill (Missouri R+9 PVI) and Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota R+16 PVI) are at most risk of losing their seat and its not because they're trash candidates. They're just Democratic Senators whose states always vote overwhelmingly Republican.
Assuming the Democratic Party holds all of their seats, they then need to flip two seats. Most of the Republican Senators are entrenched in extremely safe locations like Utah and Mississippi where no Democratic candidate has any chance of winning if we're being serious. Their best chance is to beat Jeff Flake's replacement (Arizona) and Dean Heller (Nevada), which most people predict will happen. Their next best bet is Tex Cruz in Texas, that's how bad the map is for the Democratic Party.
So its really isn't favorable setting unless you have no understanding of how Senate races go. You're basically saying a predominately urban left wing party is incompetent because they can't beat an entrenched agrarian socialist. No, its just hard to unseat incumbent candidates like that in places that would even contemplate supporting an agrarian socialist.
They are running against people that are too cowardly act to remove what by most observations is seen to be quite probably the most brazenly incompetent, self-enriching, ideologically bankrupt president in our lives if not ever.
A lot of Republicans don't believe that. In CPAC is to be believed, they see people like Devin Nunes as worthy of awards. A steady diet of Fox News doesn't help in this regard either.
These are statewide elections and in states like Wyoming, a lot of people don't believe the allegations against Donald Trump or even care that he's doing it. They also don't really care about the President so long they feel their senator is doing a good job.
This is not new if you've done political work before. You're going to have a hard time unseating a National Party or Independent politician from rural Australian because they don't trust urbanites full stop. The electorate of New England still supports Barnaby Joyce, despite him being a garbage person, because he's pork-barrelled the shit out of New England, is member of the National Party and doesn't work with left wing politicians. My former electorate of Euroa is no different.
There should be no such thing as a safe seat for Republicans but for that Democrats have utterly failed to both engage the electorate with why they need to support them (beyond staving off the apocalypse, like something positive ya know?), and provide candidates that don't imitate the things people to their right detest most about their own politicians.
That's how Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp have their seats in deep red states, what are you even talking about?
There will always be safe seats for Republicans and Democrats. A Democrat is never, ever going to win a statewide political race in a religiously conservative state like Utah just like a Republican Senator hasn't won a senate seat in California for close to 30 years due to the national party's stance on certain issues. You think you can just find someone who can beat Mitt Romney, a very popular Mormon politician in a largely Mormon state?
I know a lot of folks have given up on the 50%+ of this country that doesn't vote and think it has nothing to do with the bipartisan support of culling the electorate, but I'm of a mind that thinks a real opposition party could win any state in a given election (not that there wouldn't be favorites). Especially if Trump is even half as bad as we are all to reasonably believe.
Again, safe seats are safe for a reason. It doesn't have anything to do with incompetency. It might not even have anything to do with Donald Trump. Some seats are just extremely difficult to unseat due to demographics and there is goddamn nothing you can do about this. The same reasons are also likely why the Democratic Party will pick up senate seats in Nevada and Arizona.
Seems like we don't really disagree about your perception of the political situation. We do disagree about whether it is correct or not. I'm not sure restating it helps in that regard, nor am I confident that you being right in a moment means it's an immutable law of the universe, and should therefore be accepted indefinitely.
None of these things support your initial claim that "the inadequacies of the Democratic party" are the reason why the Senate map of 2018 is unfavorable. We're not talking about the far future, we're talking about this year.
A Senate Map where you have to hold 28 seats, a good number of which are in swing or red states, while flipping 2 of 8 seats in mostly red states is bad map full stop. The fact that its even remotely a possibility is actually a sign of Trump's inadequacies and the Democratic Party doing a bit better this time round.
Even if the Democratic Party was "competent" and everyone agreed on Trump's incompetency, it would still be a bad map because you're not winning the senate if a single of those 28 loses their seat. Which is a big possibility unless you're running the table like Reagan did in the General Election (and even then, he didn't win Minnesota in 1984 due to Mondale hailing from that state).
On February 25 2018 13:13 Womwomwom wrote: None of these things support your initial claim that "the inadequacies of the Democratic party" are the reason why the Senate map of 2018 is unfavorable. We're not talking about the far future, we're talking about this year.
A Senate Map where you have to hold 28 seats, a good number of which are in swing or red states, while flipping 2 of 8 seats in mostly red states is bad map full stop. The fact that its even remotely a possibility is actually a sign of Trump's inadequacies and the Democratic Party doing a bit better this time round.
Even if the Democratic Party was "competent" and everyone agreed on Trump's incompetency, it would still be a bad map because you're not winning the senate if a single of those 28 loses their seat. Which is a big possibility unless you're running the table like Reagan (and even then, he didn't win Minnesota in 1984).
Well I think to address my argument we'd have to not limit our scope to a year or few. It's not as if these seats became "unwinnable" overnight and there was no hope to ever win them back, so any effort would have been wasted.
Which seems to be an inherent assumption in your argument.
On February 25 2018 13:13 Womwomwom wrote: None of these things support your initial claim that "the inadequacies of the Democratic party" are the reason why the Senate map of 2018 is unfavorable. We're not talking about the far future, we're talking about this year.
A Senate Map where you have to hold 28 seats, a good number of which are in swing or red states, while flipping 2 of 8 seats in mostly red states is bad map full stop. The fact that its even remotely a possibility is actually a sign of Trump's inadequacies and the Democratic Party doing a bit better this time round.
Even if the Democratic Party was "competent" and everyone agreed on Trump's incompetency, it would still be a bad map because you're not winning the senate if a single of those 28 loses their seat. Which is a big possibility unless you're running the table like Reagan (and even then, he didn't win Minnesota in 1984).
Well I think to address my argument we'd have to not limit our scope to a year or few. It's not as if these seats became "unwinnable" overnight and there was no hope to ever win them back, so any effort would have been wasted.
Which seems to be an inherent assumption in your argument.
Isn't your argument that these elections should be the best opportunity for the Democrats since a long time? How is this not limited to this year or next?
I'm not well-versed in the midterm election procedures, so be gentle if I misunderstood something.
Edit: re-read and I think I missed you talking about the past. But the president is in office for only a year and I think he should be the main focus of attack for the dems?
On February 25 2018 13:13 Womwomwom wrote: None of these things support your initial claim that "the inadequacies of the Democratic party" are the reason why the Senate map of 2018 is unfavorable. We're not talking about the far future, we're talking about this year.
A Senate Map where you have to hold 28 seats, a good number of which are in swing or red states, while flipping 2 of 8 seats in mostly red states is bad map full stop. The fact that its even remotely a possibility is actually a sign of Trump's inadequacies and the Democratic Party doing a bit better this time round.
Even if the Democratic Party was "competent" and everyone agreed on Trump's incompetency, it would still be a bad map because you're not winning the senate if a single of those 28 loses their seat. Which is a big possibility unless you're running the table like Reagan (and even then, he didn't win Minnesota in 1984).
Well I think to address my argument we'd have to not limit our scope to a year or few. It's not as if these seats became "unwinnable" overnight and there was no hope to ever win them back, so any effort would have been wasted.
Which seems to be an inherent assumption in your argument.
Isn't your argument that these elections should be the best opportunity for the Democrats since a long time? How is this not limited to this year or next?
I'm not well-versed in the midterm election procedures, so be gentle if I misunderstood something.
Well it wasn't limited to the senate, in that the whole house is up for election, but I forgot mention that part in my most recent rebuttal. By most favorable. I meant the aspects like "the angry party goes to the polls" and the garbage filled tire fire that is the GOP+Trump and being able to focus on a few particular big name races.
That would be had they not endorsed that whole bipartisan culling of the electorate in favor of trading safe states with the GOP in part leading to the situation you guys describe. In particular the "that's just the way it is" way that implies Democrats share little-no share of the responsibility for the electorates looking like they do for better or worse politically.
So perhaps I was unclear or assumed too much as far as leaving things not clearly articulated but my criticism wasn't limited to the context of this 2018 election without context beyond 2016 or 2018.
I don't expect Democrats to sweep either house in 2020 either. (I don't think they can be awful enough to not get a majority in either, but they've been known to surprise me in that way before).
For democratics to change the board like you want gh they would need a leader and image not unlike a reagon nixon or Kennedy. Sanders is unable to connect with white blue collar workers. Hillary and Pelosi are anathema to moderates and conservatives.
They dont really have an opportunity to annoit a new leader until 2020. Thats the issue with midterms. The opposition can rabble rouse but the party in control still holds the field.
On February 25 2018 13:56 Sermokala wrote: For democratics to change the board like you want gh they would need a leader and image not unlike a reagon nixon or Kennedy. Sanders is unable to connect with white blue collar workers. Hillary and Pelosi are anathema to moderates and conservatives.
They dont really have an opportunity to annoit a new leader until 2020. Thats the issue with midterms. The opposition can rabble rouse but the party in control still holds the field.
While I think a candidate like Sanders could go into a lot of these 'unwinnable' parts of the country and outperform a typical Democrat and potentially win the closer ones I don't view him as the dream candidate (for myself or otherwise) that I get the impression many here think I do.
Watching Sanders talk to Trump supporters in West Virginia I'm inclined to disagree with the notion he can't connect to blue collar workers (we're using this as a euphemism for somewhat backward rural white people right?). He also did pretty well with them in the primary (remember it was brown and black voters that were Hillary's 'firewall').
They easily could have had someone with integrity rise to be the brand of the Democratic party but they've done everything they could to squash that and pretend Bernie isn't the most popular politician in the country.
EDIT: JFC I forgot Hillary is campaigning with people for 2018...
On February 25 2018 13:56 Sermokala wrote: For democratics to change the board like you want gh they would need a leader and image not unlike a reagon nixon or Kennedy. Sanders is unable to connect with white blue collar workers. Hillary and Pelosi are anathema to moderates and conservatives.
They dont really have an opportunity to annoit a new leader until 2020. Thats the issue with midterms. The opposition can rabble rouse but the party in control still holds the field.
While I think a candidate like Sanders could go into a lot of these 'unwinnable' parts of the country and outperform a typical Democrat and potentially win the closer ones I don't view him as the dream candidate (for myself or otherwise) that I get the impression many here think I do.
Watching Sanders talk to Trump supporters in West Virginia I'm inclined to disagree with the notion he can't connect to blue collar workers (we're using this as a euphemism for somewhat backward rural white people right?). He also did pretty well with them in the primary (remember it was brown and black voters that were Hillary's 'firewall').
They easily could have had someone with integrity rise to be the brand of the Democratic party but they've done everything they could to squash that and pretend Bernie isn't the most popular politician in the country.
No theres a difference between deep conservative white people and the kind of union type labor workers who've voted democratic for years before trump came around. West Virginia coal miners went blue for generations. Asking a socialist to take the pulpit with them isn't really saying much. But you go to the other skilled trade workers who are richer like construction workers building windmills and green renovations, and you get a lot of blue voters and blue families that don't like san Francisco or new york politicians looking down on them.
Tldr they're they're the white people who moved to the suburbs or whos parents were in a union and would like those wages and benefits back.
Edit These were the voteres of Hillary's firewall while boosting minority urban turnout like obama. Unfortunately her ground game was hamstrung by the primary and she couldnt connect with poor white people.
EPT
