Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | 33 | 6.38% | |
No | 343 | 66.34% | |
Keith Ellison | 54 | 10.44% | |
Pete Buttigieg | 71 | 13.73% | |
Jehmu Green | 16 | 3.09% | |
Total: | 416 votes |
|
Fulchrum posted:I mistook your endless vapid whining Raskolnikov38 posted:turn on your monitor
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:43 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 17:51 |
|
Do you have any response other than that? Planning to try a 'lurk moar' or a Rick roll next?
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:48 |
|
Majorian posted:As someone else pointed out in the other thread, though, those are just the inner city areas. The whole Youngstown–Warren–Boardman metropolitan area is overwhelmingly white: almost 87%. The Y-W-B metro area is overwhelmingly white, yes...but as I pointed out in response, it's also a lot less poor, with a poverty rate of less than half of Youngstown itself. The Democratic candidate didn't get "their" votes, yes, but whose votes didn't they get? Was it the working-class whites who stayed home? Or was it the equally-numerous and even-poorer working-class blacks? Did it even have anything to do with poverty at all? The poorest county in Ohio (a 91% white coal county with 30% of the population under the poverty line) voted Clinton, while the richest county in Ohio (with a median household income of $88k and only 4.6% of the population in poverty) went for Trump. The counties that flipped from Obama to Trump tended to be on the high end of Ohio incomes, not the low end...which squares quite well with Ohio exit polls that show that higher incomes were far more likely to vote Trump. Certainly, Obama turned out a lot of voters that Hillary didn't, and part of that was a hopeful economic message that Hillary didn't have. But what sunk Hillary was high turnout among suburban middle-class whites and low turnout among poor minorities, not a wave of desperately poor white people mad that she wasn't talking enough about combating poverty. People tend to assume that "working class" means "poor", but that's not necessarily the case among white Rust Belters.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 21:16 |
|
One would assume that poor minorities are not less concerned about the economy than poor whites, from which it would follow that the Democrats not actually articulating much of an economic message could lead to said people staying home. On the other hand I've been told by Very Serious People that minorities will turn out in record numbers for Dear Abuela because Donald Trump Bad and we don't need the votes of people concerned about the economy anyway.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 22:33 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Do you have any response other than that? Planning to try a 'lurk moar' or a Rick roll next? well that's all up to you not posting about yourself
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 22:38 |
|
Fulchrum posted:I mistook your endless vapid whining for Kingfish's. It all sounds the same to me. You have 3 pages of garbage, angry child posts in this thread. I have one page and in all my posts I've tried to remain on topic. You would rather talk about Breitbart and cry about other posters.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 22:40 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Whereas you think if we just attack their heroes that will make them love us. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that literally all really rich (like hundreds of millions of dollars and up) people are bad people. I can't conceive of any reason to have that much money and not donate all but enough to lift comfortably to charity. It's basically like having a button that will instantly ease the pain (if not outright save the lives) of literally thousands of people and choosing not to press it. The closest thing to a reasonable excuse that I've heard is "if they keep the money they can continue to grow it and donate even more in the future," but you can always use that logic as an excuse to not take money away from the rich. It's also not at all clear that the return a rich person can achieve on his/her wealth are greater than the returns, both economic and social, of putting it to use helping people directly. I realize that "literally all rich people are bad" isn't exactly a good political strategy, but it doesn't make it any less true. And, at the very least, I think that making rich people as a class into a political target isn't a problem. You can still make exceptions for "good ones", but saying "it is absurd that super-rich people exist while people live in poverty" is completely fine and an easy to understand message. It's certainly not any less reasonable than targeting bigots, which I'm sure you'd agree isn't a problem (and the average rich person is causing a hell of a lot more harm than most individual bigots). edit: One thing to clarify is that, despite believing wealthy people are evil morally, I don't believe income/wealth caps should exist for pragmatic reasons. I think the best way to deal with redistribution is to simply have a very high effective tax rate. That way a rich person still has the motivation to continue working to increase his/her wealth, but most still manages to be redistributed. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 23:07 |
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that literally all really rich (like hundreds of millions of dollars and up) people are bad people. I can't conceive of any reason to have that much money and not donate all but enough to lift comfortably to charity. It's basically like having a button that will instantly ease the pain (if not outright save the lives) of literally thousands of people and choosing not to press it. You'd have far more success and would need to make way fewer caveats and distinctions if you just attacked the political philosophy that says that not only do the ultra rich deserve every dollar of that money, but that they should have more money, and asking them to pay taxes is heretical and theft. So by analogy, instead of attacking all white people because white people can be intensely racist, on average white people contribute to racism more, and all white people have benefited in some way from white privilege, you instead attack racism that holds white people up as inherently better, and only the people who support it, whatever race they be. Bill Gates is putting his money to curing Malaria, but no disease on this earth ever got cured by conservatism and libertarianism.I Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 23:15 |
|
Have you considered, Fulchrum, that your nonsense is not actually free of ideology and class interests, and that it actually might not resonate as much as you think among people who aren't milquetoast suburbanites who wish the republicans would just drop the racism and the sexism so they could start voting for them like good petty bourgeois
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 23:26 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Y-W-B metro area is overwhelmingly white, yes...but as I pointed out in response, it's also a lot less poor, with a poverty rate of less than half of Youngstown itself. That's still over 17 percent, which is pretty high. The national average is between 13-15%. quote:The Democratic candidate didn't get "their" votes, yes, but whose votes didn't they get? Was it the working-class whites who stayed home? Or was it the equally-numerous and even-poorer working-class blacks? Given the pattern of formerly-blue Rust Belt and rural districts going over to Trump, in lily white and racially diverse areas alike, it seems pretty clear that poor white voters played a significant role. Obama won Iowa by more than 9 points in 2008, and still held it by almost six points in 2012. Yet Clinton lost it by ten points in 2016. Trump won Maine-2 by 12 points; Obama won it by eight in 2012. quote:Did it even have anything to do with poverty at all? The poorest county in Ohio (a 91% white coal county with 30% of the population under the poverty line) voted Clinton, Athens is a college town. The University of Ohio is there, and is the biggest employer in the town. It's an outlier. In the meantime, Trump won 80 of Ohio's 88 counties; no one has done that since Reagan. Nine of those had voted for Obama in 2012. Five of those who flipped between '12 and '16 have been in the throws of the opioid epidemic: quote:In Ohio, 26 counties reported around 20 or more drug overdose deaths per 100,000 people in 2015. In all but two of these counties, Frydl said there was at least a 10 percent surge in voters who went to Trump compared with Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, a 10 percent or more drop in voters who went to Hillary Clinton compared with Obama, or both of these trends. In five counties, the shift was big enough for the county to flip from Democrat in 2012 to Republican in 2016. As the piece points out, there is also a strong correlation between declining public health outcomes, and communities that flipped. Like it or not, white rural/Rust Belt poverty and overall misery played a significant role in handing Trump the victory. We can debate over whether or not it played a bigger or smaller role than other particular factors, but to suggest that it simply didn't play any role at all, as you have, is pretty myopic. The Democrats' fortunes aren't going to turn around until centrists in the party start owning up to their mistaken assumptions. e: NPR had a good piece a week after the election on the districts turned traditionally blue states red: quote:But in Wisconsin — the state that ended up putting Trump over the top in the electoral vote early Wednesday morning — 22 counties that had once voted for Obama switched to Trump. Some of those counties — such as Sawyer, Forest and Adams — have some of the highest unemployment rates in the state. I don't think anyone is arguing that it was ONLY poor whites who made the difference, but to flat-out deny that it played any significant role is burying your head in the sand. Especially when writers like Nate Cohn kind of called it months before the election. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 23:28 |
|
Fulchrum posted:You'd have far more success and would need to make way fewer caveats and distinctions if you just attacked the political philosophy that says that not only do the ultra rich deserve every dollar of that money, but that they should have more money, and asking them to pay taxes is heretical and theft. Right. Therefore, the democrats must demonize the 0.1%. I said this a page ago, and I think you somehow read it as "the democrats need to get on TV and tell everyone that oprah is a fat bitch and Iron Man has rusty armpits." While I think we all learned a lot about each other from that exchange, I'd like to give you a chance to go back and think about what I said, and maybe see that we're saying the same basic thing here.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 23:40 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Right. Therefore, the democrats must demonize the 0.1%. Wait, do you actually think both that there does not exist a rich person who ever.votes for increasing their own taxes, and that there are no poor people in America who ever voted for lowering taxes on the rich? Cause that's the only possible way I can see you not getting the distinction here.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:05 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Wait, do you actually think both that there does not exist a rich person who ever.votes for increasing their own taxes, and that there are no poor people in America who ever voted for lowering taxes on the rich? Cause that's the only possible way I can see you not getting the distinction here. When was the last times the dems objectively increased taxes at the federal level? Also yes, it's very possible. You're still absolutely not getting the point because you'd rather assume that every american is a groveling petty bourgeois who blesses the ground oligarchs step on.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:12 |
|
Agnosticnixie posted:When was the last times the dems objectively increased taxes at the federal level? More precisely, there's a difference between the "wealthy and glamorous" (movie stars & celebrities), and corporate raiders like Jamie Dimon. The public associates George Clooney and Katy Perry and (God help us) the Kardashians with glamour. Those are the multi-millionaires that they admire. They may envy Wall Street crooks' money, but they also know that they are the ones responsible for a lot of their economic woes.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:18 |
|
Agnosticnixie posted:When was the last times the dems objectively increased taxes at the federal level? The last time they held the House and the Senate in a veto-proof capacity. 7 years ago today. Majorian posted:More precisely, there's a difference between the "wealthy and glamorous" (movie stars & celebrities), and corporate raiders like Jamie Dimon. The public associates George Clooney and Katy Perry and (God help us) the Kardashians with glamour. Those are the multi-millionaires that they admire. They may envy Wall Street crooks' money, but they also know that they are the ones responsible for a lot of their economic woes. If only we could, say, point out some kind of political ideology that actively enabled wall street crooks and tries to weaken regulations on them, instead of just attacking them all. Sadly, such distinction doesn't exist, as George Clooney is exactly as in favor of deregulation wall street as Jamie Dimon.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:31 |
|
Fulchrum posted:If only we could, say, point out some kind of political ideology that actively enabled wall street crooks and tries to weaken regulations on them I hate to tell you, but a certain abuelita was a big fan of this very ideology.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:41 |
|
If you can't make your point without falling back on "both parties are the same", maybe the point isn't worth making.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:49 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you can't make your point without falling back on "both parties are the same", maybe the point isn't worth making. That's not what I'm saying, though. Centrist Dems did, in fact, buy too much into neoliberalism, and that hurt the Dems' electoral prospects this time around.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:55 |
|
Majorian posted:Given the pattern of formerly-blue Rust Belt and rural districts going over to Trump, in lily white and racially diverse areas alike, it seems pretty clear that poor white voters played a significant role. Obama won Iowa by more than 9 points in 2008, and still held it by almost six points in 2012. Yet Clinton lost it by ten points in 2016. Trump won Maine-2 by 12 points; Obama won it by eight in 2012. It seems perfectly clear that poor voters played a significant role, at least. Poor white areas overperformed for Trump, poor non-white areas underperformed for Hillary, and racially diverse areas did both...so why the eagerness to keep pointing at white people specifically rather than acknowledging her general overarching failure to gain traction among poor people of any race? Yes, counties with dying industries and opioid problems swung toward Trump, but that doesn't have anything to do with race! Rust Belt poverty isn't just white poverty, there's poor people of all races there. The "white working-class" narrative just translates to being nicer to the great white suburban expanses of the Rust Belt while ignoring the Flints and Youngstowns where the poverty is most concentrated.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 00:55 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:It seems perfectly clear that poor voters played a significant role, at least. Poor white areas overperformed for Trump, poor non-white areas underperformed for Hillary, and racially diverse areas did both...so why the eagerness to keep pointing at white people specifically rather than acknowledging her general overarching failure to gain traction among poor people of any race? Because it's illustrative of how far the Democrats have drifted from arguing for a platform that includes a strong social safety net, funded by taxing the wealthy. These are communities that have traditionally been Democrat-leaning, and for the last couple decades, they've been really suffering. Bill Clinton's policies played a part in that, and while I think Obama helped alleviate their pain a bit, his administration didn't accomplish enough to give them the relief that they needed. Clinton came off as thoroughly apathetic towards their misery. That's a bad look for the Democrats, when they're trying to portray themselves as the defenders of the underrepresented and the dispossessed. quote:The "white working-class" narrative just translates to being nicer to the great white suburban expanses of the Rust Belt while ignoring the Flints and Youngstowns where the poverty is most concentrated. But again, nobody is arguing in favor of strengthening the social safety net exclusively for poor whites. Far from it - pretty much every economic justice-minded left-Dem and socialist in the U.S. will acknowledge that social welfare programs that help minorities overcome structural disadvantages need to be baked into the platform from the get-go. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 24, 2017 |
# ? Mar 24, 2017 01:00 |
|
Majorian posted:That's not what I'm saying, though. Centrist Dems did, in fact, buy too much into neoliberalism, and that hurt the Dems' electoral prospects this time around. That argument is making me feel nostalgic. Majorian posted:Because it's illustrative of how far the Democrats have drifted from arguing for a platform that includes a strong social safety net, funded by taxing the wealthy. These are communities that have traditionally been Democrat-leaning, and for the last couple decades, they've been really suffering. Bill Clinton's policies played a part in that, and while I think Obama helped alleviate their pain a bit, his administration didn't accomplish enough to give them the relief that they needed. Clinton came off as thoroughly apathetic towards their misery. That's a bad look for the Democrats, when they're trying to portray themselves as the defenders of the underrepresented and the dispossessed. This just isn't true, expanding social welfare was baked in. The platform was as progressive in 2016 as it has ever been. Obamacare was the biggest expansion of the safety net in a generation. The narrative that voters punished democrats for moving right just does not comport with reality, unless it's all about Hillary Clinton as a messenger and not about actual policy.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 01:09 |
|
Majorian posted:That's not what I'm saying, though. Centrist Dems did, in fact, buy too much into neoliberalism, and that hurt the Dems' electoral prospects this time around. Didn't the Dems vote against the TPP and the Republicans vote for TPP? Didn't those voters en masse vote Republican, despite the fact they supported TPP and more free trade?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 01:19 |
|
Majorian posted:Because it's illustrative of how far the Democrats have drifted from arguing for a platform that includes a strong social safety net, funded by taxing the wealthy. These are communities that have traditionally been Democrat-leaning, and for the last couple decades, they've been really suffering. Bill Clinton's policies played a part in that, and while I think Obama helped alleviate their pain a bit, his administration didn't accomplish enough to give them the relief that they needed. Clinton came off as thoroughly apathetic towards their misery. That's a bad look for the Democrats, when they're trying to portray themselves as the defenders of the underrepresented and the dispossessed. So, again, why say "poor whites" rather than "poor people"? It's an odd and out-of-place addition if your point is just that Dems haven't done enough for the economically disadvantaged, which is certainly true.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 01:43 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:So, again, why say "poor whites" rather than "poor people"? It's an odd and out-of-place addition if your point is just that Dems haven't done enough for the economically disadvantaged, which is certainly true. Well, remember, this discussion grew out of someone in the Trump Admin thread saying that poor white people who voted for Trump deserve to suffer from lack of health care. If you read my commentary on the topic in other threads, you'll see that I'm pretty insistent on the Dems running on helping the poor and disadvantaged across the board. Mooseontheloose posted:Didn't the Dems vote against the TPP and the Republicans vote for TPP? Clinton hemmed and hawed on the issue throughout most of the campaign, leading a lot of people to speculate that she favored it. She eventually came out against it, but Terry McAuliffe, her friend and 2008 campaign chair, said she was secretly in favor of it. Overall, the Dems were divided on it, and Obama supported it. JeffersonClay posted:This just isn't true, expanding social welfare was baked in. The platform was as progressive in 2016 as it has ever been. Obamacare was the biggest expansion of the safety net in a generation. That's a pretty low hurdle there, you realize. Obamacare was a good thing, but it was a pretty limited expansion of the safety net, especially after decades of it being eroded by Republicans and Democrats alike. The fact of the matter is, a lot of poor communities didn't get the relief that they needed under the Obama Administration. One can argue that that wasn't all their fault, and that it was in fact mostly the fault of the Republicans, and I would mostly agree with that. But I'm a political junkie. I don't have to work three part-time jobs to keep me and my family alive. I have the time and energy to actually pay attention to this poo poo. A lot of poor rural and Rust Belt voters don't have these luxuries. They just know poo poo for them and their communities got worse under Obama.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 01:55 |
|
Majorian posted:Well, remember, this discussion grew out of someone in the Trump Admin thread saying that poor white people who voted for Trump deserve to suffer from lack of health care. If you read my commentary on the topic in other threads, you'll see that I'm pretty insistent on the Dems running on helping the poor and disadvantaged across the board. ACA was like a 25% expansion to Medicaid (58m - 70m plus another 2m in the non-expansion states) enrollment before you even get into the marketplace subsidies
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 02:10 |
|
Majorian posted:That's a pretty low hurdle there, you realize. Obamacare was a good thing, but it was a pretty limited expansion of the safety net, especially after decades of it being eroded by Republicans and Democrats alike. The fact of the matter is, a lot of poor communities didn't get the relief that they needed under the Obama Administration. One can argue that that wasn't all their fault, and that it was in fact mostly the fault of the Republicans, and I would mostly agree with that. But I'm a political junkie. I don't have to work three part-time jobs to keep me and my family alive. I have the time and energy to actually pay attention to this poo poo. A lot of poor rural and Rust Belt voters don't have these luxuries. They just know poo poo for them and their communities got worse under Obama. So Obama helped, but not enough? I guess that's possible, but the narrative that Democrats were punished for moving to the right is plainly false.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 02:11 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:So Obama helped, but not enough? I guess that's possible, but the narrative that Democrats were punished for moving to the right is plainly false. If you move four steps to the right and then half a step to the left, you've still moved more to the right overall. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:ACA was like a 25% expansion to Medicaid (58m - 70m plus another 2m in the non-expansion states) enrollment before you even get into the marketplace subsidies Per the NYT: quote:Surveys show that most enrollees in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces are happy with their plans. The Trump voters in our focus groups were representative of people who had not fared as well. Several described their frustration with being forced to change plans annually to keep premiums down, losing their doctors in the process. But asked about policies found in several Republican plans to replace the Affordable Care Act — including a tax credit to help defray the cost of premiums, a tax-preferred savings account and a large deductible typical of catastrophic coverage — several of these Trump voters recoiled, calling such proposals “not insurance at all.” One of those plans has been proposed by Representative Tom Price, Mr. Trump’s nominee to be secretary of Health and Human Services. These voters said they did not understand health savings accounts and displayed skepticism about the concept. These people thought they'd get a better health care deal out of Trump. They were sold a line by a conman.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 02:31 |
|
Majorian posted:If you move four steps to the right and then half a step to the left, you've still moved more to the right overall. It doesn't make any sense that the electorate would punish the democrats for moving to the right decades ago by picking the first opportunity after they move left to punish them.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:27 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:So Obama helped, but not enough? I guess that's possible, but the narrative that Democrats were punished for moving to the right is plainly false. JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't make any sense that the electorate would punish the democrats for moving to the right decades ago by picking the first opportunity after they move left to punish them.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:32 |
|
It's going to be great getting blamed for 2018 by dumb fuckers like you.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:33 |
|
JC are you a rehabilitated libertarian? You need to drop the idea that humans are mainly self-interested, rational actors. You also need to jump off a cliff.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:35 |
|
Kilroy posted:You have got to be the most clueless fucker I've ever heard of. "So Obama helped, but not enough? I guess that possible" I'm loving dying.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:53 |
|
Kilroy posted:JC are you a rehabilitated libertarian? You need to drop the idea that humans are mainly self-interested, rational actors. You also need to jump off a cliff. How do you square saying that with the idea that it was definitely Hillary's "neoliberalism" than sunk her?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 03:55 |
|
7c Nickel posted:How do you square saying that with the idea that it was definitely Hillary's "neoliberalism" than sunk her? Hillary Clinton lost a close election for any one of about a dozen reasons, including neoliberalism. The Democratic Party has spent the last 8 years getting annihilated on national, state and local levels because of neoliberal Democrats high-5'ing each other while their Wall Street and corporate overlords continued to merrily rape and pillage the future of America. The jig is up and Americans are slowly figuring out that neither party actually gives a gently caress about them as the past 40 years have shown them. The only question is how many more scapegoats Republicans and Democrats can find. For Republicans its brown people and poors, for Democrats its guns and poor whites.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 04:13 |
|
7c Nickel posted:How do you square saying that with the idea that it was definitely Hillary's "neoliberalism" than sunk her?
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 04:58 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't make any sense that the electorate would punish the democrats for moving to the right decades ago by picking the first opportunity after they move left to punish them. They don't really pay attention to whether or not Obamacare was "right wing" or "left wing." All they care about is whether or not they were covered for their conditions, whether or not their premiums went up, whether or not their communities were getting less depressed, whether or not the opioid epidemic stopped destroying everything around them. Under Obama, their communities continued to suffer, and again, I'm fully aware that the Republicans deserve way more of the blame for that than Obama does. But we know that because we're political junkies who have the time, energy, and education to find this poo poo out. They have none of those things, so they blame the guy in charge. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Mar 24, 2017 |
# ? Mar 24, 2017 05:15 |
|
Majorian posted:They don't really pay attention to whether or not Obamacare was "right wing" or "left wing." All they care about is whether or not they were covered for their conditions, whether or not their premiums went up, whether or not their communities were getting less depressed, whether or not the opioid epidemic stopped destroying everything around them. Under Obama, their communities continued to suffer, and again, I'm fully aware that the Republicans deserve way more of the blame for that than Obama does. But we know that because we're political junkies who have the time, energy, and education to find this poo poo out. They have none of those things, so they blame the guy in charge. So all that means is that the Dems need a giant gently caress-off finger to point at Republicans and scream "it was them!". Policy is irrelevant if blame is going to be misapplied and one side is intentionally starting fires just so they can blame the other.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 05:33 |
|
Fulchrum posted:So all that means is that the Dems need a giant gently caress-off finger to point at Republicans and scream "it was them!". Policy is irrelevant if blame is going to be misapplied and one side is intentionally starting fires just so they can blame the other. No, you need to give people reasons to vote FOR you and not just AGAINST your opponent. Good policy accomplishes this. The fact that anyone needs to be told this lesson after the 2016 election is loving mind boggling.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 05:34 |
|
Fulchrum posted:So all that means is that the Dems need a giant gently caress-off finger to point at Republicans and scream "it was them!". Policy is irrelevant if blame is going to be misapplied and one side is intentionally starting fires just so they can blame the other. You have been beaten so soundly by the republican party that the thought of them retaliating is enough for you to condemn the very concept of doing anything. Who hurt you, man. This is verging on pathology.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 05:39 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 17:51 |
|
Majorian posted:They don't really pay attention to whether or not Obamacare was "right wing" or "left wing." All they care about is whether or not they were covered for their conditions, whether or not their premiums went up, whether or not their communities were getting less depressed, whether or not the opioid epidemic stopped destroying everything around them. Under Obama, their communities continued to suffer, and again, I'm fully aware that the Republicans deserve way more of the blame for that than Obama does. But we know that because we're political junkies who have the time, energy, and education to find this poo poo out. They have none of those things, so they blame the guy in charge. Then it follows that they'll blame trump for conditions getting worse under his tenure and these voters will inevitably return to the democrats, who need change nothing to win the next election. Haven't you completely undercut your original point here? Voters can't be punishing Dems for bill Clinton's welfare policies if they don't understand policy and just retaliate against the party in power when they don't like present conditions.
|
# ? Mar 24, 2017 05:57 |