Which party raised taxes on the wealthy during Obama's Administration? The Democrats.
Which party wanted the Bush tax-cuts on the wealthy made permanent? The Republicans.
Which party wants to cuts taxes on the wealthy now? The Republicans.
Which party wants to raise the Social Security retirement age? The Republicans.
Which party is resisting raising the Social Security retirement age? The Democrats.
What the Republicans are good at doing is pandering to the down-on-their-luck worker; promise them that they'll get their high-paying coal and manufacturing jobs back, and then do nothing substantive. Republicans are good at painting Democrats as "elite." By now there’s a whole genre of media portraits of working-class Trump supporters (there are even parody versions). You know what I mean: interviews with down-on-their-luck rural whites who are troubled to learn that all those liberals who warned them that they would be hurt by Trump policies (e.g. slashing Health Care; cutting Medicaid; cutting training programs) were right, but still support Mr. Trump, because they believe that liberal elites look down on them and think they’re stupid. Hmm....
Those coal jobs are never coming back. The Democrats see new technology, such as solar, that employs 10X more workers than coal, as the solution.
Oh, on exporting jobs. Which party stood in the way of Democratic action to stop subsidies for exporting jobs? Hint: The Hill: Senate Republicans block bill to end tax breaks for outsourcing
"The average working American" is not "predominantly college educated" - which is what your payscale data purport to show if you read the fine print.That's not what the data says. More people from incomes less than $75,000 voted for Obama than Romney and above $100,000 a year voted for Romney over Obama.
What we is an education divide.
As for losing centrists by moving to the left.... Who else were they going to vote for? Donald Trump is anything but an option for centrists.
Coals never coming back, huh ?
First new coal mine of Trump era opens up in Pennsylvania
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56330
That's not what the data says. More people from incomes less than $75,000 voted for Obama than Romney and above $100,000 a year voted for Romney over Obama.
What we is an education divide.
In table form, we can see that more wealthy people vote Republican; the middle-class ($0-99K) are even and below $40K are more Democrats:
That mine was in the works for a long time before Trump was on the scene and also has almost no impact on coal employment. What it did do is provide D.T. with a photo-op -- and that was the purpose. Coal employment has been decreasing for 100 years. Trump isn't going to change that market force.
I'm thinking you either didn't read my post or completely misunderstood it.
I was not suggesting centrists would move to Trump if Clinton had moved left. I actually flat out suggested they likely wouldn't have, and it was ONLY because the opposition was someone like Donald Trump that such a tactic would work in this specific election. My assertion regarding losing moderates and centrists by moving hard to the left was talking broader than just "this election", as when you are talking about where we are "as a country" you're making a statement not about a SPECIFIC election cycle but a generalized stance that would be true even outside of the current set of circumstances.
As I noted, I don't think it's an unreasonable position, at all, to suggest that had Hillary actually tried to embrace farther left policies or people more adamantly she likely could have came out on top in this election. I think it is a unreasonable assumption, however, to suggest that "as a country", a Democrat going hard left would simply make electoral victory likely regardless of whether the candidate was one like Donald Trump or someone like a Rubio or Kasich instead.
I seriously doubt that but, hopefully next time the Democrats will produce a left wing candidate that actually contrasts from Republicans. So, we can bear this argument out. Everyone also said Corbyn would be the death of Labour and what happened over there. That comparison isn't exactly apples to apples but, I feel like it is no small comment on how wrong conventional wisdom can be during politically turbulent times.
There is demand for coal but due to mechanization the industry uses far fewer workers. The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’sHad HRC won, it would not have been opened up. If there was no demand for coal, or coal workers , it would not have opened.
Coal jobs did come back, and no renewables are no where near as cost effective as more dependable fossil fuel alternatives.
Experts in the industry have already pointed out, repeatedly, that the coal jobs are extremely unlikely to come back. The plight of the coal industry is more a function of changing energy markets and increased demand for natural gas than anything else.
The chief executive of the nation's largest privately held coal operation told the Guardian earlier this month that Trump “can't bring back.”
How do you figure that turning over control of 1/6th our economy yo the gov is a moderate position? That seems like a drastic solution.I understood your point that had the Republicans nominated a more reasonable candidate, they wouldn't risk losing centrists. My response may have came out wrong or jumbled. I believe American politics is at an inflection point due to demographic changes, low approval for both parties, and just an anti-establishment air. I think Democrats are facing an identity crisis. Things that are cardinal sins to people on the right, like single-payer healthcare, are in fact moderate positions to the rest of the world. I think that the American electorate is waking up to this. And if the Democrats are to have success, I would run unapolegtically on a single-payer platform. Something the Democrats are too far to the right to do.
And I believe that a strong progressive can run and beat a Rubio or Kasich at a national level. So, believe me I understand you and value your thoughts, but, I'm not in complete agreement with them.
I'm thinking you either didn't read my post or completely misunderstood it.
I was not suggesting centrists would move to Trump if Clinton had moved left. I actually flat out suggested they likely wouldn't have, and it was ONLY because the opposition was someone like Donald Trump that such a tactic would work in this specific election. My assertion regarding losing moderates and centrists by moving hard to the left was talking broader than just "this election", as when you are talking about where we are "as a country" you're making a statement not about a SPECIFIC election cycle but a generalized stance that would be true even outside of the current set of circumstances.
As I noted, I don't think it's an unreasonable position, at all, to suggest that had Hillary actually tried to embrace farther left policies or people more adamantly she likely could have came out on top in this election. I think it is a unreasonable assumption, however, to suggest that "as a country", a Democrat going hard left would simply make electoral victory likely regardless of whether the candidate was one like Donald Trump or someone like a Rubio or Kasich instead.
I understood your point that had the Republicans nominated a more reasonable candidate, they wouldn't risk losing centrists. My response may have came out wrong or jumbled. I believe American politics is at an inflection point due to demographic changes, low approval for both parties, and just an anti-establishment air. I think Democrats are facing an identity crisis. Things that are cardinal sins to people on the right, like single-payer healthcare, are in fact moderate positions to the rest of the world. I think that the American electorate is waking up to this. And if the Democrats are to have success, I would run unapolegtically on a single-payer platform. Something the Democrats are too far to the right to do.
And I believe that a strong progressive can run and beat a Rubio or Kasich at a national level. So, believe me I understand you and value your thoughts, but, I'm not in complete agreement with them.
I think it was the "anti-Trumpism" that lost them the race.A day after the election, Democrats are left with the bitter hope of another tighter-than-usual margin, still searching for a contest where anti-Trump energy and flush campaign coffers actually add up to victory.
Despite their remarks now on the insignificance of this race in Georgia, Democrats invested heavily, this was very important to them.Republicans immediately crowed over winning a seat Democrats spent at least $30 million trying to flip. "Democrats from coast to coast threw everything they had at this race, and Karen would not be defeated," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.
That movement to impeach Trump seems increasingly impossible.Democrats must defend their current districts and win 24 GOP-held seats to regain a House majority next November. Party leaders profess encouragement from the trends, but the latest losses mean they will have to rally donors and volunteers after a tough stretch of special elections.
This race did present two clashing archetypes, the funding and rhetoric made it into a national contest.Handel often embraced the national tenor of the race, joining a GOP chorus that lambasted Ossoff as a "dangerous liberal" who was "hand-picked" by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. She also welcomed a parade of national GOP figures to Atlanta to help her raise money, with Ryan and Vice President Mike Pence holding fundraisers following Trump's April visit.
And the people in Georgia support this view (like probably more than just a few outside the liberal bubble). Also do note Trump won here by just 1%, yesterday's special election shows how, despite drooping popularity ratings (according to the polls), more people support his policies than when he got elected.Handel mostly echoes the GOP line. She said she would have voted for the House Republican health care bill, though she sometimes misrepresented its provisions in debates with Ossoff.
She touts supply side economics, going so far as to say during one debate that she does "not support a living wage" — her way of explaining her opposition to a minimum-wage increase.
Associated Press
How do you figure that turning over control of 1/6th our economy yo the gov is a moderate position? That seems like a drastic solution.
Thats like me saying congress should pass a law requiring everyone to own a gun is a moderate position.
Imo the single biggest blunder for clinton was getting caught on mic calling gop voters deplorables. She had plemty of baggage to begin with but that was very insulting and a huge turn off for many in the middle.I should clarify something so you feel understood. The original argument was Clinton not losing centrists by moving left, because she was facing Trump. However, if the Republicans had nominated someone more reasonable, Clinton may not have had the advantage of holding onto centrists, had the centrists had an option on the right.
We were discussing single payerPolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
The idea that the government, through regulation, requires that private individuals purchase private policies from private insurance companies is, "a government takeover," is absurd on its face.
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:
So Rachel came up with an unusual "aha" comment about the weather to explain the loss? :lamo At least it wasn't one of the same old, same old explanations we've become accustomed to hearing! :no:
Because the race was held in a traditonay republican district dems were claiming that flipping it would be a repudiation of trump and a sign of the things to come in the midterms.
The reality is they put everything they had into it and now will pretend their loss means nothing bevause it was a deeply red district.
The fact is that they ran a young charismatic candidate to appeal to millenials.
They tried to appeal to the anti-trump conservatives by claiming this election was a refredum on trump.
They went to court and got the right yo register new voters that did not vote in the election that created the runoff. So they nrought in nee voters to beat her.
They spent 23 million in advertising
They had pollsters claiming they were ahead by 7 points 2 weeks before the election and then changed it a tenth of a point the day of the election.
They pulled out all the stops and the end result is that they lost by 5%.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
The right was taught a lesson when their voters allowed dems to sweep all 3 houses. Now they are being given a 2nd chance. We will see if they blow it. Dems will get their 2nd chance too its just a question of when. Public sentiment seems to suggest we are not ready to revisit tjeir brand of leadership yet. They need to run moderates.Yup, they threw everything they had at this, and are trying to spin it into a postive.. Lol
They didnt spend 22 millon to come in second
This is something lefties overlook when they highlight how Republican Georgia has long been.Republicans can also now breathe a sigh of relief with the knowledge that they can still win in the kind of affluent, educated districts that often favor Democrats (even with a president who has divided voters in their own party).
And this spending was disproportionately by Ossof's campaign, which took in far more money from outside the State than from within.Spending on the race reached at least $57 million, nearly twice the previous record, according to the Center for Responsive Politics watchdog group.
Not only that, but Handel won by more than Trump did, one would sensibly conclude the constituents here are not just more Republican, but also less Democrat than when the last campaign.Despite spending more than $30 million, Ossoff lost the district by a wider margin than Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Democrats look to future after big loss in Georgia election | Reuters
An honest appraisal from a DP Left of Center Poster -
The District 6 race in Georgia held more interest than Mulvaney's former seat in South Carolina. Ossoff, only 30 years old, does not live in the district. He had never run for elected office before. He ran in a district that has elected GOP candidates, without exception, for like 4 decades.
Yeah, I had my hopes up for an upset. I didn't bet money on it. Well before the MSM called the race for Handel, I had already muted the sound on my TV. I laugh at how effectively this tempered my disappointment.
Just as a reminder, Obama ran for a Congressional seat in Illinois. None of us remember U.S. Representative Obama.... grin grin... because he lost. Instead, we remember Senator Obama and President Obama.
Congratulations to all of you who rooted for Handel. I happen to have a best friend with that last name, so therein lied another smile!
There is demand for coal but due to mechanization the industry uses far fewer workers. The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’s
Forbes: Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined
John Oliver: it’s time for Trump to stop lying to coal miners (Video)
You should have seen it, Pol.
It was the same just-got-kicked-in-the-cullions look she had Nov 9, 2016.
Liberals stand for something too. They stand for Large Corporate Banks and escalating wars overseas that average Americans are expected to fight and die in.What the Democrats need is a positive message. Their strategy seems to be more focused on getting people to vote against Republicans rather than for them.
Bernie Sanders actually put forth a positive message. I disagreed with it but at least he stood FOR something.
Yup, they threw everything they had at this, and are trying to spin it into a postive.. Lol
They didnt spend 22 millon to come in second
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?