Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to mention that the people who have the lowest birthrates by far are white urban yuppies/hipsters. In other words, pretty much the entirety of the white portion of the Democrat coalition. Truck drivers in central PA and secretaries in Pittsburgh have children, I assure you.
Truck drivers in PA are going to get crushed by the donor class who rule anyway. You try and see what happens when you gut Medicare and rip health care from millions of obese truck drivers in PA with pre-existing heart attacks on their medical history. Its going to get brutal.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would be a great choice for 2020 for the Democrats:
Demographics is not on the Democrats' side. As younger people grow up, they shed the ignorance and left-wing indoctrination that is the signature trait of most millennials, and the same trait that makes them vote Democrat. Liberal ideology isn't based on the real world, nor does it have appeal to people who operate in the real world, so as people mature liberalism becomes less and less attractive.
Once the border wall is built and the immigration laws are enforced, the left won't be able to count on millions of non-citizens voting, which will also hurt them at the polls.
You forgot that black people still vote,and hispanics are a big demographic even though people like you believe they are all illegals.
Those are 2 huge voting blocs of the Democratic Party.
Truck drivers in PA are going to get crushed by the donor class who rule anyway. You try and see what happens when you gut Medicare and rip health care from millions of obese truck drivers in PA with pre-existing heart attacks on their medical history. Its going to get brutal.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would be a great choice for 2020 for the Democrats:
If Democrats were smart, they would run a white male in the 2020 Presidential election. The current gripe among middle Americans with the Democratic Party is that it too often plays identity politics, often in favor of the minority. This has killed the Democratic Party's chances (at least in the present) with the white working class, which was apparent in this election (Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.).
Democrats NEED to prove, and quickly, that they are not an enemy of the white working class. I could not believe how quickly Tim Ryan (a young, white, well-spoken Democratic representative from the Youngstown, OH area) was passed over for House Minority Leader for Nancy Pelosi. Tim Ryan is the kind of guy that Democrats need in SOME kind of leadership position to grow the party with the white working class.
Joe Biden could have won this election. He has the charm, personality, and background to appeal to these disaffected former Democrats. Tim Kaine may actually be a strong candidate in 2020, but I feel that he will be passed over simply for being a white male.
Over the past 8 or so years, Democrats have taken identity politics to the extreme. The losses in all levels of government for Democrats during the Obama years are staggering (from local to federal). There needs to be a realignment in Democratic strategy, and playing the same games will not help. Trump, perhaps the most unappealing candidate to both women and minorities and decades, won over the first female nominee. Americans, including women and minorities, are obviously not buying into it.
They would be wise if they ran someone honest and competent.
In other words, the exact opposite of who they found for 2016.
Instead of looking for a "white male" or the first female president, or the next black president, or the first Latino, or the first Chinese/Japanese transvestite who was formerly Buddhist..... how about they just nominate the best person for the job?
Same here. I'm a Republican who would have considered voting for him over Trump. I like his old-school style and affectionate personality.
"Affectionate personality", McFeelThemBiden. Many are offended by the public groping of women and girls by an man who seemed to feel entitled to do that. I suspect he may have been drinking alcohol prior to doing this, so I hope he gets the help he needs. He is gross and would not have won and could not in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow
Until CA and NY are audited to identify the extent of Democrat voter fraud, there is no way of knowing who won the popular vote.
I agree. Eliminate voter fraud for a fair election. Those two states and their attitudes made their results look very suspicious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232
Come on! The reason she didn't do well with other women wasn't because she was female. It was because she was a crappy candidate and because nobody expected a wild-card like Trump.
Clinton had plenty of time before the start of the election to have cleaned up some of the baggage which ended up being used against her.
Yep, a crappy candidate, disgraceful citizen of the US and a plague to mankind.
I would never vote for anyone that was so mentally, physically and morally deplete!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
That does not explain how many women called her fat, old, a hag, ugly, wrinkled, cankles, etc. Trump is fatter and older, but these women - with no self awareness I'm sorry to say - would go on TV and call Hillary the most physically unattractive being wearing a "pantsuit". Women are absolutely obsessed with vanity and do not elect based on intelligence or skill. To elect a president based on how flat their hair is or what shade of blue their pantsuit is - women are not ready for prime time yet when it comes to the presidency. Someone said "Hillary, get some roof lift!" That is insane. These were women by the way, not men.
I would never have voted for her from the get-go and can't see why a Democrat that voted for Obama and actually watched him in his rallies in 2008 pointing out the many flaws of Clinton. He nailed it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
What happened to "she got a lot of positive comments including from Trump supporters"? It's just not reality. It's not a big deal, I simply agree with the OP that probably a male is the way to go for the foreseeable future. Men seem more balanced but women really seem to prefer a male president. Women don't seem to care about a man's physical features at all.
Women, smart ones, prefer a candidate, male or female, that isn't morally, mentally and physically deplete. From what I saw, Hillary's supporters were focused on it being "time" or that she was a woman not taking into account what a sorry example of a woman she was. The first woman POTUS should be someone to be admired not someone that belongs in prison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232
We're discussing Hillary Clinton and why she lost.
You claim her appearance was a negative with enough women that it was a factor in her losing.
And I'm saying Clinton was a terrible candidate and the flaws in her candidacy were what cost her the election.
True there were complaint she looked to be in poor health but her appearance in the three debates quieted that.
There have been a lot excuses made as to why Clinton lost. However to suggest her looks and or gender played a significant role is the most ludicrous.
How many reasons have they come up with at this point while ignoring "the elephant in the room"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
No.
Maybe they should elect Bernie Sanders,but wait!
WHite middle country voters will not vote for him,because he is Jewish.
They shoved him out of the way even though he polled a good 10 point lead above Trump throughout the time he was campaigning. Clinton was fighting on two fronts so they zapped Sanders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
It would be more important for the Democrats to simply not play identity politics where blue collar whites are to be despised.
It would be important that they didn't try to pit different groups against one another in their "divide and conquer" scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
If the dems are smart, they'll not only run a white male, they will cooperate with Trump on securing the border and not allowing unvetted Muslims into the country from nations that spawn terrorists.
They will at least do that.
They will also cut out the PC nonsense and hating on whitey.
But of course, I expect them to continue with their demands for open borders, tens of thousands of unvetted Muslim refugees (who never go home), safe spaces, speech codes, trigger warnings, voting without having to prove citizenship, sanctuary cities, demands for reparations, coddling of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (a front for Hamas), advocacy of reverse discrimination against whites and males, bashing America and Western Civilization, boys being allowed into girls' restrooms to placate transgenders, etc.
They can't help themselves.
That means Trump wins again in 2020, and Republicans get a super-rmajority in the Senate in 2018 as well as flipping more state legislatures and governorships into the R column.
It also means Trump appoints at least three U.S. Supreme Court justices.
Things are looking good!
Dems cooperate? Even now, they continue to drive nails in the coffin of the Democratic Party. Looks to me like the party is now self-destructing like their candidate. I would think most would be embarrassed to state they are a Democrat.
Of course Republicsns should not get complacent. Elections are more about having a good sales man rather than policies. If Democrats can find a good salesman they could do well again
If they were wise they wouldn't pick another candidate guaranteed to alienate half the country with a past filled with controversy and corruption and even further left. Man, woman, black, white, doesn't matter nearly as much as the person.
For all the talk in this thread about the Democrats need to win back white non-college voters, that remains the demographic that is tanking the most nationally.
In 2012, when n/h whites made up 72% of all votes cast, the white vote was evenly split between white college and non-college for the first time. In 2016, white college grade voters accounted for 37% of votes cast while white non-college dipped to 34%. The Trump campaign was able to slow the decline in the percentage of the white vote nationally, but it couldn't reverse it. In previous elections, the rate of demographic change could be summed up as "-3 (white non-college) being replaced by +1 (white college) + 2 (total minority)." This year, due to turnout, it actually worked out as -2+1+1.
Of course we don't decide presidential elections by national demographics. It was, and will continue to be a state by state battle generally based upon demographics, with white college grads continuing to take a larger share of total votes cast because (1.) they are a younger group and (2.) they are the most dependable voters (as compared to their age group peers).
If you want to look at two stats that determine whether a state is destined to fall on the red or blue line of demarcation, consider this.
1. What is the level of variance in the level of R support between white college and white non-college? Those with the most variance are likely to be blue; those where white college and non-college vote more alike, such as the south, the more likely to be red.
2. Rank the states by the percentage of residents holding an advanced college degree. Those with the highest percentages tend to be blue; those with the lowest tend to be red. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of D's or R's, but with the type of economies it takes to support relatively high numbers of persons with advanced training.
Here's a listing of states by education. It's pretty striking how it works out.
Advanced Degree Ranking
D.C. (28.0%)
1. Massachusetts (16.4%)
2. Maryland (16.0%)
3. Connecticut (15.5%)
4. Virginia (14.1%)
5. New York (14.0%)
6. Vermont (13.3%)
7. New Jersey (12.9%)
8. Colorado (12.7%)
9. Rhode Island (11.7%)
10. Illinois (11.7%)
11. Delaware (11.4%)
12. New Hampshire (11.2%)
13. Washington (11.1%)
14. California (10.7%)
15. New Mexico (10.4%)
16. Oregon (10.4%)
17. Minnesota (10.3%)
18. Kansas (10.2%)
19. Pennsylvania (10.2%)
20. Hawaii (9.9%)
21. Georgia (9.9%)
22. Maine (9.6%)
23. Missouri (9.5%)
24. Michigan (9.4%)
25. Arizona (9.3%)
26. Utah (9.1%)
27. Alaska (9.0%)
28. Florida (9.0%)
29. Nebraska (8.8%)
30. North Carolina (8.8%)
31. Ohio (8.8%)
32. Kentucky (8.5%)
33. Texas (8.5)
34. South Carolina (8.4%)
35. Wisconsin (8.4%)
36. Montana (8.3%)
37. Indiana (8.1%)
38. Wyoming (7.9%)
39. Tennessee 7.9%)
40. Alabama (7.7%)
41. Nevada (7.6%)
42. Idaho (7.5%)
43. Iowa (7.4%)
44. Oklahoma (7.4%)
45. South Dakota (7.3%)
46. Mississippi (7.1%)
47. Louisiana (6.9%)
48. North Dakota (6.7%)
49. West Virginia (6.7%)
50. Arkansas (6.1%)
Truck drivers in PA are going to get crushed by the donor class who rule anyway. You try and see what happens when you gut Medicare and rip health care from millions of obese truck drivers in PA with pre-existing heart attacks on their medical history. Its going to get brutal.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would be a great choice for 2020 for the Democrats:
I was a 30 year Teamster and I still retain my CDL. I would not worry about obese truck drivers. Have you followed the regulation changes of 2011? The required CDL physical is more complicated than it ever has been in the past: https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/default.aspx. It is very possible that many of the people that were driving before are not driving today.
If big business has their way it is possible that automation could replace drivers in the near future.
As far as Tulsi; it is impossible to support American workers and support open door policies. Bernie's record was worse than Hillary's on immigration. Tulsi will have to do better if you think she could run.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,511,190 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454
Of course Republicsns should not get complacent. Elections are more about having a good sales man rather than policies. If Democrats can find a good salesman they could do well again
Here's what it comes down to. Trump and the republicans need to deliver jobs to the rust belt states that will folks there to prosper. They have at least two years with minimized interference by the democrats. If they can start to deliver that in a meaningful way and are seen as a success in those areas then it's clear sailing longer term. But if don't deliver and are seen as failing. Then all the dems have to do is roll out a palatable canidate with a decent jobs plan to win. In essence. right know it's all on the republicans and trump to preform.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even now, they continue to drive nails in the coffin of the Democratic Party. Looks to me like the party is now self-destructing like their candidate. I would think most would be embarrassed to state they are a Democrat.
