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.
So much of the Democratic party has completely abandoned the middle class working person. Blue collar workers, as well as white collar. The ditzy crowd they have come out so far are so busy promising "free ****"-that working people realize they will have to pay for. So...are there any Dem candidates that might do some of the following:
1) Reign in government spending. The Republicans have failed miserably, increasing the deficit, even at a time of record revenues.
2) Support jobs-particularly the return of manufacturing jobs to the US.
3) Support fair trade agreements that level the playing field between US workers/companies and foreign companies.
4) Protect American citizens. Secure the borders, work to keep illegals from depressing the wages of American workers.
5) Have some idea how to control the costs of health care. Not simply have the government pay for it-that doesn't reduce the cost-simply shift who pays those costs.
6) Reduce our foreign military engagements. Someone that would bring our troops home and stop sacrificing the lives of our servicemen and women for people of other nations. Stop subsidizing NATO, let other nations pay their fair share.
7) Slash foreign aid-stop throwing the taxpayer dollars at every other nation on the planet.
8) Does not promote schemes to raise taxes or subsidies government-selected companies under the guise of "climate change"? All things that hit middle class taxpayers hard in terms of increased energy costs.
9) Keep taxes and regulations reasonable on businesses. Most working people are not stupid-they realize that without successful businesses they would not have jobs, and that business owners are not their enemy.
10) Keep their taxes reasonable.
11) Supports the 2nd amendment and not promoting more regressive laws on law-abiding gun owners.
All these ideas are things that have a broad appeal to the middle class worker-and taxpayer. This is true again of both blue and white collar workers. All things that USED TO be fundamental concepts that the Democratic party stood for. You know-putting Americans, and especially American workers, first. Yet NO Democrat that has announced they are running are even close.
Instead of doing things for American workers, they do the exact opposite. They promise to have the taxpayers pay for college for everybody-regardless of their major, the effort they contribute, or the need for their degree in the marketplace. They promise to have the taxpayers pay for everyone's health care-without explaining how they are going to control cost or maintain quality. They give taxpayer funded health care and college to foreign criminals. They support releasing criminals from prison, or not locking them up in the first place-criminals that return to prey on innocent people, usually on that very same middle class. In short...everything they promote, hurts the middle class-and especially blue collar workers. Are there ANY Democrats that actually have any appeal for workers?
First, how exactly is helping pay for post high school education/training and health care harmful to the middle class and blue collar workers? I know that keeping health care costs down and paid for is popular across broad swaths of the population. Why no mention of raising the minimum wage, which is also popular across broad swaths of the population?
Honestly, anybody who wants the things you have listed there is going to vote Republican, and particularly for Trump. A Democratic candidate is never going to appeal to them. But keep in mind that the middle class and blue collar workers aren't a monolith that have the same views as you.
Combined income only about $95k. Nice to get a 20% tax cut under Trump.
How did you have a 20% cut? That is what I'm wondering. Also can you prove you truly did make 95k combined? If you are gonna make claims like that back it up or prepare to be called a liar if not a still.
First, how exactly is helping pay for post high school education/training and health care harmful to the middle class and blue collar workers? I know that keeping health care costs down and paid for is popular across broad swaths of the population. Why no mention of raising the minimum wage, which is also popular across broad swaths of the population?
Honestly, anybody who wants the things you have listed there is going to vote Republican, and particularly for Trump. A Democratic candidate is never going to appeal to them. But keep in mind that the middle class and blue collar workers aren't a monolith that have the same views as you.
Toyman at Jewel Lake is a known libertarian and hates minimum wage, ObamaCare and more so public education whether we talk K-12 or community college and university. He (I'll say he since Toyman is in his name) has no love loss for pushing for opting out of paying for public education. He is known to attack ObamaCare and want legacy health insurance. He is also known for asking to remove minimum wage laws and remove "restrictive regulations" on business owners, including taxes.
1. We don't elect by popular vote.
2. We don't elect by popular vote.
All that party needs to do is win the electoral college, which is what counts.
The Democrats won't get the Electoral College if they don't regain those states in the rust belt. Thus, no path to the presidency. I'm not worried about the popular vote, cause it doesn't count.
The popular vote argument is like this: "That football team should have won cause they ran more yards then scored more points!"
Your argument is that the popular vote is totally irrelevant.
Mine is that it matters because of three things.
1. In the current century the Republican Party has found it virtually impossible to receive more votes nationally than the Democrats.
2. Historically, no party has managed to consistently win the White House while losing the popular vote.
3. Demographic change is starting to shift the map against the Republicans. The national popular vote represents the vanguard of that change. Historically, in battles between changing demographics and resistance to those changes, change always prevails. As long as the GOP continues on the road they started by nominating Trump, they aren’t going to be successful in the long term in wooing over the growing demographics. Put it this way. If Republican policies continue to please the real “deplorable” element (Richard Spencer, David Duke, et al), it’s just a matter of time before they fail in the electoral college because the won’t appeal to minorities and college grads and younger voters, who are comprised of growing numbers of minorities and college grads.
Political scientist Ruy Teixeria has focused on the political effects of demographic change. The following is an excerpt from an article written after the election of Donald Trump.
Quote:
Here’s one way to think about the 2016 election. We are witnessing a great race in this country between demographic and economic change that’s driving a new America, and reaction to those changes. On November 8, with a tremendous burst of speed, reaction to change caught up with change and surpassed it.
But is that advantage sustainable over the long haul, as change continues and reaction has to run ever faster simply to keep pace? Probably not. Those old legs will give out eventually, though we do not know exactly when. In the end, the race will be won by change — as it always is.
Looking back from 2032, we are far more likely to view the 2016 election as the last stand of America’s white working class, dreaming of a past that no longer exists, than as a fundamental transformation of the political system.
the relatively few wealthy individuals have been allowed to keep their wealth because the majority of non-wealthy individuals have allowed them to keep it. that is changing.
the new democratic socialist darling, aoc, has said being a billionaire is "immoral" and dem presidential candidate warren proposes government confiscate wealth and dramatically increase tax rates on high earning individuals. No matter that 80% of American millionaires did not inherit their wealth. they earned it.
I see a socialist federal government in america as inevitable, but probably not imminent.....yet.
biden, a centrist moderate democrat, would appeal to the middle class of both parties and might win in a straight match up with trump.
but, the question is can moderate biden win the democratic presidential nomination if the most engaged leftists within the democratic party insist on a far left progressive?
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-05-2019 at 09:06 AM..
Your argument is that the popular vote is totally irrelevant.
Mine is that it matters because of three things.
1. In the current century the Republican Party has found it virtually impossible to receive more votes nationally than the Democrats.
2. Historically, no party has managed to consistently win the White House while losing the popular vote.
3. Demographic change is starting to shift the map against the Republicans. The national popular vote represents the vanguard of that change. Historically, in battles between changing demographics and resistance to those changes, change always prevails. As long as the GOP continues on the road they started by nominating Trump, they aren’t going to be successful in the long term in wooing over the growing demographics. Put it this way. If Republican policies continue to please the real “deplorable” element (Richard Spencer, David Duke, et al), it’s just a matter of time before they fail in the electoral college because the won’t appeal to minorities and college grads and younger voters, who are comprised of growing numbers of minorities and college grads.
Political scientist Ruy Teixeria has focused on the political effects of demographic change. The following is an excerpt from an article written after the election of Donald Trump.
It IS Irrelevant cause we don't count it in electing a president. It doesn't matter. I know you Democrats don't like The Constitution but it's in there.
1. They haven't found it impossible, they won The Electoral College, where it counts.
2. Again, Electoral Votes are the ones that count.
3. The Rust Belt has the highest concentration of Non Hispanic Whites that are blue collar in the country. They aren't changing. States like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa. They decide the elections, not the illegals in California. College grads? Trump won white college grads, he also won white millennials. He also got a higher number of minorities than any other Republican in history.
I know you are obsessed with the popular vote argument, but we don't elect by popular vote in this country. it never has counted, and never will. If you want to elect by popular vote, make a stand and get the amendment repealed. Good luck with that, as it takes 2/3 of the states to agree, and the smaller states aren't giving up their power to three cities who could decide the election every cycle. Maybe you should move to Canada, where they elect by popular vote.
It IS Irrelevant cause we don't count it in electing a president. It doesn't matter. I know you Democrats don't like The Constitution but it's in there.
1. They haven't found it impossible, they won The Electoral College, where it counts.
2. Again, Electoral Votes are the ones that count.
3. The Rust Belt has the highest concentration of Non Hispanic Whites that are blue collar in the country. They aren't changing. States like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa. They decide the elections, not the illegals in California. College grads? Trump won white college grads, he also won white millennials. He also got a higher number of minorities than any other Republican in history.
I know you are obsessed with the popular vote argument, but we don't elect by popular vote in this country. it never has counted, and never will. If you want to elect by popular vote, make a stand and get the amendment repealed. Good luck with that, as it takes 2/3 of the states to agree, and the smaller states aren't giving up their power to three cities who could decide the election every cycle. Maybe you should move to Canada, where they elect by popular vote.
Here’s a tweet today from Ron Brownstein.
Quote:
Trump is cementing the coalition that powered Ds in 18: in Nov, 67% of 18-34 voted D & in new in new CNN poll 67% disapprove of Trump. 76% of non whites voted D & 77% disapprove. 53% of col+ whites voted D & 55% disapprove. 54% indies voted D & 51% disapprove.
Unless the R’s can broaden their appeal, they’re living on borrowed time, and deep inside you know it.
The only variable is time.
tick, tick, tick
Last edited by Bureaucat; 02-05-2019 at 09:32 AM..
It IS Irrelevant cause we don't count it in electing a president. It doesn't matter. ...I know you are obsessed with the popular vote argument, but we don't elect by popular vote in this country.
Except the electoral college in each state is decided by... popular vote.
Bureaucrat is right. Popular vote does matter, in an indirect way. Popular votes in each of the states are not completely independent of each other. Voter mood shifts happen on a national level, acting like a rising or falling tide. Similar to the tide along the coast, the tide goes up and down by different amounts from place to place.
Trump's popularity on a national level is down by maybe 7 or 8 pts since the 2016 election. That falling tide means he's going to win Idaho by +22 instead of by +30, he'll lose Pennsylvania by -5 instead of winning it by +1, and so on.
We don't count national popular vote directly but it does reflect national mood shifts, and those shifts directly influence the electoral vote.
Except the electoral college in each state is decided by... popular vote.
Bureaucrat is right. Popular vote does matter, in an indirect way. Popular votes in each of the states are not completely independent of each other. Voter mood shifts happen on a national level, acting like a rising or falling tide. Similar to the tide along the coast, the tide goes up and down by different amounts from place to place.
Trump's popularity on a national level is down by maybe 7 or 8 pts since the 2016 election. That falling tide means he's going to win Idaho by +22 instead of by +30, he'll lose Pennsylvania by -5 instead of winning it by +1, and so on.
We don't count national popular vote directly but it does reflect national mood shifts, and those shifts directly influence the electoral vote.
Also, the white non-college vote in the Midwest that he talks about is shrinking too, because they are aging and not being replaced by young WWC replacement workers. Here’s another quote from the article in my previous post.
Quote:
Over the next four cycles, to 2032, the share of white working-class eligible voters in each of these states is projected to drop by 8 to 9 percentage points, while minority voters continue their steady increase. (Depending on the state, there should also be small increases in white college voters.
Except the electoral college in each state is decided by... popular vote.
Bureaucrat is right. Popular vote does matter, in an indirect way. Popular votes in each of the states are not completely independent of each other. Voter mood shifts happen on a national level, acting like a rising or falling tide. Similar to the tide along the coast, the tide goes up and down by different amounts from place to place.
Trump's popularity on a national level is down by maybe 7 or 8 pts since the 2016 election. That falling tide means he's going to win Idaho by +22 instead of by +30, he'll lose Pennsylvania by -5 instead of winning it by +1, and so on.
We don't count national popular vote directly but it does reflect national mood shifts, and those shifts directly influence the electoral vote.
Correct, popular vote in each state matters, not a nationwide popular vote. I don't worry about something that doesn't matter. All that the popular vote does is increase numbers in California, New York, Illinois. That's precisely why The Electoral College exists.
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.
