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.
my assessment, bureaucat, was based on years of reading your posts. your race based politics was not "inferred". it was not "projection". it was based on your own words here on CD.
My “raced based politics” as you put it, is a distaste for racists, and a belief that politics based upon appealing to white resentment Will ultimately fail in a nation destined to become more and more racially diverse. If that offends you, well that’s too bad, but that doesn’t equate to “hating the heartland”.
There are posters here who frequently accuse any white liberal of “white guilt”. If anyone posting here practices “race based politics”, it is them not I. They basically accuse liberals of being race traitors. There’s nothing more overtly racist than that.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 01-28-2020 at 06:13 PM..
My “raced based politics” as you put it, is a distaste for racists, and a belief that politics based upon appealing to white resentment are destined to ultimately fail in a nation destined to become more and more diverse. If that offends you, well that’s too bad, but that doesn’t equate to “hating the heartland”.
BS. you have no "distaste for racists"? condemn your democratic party. it is anti-white.
your resentment for whites is palpable in almost every post you make.
becoming more diverse may be a great thing for the country, but I don't think identity politics appeals to the majority of American voters.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 01-28-2020 at 07:02 PM..
Going back to the start of Abraham Lincoln's presidency, which is when the two-party system we know today first started, there have been two extended periods of Republican dominance in the White House, and one period of Democrat dominance.
For 72 years from 1861 to 1933, the United States had 52 years of Republican presidency, and only 20 years of Democrat presidency between three presidents (Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson). The end of this era came with the ouster of Herbert Hoover.
For 36 years from 1933 to 1969, the United States had 28 years of Democrat presidency, and Dwight Eisenhower had the only eight years of Republican presidency during this time. This era ended when Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run for reelection.
More recently, for 40 years from 1969 to 2009, the Republicans had the upper hand again, with 28 years of the presidency to only 12 years for the Democrats (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). It appears to me that this era has ended with George W. Bush's second term.
Right now, I believe that we've entered a second period of Democrat dominance. Why? Because Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush were all highly unpopular when they left office. Hoover was unpopular because of an economic calamity. Johnson was unpopular because of a controversial war. Bush was unpopular because of an economic calamity and a controversial war.
It took the Republicans a generation to recover from Hoover's bad reputation, and it took the Democrats a generation to recover from Johnson's bad reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Bush has a bad reputation, and I wonder if it'll take a generation for the Republicans to recover from it.
With that said, it's worth noting that the less popular political party has put at least one president into the White House for two terms during the dominance of the opposite party. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both two-term Democrats during a long era of Republican dominance. Dwight Eisenhower was a two-term Republican when the Democrats had the upper hand, and Bill Clinton was a two-term Democrat during the most recent Republican era.
The longest period of time that one political party has had control of the White House is 20 years, when the Democrats had it from 1933 to 1953. There were two 16-year periods of one-party control, both by the Republicans, from 1869 to 1885, and 1897 to 1913. Other than that, neither party has been in control for more than 12 years at a time, which illustrates that Americans don't tolerate continuous one-party rule well.
Any thoughts?
Good post.
Seems to me that since there are more registered Democrats, in theory there should almost always be a Dem president. There are many reason it doesn't work out that way, but one major one has been that the Republicans (and their corporations and their dark money) pour vast amounts of money into elections, including misleading ads.
I can't predict whether Dems will dominate, as you sense. In fact, I can't even predict who will win the next elections. None of us can. It's just an unprecedently bizarre situation. But it seems perfectly possible that regardless of the outcome of the impeachment trial, there could be such a sizable backlash against Republicans that Democrats sweep through like a whirlwind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
There won’t be an America left if Dems take over.....
LOL. That's what they said when Obama was elected. Reps keep being prey to apocalyptic paranoid fantasies.
Seems to me that since there are more registered Democrats, in theory there should almost always be a Dem president. There are many reason it doesn't work out that way, but one major one has been that the Republicans (and their corporations and their dark money) pour vast amounts of money into elections, including misleading ads.
I can't predict whether Dems will dominate, as you sense. In fact, I can't even predict who will win the next elections. None of us can. It's just an unprecedently bizarre situation. But it seems perfectly possible that regardless of the outcome of the impeachment trial, there could be such a sizable backlash against Republicans that Democrats sweep through like a whirlwind.
LOL. That's what they said when Obama was elected. Reps keep being prey to apocalyptic paranoid fantasies.
Apocalyptic paranoid fantasies where they get to use their hardware to kill those they don’t agree with.
I think it's a fair suggestion that there's a real chance for a preferential swing to the left. My worry is that this preference will disproportionately arise out of bad or faulty reasoning. Such is at least in theory a comparatively easy fix for Republicans anywhere that far-left microcosms aren't well-established, but my worry with the R's is that they're predictably as blind as their counterparts to their own inconsistencies and shortcomings.
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.
