Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Elections are mostly won or lost on how well the economy is doing. This chart looks at US GDP growth rate per year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263614/gross-domestic-pr...

That decline in 2016 probably cost Hillary the election.

On a happier note, it is projected that the US economy will begin to approach normality by the end of the 2nd quarter 2021 with the introduction of the Covid vaccines. GDP growth for 2021 is projected to be between 4-6%, highest since the the Bill Clinton years. If democrats stay on message and focus on the economy, jobs, and health care, they should dominate the 2022 midterms.

Overall, the global economy is dealing with Covid far better than expected. Biden can reap the benefits of this global rise in prosperity and good feelings as the pandemic fears recede. Democrats can contrast the anger, disruption, and incompetence of the trump years with the rising prosperity and non-confrontational bipartisanship of a Biden administration.

https://hbr.org/2020/11/why-the-global-economy-is-recovering...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm of the opinion that not visiting Michigan, even once, plus one or two other key states, cost HRC the election. One visit to Michigan could have given her the few thousand votes she needed to flip the electoral college.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm of the opinion that not visiting Michigan, even once, plus one or two other key states, cost HRC the election. One visit to Michigan could have given her the few thousand votes she needed to flip the electoral college.

The flip-side argument (held by her campaign managers) was that Hillary was such a polarizing figure that a visit would backfire, energizing potential Trump voters and costing HRC.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I suppose that is conceivable. Or it was just CYA for the campaign managers. Skipping an entire (key!) state just seems like a bonehead move. I would think better to risk a backfire than be perceived as ignoring them entirely.

Obviously we'll never know for certain.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I'm of the opinion that not visiting Michigan, even once, plus one or two other key states, cost HRC the election. One visit to Michigan could have given her the few thousand votes she needed to flip the electoral college.

People forget how difficult the landscape was for Clinton in 2016. Historically, the same party rarely wins the election after a two-term president, people want change. The economy was lackluster in 2016 and the Syrian diaspora combined with trump and Sanders misguided attacks on global trade agreements created this desire for isolationism. Don't underestimate how much the Sanders run hurt Hillary among working class voters as he painted her as a globalist.

Even with all that, Clinton lost Michigan by only about 11,000 votes. She would have won if Jill Stein and the Green Party had not run (they received 50,000 votes). She also would have won if Comey hadn't gotten involved in that bizarre "reopening the investigation" just before the election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Biden can reap the benefits of this global rise in prosperity and good feelings as the pandemic fears recede. Democrats can contrast the anger, disruption, and incompetence of the trump years with the rising prosperity and non-confrontational bipartisanship of a Biden administration.

Republicans will lie, lie, lie and lie about all of the above. The entire Republican campaign we just witnessed consisted of lying about Democrats and lying about factual reality. The election will be very close. Expect them to blame the entire pandemic on Biden, as well as the national debt and a million other things. The deficit will matter again as soon as a Democrat is President.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Biden can reap the benefits of this global rise in prosperity and good feelings as the pandemic fears recede. Democrats can contrast the anger, disruption, and incompetence of the trump years with the rising prosperity and non-confrontational bipartisanship of a Biden administration.

Republicans will lie, lie, lie and lie about all of the above.


Dems should hire some psychologists to explain to them how Goober brains work. Because Dems sure don’t seem to get it.

Dems think good reasoning, logic, and compassion should win over the hapless Goobs. Republicans though understand that Goobs respond to Authority, Fear, and Fantasy-spinning. Big Daddy has all the answers for them. Just behave and do as told.

Dems need to understand that people's brains are different. Dems need to apply those Repug psych tools, but in a positive way rather than Repug's evil way

Stop being Mr Nice Reasonable Guys. Start being Good but Tough Rulers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Stop being Mr Nice Reasonable Guys. Start being Good but Tough Rulers.

Can you give an example of what you mean by this? The last three democrats to win the presidency (Clinton, Obama, Biden) did so by being Mr Nice Reasonable Guys. Currently, the tough and pugnacious Democrats are folks like Sanders, AOC, and perhaps Pelosi.

Do you think those folks could win a national election or swing states like MI, PA, AZ, or GA?

What kind of democrat do you believe will be able to win a senate race in Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, or Ohio, the kind of races one has to win to have a senate majority? What kind of democrat can win votes in rural counties, or win over seniors and white males?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I’d start the list with the way Ossoff oh so honestly and so harshly took down Perdue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xYFCDqI43M

Perdue was so pulverized that he has in a quite humiliating fashion refused another debate and still ducks follow up questions.

And Dems need to hit much harder on creatively repetitively linking needed legislation to results, both to get the legislation passed and then afterwards to explain the linkage of Dem politics to popular results.

Hey, even scream out that SS was Dems under Roosevelt against fierce opposition from GOP, Medicare was Dems under LBJ against fierce opposition, and Obamacare.....and that the GOP not only wants to carry us all back to “Ol’ Virginny” but to the great soup kitchens and Hoovervilles at the beginning of the Great Depression.


David fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Dems should hire some psychologists to explain to them how Goober brains work. Because Dems sure don’t seem to get it.

It might help if you stop thinking of them as 'goobers'.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It might help if they stopped acting like 'goobers'. Then we wouldn't think of them as such.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It might help if you stop thinking of them as 'goobers'.
---
It might help if they stopped acting like 'goobers'. Then we wouldn't think of them as such.


Yeah. Kind of like asking "How can we get more of those ragheads to vote for us?"

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It might help if you stop thinking of them as 'goobers'.
---
It might help if they stopped acting like 'goobers'. Then we wouldn't think of them as such.

Yeah. Kind of like asking "How can we get more of those ragheads to vote for us?"


Think about what Yang replied in a CNN interview:
Yang noted that while on the presidential campaign trail, "countless times" he experienced members of the working class, such as a truck driver or retail worker, "flinch like I'd said something really negative or I just like had like turned another color or something like that," after telling them he was running as a Democrat. "And there's something deeply wrong when working class Americans have that response to a major party that theoretically is supposed to be fighting for them," Yang said.

The obvious conclusion is that the 'major party that theoretically is supposed to be fighting for them' isn't.

David Shor is a Democratic polling and data expert who developed the Obama 2012 campaign’s internal election-forecasting system. In an interview earlier this month
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/12/2020-election-anal...
one of the things Shor talks about is division by education. If only 4% of the population is college educated, as was the case after WW2, then that is not possible. If that gets up to 40% then it becomes possible (and we see happening). One political party can go after the college educated (the 'elites') and the other party the rest (the 'goobers'). It influences messaging and policy priorities. Since whites dominate the college educated class their priorities will tend to dominate the Dem party.

"I think it’s going to be very hard for Democrats to resist the pull of catering to their [elites] preferences, which is naturally going to lead to losing votes among people who aren’t them: not just non-college educated whites, but, as we as we saw this cycle, also non-white voters."

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It might help if they stopped acting like 'goobers'. Then we wouldn't think of them as such.

Has everyone read (or watched) Tobacco Road? Those seem to be the prototype for today's Goobers.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Republicans will lie, lie, lie and lie about all of the above.

It doesn't matter. People vote mostly on emotion and fear. In 2016 Europe was being overrun by refugees and people feared the same happening here. trump responded to that fear, the democrats did not. In 2018, people feared republicans were going to take their health care away. Democrats won. In 2020 people feared Covid and felt Biden would do a better job dealing with the pandemic. End result...trump became one of the few presidents to lose reelection.

Democrats need to control the narrative in 2022, identify what people fear and then respond aggressively. My guess is that it will be about jobs as AI and automation continue to disrupt job security in virtually all industries. Democrats should focus on jobs. Promote green energy because it employs twice as many people as fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Aggressively promote unions as a means of protecting workers. Do whatever is needed to pass a major infrastructure program designed to create jobs.

Raise taxes, but in such a way that creates jobs. Rescind the trump tax cuts for the wealthy and direct the money to pay for infrastructure improvement and job creation. Increase corporate taxes by imposing a "robot tax" as proposed by Bill Gates. Another way of doing this is by limiting depreciation of capital expenditure deductions, which is pretty much an automation subsidy. In other words, make it more expensive to buy robots than hire people. Put folks like Andrew Yang front and center to promote this message.

I also think democrats should start floating bold ideas to deal with income inequality and the environment. I think a lot of problems would be solved by a combination of a 20% flat income tax (no deductions), a $10,000 UBI, and a VAT on nonfood items sufficient to restore the lost revenue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/sunday-review/tax-artific...
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-robot-tax-brighte...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Vote for us? My mom has a refrigerator magnet: "you can't fix stupid".

I don't expect them to vote for us. They respond to one-liner slogans, not actual explanations. It's fantasy to think you can explain anything of any complexity to them. They respond to "build the wall", but no discussion about how the wall will be useless nor any details about immigration policy. For example. They can't be reasoned with, and are therefore not worth the effort. GOOBERS.

I don't think the OP was talking about middle-of-the-road moderates. I think those are people who like some Democratic ideas and some Republican ideas, and can therefore be swayed one way or the other.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't expect them to vote for us.

Yang noted that while on the presidential campaign trail, "countless times" he experienced members of the working class, such as a truck driver or retail worker, "flinch like I'd said something really negative or I just like had like turned another color or something like that," after telling them he was running as a Democrat. "And there's something deeply wrong when working class Americans have that response to a major party that theoretically is supposed to be fighting for them," Yang said.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yes, and it's a combination of things (from what I'm reading and hearing). Maher had a panel guest who spent a lot of time amongst Trump supporters leading up to the election. She indicated that they do not live in the same world that the rest of us do. They are fed a constant barrage of "alternative facts", so they have little contact with reality. With that backdrop what chance do they have to make an informed decision? How can we even communicate with them if their foundation is built on lies? Not (entirely) their fault, either. (I'm referring to Murdoch and the like)

And then Maher also commented that he talked with someone who related a story that he witnessed a child (I forget the age, but pre-teen from the sounds of it) yelling at his/her mother and the mother apologizing profusely, and this person said he couldn't support that view of a "proper" society (i.e. political correctness run amok...I believe the mother had a Biden sticker on her car, so he correlated that to the mother's perceived lack of strength).

The latter Dems can fix. PC run amok, and all the outrage on Twitter (followed by timid apologies) is very off-putting to a lot of people. Including me, and I voted Obama, HRC, and Biden over the last 10 years. If I truly stepped in it I would apologize. If you're getting upset over an actor portraying a character with three fingers (IIRC) and it being "insensitive to people with limb impairments", tough. It's a fictional character, and if I was the actor I would not apologize for it. Apparently that was a real thing.

There is justified outrage (like George Floyd), and then there's being a snowflake.

So, yeah, I cringe at some of that stuff too. But the bigger picture was beating Trump and the Reps because they're much worse. In a different way, but with more substantial effects on peoples' lives.

1poorguy

P.S. Dems also need to avoid statements like "defund the police" when mostly the aim it to demilitarize the police, and possibly scrap and rebuild some departments that resist reform. Very few people are calling for an elimination of the police.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Too good a thread to let lapse now. Let me toss this in as a short excellent deep article to read

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-way-we-speak-now-on-...

as a means of giving our pot a good stir.


Some snipped excerpts:

Michael Walzer...1971...warned “In general, it is a mistake to take one’s symbols from the avant-garde culture of the time. To do so inevitably turns political action into an elite performance and a kind of esoteric communication.”

Similar warnings were issued in the wake of the 2016 election, with Mark Lilla noting that his fellow liberals have spent decades using “a disuniting rhetoric of difference” that has caused many Americans to become “hostile to the way we speak,” and Marilynne Robinson pushing back against the reliance on “in-group language” borrowed from “post-structuralism” and other academic trends that, however popular they may be on college campuses, fall short of “persuasive speech.”

Martin Luther King Jr....most skillful...in recent history. As he explains in his short introduction to “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” King buttressed his plea for civil rights by leveraging the languages that had the strongest claim over the people he was speaking to: the languages of the King James Bible and, more deliberately, the language of “law and order.”



Given that Michael Walzer was a favorite professor of mine in 1971, and that I carried his Political Action: A Practical Guide to Movement Politics with me when I took 1972 off to do politics against the War in Vietnam and Richard Nixon, my enthusiasm for the POV of this article is not surprising.


David fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
She indicated that they do not live in the same world that the rest of us do. They are fed a constant barrage of "alternative facts", so they have little contact with reality. With that backdrop what chance do they have to make an informed decision?

I think this is wrong. The premise is that "alternative facts" lead to poor beliefs, which I think is backwards to what actually happens. People believe things because of personal experiences and then find "facts" that fit their belief system. Or rather, they find the "authority" who says what they want to believe.

How does one find "truth"? On this board we quickly say "the Scientific Method" or more slowly say "by analyzing data/facts and observations, then deducing the most likely explanation". Problem is that for more complex issues, such as those in medicine or economics, the vast majority of humanity isn't educated enough to do this type of evaluation. Seriously, how many here have the training to critically evaluate the data on Covid (or climate change, or tax policy, or the consequences of trade globalization, etc.) and come to their own decision on best practices? For the most part we have to depend on experts, authorities whose opinions we trust. And there's the rub...

The modern "democratization" of the news media away from a few "elite" sources has led to a world where "expertise" is largely defined by audience size. Sean Hannity is perceived to be as qualified to speak about Covid as Dr. Fauci, and Wattsupwiththat is seen as an equivalent authority on climate change as the NOAA. Social media makes it very easy to find someone who will say what you want to hear.

What this means is that minds won't be changed by providing more facts. One has to change the experience. If jobs increase under a democrat administration, the people who get jobs will tend to vote democrat. When first introduced, Obamacare was broadly unpopular and democrats lost the following 2014 election. But as people experienced the positives of Obamacare, by 2018 they voted out republicans who threatened the program.

If the economy grows by 4% in 2021-2022, democrats will win a lot of elections. Goldman Sachs projects 5.3% GDP growth in 2021.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/13/goldman-sees-strong-economy-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How Democrats Suffered Crushing Down-Ballot Losses Across America
www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/us/politics/democrats-republicans...
Across the country, suburban voters’ disgust with Mr. Trump — the key to Mr. Biden’s election — did not translate into a wide rebuke of other Republicans, as Democrats had expected after the party made significant gains in suburban areas in the 2018 midterm elections. From the top of the party down to the state level, Democratic officials are awakening to the reality that voters may have delivered a one-time verdict on Mr. Trump that does not equal ongoing support for center-left policies....

That dawning truth is evident in the narrower majority that House Democrats will hold in Congress next year, and especially in the blood bath that the party suffered in legislative races in key states around the country, despite directing hundreds of millions of dollars and deploying top party figures like former President Barack Obama to obscure down-ballot elections.

This year, Democrats targeted a dozen state legislative chambers where Republicans held tenuous majorities, including in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina and Minnesota. Their goal was to check the power of Republicans to redraw congressional and legislative districts in 2021, and to curb the rightward drift of policies from abortion to gun safety to voting rights. But in all cases, Democrats came up short.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the economy grows by 4% in 2021-2022, democrats will win a lot of elections.

Maybe not.

Looking back at first midterm elections, in 1994 (Clinton's first term) real GDP grew by 4%.
www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543#:~:text=U.S.%20GDP...
Those elections ushered in the 'Republican Revolution' where they captured control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1952.

In 1978 (Carter's midterm election) real GDP grew by 5.5%. The Dems lost three Senators and 25 seats in the House.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...in 1994 (Clinton's first term) real GDP grew by 4%....In 1978 (Carter's midterm election) real GDP grew by 5.5%...

Just like with reading climate change papers, context is really important. In 1994, 4% GDP growth was not a big deal. It was the norm for the 1980s and 1990s. Same with 5% growth in 1978. The economic concern in 1978 was inflation and in 1994 unemployment.

In contrast, the concern since the 2008 Great Recession is the slow pace of economic growth. From his entering office to the beginning of the pandemic, trump's economy never passed 3% annual growth for real GDP. Nevertheless you seem to consider his economy a real positive selling point and a reason to vote for the idiot.

Based on that, if in 2022 the GDP is increasing at a rate 50% higher than trump's best year, even you will have to vote democrat.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In 1994, 4% GDP growth was not a big deal. It was the norm for the 1980s and 1990s. Same with 5% growth in 1978.

1994's 4% growth rate was 38% higher than the previous eight years and double the previous four years. 1978's 5.5% growth rate was 83% higher than the previous eight years and 140% higher than the previous four years.

And both times the Dems lost, rather than gained, power in both the House and Senate.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1994's 4% growth rate was 38% higher than the previous eight years and double the previous four years.

You are averaging in the recession of the early 1990s. Drop out 1990-1 and annual real GDP ranged between 3.5% to 4.6% for the previous 10 years. That is the performance people were used to. Look at the graph from 1983-1994: https://www.statista.com/statistics/996758/rea-gdp-growth-un...

1978's 5.5% growth rate was 83% higher than the previous eight years and 140% higher than the previous four years.

Again, recessions happen and you keep averaging those in 1970-1 and 1974-5. But the expectation in non-recession years was about 5% growth as occurred in all the other years since 1962. Best you can say about 1978 in context was that it wasn't a recession. That's not a bad thing, but it couldn't overcome issues with inflation and gas prices.

Contrast that with what 4+% growth in 2022 would look like compared to the 2.9% growth of trump's best year and the disaster of 2020. In context, it will look and feel like the explosive economy trump bragged about but never could produce.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It might help if you stop thinking of them as 'goobers'.

Democrats battle for soul of party as Biden win masks alarming failures
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/30/democrats-party-joe-...
The political strategist David Axelrod said the problem was that the party needed to learn how not to talk down to working-class voters, noting that while Democrats dominated in and around big cities in the 2020 election, Republicans had won in 80% of US counties.

“If Democrats continue to cede 80% of the country, if they can’t break through, they’re kind of screwed, in my view, at least in the short run,” Axelrod said on his podcast.

DB2
Print the post Back To Top