The Senate Republican majority needed to accomplish Republican Party goals is rapidly deteriorating.
In the past month, Senator John McCain of Arizona first, and then Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee made clear their differences with Donald Trump.
Now, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona has joined them with a passionate speech on the floor of the Senate.
Additionally, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, and Senator Dean Heller of Nevada are clearly unhappy with the bullying and recklessness of Donald Trump.
The likelihood of being able to accomplish anything that the Republican Party wants is rapidly disappearing.
With only 52 Senators, the GOP cannot afford to lose more than two, if Vice President Mike Pence were to cast a tie breaking vote on any legislation.
And it is known that there are some Republican Congressmen who also have great unease with the Trump Presidency, as Trump is clearly outside of the norm of appropriate behavior and action in office.
Trump does not have the competence, decency, and knowledge to be President, and he is a destructive force who could destroy the reputation of the party of Lincoln, TR, Ike and Reagan if he is not removed from office as a danger to the nation and the world.
It is time for the Republicans to put the nation ahead of their own selfish, personal interests, and do what is right for the nation, to remove a dangerous man with access to nuclear codes, and the terrifying thought that he would utilize nuclear weapons.
As of 10.25.2017 @ 11:30 a.m. ET: I would, if I was asked, predict that the Democrats will win a majority pickup of the U.S. House of Representatives with the midterm elections of 2018. The U.S. Senate is a tossup.
With the presidency in the Republican column, with Donald Trump, the 45th president’s job approval is in the 30s percentile range. With the fact that midterm elections tend to turn out that same percentile range of participating voters, down from the usual 50s percentile range voting in a presidential election, this means about a 40-percent drop-off of those who voted in the presidential election of 2016 also voting in the midterm elections of 2018. It is the nature of two different beasts.
The U.S. House historically flips before the U.S. Senate. This is because just one-third of the latter is on the schedule while 100-percent of the former is up every two years. So, for all who will vote in 2018, they have easier control determining the general outcome of the House more so than the Senate.
If I turn out to be correct: Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin #01) will lose his role as the 54th speaker of the U.S. House come January 2019. But, I know people really want Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) gone as majority leader of the U.S. Senate. But, the specific states on the schedule, are tougher to maneuver. A national wave election—in which all 48 Democratic-held Senate seats get retained while the pickups come solely from the 52 on the Republican side—is what would do it.
As I mentioned in another thread, the two states which are the lowest hanging fruit are Nevada and Arizona. The former, because its bellwether status (since 1912 minus 1976 and 2016), is in decline as it is tilting Democratic. (Donald Trump became the first Republican elected without Nevada since 1908 William Howard Taft.) The latter, because it is trending away from the Republicans (who have carried in all elections since 1952 except 1996), and in inching toward the Democrats. (Donald Trump’s margin with his pickup states was +3.39. Arizona carried for him by a low +3.50.)
I think Jeff Flake, the junior U.S. senator from Arizona, knows where he stands. His approval rating in the state is not good. He knows it is low-hanging fruit that puts him in position to get unseated. In 2012, he conspicuously underperformed Mitt Romney with the comparison of their margins. (Romney carried Arizona by +9.03—that is, 53.48% for Romney vs. 44.45% for Barack Obama; Flake won by +3.02—that is, 49.18% for Flake vs. 46.16% for Richard Carmona.) In 2012 Arizona, both the presidential and senatorial races resulted in Republican holds. So, that was a weak performance for Jeff Flake, with his first term and, with an upcoming midterm elections cycle pointing toward the opposition party, he would become ripe for getting unseated had he not made the decision to retire.
I want to put forth the following: Does anyone wonder if a Republican Party or a Democratic Party president—whose first-term election includes same-party majority control of both houses of Congress—wants his party to lose majority with at least one house by Year #02? (That is easier on a first-term president to deal with the opposition party—for any and all advantages—while getting in gear for his bid for re-election to a second term.)
I posted this in a previous thread but it’s more appropriate here:
These Republicans criticizing Trump are hypocritical. Their actions show that they are in league with his harmful agenda.
http://bluevirginia.us/2017/10/the-conscience-of-conservatives-weve-heard-jeff-flakes-words-now-lets-look-at-his-actions
Speaking of Pence, he broke a tie to enrich banks, screw over customers.
http://bluevirginia.us/2017/10/last-night-pence-broke-tie-to-enrich-banks-screw-over-consumers-today-hes-with-fellow-swamp-creature-ed-gillespie
Funniest thing today: Trump claiming that he’s intelligent – https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-brags-about-ivy-league-education-im-a-very-intelligent-person/
If Former Republican, or anyone else, wants to say that Donald Trump is, in general, dumb—well, I understand if it is an emotional feeling but I not only disagree but would also say that it does not make sense.
Trump’s background, what he has built, could not be done without intelligence.
For his run for the presidency—that is, with the debates for the 2016 Republican presidential contenders (before and during the primaries); the primaries (in which he won over 35 states); and then the general election (getting elected the 45th president of the United States—and flipping a trio of Rust Belt states which hadn’t voted for the GOP since the 1980s)—are not the achievements of someone devoid of intelligence.
Donald Trump is like no other president. He does not feel to people like he is a typical politician. And that is a part of what went on with the primaries in 2016. “Income inequality,†which seemingly no one is talking about now—meaning, that about 50 percent of workers make $30,000 or less per year—was the top issue. And the people were not looking to elect a business-as-usual president. This is a big part of the reason the Democrats blew it with nominating establishment-preferred Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump freaks out people.
He scares Democrats.
(The Democrats in Congress—despite all their claims of Trump being dangerous—are on board with Trump for giving many more billions to the military industrial complex. See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/18/senate-military-defense-military/679461001/ . Even Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren—who spent 2016 out-Tweeting Trump on Twitter rather than toss her name into the race—signed on for that. So much for their progressive bona fides and their #Resistance!)
Below is a video of a Republican presidential debate from February 2016. In it, candidate Donald Trump rips ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. And he does the same to his brother, the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush. Prior to 2016, I don’t think many people would have anticipated that the 2016 Republican presidential nominee—who would end up winning election to the presidency of the United States—would crush the Bushes, who were to the Republicans what the Clintons still are to the Democrats (meaning, overdue for their exits), and get the Republican presidential primaries voters’ approval. This is something big that Donald Trump achieved. That is not the work of a person who is dumb.
I forgot the video.
Here it is…
As several of us mentioned before, 2016 was about 2050 vs. 1950 and it was much broader than economic anxiety.Â
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/05/dear-trump-voters-the-1950s-arent-coming-back/
Ever since the election was over last November, one of the things I keep thinking about is how sure I was that the America that elected Barack Obama would never elect Donald Trump. I am prepared to admit that I was terribly wrong and significantly underestimated what I had written about back in 2014: Understanding the Threat of a Confederate Insurgency. In that article I quoted Doug Muder, who compared the Tea Party (now Trump’s base) to the Confederate world view.
The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries…
The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.
It is worth thinking about what the “divinely ordained way things are supposed to be†looks like to confederate insurgents. Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, gives us a clue in an excerpt from his book, “The End of White Christian America†by quoting something Donald Trump said during the campaign.
In an interview on Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) in early September, Trump put the choice starkly for the channel’s conservative Christian viewers: “If we don’t win this election, you’ll never see another Republican and you’ll have a whole different church structure.†Asked to elaborate, Trump continued, “I think this will be the last election that the Republicans have a chance of winning because you’re going to have people flowing across the border, you’re going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they’re going to be legalized and they’re going to be able to vote, and once that all happens you can forget it.â€
When it comes to white Christian America, Jones describes how it was that a man, whose life represents everything that goes against what they believe in, won them over.
Trump’s campaign—with its sweeping promise to “make American great againâ€â€”triumphed by converting self-described “values voters†into what I’ve called “nostalgia voters.†Trump’s promise to restore a mythical past golden age—where factory jobs paid the bills and white Protestant churches were the dominant cultural hubs—powerfully tapped evangelical anxieties about an uncertain future.
This is why those who argue over whether Trump supporters were motivated by racism or economic anxiety continue to miss the point. The issue at play was more broad than either of those assumptions capture. It was about nostalgia for the mythical golden age of the past that, fueled by anger, became a defense of “the divinely ordained way things are supposed to be.†Included in that stew are the intertwining fears about changing demographics, immigrants, Muslims, women, LGBTQ, globalization, the impact of the Great Recession, the decline in religious affiliation and racism. In other words, nostalgia voters (i.e., confederate insurgents) were reacting to the perceived changes in their established social order.
Prior to the election, Rebecca Traister wrote this:
The public spectacle of this presidential election, and the two that have preceded it, are inextricably linked to the racialized and gendered anger and violence we see around us…
Whatever their flaws, their political shortcomings, their progressive dings and dents, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean a lot. They represent an altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead…
This is our country in an excruciating period of change. This is the story of the slow expansion of possibility for figures who have long existed on the margins, and it is also the story of the dangerous rage those figures provoke.
That is very similar to what Jones has written post-election.
The election, more than in any in recent memory, came down to two vividly contrasting views of America. Donald Trump’s campaign painted a bleak portrait of America’s present, set against a bright, if monochromatic, vision of 1950s America restored. Hillary Clinton’ campaign, by contrast, sought to replace the first African American president with the first female president and embraced the multicultural future of 2050, the year the Census Bureau originally projected the United States would become a majority nonwhite nation. “Make American Great Again†and “Stronger Together,†the two campaigns’ competing slogans, became proxies for an epic battle over the changing face of America.
Ever since it became clear to me that what we are dealing with is a confederate insurgency, I’ve wondered how all this will end. Obviously I’m terrible at predictions, so it’s not worth it to try. All I know is that the last two times this country faced a challenge like this (the Civil War and the civil rights movement), too much blood was spilled. Jones notes that, “At the end of the day, white evangelicals’ grand bargain with Trump will be unable to hold back the sheer weight of cultural change.†In other words, no matter how hard they try, the 1950’s aren’t coming back, and many of us don’t want them to. We either face the future together, or eventually, all hell breaks loose.
D – Trump has shown time and again that he is clearly unqualified for the job. His behavior shows that he’s clearly mentally unstable. For the sake and safety of the country, he needs to be impeached or the 25th Amendment needs to be used.
Exactly, Pragmatic! Nothing about the Trump presidency is normal! Trump’s bullying style, his ignorance of the US constitution, the rhetoric of his campaign – anti-immigrant, racist, misogynistic, mocking a free press and free speech – is unprecedented, extreme, dangerous and outrageous.
Saw a petition to impeach Dump advertised on TV this morning. https://www.needtoimpeach.com/
The Need To Impeach letter nails it! https://www.needtoimpeach.com/letter/
D -Â It’s not emotional. Trump is truly incompetent. That call to the Gold Star widow is one of many examples of Trump’s incompetence.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/10/18/trumps-disgraceful-call-to-a-gold-star-widow-reveals-his-true-character/
Do the pundits you listen to even bother to inform you about things like that?
Southern Liberal – The news and pundits D listens to are too busy bashing Democrats instead of warning their listeners about Trump’s mental instability and his dictator tendencies and his bigotry towards women and people of color.
The progressive news and pundits that are doing their job and warning about the danger of Trump have headlines like ThinkProgress.org
We may be able to add Utah’s Orrin Hatch to the list of Republican U.S. senators retiring by end of 2018.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/hatch-romney/544211/?silverid=%%RECIPIENT_ID%%
Info about the resistance that D dissed.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2017/10/25/my-personal-understanding-of-the-resistance
The way I see it the resistance has been with us throughout history although it might not have been named the resistance. It has been with us whenever a person or a group of people are resistant to the presence of oppression exploitation and injustice.
When President Obama was elected I experienced the beginning of what seems to me has grown and is now called the resistance. I have always understood President Obama to be a liberator and the very symbol of him as president was in itself an expression of liberation. I felt a deep need to protect and defend him and what he stood for and what he was trying to accomplish and although I didn’t use the word resistance that was how it felt to me. The pursuit of the defense of President Obama motivated me to find TPV where I found people of like mind.
As we know the attempt to erase President Obama lead to the election of Donald Trump. On the day of the inauguration of Trump I experienced what I sensed was a tipping point and that the resistance as we see it today was solidified into a powerful force.
The difference between the resistance of the past and the resistance that is now present is that now it is connected to the unification of diversity. There have been various groups of people who have been in the minority who have been in resistance but they were largely separate from other groups of people who have been in the minority. The inauguration of Trump catalyzed these diverse groups of people into a force that now has the potential for a lot of power.
At the present we are also reaching another tipping point in which the various groups of minorities are about to become the majority. The vast number of people who have been part of various minorities have been the recipients of the experience of oppression and exploitation coming almost exclusively from what has been the white majority. A vast number of the groups of minorities have reached the end of their tolerance for this state of affairs. If you add to that group a significant number of white people who have become part of the resistance it becomes clear that the power has shifted.
It’s no longer just this group that is experiencing injustice or that group that is experiencing injustice it is the coming together of all groups and all people who are sensitive to injustice and the ongoing oppression and exploitation not only of their fellow humans but also of the earth whose resources must be protected nurtured and shared in order for the earth to be able to continue to sustain us.
We are no longer acting separately, we are one group coming together each with their own concerns and with the understanding that we have common cause. It’s no longer just this group that is experiencing injustice or that group that is experiencing injustice it is the coming together of all groups and all people who are sensitive to injustice. And it is not just in this country but anywhere people have hit the end of their tolerance for this unacceptable state of affairs they are all a part of the resistance.
It may seem to appear as if this is not the case but humanity as a group has hit the end of its tolerance. We hit the tipping point. The balance of powers has shifted. The election of Trump sparked the resistance and although it may appear that those who would seek to oppress and exploit still hold the power, the balance of power has now shifted. But the way things work is that in order for this change to bare fruit what is now needed is steadfastness and tenacity and for each individual to look inward in order to see how they can bring who they are into the service of the resistance and of bringing about change.
Those who are part of the resistance are unlikely to become complacent and disappear. They have seen the light and understand that this infection that has now come to the surface cannot be allowed to continue to fester. Trump might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back but what the outcome of his presence is that it is shining a spotlight on injustice the roots of which are deeper than Trump. Therefore it makes no sense that the end of Trump would be the end of the resistance. The resistance will only continue to grow as the awareness for the necessity for change remains. The time for change has come. We all can play a part in bringing about the changes that are needed.
Thanks for that, Rustbelt! That nails what the resistance is all about!
We’ve signed that impeachment petition.
Rustbelt – From things D has said here, I get the impression that D isn’t as heavily involved in fighting for social issues as we are. We can’t afford to let decades of progress on women’s rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, etc. be taken backwards.
Rustbelt writes,
“From things D has said here, I get the impression that D isn’t as heavily involved in fighting for social issues as we are. We can’t afford to let decades of progress on women’s rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, etc. be taken backwards.â€
I assume, just as it likely is with every person who is and has been present here, that not the full 100 percent of what one thinks gets written and posted here on TheProgressiveProfessor.com.
I have mentioned it before. The No.1 issue from the 2016 United States presidential election had to do with economics (“income inequalityâ€).
With the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton wanted minimum wage to be $12 per hour. Bernie Sanders wanted it to be $15 per hour.
Approximately 50 percent of the nation’s people, who are employed, are making $30,000 or less per year.
I see that as a problem the affects people from diverse demographics.
To not want more incomes—and, certainly add to this as another issue, MedicareForAll—for women, for people who are not white, for people who are not heterosexual…well, that is not an example of getting involved and going to bat to fight for the people in need.
Rustbelt Democrat writes,
“Info about the resistance that D dissed.â€
I think the following may help you understand.…
http://popularresistance.org/what-is-the-resistance-anyway/
CORRECTION:
Rustbelt writes,
“From things D has said here, I get the impression that D isn’t as heavily involved in fighting for social issues as we are. We can’t afford to let decades of progress on women’s rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, etc. be taken backwards.â€
_______________________
That was actually from Princess Leia.
I responded.
I apologize, for my mistake, to and Princess Leia and Rustbelt Democrat.
D –
First of all I was the one who posted about social issues, not Rustbelt.
Second, Rational Lefty posted earlier what 2016 election was about. It was more than economic anxiety. Some white people in this country are angered and scared of a changing culture and Trump stoked those fears.
No D – This is the resistance: https://www.indivisible.org/
The resistance is a grassroots effort D.
There is no economic populism without abortion rights and civil rights. No one can have economic justice if he or she doesn’t have fundamental rights.
For instance, the issue of abortion:
You can’t talk about “economic justice†yet dismiss a woman’s right to affordable, effective contraception … and abortion if that contraception fails. You see, many abortion patients are poor or low income. So, for women – who are over half of voters and 58% of registered Democrats – there is no “economic justice†that excludes reproductive choice. Period.
Exactly to everything Leia!
Princess Leia,
I get the impression you did not read the piece I linked.
D – The thing is, we’ve seen that Bernie supporters want to ignore issues that matter to women and people of color and focus exclusively on issues that matter to white men. That’s the thing that has gotten us angry with his supporters.
D – I read it and it’s not true.
Precisely, Rational Lefty! That’s the point I’ve been making regarding social issues.
Rational Lefty writes,
“D – The thing is, we’ve seen that Bernie supporters want to ignore issues that matter to women and people of color and focus exclusively on issues that matter to white men. That’s the thing that has gotten us angry with his supporters.â€
Do you think such issues as $15 per hour, Medicare For All, and free college tuition concerns only “white men?â€
This nails what we have been talking about.
https://qz.com/664475/hillary-clinton-understands-that-a-political-revolution-is-not-one-size-fits-all/
To quote from the article: While admirable, Sanders’s “revolution†is primarily an economic one. And despite what he may say, an economic revolution is not tantamount to a sociopolitical overhaul. To put a finer point on it: Achieving a $15 minimum wage will not stop racially prejudiced cops from shooting black people. It will not stop immigrants or refugees from being detained at our borders. Dismantling Wall Street, whatever that means exactly, will not shore up or extend women’s reproductive rights.
And this from the article describes the Bernie supporters we’ve encountered:
https://qz.com/664475/hillary-clinton-understands-that-a-political-revolution-is-not-one-size-fits-all/
It is not surprising that some of Sanders’s most ardent supporters are white men. Some, including the Wall Street Journal might even characterize them as “angry white men.†His economic revolution reduces all people to America’s “neutral†identity: the white heterosexual man.
Rational Left,
Can you answer the following question with “yes†or “noâ€â€¦?
Do you think such issues as $15 per hour [minimum wage], Medicare For All, and free college tuition concerns only “white men?â€
Article as a whole. Most of us here that you are talking with are women and it pretty much nails why we went for Hillary over Bernie.
https://qz.com/664475/hillary-clinton-understands-that-a-political-revolution-is-not-one-size-fits-all/
A patriarchal ploy to keep women divided, women have been harangued for “voting with their vagina†for months. Such crude critiques are designed to undermine female political agency—specifically their support for other women.
And yet, feminism as an ideology espouses gender equality, which is attained under the law. Studies suggest a correlation between gender parity in politics and the increased political equality of women. “Women in political office make it a priority to advance rights, equality and opportunity for women and girls, in a way and to a degree that men in power overwhelmingly do not,†Nancy L. Cohen wrote in an op-ed for the L.A. Times. That means, Cohen continues, “Democratic and Republican women will offer three times more feminist bills than their male counterparts.†By way of comparison, Emily’s List president Stephanie Schriock explained her support for Clinton by highlighting the former secretary of state’s prioritization of reproductive rights and reproductive justice. Rival Bernie Sanders, Schriock notes, “treats abortion rights like an afterthought.â€
Democratic voters, once a unified bloc, have split into polarized camps as Clinton and Sanders engage in increasingly heated rhetoric. But partisan posturing aside, the key difference between the two liberals is a simple one: Clinton understands that the long arc of equal rights in America is primarily based on identity.
The first people in the United States to have full rights were land-owning white men. The evolution and expansion of constitutional rights in America has occurred on the basis of identity. Take the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments—or the 19th Amendment.
Interestingly, abolitionists and suffragists had already realized as much in the mid-19th century, when, after contentious debate, they agreed that they would fight for black men to get the right to vote first over (white) women. “I hope in time … to add that last clause ‘sex’!! But this hour belongs to the negro,†abolitionist Wendell Phillips declared in an anti-slavery editorial published in 1865. Likewise, laws have been created with the explicit purpose of discriminating against a particular group of people. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for instance, specifically targeted gay and lesbian Americans. The current round of state-sponsored bathroom bills specifically target trans people.
While admirable, Sanders’s “revolution†is primarily an economic one. And despite what he may say, an economic revolution is not tantamount to a sociopolitical overhaul. To put a finer point on it: Achieving a $15 minimum wage will not stop racially prejudiced cops from shooting black people. It will not stop immigrants or refugees from being detained at our borders. Dismantling Wall Street, whatever that means exactly, will not shore up or extend women’s reproductive rights.
Feminists have imparted such wisdom before, often in their critiques of Marxism. (Sanders, who identifies as a democratic socialist, practices what one might describe as a modern, gentler version of Marxism.) For example, in her essay “One Is Not Born a Woman,†radical lesbian feminist Monique Wittig notes that any kind of economic-based, Marxist revolution fails to acknowledge the specific experiences that differ across marginalized groups.
“Marxism has denied the members of oppressed classes the attribute of being a subject. In doing this, Marxism… has prevented all categories of oppressed peoples from constituting themselves historically, as subjects… And when an economic transformation took place… no revolutionary change took place within the new society, because the people themselves did not change.â€
The Achilles heel of Marxism is humanity itself. The universalism of the workers’ fight against “Wall Street†or the “1%†or whatever term is currently being used to describe the capitalist bourgeoise deliberately overlooks oppressed identity groups such as women, people of color, the disabled, immigrant communities.
It’s a fallacy on Sanders’s part to believe that a “revolution†in America could be so divorced from identity politics. As the New York Daily News wrote in their endorsement of Clinton, Sanders is “a fantasist who’s at passionate war with reality.†Clinton’s policy ideas, meanwhile, “are shaped for the world in which we live, not the world in which we might wish to live.â€
This is also presumably why, in a rather stunning switch of support from Sanders to Clinton, political activist Tom Hayden wrote:
“My life since 1960 has been committed to the causes of African Americans, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, and freedom struggles in Vietnam, Cuba and Latin America. In the environmental movement I start from the premise of environmental justice for the poor and communities of color. My wife is a descendant of the Oglala Sioux, and my whole family is inter-racial… I have been on too many freedom rides, too many marches, too many jail cells, and far too many gravesites to breach that trust.â€
Clinton’s platform is designed to advance the rights of the systemically oppressed. This is why she has the support of women’s rights groups, from Planned Parenthood to Emily’s List to the Human Rights Campaign, in addition to countless endorsements from leaders within the black and Latino communities. Sanders, who has dismissed Clinton’s commitment as “identity politics,†clearly has trouble engaging with and acknowledging the specific needs of these oppressed and marginalized communities. Just take his ghetto gaffe, or his continued slandering of “the South†as unimportant to his economic revolution.
It is not surprising that some of Sanders’s most ardent supporters are white men. Some, including the Wall Street Journal might even characterize them as “angry white men.†His economic revolution reduces all people to America’s “neutral†identity: the white heterosexual man.
Both Clinton and Sanders are progressives with the same endgame. But they have drastically different methods for getting there. Considering the history of the United States, only one candidate’s methods accurately reflect how rights are afforded in this country. Call it pragmatism, but Clinton “get[s] things done.†As a feminist, my identity is defined by the fight for equal rights for women, gender parity, equal representation in politics, and women’s reproductive justice. So, yes, my vote will most definitely be dictated by my vagina.
And that vote is for Hillary Clinton.
Rational Lefty – My suspicion is that D is a man and that’s why he doesn’t get what we are talking about.
Rational Left,
I will ask one more time.…
Do you think such issues as $15 per hour [minimum wage], Medicare For All, and free college tuition concerns only “white men?â€
If you don’t answer with “yes†or “noâ€â€¦then I will figure you are opposed.
D – I wish Bernie Sanders would just go away. Frankly. He’s not pro-women, he proved more than once that he considers race to be irrelevant and he appealed to young people, many of whom are white men (the Bernie Bros), who haven’t yet realized that politics must always be practical.
Bernie’s proposals, while nice, felt too pie-in-the-sky.
Hillary campaigned on making college more affordable, protecting and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding child- and elder-care tax credits, job transition training, and a whole host of other specific policies that would help hardworking families find more opportunities. I really don’t see how such policies are unhelpful.
I agree. Those are sensible policies that help the poor and middle class. The only reason D doesn’t like those policies is because she didn’t howl about Wall Street all the way through every speech.
Vox’s Zack Beauchamp explores in a must-read article for all progressives: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism
That’s a belief widely shared among progressives around the world. A legion of commentators and politicians, most prominently in the United States but also in Europe, have argued that center-left parties must shift further to the left in order to fight off right-wing populists such as Trump and France’s Marine Le Pen. Supporters of these leaders, they argue, are motivated by a sense of economic insecurity in an increasingly unequal world; promise them a stronger welfare state, one better equipped to address their fundamental needs, and they will flock to the left.
“[It’s] a kind of liberal myth,†Pippa Norris, a Harvard political scientist who studies populism in the United States and Europe, says of the Sanders analysis. “[Liberals] want to have a reason why people are supporting populist parties when their values are so clearly against progressive values in terms of misogyny, sexism, racism.â€
In fact, as Beauchamp documents, the European countries with the strongest welfare states have also seen the swiftest and strongest rise of authoritarian white supremacist parties:
Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration – or, more precisely, it doesn’t do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it’s in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.
I’ll add that sexism plays a role as well, as Europe’s far-right parties also tend to take hardline positions on abortion, LGBT equality, and other gender issues … as does the Republican Party here in the U.S.
Beauchamp cites studies in several European countries that show very little correlation between economic hardship and support for far-right parties, and very little correlation between the primary ‘centrist’ or center-left party’s economic platform and support for far-right parties. In study after study and country after country, the stronger correlation was race-gender-religious-cultural anxiety … a sense that government was doing too much to help The Wrong People.
“Hostility between races limits support for welfareâ€
And lest you think that might be different here in the U.S., Beauchamp cites other studies that show it’s likely to be worse:
The bigger issue is that America’s welfare state is weak for the same fundamental reason that Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination in the first place: racial and cultural resentment. That profoundly complicates efforts to make left-wing populism successful in America.
In 2001, three scholars at Harvard and Dartmouth – Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser, and Bruce Sacerdote – found that the higher the percentage of black residents in a state, the less its government spent on welfare payments.
This, they hypothesized, was not an accident. People are only willing to support redistribution if they believe their tax dollars are going to people they can sympathize with. White voters, in other words, don’t want to spend their tax dollars on programs that they think will benefit black or Hispanic people.
The United States is marked by far more racial division than its European peers. Poverty, in the minds of many white Americans, is associated with blackness. Redistribution is seen through a racial lens as a result. The debate over welfare and taxes isn’t just about money, for these voters, but rather whether white money should be spent on nonwhites. “Hostility between races limits support for welfare,†Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote conclude flatly in the paper.
Beauchamp contacted the authors to see if that data had changed since 2001. It hasn’t, and he cites other, more recent studies with similar findings. Beauchamp concludes:
The uncomfortable truth is that America’s lack of a European-style welfare state hurts a lot of white Americans. But a large number of white voters believe that social spending programs mostly benefit nonwhites. As such, they oppose them with far more fervor than any similar voting bloc in Europe.
In this context, tacking to the left on economics won’t give Democrats a silver bullet to use against the racial resentment powering Trump’s success. It could actually wind up giving Trump an even bigger gun. If Democrats really want to stop right-wing populists like Trump, they need a strategy that blunts the true drivers of their appeal – and that means focusing on more than economics.
It means focusing the Big Lie beneath so-called populism – its foundation in white male identity politics. Most of the white working class voters that Sen. Sanders claims to represent don’t want the solutions he offers. What they want, in poll after poll, on issue after issue, is for government to take decisions and opportunities away from women and people of color … and give those decisions and opportunities to white men. You know, like things were in The Good Old Days.
If Trump manages to win again in 2020, I’m giving up on voting due to losing faith in our electorate.
Southern Liberal, you need not worry.
Donald Trump will not win a second term,. because he will be ousted from the Presidency in the next few months.
I predicted, in an article on HNN, on 2/15/17 and reprinted by Newsweek on 2/19/17–both found on the right side of the blog–that Trump will not last longer than between Garfield’s 199 days and Taylor’s 492 days in the Presidency, second and third shortest terms of office, which will be reached on May 27, 2018.
I still hold to that occurring, and Mike Pence will be like Gerald Ford, in the sense he will finish the term, be challenged for renomination in 2020, and very likely, unlike Ford, NOT be chosen, but whoever the GOP selects will lose to the Democratic nominee.
Pragmatic Progressive,
A response to that Zack Beauchamp…
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/easy-straw-men-zack-beauchamp-sanders-economics-identity-politics.html
Another important read from Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/12/12454250/donald-trump-gallup-trade-immigration-study
Donald Trump’s supporters are LESS likely to be affected by trade and immigration, not more
One of the most persistent claims about Donald Trump’s rise is that it’s a response to economic anxiety and struggles among white working-class Americans.
This is a comforting notion, particularly for those on the left. It suggests that large numbers of Americans are not being drawn to a racist demagogue because he’s a racist demagogue, but because of the failures of modern capitalism. It also implies that these voters could be won over by a robust left-wing economic agenda that addressed their plight.
But there’s also plenty of data suggesting that this isn’t a satisfying explanation. Trump’s rise has always seemed more closely related to prejudice than economics. Analysis of surveys has shown consistently that racial resentment correlates more strongly with Trump support than one’s income or degree or pessimism about the economy.
Now, Gallup’s Jonathan Rothwell (via the Washington Post) has offered a particularly detailed argument that there’s a lot more than pure economic anxiety at work here. Gallup’s regular surveys offered Rothwell a large dataset of 87,428 Americans who told pollsters whether they held a favorable or unfavorable view of Donald Trump. That sample size let him drill down geographically, analyzing support for Trump at the regional and local level — even, on some questions, down to individual zip codes.
He then linked that geographic information to data about the decline in manufacturing, about how affected each area was by the rise of Chinese imports, about intergenerational mobility, about racial segregation, and about white mortality rates.
That let him test each of those factors as explanations for Trump. Is Trump support correlated with areas affected by globalization, as many commentators have suggested? Check the Chinese import data. Does Trump support coincide with increased death rates for white middle-aged women, an increase chronicled by Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton? Check the health data.
Trump’s base is not poor whites — it’s way more complicated than that
What Rothwell found was revelatory, to say the least. He finds that individuals who are struggling economically are not more likely to support Trump, nor are people living in areas that have suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs, an influx of immigration, or competition from China. By contrast, people in areas where whites are struggling health-wise, and in terms of intergenerational mobility (and in areas that are very racially segregated), do seem more likely to back Trump.
Trump supporters are richer, not poorer, than average: For one thing, Rothwell found that both across the overall population and among whites, support for Trump is correlated with higher income, not lower. That’s not surprising; low-income people have always preferred Democrats. But it definitely contradicts the image of Trump as spokesman for the economically struggling.
Rothwell also found that Trump supporters are no likelier to be unemployed or to have left the workforce. The problem of men dropping out of the labor force doesn’t seem to be a factor behind Trump’s rise.
“The individual data do not suggest that those who view Trump favorably are confronting abnormally high economic distress, by conventional measures of employment and income,” he concludes.
Nonetheless, Trump supporters tend to be blue-collar and less educated: On the other hand, Rothwell also finds that Trump supporters are more likely to work in blue-collar fields and to have less education. This fact, however, sits uneasily with Trump’s greater support among the wealthy and lower support among the poor, and suggests that his sweet spot is less-educated people in blue-collar fields who are nonetheless doing pretty well economically.
Trump does well in racially segregated areas: Turning to the geographic data, Rothwell finds that segregated, homogenous white areas are Trump’s base of support. “People living in zip codes with disproportionately high shares of white residents are significantly and robustly more likely to view Trump favorably,” he writes. “Those living in zip codes with overall diversity that is low relative to their commuting zone are also far more likely to view Trump favorably.” Put another way: If you’re in the whitest suburb in your area, you’re likelier to back Trump.
Trump doesn’t do well in areas affected by trade or immigration: This is perhaps the most surprising finding. Contact with immigrants seems to reduce one’s likelihood of supporting Trump, as areas that are farther from Mexico and with smaller Hispanic populations saw more Trump support.
Areas with more manufacturing are significantly less likely to support Trump. An increase in the level of manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007 predicted higher Trump support — which is the opposite of what you’d expect, given the narrative around this campaign. While the finding isn’t statistically significant, greater exposure to Chinese imports predicts lower support for Trump, despite his agitation for higher tariffs on the country.
Trump-friendly areas are struggling in other ways: While individual Trump supporters appear to be doing pretty solid economically, they tend to live in areas that are struggling on two important dimensions.
Rothwell finds that Trump support increases mildly in areas with lower intergenerational mobility, as measured by data from economist Raj Chetty and his team. “This is not meant to suggest that with undue certainty that growing up in a place that causes lower social mobility causes Trump support,” Rothwell clarifies. “This analysis only identifies the correlation.”
Much stronger is the relationship between Trump support and higher regional white mortality. Overall mortality is also predictive, but nowhere near as much as white mortality, and particularly middle-aged white mortality.
The findings on mobility and white middle-aged mortality are commuting zone level, connected to the wider region in which the respondent lived rather than their specific municipality or neighborhood. That makes it hard to draw too many fine conclusions about how well that regional data reflects the circumstances of the respondent’s own life.
Some commentators have speculated that this result implies parents are worried for their children based on how their area as a whole is doing (even if they personally are doing fine). There’s nothing in the study suggesting this is the mechanism, but it’s potentially plausible.
Also plausible is basically the opposite conclusion: These are relatively well-off less-educated blue collar workers who see poorer blue collar whites who are suffering (as indicated by low mobility and poor health in the region) and view them as undeserving recipients of government aid. That’s less a story about personal anxiety and more one about class politics between the petit bourgeois and the proletariat.
But the basic point is the straightforward story of Trump supporters as poor whites abandoned by the loss of manufacturing to China is not the case. The story is, at least, much more complicated.
“I find only limited support that the political views of US nationalists—as manifest in a favorable view towards Donald Trump—are related to economic self-interest,” Rothwell concludes. “If so, the self-interest calculation must go beyond conventional economic measures to include one’s physical health and inter-generational concerns.”
Thanks for that info, Pragmatic. Multiple studies done about the 2016 election show that racism and sexism played a role and that it wasn’t just economic angst.
Precisely, Rustbelt! That’s why we have to fight against racism and sexism.
Election in Virginia is a week from Tuesday. Enron Ed is using race baiting, xenophobia, demagoguery, appeals to the worst angels of our nature, etc. in his ads.
Good reason not to vote for Enron Ed!
If Enron Ed wins this way, then the Republican Party can’t deny that they are the Party of white supremacists.
It’s a culture war happening and Dump is symbolic of it.
Slight correction, Rustbelt. Dump is the leader of it since he’s the head of their party.
These are things we believe in: believe that the economic system favors the rich and powerful, advocate for diplomacy and America’s role as a world leader, believe in regulation, a role for active government, support a safety net to aid the vulnerable, agree that homosexuality should be accepted, oppose racism and sexism, and believe that immigrants strengthen our country, that the costs of protecting the environment are worth it. I consider those beliefs solidly progressive! 🙂
Southern Liberal – My suspicion is that D and some of these people he/she listens to are fiscally liberal, socially conservative.
Princess Leia writes,
“My suspicion is that D and some of these people he/she listens to are fiscally liberal, socially conservative.â€
No.
My mother was born in 1935 and died in 1998.
One of the examples why I am not “socially conservative†relates to what she told me about her experiences, having been married to my father, since 1956, of trying to buy a bigger house. (My one-and-only sibling was born in 1968.) She let me know that her income was disregarded because she did not work as a nurse or a teacher and that it was figured, as a woman, her lot in life was to get pregnant by my father. So, in the mid- to late-1960s, with her already having been employed by employer for ten years, she was a non-factor as to how that was figured.
No.
I am not socially conservative.
I am on the left—not on the right—on social policies, economic policies (whereas the establishment Democrats, with their reliance on Wall Street, are on the right), and on military (I am also ready for an anti-war party whereas the establishment Democrats are showing me they are as pro-war as the neoconservative Republicans).
No.
I find it weird that you are trying to profile me.
How is trying to profile someone, make assumptions about someone, dismiss people from a particular demographic (“white male†has been mentioned, with prejudice, on this site a few times recently)…how is it that “progressive�
Actually, D, I agree with you, and I ask that name calling by others be stopped.
This is a site for discussion and debate, and no one should call someone else out for their viewpoints.
Let’s remain civil, everyone!
Leia – That’s my suspicion as well. We’re not going to move to the right on issues such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. just to please the Fox “News” crowd that was gullible enough to vote for the Liar In Chief. If that’s what they want, then they should form their own party instead of trying to tear ours apart.
Russia’s goal was to, not only get Dump elected, but to divide Americans. Judging by the passionate arguments, not only here, but all across forums and social media, I would say they have done a great job.
D – Just like the Professor said in this thread (https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=32179), you tend to confuse us too much. We get that you weren’t a big fan of Hillary Clinton. Your alternatives this election were Trump, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. Did you vote for any of them or did you sit this one out? Have you looked into joining a third party, and, if so, which one is closer to your views?
Speaking of Trump-Russia collusion, we’re getting some justice today! 🙂
Re: War
We’re not completely anti-war. We feel that the Revolutionary War was justified, that the US Civil War was justified, that WWII was justified. However, we do not feel that the Vietnam war was justified, we do not feel that the invasion of Iraq was justified. So, for us, whether or not we are against it, depends on the war being fought.
Speaking of the resistance being grassroots, clergy in the resistance fight. https://thinkprogress.org/prophets-resistance-undermine-trump/
White supremacy, voter suppression, and the unjust treatment of Muslims, Jews, and immigrants are some of the things the resistance is fighting.
John Kelly’s Jim Crow version of the Civil War.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/10/31/john-kellys-jim-crow-version-of-the-civil-war/#.WfjENvGprKc.facebook
Donna Brazile has an article in Politico about the DNC. One of the pundits we read has commentary on it.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/11/02/are-we-witnessing-the-demise-of-the-dnc-and-the-rnc/#.Wfs70gJzHgw.facebook
Are We Witnessing the Demise of the DNC and the RNC?
by Nancy LeTourneau
November 2, 2017
Political Animal
Lorie Shaull/Flickr
Share
Tweet
Print
Email
Donna Brazile has a scathing article in Politico today that is sure to heat up the divisions in the Democratic Party that surfaced during the 2016 primary. In it, she goes after not only the Clinton campaign, but former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Obama campaign.
It is all focused on the fundraising agreement reached in August 2015 between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state parties called the Hillary Victory Fund. It allowed donors to bundle their contributions to the three entities.
The title of Brazile’s piece, “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC†is seriously misleading. Back in May of 2016, Kenneth Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf reported on almost everything Brazile covers. Other reports followed, like the one from Jeff Stein. Here’s what Brazile adds to the reporting:
The [Hillary Victory Fund] agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
That will, no doubt, be met with accusations from Bernie Sanders and his supporters that they were right… the DNC rigged the primary in Clinton’s favor.
But what none of the articles mention, either from last May or Brazile’s today, is this:
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.
The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton’s campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders’ team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.
So there was also a Bernie Victory Fund, it’s just that Sanders never raised any money for it. We’ll never know what kind of influence he might have wielded with the DNC if he had done so. But it demonstrates that the party was willing to work with any candidate in the primary who sought such an agreement.
None of this means that the whole thing doesn’t stink. What Brazile actually points to is the idea that it’s beyond time to question the role and functioning of the DNC. Is it merely a pass-through organization to be used as a fundraising tool for presidential candidates? That seems to be how it worked under Wasserman Schultz. As someone who watched very closely as Tom Perez, the current DNC chair, worked to turn around a decimated and politicized Civil Right Division at the DOJ, I’m prepared to give him time to do something similar with the DNC. Time will tell.
But it is interesting to note that there are similar questions that have surfaced about the RNC. Here’s what Jon Ward wrote about that back in the summer of 2015:
The fight between the RNC’s chairman and the political operatives affiliated with Charles and David Koch over who controls the rich treasury of data on likely Republican voters has raised fundamental questions about what role the party’s central committee — even under the best management — can hope to play in the age of super-PACs. And it raises an even more fundamental question of how you define a political party.
That was followed by a Republican presidential primary with 17 candidates, many of whom had their own billionaire backer(s) and an inability to stop a lunatic candidate from winning the nomination. Now the party is facing a battle of the oligarchs for control.
I’ll leave it to the political historians to document how far all of this has come from the days when the RNC and the DNC were the powerhouses that controlled politics in this country. But right now there are two competing forces that are decimating these organizations:
1. The Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision that allowed unlimited political spending by the oligarchs, and
2. The unleashing of grassroots politics that started with Howard Dean, was successfully marshaled by Barack Obama, and inflamed the candidacies of both Sanders and Trump.
Right now those two forces are on a collision course—leaving organizations like the DNC and the RNC on the sidelines.
Speaking of the oligarchs:
With investors under fire for financing white nationalism, Robert Mercer resigns from hedge fund.
https://thinkprogress.org/with-investors-under-fire-for-financing-white-nationalism-robert-mercer-resigns-from-hedge-fund-4b80fef927d0/
Speaking of ThinkProgress, ad networks are targeting ThinkProgress simply because they cover white nationalism and other controversial topics. They’ve recently placed ThinkProgress into a category of sites that produce “controversial political content,†which many advertisers are blocking. ThinkProgress relies on advertising revenue to fund a substantial portion of their work. In other words, they are being financially punished for their work exposing racism.
https://thinkprogress.org/become-thinkprogress-member-e42e17245ed2/
A Republican challenging Maxine Waters is using a white supremacist platform to promote his campaign.
https://thinkprogress.org/edwin-duterte-gab-23fb503a8eb8/
Re: The attack on ThinkProgress
Only racists and their enablers want to hide information about misinformation, prejudice, and discrimination.
I wish Donna Brazile had waited until next Thursday, after the gubernatorial election in Virginia, to publish this memoir tearing open the festering wounds leftover from the primary. I hope to God that we don’t lose to racist, Enron Ed because of her bad timing.
I totally agree, Rational Lefty, regarding the Virginia gubernatorial race!
Given that Southern Liberal has addressed the November 2, 2017 piece from “Politico†(“Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC,†http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774 ), by former DNC chair Donna Brazile, I will present the following response…
http://youtu.be/ueQDlyCR3H0
Follow-up to yesterday’s Washington Monthly article. I find it to be valuable.
Some Questions Donna Brazile Must Answer
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/11/03/some-questions-donna-brazile-must-answer/#.Wfx-Fxnn1tA.facebook
As I wrote yesterday, Donna Brazile published an explosive excerpt from her book yesterday at Politico. It focused on the Hillary Victory Fund, which raised money for the Clinton campaign, the DNC and state parties. Here is the portion of Brazile’s account that added to what we had previously heard.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
During an interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren yesterday, Jake Tapper asked if the Democratic nomination process in 2016 had been rigged. She said, “yes.â€
Now the president and the entire right wing media establishment are responding with glee that Brazile and Warren both said the Democratic primary was rigged.
Be that as it may, looking into this story a bit deeper raises some questions that Brazile must answer. In her own account, she says this about how the process usually works:
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
So it is not unusual for a nominee to exert control over the DNC once they have been chosen. As CNN reported, that transition began in June 2016, when Clinton had secured enough votes to win the nomination. Brazile’s own account of her conversation with Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign, happened after the Democratic Convention—meaning that the transition had already taken place.
Brazile does, however, suggest that the agreement she reviewed in August 2016 had been signed in August 2015. It has now become apparent that she needs to share what she saw with the public, because in releasing John Podesta’s hacked emails, Wikileaks provided the final template for the 2015 agreement between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and state parties. The emails to which the document were attached include talking points to share with state parties encouraging them to sign up. Nowhere in the text of the agreement is there any reference to the kind of control of the DNC by the Clinton campaign that Brazile wrote about.
All of this raises the question of whether or not the agreement Brazile reviewed in August 2016 might have actually been the revised version that was agreed to after Clinton secured enough votes to win the nomination—something Brazile herself says would be standard practice.
Beyond that, Brazile also recounts the concerns raised about the Hillary Victory Fund by Politico in May 2016 about money from the fund not getting to the states that had signed the agreement. But take a look at the documentation from Open Secrets on revenue raised by HVF and the beneficiaries:
Amount raised – $529,943,912
Beneficiaries:
Clinton campaign – $158,200,000
DNC – $107,533,318
State parties – 38 states each received between $2,494,000 and $3,423,484
At this point I will defer judgement until Brazile addresses the discrepancies between her account and documents that are available in the public domain. That is precisely what Sen. Warren should have done as well.
UPDATE: DNC Chair Tom Perez sent out an email to members last night that included a statement that clearly contradicts what Brazile wrote.
If there is any “progressive” voter in Va. out there that is considering valuing ideological “purity” over making sure Northam is in the governor’s mansion, here is the 1 reason why everyone still needs to vote for Northam:
The winner of this election has veto power over the next redistricting. Even if Northam sits on top of Republican chambers, he still can force compromise. Ed “Red Map” Gillespie, will be helping legislators make block by block, house by house adjustments to assure a Republican hold on a maximum number of seats. So 4 years of Enron Ed will equal 14 more years of artificial Republican majorities in the legislature and congressional delegations.
Exactly, Southern Liberal. That’s the things I consider when I vote.
Thanks for that Southern Liberal.
It brings up a good question: Are we in the beginnings of the demise of the party system, where loyalty is given instead to charismatic figures? I certainly hope not. A party structure indicates that there is something greater than any one individual. Once we begin to put our faith in the man (or woman) on the white horse, we end up with Napoleon, or Stalin, or Hitler. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have built cults of personality around them. The same can’t be said for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.
The parties are justly derided. But we need revivified parties so that people like Trump can’t rise again. A strong party acts as a check on excesses. A strong party also acts to unify disparate threads. We speak of the DNC’s weakness; as Ms. LeTourneau wrote, however, the RNC was so weak that it couldn’t prevent Trump from snatching the nomination. It is also so weak that it has been taken over by Nazis, essentially. This is not good for American democracy.
Rather than saying “a pox on both your houses”, party structures serve a useful purpose. In an Age of Trump, they need to be strengthened, not weakened, in an effort to marginalize the extremes. A politics based on movements around personalities almost always leads to disaster.
Very much agree Leia!
House Passes Children’s Health Insurance Bill, But Kids Are No Closer To Health Insurance. The Senate doesn’t seem interested in passing this particular CHIP reauthorization.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-chip-no-closer-political-games_us_59fc8b8be4b0b0c7fa39c75b
That’s something that a slew of our Democratic Senators should be all over the media shaming the GOP with! Giving children healthcare is more important than whining about rigged primaries! Dems need to get their priorities straight!
Princess Leia writes,
“Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have built cults of personality around them.â€
I disagree.
I second that Rustbelt!
D
3 minutes ago
Princess Leia writes,
“Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have built cults of personality around them.â€
I disagree.
—————
Strongly disagree with D.
I must say, intervening in this discussion, D, I do NOT agree with you, as I do NOT see Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama promoting a “Cult of Personality”!
Ronald writes,
“I must say, intervening in this discussion, D, I do NOT agree with you, as I do NOT see Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama promoting a ‘Cult of Personality’!â€
Personality isn’t really what I am getting at. Every politician who catches on has a personality.
I’m referring to a cult-like following. And I don’t see how one cannot include both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I think the parties are still strong as far as people identifying with them. To me, the DNC’s function is to organize the convention and organize voter participation. I have never looked to the DNC to see who I should vote for. It’s really important for Democrats to know that all politics is local. We should be working and raising money for candidates on the local level. This is what builds the party.
I saw Keith Olbermann respond on the View to the question did Hillary rig the primaries and he said right out of the gate, “and how did that work out for her”. She didn’t win. So he suggested its a nothing burger for most people anyway. Then he began by framing it as it should be, a darned if she did and darned if she didn’t kind of thing.
Same here Pragmatic!
Thanks for the Keith video, Rustbelt! Been enjoying watching his program on YouTube, blasting Trump!
Pragmatic Progressive writes,
“I think the [major political] parties are still strong as far as people identifying with them.â€
Gallup, from early-October 2017 (the most recent), has Ds ahead of Rs by +7. That is, 31% for Ds vs. 24% for Rs. The independents are outpacing them, +11 over the Ds. That is, 42% are self-identifying as independent.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
I feel that way too, Pragmatic!
A relative of mine claims to be “independent” but his Facebook page reveals that it’s very obvious he’s a loyal Republican.
Rustbelt Democrat wrote:
50 minutes ago
I saw Keith Olbermann respond on the View to the question did Hillary rig the primaries and he said right out of the gate, “and how did that work out for herâ€. She didn’t win. So he suggested its a nothing burger for most people anyway.
——————————————-
I write now:
Very true. Most Democratic voters we know could care less about the goings on at the DNC. Democratic voters that we know view fighting Republicans as more important than bashing their fellow Democrats.
Former Republican wrote: Very true. Most Democratic voters we know could care less about the goings on at the DNC. Democratic voters that we know view fighting Republicans as more important than bashing their fellow Democrats.
————————-
That’s because they are educated and they have taken the time to learn about the differences between the two parties and that the Republicans are the true enemy.
I want to momentarily touch further on my first post (which was also the first reader response) from this thread.
With the stunner, by Donna Brazile, I’m sure there are people wondering what the result will be in next year’s midterm elections. Sooner than that, people are wondering about the upcoming gubernatorial elections from New Jersey and Virginia.
I think New Jersey will be a definite Democratic pickup for Phil Murphy. And, despite recent tightened polling, I think a Democratic hold will be the result in Virginia for Ralph Northam. (I would say about 90 percent certain with Murphy; close to 55 percent certain with Northam.)
Historical voting pattern may be the best indicator. It does not guarantee. But, it is usually good.
Since the 17th Amendment from the 1910s, allowing direct elections of U.S. senators from the states’ voters, there have been 26 midterm election cycles: 1914 to 2014. Only three saw overall gains won by the White House party: 1934 (the second year for Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt); 1998 (the sixth year for Democratic president Bill Clinton); and 2002 (the second year for Republican president George W. Bush).
Going on that, the party which should (meaning, to anticipate and/or expect) win overall seat gains with the midterm elections of 2018 is the Democratic Party. (This would be premised on more self-identified Democrats voting as compared to those who are self-identified Republicans. The participating self-identified independents would cast more votes for Democratic candidates. That is how the gains would happen.)
The historical voting pattern indicates that 2020 should not be a year in which the Democrats win a pickup of the presidency. That it would result in a Republican hold. What I am referring to is the pattern in which we have a presidential election that flips party occupancy (past four examples: 1980 Republican, 1992 Democratic, 2000 Republican, 2008 Democratic). It is uncommon that the party flipped out comes back to win the next cycle. The last exception was 1980. 1976 was a Democratic pickup (Jimmy Carter); 1980 was a Republican pickup (Ronald Reagan). There were no other breaks in pattern during the 20th, and so far the 21st, century. The last time a presidential election was a Democratic pickup year and that the party held the presidency with the next election goes back to 1960 John Kennedy and 1964 Lyndon Johnson. The last time a presidential election was a Republican pickup and that the party held the presidency with the next election goes back to 1920 Warren Harding and 1924 Calvin Coolidge. That was also a period in which a president having won a first-term election in a year ending in “0†died while in office. That is not the pattern anymore. My feeling, as expressed here previously, still remains—that Donald Trump will be a two-term U.S. president. And, if that turns out to be correct, he would win re-election with stronger numbers because his –2.09 loss in the U.S. Popular Vote (a 2016 increase from the +1.77 over the –3.86 loss of a 2012 Mitt Romney) cannot go in decline. It could not do that because he would not hold the trio of Rust Belt states which reached and surpassed 270 electoral votes: Wisconsin (+0.76; his No. 28, of a carried 30, best state; cum. 270), Pennsylvania (+0.72; No. 29; cum. 290), and Michigan (+0.22; No. 30; cum. 306). I would guess a re-elected Trump to hold the same map—and gain in the U.S. Popular Vote by an additional +3 to +5 (to win by no more than +3 points)—and win Republican pickups from a combination of New Hampshire (won by Hillary Clinton by +0.36; her No. 20, of a carried 20, best state), Minnesota (+1.52; her No. 19), Nevada (+2.42; her No. 18), and Maine (+2.96; her No. 17).
If I turn out to be correct, about 2018 and 2020, then the non-presidential years are going to be the essential ones for a Democratic Party which does not currently hold the White House.
By the way…
For an image of a re-elected Trump map (ones in yellow are tossups):
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/Yx3GY.png
• Clarification •
The last time a presidential election was a Democratic pickup year and that the party held the presidency with the next election (with a different president) goes back to 1960 John Kennedy and 1964 Lyndon Johnson. The last time a presidential election was a Republican pickup and that the party held the presidency with the next election (with a different president) goes back to 1920 Warren Harding and 1924 Calvin Coolidge.
WOW, D, you floor me with your predictions, and I am stunned by the thought that Trump would win a second term, when I still believe he will be gone early in 2018. Or even that his party would keep control, with such a horrible, unproductive record.
And I am confused by “pickup” years that you describe as 1960 and 1920, unless you mean different Presidents in the second term, which I guess what you mean.
But then 1980 and after had THREE terms with two different Presidents.
Please clarify on this, and let me tell you that I hope you are totally inaccurate in your projections, and to believe Minnesota would go Republican floors me totally! 🙁
I have a very long response to the following quotes from Ronald:
“WOW, D, you floor me with your predictions, and I am stunned by the thought that Trump would win a second term, when I still believe he will be gone early in 2018. Or even that his party would keep control, with such a horrible, unproductive record.â€
I don’t think Donald Trump will be removed from office.
I do picture his Republican Party not holding both houses of Congress throughout his entire presidency. That this is going by my sensing that he will be two-term president. That he wouldn’t have same-party majorities for all eight years. The only one who did that, post-17th Amendment, was the four-term-elected Franklin Roosevelt. And Roosevelt’s party suffered losses in the midterms of 1938 and 1942. The one who never had it, at any point during his presidency, was two-term-elected Richard Nixon.
This is where the Democrats would come in with the midterm election gains in 2018 (and, should Trump win re-election in 2020, in 2022).
* * * * *
“And I am confused by ‘pickup’ years that you describe as 1960 and 1920, unless you mean different Presidents in the second term, which I guess what you mean.â€
In using the word “pickup,†I am referring to a party switch for the presidency. (I can use that term for, say, U.S. Senate seats if we were discussing that topic.) That the presidency flips from Republican to Democratic (as it last did in 2008) or Democratic to Republican (as it last did in 2016).
Concerning successors after a first-term president who did not last that first full term in office:
• In 1920, the presidency flipped Republican. Warren Harding died in office. His successor, winning a full term in 1924, was Calvin Coolidge.
• In 1960, the presidency flipped Democratic. John Kennedy died in office. His successor, winning a full term in 1964, was Lyndon Johnson.
Those 1924 and 1964 full-term elections for Coolidge and Johnson were party holds. So, knowing there has been speculation of Trump getting removed from office, and that his replacement would be Vice President Mike Pence, the historical pattern for what could be maintained for Election 2020—in which Trump does not get re-nominated—would be a Republican hold due to a full-term election won by Pence (to follow the 2016 Republican pickup victory of Trump).
I am not sensing that Mike Pence will succeed Donald Trump. (I don’t think Pence will ever be U.S. president.) I think Trump continues to be underestimated, in terms of his ability for navigating and winning in the electoral arena, and he proved it against all his opponents who seeked the 2016 Republican presidential nomination—to the tune of winning over 35 states (including eight of the Top 10 populous states)—and he did in the general election (with carriage of seven, four of which were Republican pickups, of the Top 10 populous states) against the losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
* * * * *
“But then 1980 and after had THREE terms with two different Presidents.â€
I’m sorry for not wording more carefully what I was mentioning in my previous response.
1980 was a Republican pickup for Ronald Reagan (who unseated Democratic president Jimmy Carter). Reagan was re-elected, in 1984, with a Republican hold. (So, the Democrats, with nominee Walter Mondale, did not flip the presidency back to their party’s column, with that particular election cycle, after having lost it with Election 1980.) 1988, for George Bush Sr., was a third consecutive Republican Party presidential win. (It is the only occurrence in which one party held the presidency with the winning of three consecutive election cycles since after the 1940s.)
A part of my point is this: You get a presidential election which flips party occupancy. The nation doesn’t often flip it back to the party which lost it with the very next election cycle. (The party flipped out tends to strike back, instead, with flipping one or both houses of Congress with a midterm election. Think, for some examples, of the midterm 1986 Democrats, 1994 Republicans, 2006 Democrats, and 2010/2014 Republicans.)
* * * * *
“Please clarify on this, and let me tell you that I hope you are totally inaccurate in your projections, and to believe Minnesota would go Republican floors me totally! â€
Let’s say I turn out to be wrong. That Election 2020 becomes a Democratic pickup for the presidency (with whomever the nominee). Let’s say that 2020 Democratic nominee and pickup winner shifts Hillary’s popular-vote margin of +2.09 to a margin of at least +7 (but probably no greater than +10). It would be a national wave election. (There were over 137 million votes cast for president in 2016. Every 1.37 million is a full percentage point.) Which states would shift far enough for that extra +5 to +8 points to get to that final +7 to +10? Well, all the 2016 Democratic/Hillary Clinton carried states would become 2020 Democratic holds—likely all by stronger margins—and then I would look to the states from Trump’s 2016 Republican column which won by single-digit margins. The ones on the next-linked map, appearing in light blue (as Democratic pickups), would be most vulnerable to flip. The ones in yellow would also be in play. This is based on Trump’s 30 carried states, and where they ranked in their margins, and keeping in mind that Wisconsin was his tipping point state (the one, as you track these states’ cumulative electoral votes, got him to reach 270).
Working backward (Republican/Trump states, from 2016, followed by potential of their losses in 2020 Democratic pickups):
30. *Michigan +0.22 (+16 electoral votes, cum. 306 electoral votes; –16, cum. 290)
29. *Pennsylvania +0.72 (+20, cum. 290; –20, cum. 270)
28. *Wisconsin +0.76 (+10, cum. 270; –10, cum. 260)—Tipping Point State
27. *Florida +1.19 (+29, cum. 260; –29, cum. 231)
— Nebraska #02 +2.24 (+01, cum. 231; –01, cum. 230)
26. Arizona +3.50 (+11, cum. 230; –11, cum. 219)
25. North Carolina +3.66 (+15, cum. 219; –15, cum. 204)
24. Georgia +5.10 (+16, cum. 204; –16, cum. 188)
23. *Ohio +8.07 (+18, cum. 188; –18, cum. 170)
22. Texas +8.98 (+38, cum. 170; cum. 132)
21. *Iowa +9.41 (+06, cum. 132; cum. 126)
— Maine #02 (+01, cum. 126; cum. 125)
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/DXD03.png
* * * * *
Let’s say that I turn out to be correct. That Election 2020 turns out to be a Republican hold with re-election for Donald Trump. That he cannot get re-elected with having a decline in popular-vote margin and would have to increase, winning a Republican pickup with a margin that is no more than +3. To get to that +3, I would consider states carried in 2016 by Hillary Clinton by up to +5. (This scenario would be similar to 2000/2004 George W. Bush.)
Working backward (Democratic/Hillary states, from 2020, followed by their potential to become 2020 Republican pickups):
20. New Hampshire +0.36 (+04 electoral votes, cum. 232 electoral votes; –04, cum. 228)
19. Minnesota +1.52 (+10, cum. 228; –10, cum. 218)
18. Nevada +2.42 (+06, cum. 218; –06, cum. 212)
17. Maine [statewide] +2.96 (+02, cum. 212; –02, cum. 210)
16. Colorado +4.91 (+09, cum. 210; –09, cum. 201)
15. Virginia +5.32 (+13, cum. 201; –13, cum. 188)
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/Yx3GY.png
* * * * *
Since 1992, the fewest numbers of carried states were 26 (the 2012 re-election of Barack Obama); the most numbers of carried states were 32 (the 1992 first-term election of Bill Clinton). The average, during this period, have been 29 carried states.
I would envision a Democratic pickup winner not topping 32 but likely carrying between 26 and 30 states. That is why that list, from the 2016 Republican/Trump side, is longer. To go from 20 to 26 involves flipping at least six states. With Hillary’s carried 20—and that Colorado (the tipping point state for Obama’s two elections) was No. 23 in both 2008 and 2012 (enough to reach that 270)—the Democrats nowadays need to carry 23 states to get to 270. (In winning elections, they have averaged, since 1992, a total of 12 electoral votes per carried state.) My theory: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are the first trio within a reach of a pickup-winning Democrat.
Realistically, presidential winners tend to carry at least 50 percent of the states. (Historical average, based on today’s 50 states, is 34.) So, it would be, at least, in the upper-20s for a Democratic pickup winner (and re-elected Democrat). In the case of a Republican hold (as it was a Republican pickup from 2016), for re-election for Trump, I would say that he would have to have a national wave—to have a sheer landslide—otherwise, he would top off at about 32 carried states. The average number of electoral votes for Republican winners, since 1992, have been 9 per state. For 2016 Trump, it was 10 per state. It took 28 states for Trump to reach 270 electoral votes. (George W. Bush, in the 2000s, carried 30 followed by 31 states. In 2004, his No. 29 was Ohio. That was his tipping point state. It got him to 274. Republican pickups from No. 30 New Mexico and No 31 Iowa got him to his final 286 electoral votes.) In the case of a re-elected Trump, for flipped states (because no one election’s map has ever been later duplicated), I lean toward New Hampshire and Maine (statewide). If either of them stay Democratic, then substitute one of them for Minnesota.
Nevada, which votes like New Mexico, may hold as these states are trending Lean Democratic with Colorado and Virginia. That a winning Republican, like 2016, prevails without any of the four. You know we are in a different period when a losing Democrat carries Virginia and Colorado more strongly than Minnesota. That state last carried Republican for the 49-state re-election of Richard Nixon back in 1972. (Side note: From 1960 to 2012, Minnesota and Pueblo County, Colorado voted the same—Republican only in 1972—and Pueblo County flipped narrowly Republican to Trump, in 2016, while Minnesota narrowly carried Democratic for Hillary.)
I also want to add this about Pennsylvania and my home state Michigan: They are historical companion states. They have voted the same in all but five since the younger state, Michigan, first voted in 1836. Three times they voted differently because one state had a major-party presidential nominee who carried his home state but not the companion state. The other two occurrences came with the four terms of Franklin Roosevelt as they both voted once for losing Republicans—but not timed with the same election cycle. Pennsylvania and Michigan carried the same in the last ten elections of 1980 to 2016. During this period, the only presidential candidate who won them both while having lost the Electoral College and U.S. Popular Vote was John Kerry (2004). They voted with the winners in 8 of the last 10 cycles (there were the five in a row from 1980 to 1996; three in a row from 2008 to 2016) but, for rating their reliability voting for presidential winners, they get half-credit for siding with popular-vote winner Al Gore (2000). And this covers carriage for both major parties. I checked it out, from past presidential elections, and it turns out that all two-term presidents (Franklin Roosevelt does not count; he was the only one elected beyond two terms) who carried both states in their first-term election ended up having won both states with re-election. If Trump gets re-elected, he will likely end up with both Pennsylvania and Michigan (and for their close percentage-points connection, and with it being the 2016 tipping point state, I would say this would also be the outcome with Wisconsin).
D, thanks for your detailed explanations.
History tells us what you stated, but we live in strange times, and I hope you are wrong on Trump and a second term in the Oval Office.
I predict that Mueller’s investigation will hurt Trump’s chance of winning a second term.
Trump opened the floodgates. Now Democratic women are running for office in record-breaking numbers
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/women-candidates-ballot/index.html
Thanks for that Pragmatic. Like that woman candidate mentioned in that article, I, too, saw, and still see, Trump’s rhetoric as hateful and much of it misogynistic.
Pragmatic Progressive writes,
“I predict that Mueller’s investigation will hurt Trump’s chance of winning a second term.â€
I’m thinking the opposite.
An investigation isn’t enough if it isn’t actual removal of a sitting president.
Onto a point I want to make…
Unseating a U.S. president usually happens with something bad that that incumbent president cannot help (but which casts a bad spell over his ability to get re-elected).
Looking at the 20th-century elections in which incumbent presidents, seeking a second term, became unseated by their opposition-party challengers—and this was applicable to five—and why it happened…
• 1912: Republican William Howard Taft was unseated by Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Mainly it was a blowup between the conservative (Taft) and progressive (predecessor Teddy Roosevelt) wings of the party. Roosevelt and Taft had in for each other and Roosevelt became the Progressive Party nominee of 1912 and, in the general election, flipped six states from Taft’s 1908 column: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Roosevelt nationally finished in second, reducing Taft to third (and with carriage of just Utah and Vermont), and that paved the way for a Democratic pickup for Wilson to carry the rest of the 40 states (including then-new states New Mexico and Arizona).
• 1932: Republican Herbert Hoover was unseated by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. The Great Depression having struck on the watch of Hoover.
• 1976: Republican Gerald Ford was unseated by Democrat Jimmy Carter. Ford is the only person never elected to the vice presidency and, afterward, presidency. Ford faced primaries challenge by Ronald Reagan. And the stresses of Ford having pardoned Richard Nixon, along with what that administration did for lingering bad feelings, pretty much opened up 1976 for the opposition Democratic Party of flip the Republicans out of the White House.
• 1980: Democrat Jimmy Carter was unseated by Republican Ronald Reagan. This was the only occurrence during the 20th, and so far 21st, century with two consecutive party flips of the presidency. The economy (and inflation), which also helped unseat Ford, worked to unseat Carter. There was also the Iran hostage crisis.
• 1992: Republican George Bush was unseated by Democrat Bill Clinton. “It’s the economy, stupid!†No further explanation needed.
With exception of 1912 William Howard Taft unseated by Woodrow Wilson, all of these defeats of incumbent U.S. presidents were attributed to, at least in part, terrible economies. For those who would bet on Donald Trump to become unseated by his Democratic challenger, in 2020, I think this would be the most likely circumstance—and one not that much in his control—for that common explanation that it was a bad economy which struck on his watch.
D, do not forget for 1992 the effect of Independent Ross Perot, who took 19 percent of the vote, more than any third party or independent candidate in American history, except TR in 1912!
Ronald writes,
“D, do not forget for 1992 the effect of Independent Ross Perot, who took 19 percent of the vote, more than any third party or independent candidate in American history, except TR in 1912!â€
I forgot to write it.
I did not forget it.
1992 Ross Perot finished in second place in two states—Maine and Utah—which were in 1988 Republican column for George Bush. Maine became a Democratic pickup for Bill Clinton in 1992.
The economy undid 1992 George Bush with his attempt to win re-election. Bush having been unseated would have happened even if Ross Perot had not been in the race. What Perot achieved was garner 19 percent of the vote nationwide and prevent that election being won with a majority of all votes. (I’m actually thinking that 2020 re-election for Donald Trump would also be a plurality; the first two-term U.S. president who did not win a majority since 1992 and 1996 Bill Clinton.)
Pragmatic Progressive writes,
“I predict that Mueller’s investigation will hurt Trump’s chance of winning a second term.â€
I’m thinking the opposite.
An investigation isn’t enough if it isn’t actual removal of a sitting president.
———————–
That’s why it’s absolutely necessary to get a Democratic Congress in 2018, for the sake and safety of our country!
Seconded, Leia! We will need to work hard to ensure that people get out and vote.
Russian and East European bots are seeking to stoke up the Tea-Party(-ites) and rabid GOPers (to boost the vote for Ed Gillespie and the other GOP disasters) while stoking discord among traditional Democratic groups to try to suppress Ralph Northam’s vote.
http://bluevirginia.us/2017/11/russian-bots-hot-heavy-in-virginia-election