dagblog - Comments for "Democrats’ Secret Weapon: Romney Voters"

DM me, I'll try to remember.

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 14:14:56 +0000

In reply to Good God! Why would you have

DM me, I'll try to remember. Found a gem in Linz, but a bit far away...

I thank you .

HSG — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 12:51:19 +0000

In reply to I do try.

I thank you .

Maybe the problem for people

artappraiser — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 02:25:18 +0000

In reply to Thank you for the considered

Maybe the problem for people like you who have a historical perspective are just not thinking far back enough? And those who compare Trump to Jackson are thinking too far back? Try 1848 instead, maybe it will inspire instead of depress:

How an Outsider President Killed a Party; The Whigs chose power over principles when they nominated Zachary Taylor in 1848. The party never recovered.

(Same year as the year of revolution around the world.)

You're funny, Flav.

artappraiser — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:46:51 +0000

In reply to I have an Eddie Cantor vinyl

You're funny, Flav.

And you're at least half right. The part where you're not: it's not Eddie Cantor's ad world anymore.

So let's try Wyclef Jean instead. Seems to be a name that people under 50 would think of as a pop celebrity. He knows Trump, likes Trump personally, but has joined the fight against Trump as president. Understands the whole viral meme thing for making sales, I imagine:

Wyclef Jean to anti-Trump celebs: ‘Be very careful’

‘I feel that we’re at a time now where your voice should be louder than it’s ever been,’ the music star tells POLITICO.

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 06/02/2017 05:24 AM EDT

Thank you for the considered

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:29:36 +0000

In reply to I have a bit of time on my

Thank you for the considered response. You're absolutely correct that Democrats haven't been showing up. That is one of the reasons they have lost and continue to lose support of the historic base, particular in rural areas. But it is not the only reason. In the Democrats' absence, Republicans aggressively courted these voters. One reason Middle Americans regard coastal liberals as "elitist" is because conservatives have been telling them for decades, ever since Nixon appealed to the Silent Majority amid the student protests against the Vietnam War. That in turn created a feedback loop. Struggling against the current in regions that were growing redder, Democrats turned their attention to more fertile ground--California, New York, and other coastal states that were growing bluer. We're almost half a century into this trend. Former blue states like West Virginia and Arkansas are gone, and they're not coming back, at least not anytime soon.

The question is whether it's not too late to turn the tide in Midwestern states that have been trending red while making inroads in the Southwest and Southeast. I don't know. Sometimes voting patterns persist for a century or more--like Democrats' hold on the South. Sometimes they change with astonishing speed--like the progressive waves of 1912 and 1932 or the conservative wave of 1994. When I'm feeling optimistic, I imagine that a political "revolution" on the left may restore an enduring progressive majority. When I'm feeling pessimistic, I worry that 21st century Democrats will become like the GOP of the mid-20th century, chasing centrism and big-tentism in a desperate bid to remain relevant.

It´s a Czech beer and is good

Flavius — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 01:22:36 +0000

In reply to Good God! Why would you have

It´s a Czech beer and is good.

. In Europe the US beer is identified as ¨Bud¨ and is the same old watery tasteless brew to which

we´ve become accustomed

I do try.

rmrd0000 — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 00:53:03 +0000

In reply to We live in the same reality

I do try.

We live in the same reality

HSG — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:52:02 +0000

In reply to HSG, we live in different

We live in the same reality but we see it differently. I keep trying to understand yours. Do you try to understand mine?

HSG, we live in different

rmrd0000 — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:43:24 +0000

In reply to 1) "You have no clue on how

HSG, we live in different realities.

1) "You have no clue on how

HSG — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 22:57:49 +0000

In reply to I also want a pet unicorn. I

1) "You have no clue on how to achieve those goals." Actually, I do have a clue. I supported the candidate who was prepared to fight for those goals. You did not.

2) "I would vote to re-elect Obama to guarantee that 24 million people kept their healthcare rather than risk them losing care with a candidate focused on single-payer now." You voted in the primary for the candidate who wrapped herself in Obama's mantle rather than the candidate who wanted to replace Obamacare with single-payer. Now it appears you may get neither.

3) "I think an Obama type candidate might pave the way for single payer over the long term." We just had an Obama type candidate in the Presidency for 8 years and it looks like we may lose very hard-fought gains.

4) In answer to your earlier question, I would have probably voted for Obama over Sanders in 2008 as I (to my regret) supported Obama over Kucinich. In 2012, I would have voted for Sanders if he had primaried Obama.