Political Roundtable Part XVII

[Ruzious]

Quoting Scott F'n Baio... seriously? SD, have a nice life but go away. Seriously.

[Ruzious]

Actually, 128M voted in 2012 and 135M voted in 2016. Why did those deplorables come out and vote for Trump when they used to vote D?

But to answer your question (from my perspective) - Hillary's message wasn't. It was a garble muck of policy "wonkishness".

The next election(s): The Ds can have a simple message that gets them to the finish line - we aren't Trump. But eventually, they are going to need a compelling message and will need to govern to keep the yoyo from going back to the Rs (IMO).

Yeah but how much of that growth tracks with the natural population increase. There was less enthusiasm in key Democratic demographics. Elections like Virginia show that if Dems turnout they win.

I certainly won't disagree with you on better messaging. That's where Republicans have Democrats beat. But the author of that article is talking like Trump had some great political genius. He's literally a guy who says whatever stupid thing pops in his head and he was able to convince enough people willing to try something different.

"better messaging." You have no message. How 'bout start with a manufacturing an actual message. Anything!

What are you going to do? Why? and how does it help? how are you going to pay for it? Give me one issue and answer all those questions. one thing. anything!

You're seriously accusing someone else of not coming up with a way to pay - when EVERY economist says the next tax bill will cost at least a trillion dollars? And before attacking another post, read what the poster said. He said that Dems have a problem with getting their messages out, and the Repubs have them beat there. That's agreeing with you - not disagreeing. Eh eh eh, I said go away. Don't answer. I meant it.

[dckingsfan]

But is it really though? It's simple math there are more Democrats than Republicans, there are more people who identify as independents than both categories but I'd be interested to see how many vote with one party a majority of the time. I'm going to guess it would lean towards Democrat. I mean just look at Bernie Sanders the man identifies as independent but for all intensive purposes he's a Democrat.

It's the reason Republicans have gerrymandered districts and try to suppress minority and young votes. They know that the demographics aren't in their favor. I'd like to know why people didn't come out for Clinton the same way they did for Obama. Trump's message only appealed to white voters yet he won because millions of people decided to stay home.

Actually, 128M voted in 2012 and 135M voted in 2016. Why did those deplorables come out and vote for Trump when they used to vote D?

But to answer your question (from my perspective) - Hillary's message wasn't. It was a garble muck of policy "wonkishness".

The next election(s): The Ds can have a simple message that gets them to the finish line - we aren't Trump. But eventually, they are going to need a compelling message and will need to govern to keep the yoyo from going back to the Rs (IMO).

Yeah but how much of that growth tracks with the natural population increase. There was less enthusiasm in key Democratic demographics. Elections like Virginia show that if Dems turnout they win.

I certainly won't disagree with you on better messaging. That's where Republicans have Democrats beat. But the author of that article is talking like Trump had some great political genius. He's literally a guy who says whatever stupid thing pops in his head and he was able to convince enough people willing to try something different.

I think we are in agreement here. First, elections like Virginia show that the messaging only need be - we are the anti-Trump. And that will work for some time.

And yes, the Ds drivel (and the DNC) made Trump look like a political genius (which we know he is not).

Remember - it isn't they turnout and then there is a message. It is, there is a message and then they turn out

[gtn130]

People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

Self-proclaimed Independents are generally not any more open minded than anyone else and are actually just far less forthcoming about what they believe in, so they claim to be independent and act like they made a real tough choice voting Republican for the 98th consecutive election.

My dad, for example, watches Fox News all day, only reads the WSJ, has only ever voted R in my lifetime (and his), yet claims to be an Independent. It's really a joke, and I suspect the vast majority of 'Independents' are exactly like him.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Quoting Scott F'n Baio... seriously? SD, have a nice life but go away. Seriously.

Chachi!!??? Now you dont like Chachi?? Come bro, loosen up. He is pretty good on twitter. comes up with some funny stuff to lighten the mood like this.

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

[verbal8]

A few things make the voters not line up with those numbers. A lot of the Reagan Democrats, are registered as Dems and vote Republican. Also a lot of conservatives vote Republican consistently, but aren't registered as such.

People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

Self-proclaimed Independents are generally not any more open minded than anyone else and are actually just far less forthcoming about what they believe in, so they claim to be independent and act like they made a real tough choice voting Republican for the 98th consecutive election.

My dad, for example, watches Fox News all day, only reads the WSJ, has only ever voted R in my lifetime (and his), yet claims to be an Independent. It's really a joke, and I suspect the vast majority of 'Independents' are exactly like him.

[Pointgod]

People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

So how often would you say you vote with one party over the other? I only ask because at this point the parties are so diametrically opposed on most issues that I can't understand how you could wobble back and forth. Or do you vote more for the candidate?

[dckingsfan]

People increasingly identify as 'Independent' because it makes them feel smart and like they're above partisanship. It holds no bearing on how they vote.

I can't speak for other independents - although I have many friends who are of the same ilk. The reason we are independents is we feel neither of the parties truly represent our interests. You can probably figure out why that is with Republicans. But there are some very fine reasons not to believe the Ds represent our interests (especially on a local and state level).

And just because we are independents doesn't mean we aren't partisan on issues. Just not slaves (had to throw that in to equal you snark) to a particular party.

I won't address the snarky "feel smart" comment as the comment lacks intellectual depth

So how often would you say you vote with one party over the other? I only ask because at this point the parties are so diametrically opposed on most issues that I can't understand how you could wobble back and forth. Or do you vote more for the candidate?

Okay - so this is just me - a very small sample size and is an incomplete list...

In local races I want to hear what the candidate wants to accomplish. Where would they allocate resources. Are their goals fiscally responsible. Do they have some (what I would call) whack ideas or are they grounded. Since most of them have fund raising parties - it isn't hard to meet the candidates. And party rarely has to do with who I pick.

At the state level, I want to know their positions on education, prison (reform), smart on crime or tough on crime, taxes, what they feel is the best way to get a sustainable state government, their position on supporting "bankrupt" municipalities. It is often the toughest to get information on state level candidates in my opinion.

At the federal level, I want to know if my congressman/senator leans toward sustainable government or is a spendthrift. I want to know if they will reach across the aisle. I want to know if they are part of the industrial military complex. I want to know if they would buck their party if push comes to shove on bad legislation. I might vote for the candidate that represents the minority party in congress if I don't like the direction the Administration is headed as a check.

[stilldropin20]

"i said, i said, wut da heeeellll is goin' on ova heya!!??"

Good on Ben Carson to get to the bottom of this! Great Man! Great American!

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

where is heath ledger when you need him!!?? cuz "here we go.":wave:
https://nypost.com/2016/10/17/the-state-departments-shadow-government/

[dckingsfan]

"better messaging." You have no message. How 'bout start with a manufacturing an actual message. Anything!

What are you going to do? Why? and how does it help? how are you going to pay for it? Give me one issue and answer all those questions. one thing. anything!

Just off the top of my head, here is 5 if I were the Ds...

Message 1: sustainable government - that they are the party that is most likely to take on the cost drivers in healthcare, aren't tied to the military industrial complex (as much) and most want to see government succeed. They could easily point out that there are some in the R community that would like to see the federal government shrink quickly. And they can run on the fact that they were the last ones to have a balanced budget. But getting politicians like Bernie onboard is going to be tough.

Message 2: tax fairness and simplicity. I would run on wiping out all the carveouts. They would position themselves on not being the party of large donors. This tax bill should provide plenty of material for the cause. But would Ds be willing to give up their favorite carevouts?

Message 3: Growth. They need to position themselves on the party of jobs. But that means that they need to support both small and large businesses. They need to support smart sustainable immigration (and explain that we need this due to our demographics). That might mean that they need to think through their current dreamer above all else strategy. One problem with that, 3 of 4 Trump voters oppose birthright citizenship — automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented parents — while only 1 of 7 Clinton voters felt the same.

Message 4: big tent. They need to keep hammering that they are the party of all races (and sexes). But they need to not run on the identity politics (rampant at Universities) that maligns the white voter (again, party of all races). They need to welcome in people of faith elaborating on what they agree on rather than emphasizing what they don't agree on (abortion).

Message 5: smart on crime, smart on drugs: emphasize that crime is falling but our cost for incarceration are climbing and that is eating away at other spending - be concrete. Do you want someone in prison for marijuana use if it means that we don't fix the potholes in your roads?

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

"better messaging." You have no message. How 'bout start with a manufacturing an actual message. Anything!

What are you going to do? Why? and how does it help? how are you going to pay for it? Give me one issue and answer all those questions. one thing. anything!

Just off the top of my head, here is 5 if I were the Ds...

Message 1: sustainable government - that they are the party that is most likely to take on the cost drivers in healthcare, aren't tied to the military industrial complex (as much) and most want to see government succeed. They could easily point out that there are some in the R community that would like to see the federal government shrink quickly. And they can run on the fact that they were the last ones to have a balanced budget. But getting politicians like Bernie onboard is going to be tough.

Message 2: tax fairness and simplicity. I would run on wiping out all the carveouts. They would position themselves on not being the party of large donors. This tax bill should provide plenty of material for the cause. But would Ds be willing to give up their favorite carevouts?

Message 3: Growth. They need to position themselves on the party of jobs. But that means that they need to support both small and large businesses. They need to support smart sustainable immigration (and explain that we need this due to our demographics). That might mean that they need to think through their current dreamer above all else strategy. One problem with that, 3 of 4 Trump voters oppose birthright citizenship — automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented parents — while only 1 of 7 Clinton voters felt the same.

Message 4: big tent. They need to keep hammering that they are the party of all races (and sexes). But they need to not run on the identity politics (rampant at Universities) that maligns the white voter (again, party of all races). They need to welcome in people of faith elaborating on what they agree on rather than emphasizing what they don't agree on (abortion).

Message 5: smart on crime, smart on drugs: emphasize that crime is falling but our cost for incarceration are climbing and that is eating away at other spending - be concrete. Do you want someone in prison for marijuana use if it means that we don't fix the potholes in your roads?

very well done!!!

see how easy that was libs? Now, at the same time, I think you understand that THIS IS THE DONALD TRUMP PLATFORM. Still though, yes. That is the message. Get off identity politics. Get off of "we are not trump." And get on with an actual message. And trump stole it so from Reagan and others so they may as well steal it form Trump.

[stilldropin20]

uh oh. Did libs finally find a candidate that can beat trump? wow! talk about battle of the titans. FTR, I dont think trump stands a chance. But this is the only candidate. and depending on her message and campaign pledges, I could totally vote for her.

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

uh oh. Did libs finally find a candidate that can beat trump? wow! talk about battle of the titans. FTR, I dont think trump stands a chance. But this is the only candidate. and depending on her message and campaign pledges, I could totally vote for her.

Read on Twitter

aaaaaaaaaand maybe not?

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

unemployment was at 10 and 11% prior to that. The basketball analogy is a 3rd rate back up SG like Jamal Crawford shooting 38%. Who was initially shooting 36% for years. Finally made 40% of his shots bringing his shooting % up to 37% overall. He still sucks. at virtually everything. Especially so if he is turning the ball over left and right (ISIS). And cheating with HgH(weaponized DOJ aginast trump while allowing HRC to slide on treasonous charges!

meanwhile Trump is steph curry. and on a hot streak!!

[Pointgod]

Fact checking more Trump lies:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/26/donald-trump/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/

"Virtually all were in place before the Trump administration came to office, along with virtually all of the key arms transfers and other assistance that went to Iraqi forces and the Syrian forces supported by the U.S," Cordesman said.

"Trump deserves credit for fully implementing the plan and some limited improvements, but it is nonsense for him to take credit for a program his predecessor had largely put in place," he said.