Page 5 of 91

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 11 Nov 2016, 12:53pm
by Flex
Just utterly damning:
Obama won only voters with household incomes under $50,000, but he did it overwhelmingly, 60–38, and lost all higher-income groups — a class warrior after all! Clinton won those lower-income voters by only 52–41. So yes, she won, but with an eleven-point decline in the Democrats’ advantage.

For voters with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, the numbers change very little: 46–50 for Obama, 46–52 for Clinton. But go over $100,000, and things get interesting again. Romney won those well-off voters handily, 54–44, as Republicans generally do. Trump barely hung on at about 48–47. That’s a nine-point gain for the Democrats.

Clinton was much weaker than Obama with union-household voters: he won them 58–40, she only 51–43. That’s a sixteen-point loss.
Full article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/dona ... ing-class/

(The whole article is quite good)

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 11 Nov 2016, 1:29pm
by Dr. Medulla
Flex wrote:Just utterly damning:
Obama won only voters with household incomes under $50,000, but he did it overwhelmingly, 60–38, and lost all higher-income groups — a class warrior after all! Clinton won those lower-income voters by only 52–41. So yes, she won, but with an eleven-point decline in the Democrats’ advantage.

For voters with household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, the numbers change very little: 46–50 for Obama, 46–52 for Clinton. But go over $100,000, and things get interesting again. Romney won those well-off voters handily, 54–44, as Republicans generally do. Trump barely hung on at about 48–47. That’s a nine-point gain for the Democrats.

Clinton was much weaker than Obama with union-household voters: he won them 58–40, she only 51–43. That’s a sixteen-point loss.
Full article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/dona ... ing-class/

(The whole article is quite good)
Heh, it quoted the same passage from Rorty that I did this morning.

Anyway, yes, the bulk of this comes down to both parties ignoring and abusing the working class and lower middle class (and creating more of them from the middle class) for the past 35 years (at least). Thru the primaries, the Democrats went status quo and the Republicans had forced on them a critic of the status quo, and so by the election there was only one option for the frustrated. If there's hopeful news, it's that the young mostly resisted Trump, so there's still an opportunity there. Trump won fewer votes than either Romney or McCain, and if his supporters are older, that's necessarily a shrinking demo. The frustrated/populist voter is still going to up for grabs in two and four years because things are not going to turn around in that time. The worst thing the Democrats can do is be Garrison Keillor and smugly cultivate tomatoes or whatever the fuck he said and post pictures of Obama that say, "Miss me yet?" This is about a complete overhaul and repudiation of several decades of liberal convention.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 12:41pm
by eumaas

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 7:10pm
by eumaas

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 14 Nov 2016, 7:24pm
by Dr. Medulla
eumaas wrote:
Suddenly Obama is a man of the left?

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 16 Nov 2016, 11:29am
by eumaas
goddamn Schumer

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 16 Nov 2016, 12:50pm
by Rat Patrol
eumaas wrote:goddamn Schumer
https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/20 ... heres.html

At least we've had a full 18 months since Harry Reid announced retirement to prepare for that ratfucker's rise to the Leadership position. :meh:

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 17 Nov 2016, 12:11am
by Flex

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 17 Nov 2016, 4:37pm
by Kory
Flex wrote:This is straightforwardly correct: https://newrepublic.com/article/138721/ ... t-medicare
But wouldn't it be better if they found some sort of middle ground compromise?

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 17 Nov 2016, 6:06pm
by Flex
Kory wrote:But wouldn't it be better if they found some sort of middle ground compromise?
You should chair the DNC.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 17 Nov 2016, 6:10pm
by Kory
Flex wrote:
Kory wrote:But wouldn't it be better if they found some sort of middle ground compromise?
You should chair the DNC.
I'd gladly accept, but I don't want to make any waves.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 22 Nov 2016, 11:15pm
by eumaas
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us ... -wing.html

They would rather die on the hill of neoliberalism than win elections. Fuck them.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 28 Nov 2016, 5:57pm
by Flex
Freddie seem to me to get it pretty right here on the false economics vs social justice pseudo-conflict: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2016/11/28/the ... lict-here/

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 01 Dec 2016, 12:54am
by Rat Patrol
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1 ... h-everyone

CRY MOAR, Kos. It seems almost incomprehensible that he and Jerome Armstrong (last seen consulting for Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign after his meltdown leading the P.U.M.A. smears in '08!) were once a quasi-credible thing. The '00s Netroots can't die fast enough. What an utter squander.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 06 Dec 2016, 3:43pm
by Flex