BoogieWoogie
Banned
Franken/Harris or bust.
Bernie should run with a super young person, just in case he croaks, we get his squire.
Except he routinely beat her in polls.
You say that like it is the same people saying that. Trump is too old as well, and cannot even formulate proper sentences anymore. Just watch an old interview where Trump actually can talk relatively normal to see some of the the effects of ageing.
Really? An 80 year old is all they can come up with? UGh.
Very true, Republicans go all in with their chosen one where Dems feel dejected when the person they wanted drops out. Lots of Bernie supports were so anti-Clinton they at least said openly that they would either vote for Trump or not vote at all which is rediculous.I still remember the woman who was interviewed by Daily Show during the primaries.
"Im a conservative, Trump is a jackass, but if he's the GOP ticket, so be it".
Except he routinely beat her in polls.
It is not the same group, but the dismissive "thanks, no"-tone in this thread surprised me. And most of it is based on age, not on competence. I would still vote for an older Bernie against Trump. Age wouldn't matter in the next election except when Trump resigns and someone else will run for the GOP. Everyone is old at that level, that age difference is negligible.
But I see the appeal of a young Macron / Trudeau type of front runner. But that probably won't happen with the democrats now. That party now has a stigma and it should get rid of the old elites quickly.
It is not the same group, but the dismissive "thanks, no"-tone in this thread surprised me. And most of it is based on age, not on competence. I would still vote for an older Bernie against Trump. Age wouldn't matter in the next election except when Trump resigns and someone else will run for the GOP. Everyone is old at that level, that age difference is negligible.
The average life expectancy in the US is 79 years. Why would you elect someone that has a high probability of dying before their terms is over?I see a lot of age discrimination in this thread.
Wouldn't it be better for all involved if he encouraged a spiritual successor of a younger age to run? Especially considering nobody knows how the story with his wife will end.
If anything, this past cycle reinforced the value of polls.Except he routinely beat her in polls.
It is not the same group, but the dismissive "thanks, no"-tone in this thread surprised me. And most of it is based on age, not on competence. I would still vote for an older Bernie against Trump. Age wouldn't matter in the next election except when Trump resigns and someone else will run for the GOP. Everyone is old at that level, that age difference is negligible.
But I see the appeal of a young Macron / Trudeau type of front runner. But that probably won't happen with the democrats now. That party now has a stigma and it should get rid of the old elites quickly.
That boat sailed. We fucked up.
As has been stated repeatedly, the polls during this past election weren't egregiously problematic, the punditry around them and selective misreading a were. This is something that both this forum and Nate Silver were guilty of.If anything, this past cycle reinforced the value of polls.
I mean, what do you have to do, to mentally accept this argument, after what happened in this election? Leaps? Jumping? Drugs?
I'll stick to alcohol.
Continue down the same path and he gets back in for sureThis is how Trump gets re-elected
The Democratic party evolved this way because those racist, isolationist voters you're so enamored with abandoned them in the wake of civil rights legislation because they stopped voting for Democrats. Primary Colors: On Democratic Presidential Politics, Neoliberalism, and the White Working ClassI mean, I agree, but... who is this person? None of the younger Democrats are especially close to Sanders. The Democrats have the same problem as Labour does in the UK - the party became an ideological monoculture and slowly strangled out any alternative kind of thought. All the younger candidates tend to be very clearly Clintonites ideologically, just as most of the younger Labour candidates ended up being Blairites (or Brownites) ideologically. When the mood for change arrived, in Labour, it had to pick up one of the few remaining 'fossils' of an older ideology, since everything new had been squeezed out. You see the same problem with the Democrats - there is no young Bernie.
Almost the entire Democratic field of candidates is pretty poor. All of them represent the liberal intelligentsia, come from excellent universities/law schools, live in relatively urban areas, and represent a totally different class to the type of voter that went Obama -> Trump.
The Lefts story of the split between the white working class and the Party goes something like this. The white working class has, over the past several decades, seen a devastating decline in stable, well-paying industrial work. The Republican and Democratic parties have both proven unwilling to address their plight in part because both have been captured by neoliberalismthe valorization of free market principles and supply-side logic across all areas of public policywith the GOP naturally falling a bit harder for it than the once progressive Democratic Party. Both parties have cooperated in making matters worse by hacking away at the social safety net and further empowering multinational corporations and the wealthy through deregulation, passing tax cuts, pursuing free trade and undermining unionsall policy aims that have effectively redistributed wealth upwards and significantly deepened economic inequality. Whats more, Democratic liberals have spent years responding to the racist and bigoted attitudes of many white working class voters by calling them racist and bigoted, which has alienated them.
The white working class, dismayed, has responded to all this, and the lack of a truly pro-worker party, by either dropping out of the voting pool entirely or voting for Republicans who unlike the Democrats, are, refreshingly, nicer to them than they are to African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and LGBT people. Right-wing populist appeals, it is argued, have been the only truly populist appeals for decades. Consequently, white working class voters have swung right, in the direction of the only politicians that seem to acknowledge their painpoliticians who have, in fact, been deepening it even more than the liberal politicians who have ceased paying attention. The white working class, in short, has responded to the horrors neoliberalism has inflicted upon them by doing either nothing at all or voting for the more neoliberal party.
None of this, the Left says, was inevitable. Liberals have erred, they argue, in casting all working class whites as politically and perhaps morally irredeemable for the undeniable bigotry and xenophobia of some. And in pushing a narrative of the white working class exodus that centers their historical resistance to civil rights and identity politics, they say, liberals have ignored the class dynamics that have been the real driving forces behind their disillusionmentdynamics exacerbated by the Democratic Partys decision to face right and commit itself deeply to neoliberal economics, as exemplified by the ascendancy of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). It was their move to the center, coupled with their disdain for white workers they see as marked by a kind of original sin that finally pushed those voters away and continues to do so. Blue collar whites have abandoned the Democratic Party simply because the Democratic Party abandoned progressive policies that spoke to the needs of workers and came to loathe the working class itself.
***
Its a story both simple and substantially untrue. In fact, the decline in white working class support for the Democratic Party at the presidential level began well before the partys retreat from progressivism and pro-worker politics. Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University, and Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who presciently identified the disenfranchised white working class as a force to be reckoned with nearly 20 years ago in Americas Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters, laid out the timeline of their departure from the Democratic Partys coalition in a 2008 Brookings working paper called The Decline of the White Working Class and the Rise of a Mass Upper Middle Class. According to Teixeira and Abramowitz, the Democratic vote among whites without college degrees fell from an average of 55 percent in the 1960 and 1964 elections to 35 in the 1968 and 1972 electionsa decline of 20 points in just over a decade. What happened during the 1960s? Had the Party moved substantially to the center? Had the Party become less committed to progressive social programs that would help struggling whites? To the contrarythe 1960s and two Democratic administrations brought the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the expansion of Social Security benefits, the revival of food stamps, minimum wage increases, the launch of the Head Start early childhood education program for lower-income children, increased federal funding for public education, the creation of the Job Corps youth employment program and other vocational education programs, and a dizzying array of other government initiatives that constituted the most expansive array of progressive successes since the New Deal. None of it mattered.
Perhaps, as the labor researcher Penny Lewis has suggested, the white working class was more perturbed by the Vietnam War than popular accounts of the antiwar movementwhich commonly frame blue-collar workers as having been hawks pitted against young, relatively well-to-do college studentshave portrayed. But most of the drop in support, as nearly every historian surveying the period has agreed, can be attributed to the Partys full embrace of not only civil rights, but also social liberalism more broadly. The Party emerged from the 1960s championing both economic and social justice and believed it could continue to do so without losing the downscale white voters it had relied on for years. As the election of 1968 made clear, it could not. Those voters fled to Richard Nixon and the segregationist former governor of Alabama George Wallace, who together won 64 percent of the white working class.
Those voters never really looked back. The theory that they would have had the Party offered up truly economically progressive candidates has to contend with the failed candidacies of George McGovern in 1972, whom Nixon trounced with 70 percent of the white working class vote and the staunchly pro-labor and union-backed Walter Mondale, whom neoliberal archdaemon Ronald Reagan trounced with 65 percent of their vote in 1984. Since 1968, two Democratic presidential candidates have done well with the white working class: Jimmy Carter, who dramatically outperformed George McGovern in the demographic by running as a conservative Democrat against Ford in 1976, and the DLC-anointed bubba neoliberal Bill Clinton. Ross Perots insurgent populism and his warning that NAFTA would produce a giant sucking sound as blue-collar jobs were lost to Mexico failed, ultimately, to prevent the man who backed and signed NAFTA from winning narrow pluralities of the white working class vote in 1992 and 1996.
This is not a voting record that inspires confidence that the white working class has been itching, deep down, to cast votes against neoliberal economics upon hearing the right progressive pitch. But looking at general election results offers only an incomplete picture of the white working class exit from the Democratic fold. They largely tell a now-familiar story about Democratic collapse among blue-collar and other whites in the south that masks the gradual erosion of white working class support in northern states where Trump won. Its the Democratic primaries in the wake of the New Deal coalitions final rupture in 1968 that provide the clearest picture of how even the portion of the white working class presumably most sympathetic to left-of-center politicsnorthern blue-collar whiteshas moved rightward.
Almost the entire Democratic field of candidates is pretty poor. All of them represent the liberal intelligentsia, come from excellent universities/law schools, live in relatively urban areas, and represent a totally different class to the type of voter that went Obama -> Trump.
I see a lot of age discrimination in this thread.
Whatever you feel about Bernie age is absolutely a concern here. We know Reagan was dealing with Alzheimer's during the final years of his presidency and Trump has shown signs of possible cognitive issues which could be age-related. Would prefer to not play the health lottery if possible, and there are more than a few young, ambitious possibilities on the Democratic side. Bernie could play kingmaker if he is willing.
President Kushner
GAF will pretty much all vote for anyone put against Trump so its not a relevant talking point. The concern is the general voting public who will use any excuse to either not vote at all or vote some bullshit third party candidate. Meanwhile every Republican voter always falls in line.
This is how Trump gets re-elected
'he is too old'
do you prefer old man sanders or a second trump term?
Old man Sanders gives us second term Trump'he is too old'
do you prefer old man sanders or a second trump term?
'he is too old'
do you prefer old man sanders or a second trump term?
'he is too old'
do you prefer old man sanders or a second trump term?
Sanders is the only person who can beat Trump?
He probably won't be alive or a Democrat in 2020