Page 131 of 146 FirstFirst ... 3181121129130131132133141 ... LastLast
Results 2,601 to 2,620 of 2912
  1. #2601
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I bet she gets a very strong look as a VP choice if the nominee is male.
    Agreed, although I do not think she is as strong of a candidate or campaigner as MSNBC seems to think. (Some of my fellow Georgians may disagree).

    (Full disclosure FWIW — I supported her rival in the primary, then voted against her abysmal opponent in the general. So I ended up pulling the lever for her last November, but . . . I wouldn’t count myself as a supporter. And she has some baggage.)
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  2. #2602
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Bernie and EWarren are both anti-corporate and anti-wealth on the stump. The suburbanites who switch to D in 2018 did not elect these sorts of candidates.

    So, I guess it depends on what you mean by ďthe Democratic PartyĒ going forward.
    Correct, in the D party of the future I'm imagining, Sanders and Warren would be much more marginalized than they are now. They might not be Ds at all, depending on whether anti-corporatism (which will become an R trait) or pro-social justice-ness is more important to them.

    The corporate / D alignment is probably most evident currently in advertising. Anyone who still watches commercials probably sees the left lean at this point. There are dozens of examples. The one below recently got some attention.


  3. #2603
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    The ongoing long-term realignment is interesting for sure. I could envision a D party in 15 years that is outwardly pro-corporate, pro-social justice, and maybe pro-interventionism. The embodiment of the educated, upper middle class, "I'm socially liberal and economically conservative" American.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Bernie and EWarren are both anti-corporate and anti-wealth on the stump. The suburbanites who switch to D in 2018 did not elect these sorts of candidates.

    So, I guess it depends on what you mean by ďthe Democratic PartyĒ going forward.
    To a certain extent, most of campaigning is picking a particular big institution (Wall Street, Big Pharma, Washington/government, the UN/international system, the media, etc) and setting it up as a rigged system undermining the common man/woman. Both parties are hitting Wall Street, corporate interests, and trade pretty hard...at least the current Trump version of the Republican party is so I personally don't see a lot of differentiation between the two parties' rhetoric there.

    The thing the Democrats have to figure out is healthcare. It's the main event for whether the long-term version of Democrats are going veer Democratic Socialist or not. OPK, to your point, here in the Philly suburbs the fight is playing out in real time as the party tries to figure out both what the right play is in terms of a healthcare plan and what the right play is for these suburban voters that fueled their 2018 mid-term success.

    On the flip side, I honestly don't know what the Republican platform is. It seems like they've not really advanced a vision for healthcare other than opposition to the ACA and not opposition to wherever the Democrats end up...either way, they'll label both socialist. But I just don't see a lot in the way of a competing plan.

  4. #2604
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Correct, in the D party of the future I'm imagining, Sanders and Warren would be much more marginalized than they are now. They might not be Ds at all, depending on whether anti-corporatism (which will become an R trait) or pro-social justice-ness is more important to them.

    The corporate / D alignment is probably most evident currently in advertising. Anyone who still watches commercials probably sees the left lean at this point. There are dozens of examples. The one below recently got some attention.
    Sure, there is some corporate "virtue signalling" in advertising. I see it a lot in internal policies and procedures, too, particularly in regards to diversity and inclusion and immigration. I hate to say it's a political stance because if you're a large global enterprise a strong D&I policy and a flexible, mobile global talent pool both make strong sense. Some of the companies, like Google, have had some internal backlash with conservatives feeling disenfranchised by some policies...

    At the time of Trump's travel ban, I worked for a Fortune 100 company. Largely B2B, not overly brand "woke" or anything but the CEO had to address the ban in a global town hall broadcast around the world and talk about how the ban negatively impacted the business and was inconsistent with the company's values. That's pretty darn powerful for an employee base of 30,000 US employees/voters to here and I'd b e shocked if it was the only company that did that.

    On the flip side, the ACA has given a lot of big companies fits...they'd prefer to be out of the providing employee's healthcare altogether, methinks.

  5. #2605
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    On the flip side, the ACA has given a lot of big companies fits...they'd prefer to be out of the providing employee's healthcare altogether, methinks.
    Which is why it started as a Republican think tank idea and was implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Mitt Romney. At least the concept, won’t ascribe all the details of the ACA to them. But the ones that were not — notably The pre-existing condition protection for example — are usually pretty popular.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  6. #2606
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Another Amy Walter point from last night is that Republicans are losing the suburbs. Duh! But her point is that it's not only happening in NY, NJ and PA but everywhere -- Houston, Dallas, Orange County. Most heavily correlated with education but also with income.
    Orange County was an aberration. When I moved to San Diego County going on two decades ago, I was surprised to be in one of the two coastal counties that still went reliably red. The city of San Diego had already gone blue, but the two adjacent counties still were red, and Orange County had no city like San Diego to place a marker on the blue map.

    I never thought Orange County would go entirely blue before San Diego, but either way the trend is consistent here: the cities are blue, exurbs/remaining farming country red, and the suburbs mixed, maybe trending blue.

  7. #2607
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    So, gaming this out a little bit...do we think that means that the common perception that Republicans are the party of the rich and Democrats the party of the working class will eventually switch? Democratic voters are trending suburban, middle class and most college-educated blocs (which positively correlates with income) vote Democratic. I'd need to go back and look but I believe that above a certain income threshold, the voting preferences were essentially a wash in 2016. However, I do believe that incomes between 50,000 - 100,000 still tilted Republican. Republicans on the other hand are increasingly rural and, to your point, blue collar voters are switching allegiances.
    If the two party system was not so entrenched, I would think that we would be trending towards a four party system. The left wing of the Democratic Party (Bernie and Warren), the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the old guard Republicans (Bret Stephens and other more intellectual Republicans, some of whom are never Trumps who are currently struggling with who to vote for in 2020), and the Trump Republicans. It would be a bit of a continuum between the four groups.

    I personally see it as pretty black and white between the two parties on the national level, but for those who are undecided, I keep thinking of the idea of the conjoint analysis that I learned in business school. People have to determine what issues are most important to them and weigh the candidates based on those. The best example is buying a car - the dealer is unlikely to have exactly the car you want, so by carefully designing questions, it is possible to tease out what factors are the drivers in the purchasing decision - color, gas mileage, price, interior, radio, trunk size, etc.

  8. #2608
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    If the two party system was not so entrenched, I would think that we would be trending towards a four party system. The left wing of the Democratic Party (Bernie and Warren), the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the old guard Republicans (Bret Stephens and other more intellectual Republicans, some of whom are never Trumps who are currently struggling with who to vote for in 2020), and the Trump Republicans. It would be a bit of a continuum between the four groups.

    I personally see it as pretty black and white between the two parties on the national level, but for those who are undecided, I keep thinking of the idea of the conjoint analysis that I learned in business school. People have to determine what issues are most important to them and weigh the candidates based on those. The best example is buying a car - the dealer is unlikely to have exactly the car you want, so by carefully designing questions, it is possible to tease out what factors are the drivers in the purchasing decision - color, gas mileage, price, interior, radio, trunk size, etc.
    Trunk size. Oh, we're talking about cars?

  9. #2609
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    So Hickenlooper is considering switching gears, dropping out of the White House race and shooting for the Senate instead.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ort/ar-AAFL8AH
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  10. #2610
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    The Trump administration has forgotten the first rule of holes. You have to watch the short video clip in the article just to see the look on Erin Burnett's face:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...dLX?li=BBnb7Kz

    I could be wrong, but I don't see this as a successful strategy.

    Edit: Somehow the link changed. Here's the video, TLDW then check out the 1:50 mark.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...t-ebof-vpx.cnn
    Last edited by dudog84; 08-13-2019 at 09:46 PM.

  11. #2611
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    So Hickenlooper is considering switching gears, dropping out of the White House race and shooting for the Senate instead.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ort/ar-AAFL8AH
    Thatís would be very bad news for Cory Gardner, who is already one of the most vulnerable senate Republicans.

  12. #2612
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    Trunk size. Oh, we're talking about cars?
    I've seen some with a bunch of junk in the trunk.

  13. #2613
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    So, gaming this out a little bit...do we think that means that the common perception that Republicans are the party of the rich and Democrats the party of the working class will eventually switch? Democratic voters are trending suburban, middle class and most college-educated blocs (which positively correlates with income) vote Democratic. I'd need to go back and look but I believe that above a certain income threshold, the voting preferences were essentially a wash in 2016. However, I do believe that incomes between 50,000 - 100,000 still tilted Republican. Republicans on the other hand are increasingly rural and, to your point, blue collar voters are switching allegiances.
    Not to get too controversial, but itís only one segment of the working class thatís swinging Republicanó whites. All other working class groups are firmly Democratic.

    I donít see room for the GOP to grow in other groups of the working class without a sea change in its culture and messaging.

  14. #2614
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    I've seen some with a bunch of junk in the trunk.
    Not sure what this means. Guess Iím just thicc.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  15. #2615
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by mph View Post
    Thatís would be very bad news for Cory Gardner, who is already one of the most vulnerable senate Republicans.
    Some folks in Texas think that Beto needs to do the same thing.

    The Houston Chronicle's editorial board wasn't mincing words.

    "So Beto, if you're listening: Come home. Drop out of the race for president and come back to Texas to run for senator," an op-ed aimed at Democratic former Texas Rep. Beto O' Rourke said. "The chances of winning the race you're in now are vanishingly small. And Texas needs you."
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/13/polit...cle/index.html
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  16. #2616
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Perhaps I am a bit slow, but I just tried to spend a few minutes playing out the highly unlikely but possible scenario of Trump winning and the Senate flipping to the Democrats. I think the Senate flipping would like require a major wave election that would also involve Trump losing, but it is possible. And if we think things are ugly now, imagine what they would be like then...

  17. #2617
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Perhaps I am a bit slow, but I just tried to spend a few minutes playing out the highly unlikely but possible scenario of Trump winning and the Senate flipping to the Democrats. I think the Senate flipping would like require a major wave election that would also involve Trump losing, but it is possible. And if we think things are ugly now, imagine what they would be like then...
    Really, really hard to game a scenario where this happens.

    If Trump wins reelection, the Democrats need to flip 4 senate seats without losing any of their own. All of their seats look safe with the exception of Doug Jones in Alabama. If Jones holds Alabama (a longshot, I think) then Dems could flip states like Arizona, Maine, and Colorado that went blue in the last presidential election without hurting Trump's reelection chances. So, the Dems would then need to pick up a seat in a state that Trump wins for President. I suppose there might be scenarios where Ga, NC, Texas, or Kentucky flip while Trump still wins the state's electoral votes... but, whew, that is not something that seems at all likely.

    -Jason "we are fairly likely to see a 50-50 senate in 2020 (Dems flip AZ, ME, CO and one of GA or NC while the GOP gets Bama) meaning the VP doesn't get to take nearly as many trips abroad for state funerals" Evans
    Last edited by JasonEvans; 08-14-2019 at 08:14 AM.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  18. #2618
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    If the two party system was not so entrenched, I would think that we would be trending towards a four party system. The left wing of the Democratic Party (Bernie and Warren), the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the old guard Republicans (Bret Stephens and other more intellectual Republicans, some of whom are never Trumps who are currently struggling with who to vote for in 2020), and the Trump Republicans. It would be a bit of a continuum between the four groups.

    I personally see it as pretty black and white between the two parties on the national level, but for those who are undecided, I keep thinking of the idea of the conjoint analysis that I learned in business school. People have to determine what issues are most important to them and weigh the candidates based on those. The best example is buying a car - the dealer is unlikely to have exactly the car you want, so by carefully designing questions, it is possible to tease out what factors are the drivers in the purchasing decision - color, gas mileage, price, interior, radio, trunk size, etc.
    Interesting that your four party system could essentially broken down into Democrats today, Democrats 20 years ago, Republicans today, and Republicans 20 years ago.
    "There can BE only one."

  19. #2619
    Whew, I'm getting whiplash from all this trade war back-and-forth. The administration announced that it would delay the next round of tariffs, originally scheduled for September 1st, until December 15th. Secretary Ross offered as the main reason, "Nobody wants to take a chance of disrupting the Christmas season."

    First, not clear why they picked December 15th instead of a date after the New Year. Sure, any price increases would take some time to trickle down but why risk the market shock and uncertainty 10 days before the holidays, which could impact consumer confidence and therefore shopping?

    Second, this is clearly going to continue well into 2020. Farmers will begin making Spring 2020 planting decisions in a few months and the Iowa Democratic Caucus is in February. They're going to be operating in high uncertainty with the prospect of another season of gov't direct payments. For Dem candidates seeking to shock in Iowa, there's an opportunity here to convince farmers how they can get the markets back that the Trump administration has destroyed --- not saying that Trump won't succeed in negotiating a trade deal beneficial to farmers but, if he does, I'd be shocked if it's before the Iowa caucus. Until then, US ag exports to China increased 700% from 2000 to 2017 but since Trump took office, they've been plummeted by 50%. He also backed out of TPP. If I'm a Dem candidate, I'd hit that message relentlessly.

    Finally, I'm starting to see a lot of numbers floating around that suggest the cost to the average family from the tariffs has exceeded any tax savings benefit from the Trump tax plan. I have to imagine that the Dems will latch onto those stats hard, particularly if this continues to drag.

    BTW, if you want to see data illustrating the power of the presidency to shape public opinion, check out this Pew polling on perceptions of China. Can't say Trump's focus hasn't influenced a lot of people.

  20. #2620
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Whew, I'm getting whiplash from all this trade war back-and-forth. The administration announced that it would delay the next round of tariffs, originally scheduled for September 1st, until December 15th. Secretary Ross offered as the main reason, "Nobody wants to take a chance of disrupting the Christmas season."

    First, not clear why they picked December 15th instead of a date after the New Year. Sure, any price increases would take some time to trickle down but why risk the market shock and uncertainty 10 days before the holidays, which could impact consumer confidence and therefore shopping?

    Second, this is clearly going to continue well into 2020. Farmers will begin making Spring 2020 planting decisions in a few months and the Iowa Democratic Caucus is in February. They're going to be operating in high uncertainty with the prospect of another season of gov't direct payments. For Dem candidates seeking to shock in Iowa, there's an opportunity here to convince farmers how they can get the markets back that the Trump administration has destroyed --- not saying that Trump won't succeed in negotiating a trade deal beneficial to farmers but, if he does, I'd be shocked if it's before the Iowa caucus. Until then, US ag exports to China increased 700% from 2000 to 2017 but since Trump took office, they've been plummeted by 50%. He also backed out of TPP. If I'm a Dem candidate, I'd hit that message relentlessly.

    Finally, I'm starting to see a lot of numbers floating around that suggest the cost to the average family from the tariffs has exceeded any tax savings benefit from the Trump tax plan. I have to imagine that the Dems will latch onto those stats hard, particularly if this continues to drag.

    BTW, if you want to see data illustrating the power of the presidency to shape public opinion, check out this Pew polling on perceptions of China. Can't say Trump's focus hasn't influenced a lot of people.
    Democrats arguing for free trade, and Republicans arguing for tariffs. This is certainly a clockwork turned orange.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 Duke men's basketball recruiting
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 850
    Last Post: 08-22-2019, 08:20 AM
  2. One n dones and returning players. 2018-2020
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 10:03 AM
  3. Coming to the 2020 Olympics: 3-on-3 basketball!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 11:44 AM
  4. Cutcliffe Extended Through 2020-21
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •