Americans Don't Like Trump, but Don't Think Democrats Have a Real Agenda, either

[Underhill]

I agree it's not the 30s anymore, although back then, considering that they won the White House and both Houses of Congress and held them for two solid decades (while the GOP was hitting the skids and trying to reinvent themselves), shows that they knew what they were doing. Even despite the post-war defection of the Dixiecrats, the Democrats still had enough strength to maintain power. The thing that really killed them was internal disagreements over foreign policy, the Cold War, Vietnam, etc. The Democrats deserve sole credit for America's industrial and economic strength which characterized our participation in WW2 and the enormous growth in the post-war years. But they squandered all the political capital they gained by giving in to Republican militarism and their obsession over communism during the Red Scare.

And with all due respect, it's not "bunk" to suggest that Democrats are failing to recognize the problem, no matter if it's the party elite or the diverse rank-and-file membership, as you say. It also has to do with the campaign rhetoric, their platform, what they support (and not just with words, but actions). As for the voters, they need to smarten, just as the general electorate needs to smarten up. All of those who hate Trump have been ragging on those who voted for him, calling them "stupid" and "ignorant" and "uneducated" - but what does that say about all those who voted for Hillary in the Democratic primaries? Can we say that the Sanders' supporters were the more intelligent voters in the party, while the Hillary voters were the "slow" wing of the party?

My point is (and why I called it bunk) that you will never get all democrats to "recognize the problem" as the group is diverse. Some don't see it as a problem. Some see it as a problem and work to fix it. But tens of millions of democrats are not a hive mind that will one day just wake up to "the problem".

I am all for the electorate smarting up. But I don't see the Hillary voters as stupid. I didn't agree with everything Bernie wanted, just as I didn't like everything Clinton did. It's like every political decision in history. We each look for the compromise that best suits us.

Trump voters, on the other hand, are stupid.

 

[Stevicus]

My point is (and why I called it bunk) that you will never get all democrats to "recognize the problem" as the group is diverse. Some don't see it as a problem. Some see it as a problem and work to fix it. But tens of millions of democrats are not a hive mind that will one day just wake up to "the problem".

No, they're not a hive mind, but I would hope that at least some of them have minds. The voters are the ones who ultimately decide who runs the country and how it will be run. Within a political party, they hold a similar responsibility.

But it's also a matter of leadership. If the party leaders can't recognize the problem, then how will the Democratic voters be able to do so?

You may be right. Maybe it is a lost cause to try to get people to recognize the problem. If there's one thing I've learned in this forum, trying to talk sense to people is an uphill battle.

I am all for the electorate smarting up. But I don't see the Hillary voters as stupid. I didn't agree with everything Bernie wanted, just as I didn't like everything Clinton did. It's like every political decision in history. We each look for the compromise that best suits us.

Trump voters, on the other hand, are stupid.

Hillary had too much political baggage - a lot of it caused by her husband Bill.

I think there are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the spectrum and in both parties. By the time of the general election, the voters are probably more weary than anything else - by all the endless campaigning, the political talk, the commercials...especially the commercials. "Stupid" is a word used pretty loosely in our culture.

I don't think people are necessarily "stupid," but they just see things from their own unique perspective. Some people have different value systems. I think too many people forget that. The problem is when politicians, who are often keenly aware of their audience and what they might value, end up pandering and manipulating the voters. Perhaps the voters are "stupid" to get suckered in by that, but it seems to be an effective tool used by both parties.

 

[The magical volleyball]

The gop has a lock on 35% of the country because they own 70% of local news, most rural areas who only have antenna only get fox news and Republican talk radio isn't afraid to make up whatever crazy insane lie they want to support the idea that democrats are terrorists and inherently evil and one step below Vladimir Putin. Trump voters aren't stupid they are the victims of the gop targeting them and isolating the information they receive and make decisions on.

 

[Underhill]

No, they're not a hive mind, but I would hope that at least some of them have minds. The voters are the ones who ultimately decide who runs the country and how it will be run. Within a political party, they hold a similar responsibility.

But it's also a matter of leadership. If the party leaders can't recognize the problem, then how will the Democratic voters be able to do so?

You may be right. Maybe it is a lost cause to try to get people to recognize the problem. If there's one thing I've learned in this forum, trying to talk sense to people is an uphill battle.

I'm actually not saying that, although I understand your frustration. I'm saying some will get it, some have. But the party isn't supposed to be a singular voice.

Hillary had too much political baggage - a lot of it caused by her husband Bill.

Most of it caused by republicans. But yes, she had too much to overcome public sentiment. Virtually all of it was nonsensical. But that doesn't change anything when entire networks spent 18 hours a day smearing you.

It was much like what is happening with Trump now, except instead of bad behavior, absurd rhetoric and serious and blatant corruption, they were going after her for made up complaints (Benghazi), human mistakes (the mishandling of 3 or 4 emails out of tens of thousands) and her husbands scandals (real and imagined).

I think there are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the spectrum and in both parties. By the time of the general election, the voters are probably more weary than anything else - by all the endless campaigning, the political talk, the commercials...especially the commercials. "Stupid" is a word used pretty loosely in our culture.

I don't think people are necessarily "stupid," but they just see things from their own unique perspective. Some people have different value systems. I think too many people forget that. The problem is when politicians, who are often keenly aware of their audience and what they might value, end up pandering and manipulating the voters. Perhaps the voters are "stupid" to get suckered in by that, but it seems to be an effective tool used by both parties.

I was mostly kidding with the stupid comment. I do think there is that segment of our population who are dumb as rocks, but they are usually too confused by complex issues to get involved. Trump oversimplifies everything with his childish rhetoric which brought them out of the woodwork.

But they are still a minority of the populace. The ones that absolutely blow me away are those of reasonable intelligence, who looked at Trump and said, 'yeah, he looks good'. *boggle

 

[esmith]

The gop has a lock on 35% of the country because they own 70% of local news, most rural areas who only have antenna only get fox news and Republican talk radio isn't afraid to make up whatever crazy insane lie they want to support the idea that democrats are terrorists and inherently evil and one step below Vladimir Putin. Trump voters aren't stupid they are the victims of the gop targeting them and isolating the information they receive and make decisions on.

I will have to assume that you have never lived in a rural area or not familiar with modern technology.
1. To start with you statement "only get Fox News" is bogus. Think about it....if you can get "Fox News" you have either satellite or cable. FNC is not a over-the-air station.
2. If a person only has over-the-air TV they can receive all of the major networks either by being in range of the primary station transmitters or as in many cases from a repeater transmitter which the technical term are translators located beyond the range of the primary transmitter. These transmitters broadcast the signals from the local stations which are affiliated with with all major networks
3. Most people in the U.S. have either cable TV (if available), satellite TV, or if they are really hurting for living expenses will go with over-the-air which can provide all of the major networks plus local access.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm actually not saying that, although I understand your frustration. I'm saying some will get it, some have. But the party isn't supposed to be a singular voice.

True, although getting back to basics would be a good start. The Democrats were once touted as the "party of the working man." That isn't necessarily a singular voice, but it's a clear message which could have resonated with a lot of people across the board. But the fact that they lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan should have sent a clear message to the Democrats that they've been doing it wrong.

I think what baffled me the most was Hillary's strength in the Southern states. The Clintons left the South; they didn't return to Arkansas after Bill's term was up. So, it's not as if Southern voters were supporting "one of their own." There was no particular reason for regional loyalty. Moreover, they're also heavily impoverished red states which would have benefited far more from supporting Sanders over Hillary. There is some irony in the fact that, once again, it was the Southern Democrats who fouled the stew.

In any case, it didn't do any good, since all those states went to Trump in the general election.

Most of it caused by republicans. But yes, she had too much to overcome public sentiment. Virtually all of it was nonsensical. But that doesn't change anything when entire networks spent 18 hours a day smearing you.

Some of it was caused by Republicans, true. But 16 of the past 24 years have seen Democratic Administrations where Hillary Clinton has figured prominently all throughout.

It was much like what is happening with Trump now, except instead of bad behavior, absurd rhetoric and serious and blatant corruption, they were going after her for made up complaints (Benghazi), human mistakes (the mishandling of 3 or 4 emails out of tens of thousands) and her husbands scandals (real and imagined).

I doubt that most people actually believed that, but the more telling point is that a lot of would-be supporters likely felt alienated and abandoned by the Democratic Party (such as blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt).

I was mostly kidding with the stupid comment. I do think there is that segment of our population who are dumb as rocks, but they are usually too confused by complex issues to get involved. Trump oversimplifies everything with his childish rhetoric which brought them out of the woodwork.

But they are still a minority of the populace. The ones that absolutely blow me away are those of reasonable intelligence, who looked at Trump and said, 'yeah, he looks good'. *boggle

Perhaps they saw Trump as the lesser of two evils. Or maybe they didn't care about the same issues that many Democrats care about. Working people who are struggling to survive probably won't care much about things like abortion, which has always been the Democrats' pet issue and used as a political football to rile up voters over the GOP's supposed "war on women." Or the issue of gay marriage. For the record, I support abortion rights and the right of gays to marry, but I wondered why they put so much emphasis on those issues when they should have been focused more on the economy. For large segments of the population, these issues don't really affect them and they simply don't care. It doesn't make them stupid or ignorant; it only means they have a different perspective than others.

For people who are struggling with job losses, foreclosures, evictions, and other harsh realities of life - they've been sent the message that nobody cares about their plight, so why should they care about other issues that don't affect them? Why should they care about people who don't care about them? Is that smart? Is it stupid? You tell me.

It's similar with Trump's supposed ban on Muslims. Why should the average American voter care about the plight of would-be immigrants to America? People often call them "stupid" or "ignorant" for not supporting open immigration to America, but where is the logic in such a view? The average voter might think "Nobody cares about my family or our struggles, so why should we care about people who aren't even Americans?"

Or even this recent flap over Russia's alleged interference in the election. Why should it matter to the average voter who's struggling to survive from day to day?

All of these issues which the media and political establishment are trying to shove down the public's throat as "important" are far less important to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck.

 

[Underhill]

True, although getting back to basics would be a good start. The Democrats were once touted as the "party of the working man." That isn't necessarily a singular voice, but it's a clear message which could have resonated with a lot of people across the board. But the fact that they lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan should have sent a clear message to the Democrats that they've been doing it wrong.

I think what baffled me the most was Hillary's strength in the Southern states. The Clintons left the South; they didn't return to Arkansas after Bill's term was up. So, it's not as if Southern voters were supporting "one of their own." There was no particular reason for regional loyalty. Moreover, they're also heavily impoverished red states which would have benefited far more from supporting Sanders over Hillary. There is some irony in the fact that, once again, it was the Southern Democrats who fouled the stew.

In any case, it didn't do any good, since all those states went to Trump in the general election.



Some of it was caused by Republicans, true. But 16 of the past 24 years have seen Democratic Administrations where Hillary Clinton has figured prominently all throughout.



I doubt that most people actually believed that, but the more telling point is that a lot of would-be supporters likely felt alienated and abandoned by the Democratic Party (such as blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt).



Perhaps they saw Trump as the lesser of two evils. Or maybe they didn't care about the same issues that many Democrats care about. Working people who are struggling to survive probably won't care much about things like abortion, which has always been the Democrats' pet issue and used as a political football to rile up voters over the GOP's supposed "war on women." Or the issue of gay marriage. For the record, I support abortion rights and the right of gays to marry, but I wondered why they put so much emphasis on those issues when they should have been focused more on the economy. For large segments of the population, these issues don't really affect them and they simply don't care. It doesn't make them stupid or ignorant; it only means they have a different perspective than others.

For people who are struggling with job losses, foreclosures, evictions, and other harsh realities of life - they've been sent the message that nobody cares about their plight, so why should they care about other issues that don't affect them? Why should they care about people who don't care about them? Is that smart? Is it stupid? You tell me.

It's similar with Trump's supposed ban on Muslims. Why should the average American voter care about the plight of would-be immigrants to America? People often call them "stupid" or "ignorant" for not supporting open immigration to America, but where is the logic in such a view? The average voter might think "Nobody cares about my family or our struggles, so why should we care about people who aren't even Americans?"

Or even this recent flap over Russia's alleged interference in the election. Why should it matter to the average voter who's struggling to survive from day to day?

All of these issues which the media and political establishment are trying to shove down the public's throat as "important" are far less important to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck.

This will happen more and more. The reality is that there is not much government can do (at least without a major shift in public sentiment) about the current job/economic situation. The problem really isn't what people think it is. It isn't jobs going overseas really, it's that companies no longer need assembly line workers. Increasingly they don't need a lot of people. From grocery stores to engineering departments, companies are doing more with much less human capital. And that trend won't end anytime soon.

But yes, I think many people blame government for this, even if it is irrational.

 

[tytlyf]

Well I guess the Democrats could split into to parties. That would satisfy both. (Including the Republicans)

Democrats don't have a problem with their elected officials. But then you have the GOP, which is corporate policy people versus the tea party wing. Even though the GOP base is tea party wing, they are ignored by the GOP.

Mostly because the GOP need to fool some people into supporting their candidates. Otherwise they'd never be elected.

 

[Stevicus]

This will happen more and more. The reality is that there is not much government can do (at least without a major shift in public sentiment) about the current job/economic situation. The problem really isn't what people think it is. It isn't jobs going overseas really, it's that companies no longer need assembly line workers. Increasingly they don't need a lot of people. From grocery stores to engineering departments, companies are doing more with much less human capital. And that trend won't end anytime soon.

But yes, I think many people blame government for this, even if it is irrational.

I see what you're saying, but consider the ramifications of the message which is sent to the populace that "we don't need you anymore." I think a lot of that is mostly a mind game, just to make the average Joe so eternally grateful for having a job.

I don't think it's all that irrational to blame government, at least to some degree. After all, if what you're saying is true, then what we're seeing now is that the powers that be were still short-sighted in that all these jobs disappeared and they had nothing in the plan to replace them. That's why so many are struggling and feel abandoned. Fact is, our leaders have no foresight and no imagination. They have no new ideas and no answers as to what to do about the current situation. That's why so many feel that the Democrats have no agenda. They can blame the Republicans all they want, they can blame Trump, but what in the heck are they gonna do about it? Do they even know? Do they have any idea as to what comes next?

Frankly, I get quite weary of hearing answers like "there's nothing we can do" or "that's just the way of the world." I consider it defeatist - the language of a slave resigned to his fate. I don't think that way, and I don't think the voting public should think that way either.

All these smart-alecks and other self-anointed "enlightened" types who look down on the working classes, who call them dumb hillbillies, bumpkins, and constantly go on about how "ignorant" and "uneducated" they are - they should be willing to accept the challenge. If they're so frikken smart, when are they going to start proving it? When are they going to start coming up with some real answers to get us out of the mess that we're in?

All they can do is try to peddle the same old rehashed nonsense. It's just like Hollywood with all their remakes. They have no imagination anymore. They can't think of anything new.

You don't think they should be blamed for that? If nothing else, they should be blamed for claiming to be smart and taking on a position they're obviously unsuited for.

 

[Underhill]

I see what you're saying, but consider the ramifications of the message which is sent to the populace that "we don't need you anymore." I think a lot of that is mostly a mind game, just to make the average Joe so eternally grateful for having a job.

I don't think it's all that irrational to blame government, at least to some degree. After all, if what you're saying is true, then what we're seeing now is that the powers that be were still short-sighted in that all these jobs disappeared and they had nothing in the plan to replace them. That's why so many are struggling and feel abandoned. Fact is, our leaders have no foresight and no imagination. They have no new ideas and no answers as to what to do about the current situation. That's why so many feel that the Democrats have no agenda. They can blame the Republicans all they want, they can blame Trump, but what in the heck are they gonna do about it? Do they even know? Do they have any idea as to what comes next?

Frankly, I get quite weary of hearing answers like "there's nothing we can do" or "that's just the way of the world." I consider it defeatist - the language of a slave resigned to his fate. I don't think that way, and I don't think the voting public should think that way either.

All these smart-alecks and other self-anointed "enlightened" types who look down on the working classes, who call them dumb hillbillies, bumpkins, and constantly go on about how "ignorant" and "uneducated" they are - they should be willing to accept the challenge. If they're so frikken smart, when are they going to start proving it? When are they going to start coming up with some real answers to get us out of the mess that we're in?

All they can do is try to peddle the same old rehashed nonsense. It's just like Hollywood with all their remakes. They have no imagination anymore. They can't think of anything new.

You don't think they should be blamed for that? If nothing else, they should be blamed for claiming to be smart and taking on a position they're obviously unsuited for.

I think they are no more guilty than the rest of us. It is the tide working, not a conscious decision that led us to this point.

There are solutions, and I'm not claiming there is nothing we can do, only that the current political climate won't allow it. And that is the voters fault for not seeing past the rhetoric. The problem is a relatively new one, so traditional solutions are not likely to be a fix.

 

[Falvlun]

@Stevicus has convinced me in past arguments that the Democratic Party needs to return to their roots as the champion of the working man. While they still are nominally the party of unions and higher min wages, that has not particularly been their focus.

Somehow, despite their actual antagonism towards the working poor and middle class, the Republican Party has taken over that mantle. While their rhetoric doesn't actually match their policy, their rhetoric has won.

I don't think that this means that Dems should abandon their championing of minority rights, or reproductive freedom. But I do think that they need to focus on the economy, they need to come up with fresh and practical social solutions to poverty and economic mobility. And they need to shout it from the rooftops.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In short, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that our government just doesn't function or represent the actual citizens of this country. I suppose, like always, those in power will be utterly shocked when everything goes to ****.

 

[tytlyf]

In short, Americans are finally waking up to the fact that our government just doesn't function or represent the actual citizens of this country. I suppose, like always, those in power will be utterly shocked when everything goes to ****.

Exactly, and it's not democrats. The people whining for decades are the GOP base. It should have been obvious a couple decades ago that the GOP will never listen to their base. They don't care what you think, they just want your vote.

Can we please not hear conservatives complaining anymore? Stop electing the GOP. You aren't changing them, never will.

I'd recommend starting a new party

 

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus has convinced me in past arguments that the Democratic Party needs to return to their roots as the champion of the working man. While they still are nominally the party of unions and higher min wages, that has not particularly been their focus.

And that's to their discredit. Unions have weakened, and real wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.

Somehow, despite their actual antagonism towards the working poor and middle class, the Republican Party has taken over that mantle. While their rhetoric doesn't actually match their policy, their rhetoric has won.

I see antagonism coming from both sides of the spectrum, actually. That's a large part of the problem.

It's also different for those who have actually traveled and seen a bit of this country, both the wealthy urban liberal bastions - and the rural and semi-rural towns and small cities which tend to be more conservative. You get a feeling for the culture and the kinds of people who live there. It's not just a matter of political rhetoric or the banter of talking heads; it's also a matter of what people see in their actual lives.

I don't think that this means that Dems should abandon their championing of minority rights, or reproductive freedom. But I do think that they need to focus on the economy, they need to come up with fresh and practical social solutions to poverty and economic mobility. And they need to shout it from the rooftops.

Human rights are always a leading concern, so I have no argument here. But they should be more consistent about it, based on solid, rational principles. Fact is, if they had focused on the economy first and foremost, a lot of the issues surrounding identity politics probably would have been greatly minimized. That's what a lot of people seem to miss. The bad economy hits the minority communities even worse.