Quantcast
View Post
LeeH said:
VideoGameAccountant said:
I'm sure the anti-Trump liberals think "Yeah, we're a resistance. We're going to win big in 2018," but people aren't happy with the Left. You have Antifa which makes the Democrats look like Fascist. You have the Russia conspericay which makes the party look dumber the longer we go without any actually evidence (hint, you should drop it). You don't have any leadership with in the party? And what is the party platform? "We Hate Trump?" I'm sorry, you need something better than that.

The Democrats are in hot water when you consider that A)They are self-gerrymandering and B) they are scaring away the white working class. Democrats are moving more and more towards the cities. If you look at election maps, you'll see most counties were red. The only reason you even have Hillary with more popular votes is you have Democrats clustering in a few countries. Florida is a good example. The only blue counties were Hillsborough (Tampa), Orange (Orlando) and Miami-Dade (Miami, duh). The rest of the state was red. This hurts in most elections as the US is a representative Democracy. You give up the House and if a Blue state has one major city, you will only get one senate seat. And if you can't win the house or senate, you can't win the presidency. At the same time, Democrats are pushing away moderates. Democrats are anti-white in most of their policies and they say it all the time, but most of the US population is white. Ann Coulter made the point quite well: if Romney has won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote, he would have lost. If he won 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won. Republicans only need to drive up the white votes and to Democrats who don't look at demographics, this seems like a winning strategy. Liberalism is killing the party (not that I mind since it means my side wins).

Some things you say quite well and other things you completely ignore, twist, and exaggerate about to appease your own pesonal partisanship.

Dems do have a self gerrymandering problem and even more importantly a political gerrymandering problem with respect to the house. Which only leads to increased levels of polarization. Instead of throwing around insults, you could also do research.  They do have a party platform besides "Trump is bad". Just because you lack the motivation to look it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You also quickly have their voting record at your hands if you really wished to know where each individual in congress stands. You can even compare their votes to what trump supports to find out which members have become the most partisan. (Links below)

I'd also like to point out your arguments over Dems looking facist because of a small number of individuals is no better then dems claiming Trump and those he appoint are facists. Your argument that Dems look stupid over Russia is no better or worse then dems saying conservatives look "dumber the longer they follow Trump". These types of arguments mean nothing unless it appeals to one's own personal partisanship and ideology.

Now let's move on to your argument over their policies being "anti-white". Which is too much of a generalization. A quick look at the 2016 vote breakdown shows trump recieving almost an identical percentage of the white vote as romney did in 2012. While they have lost support with the "white working class" (the blue collar coal worker/construction worker) they have made quick gains from white college grads helping to offset said lost. This suggests the "white working class" views said policies as anti-them, this doesn't suggest the policies are anti-white.

As for left leaning politics pushing away moderates that also seems to be quite a quick generalizaton given your avg. dem running for the president/house/senate still leans authoritarian right on a political compass.  This also doesn't even include how fast the conservative members in congress polarized under the Obama Administration (which still didn't scare away "moderates" either). Perhaps this is because the percentage of moderates is still in declined and they are dealing with two continuously polarizing opposites.  

Party platform - So what is their platform. Global change is bad. Woman rights. Transgender bathrooms. Here's the thing, none of these platforms are what voters cared about. Trump has two major positions: jobs and immigrations. Everything else was the normal Republican platform and he really didn't care (ie his response on Gay Marriage is the courts decided so I'm going to stay out of it). Objectively, the Democrats platforms aren't working. If anything, it lost them PA, MI and WI and almost lost VA. The rust belt is a democrat stronghold and they are losing it. Even if NV and CO become reliably blue, it wont be about to make up the difference (besides MI, all the states I listed have a higher EC score than CO and NV do combine). Yes, I am exaggerating a bit with Dem positions, but they haven't changed a thing after this massive loss. I doubt people are going to wake up in 2018 or 2020 and say "You know, I really care about climate change now." They don't have winning positions.

Dems look bad - Your argument seems to be coming from inside a bubble. "How do we look bad to people." Antifa is a Democrat thing as only people on the left talk about punching Fascist. Fascism is so broadly defined its become meaningless. And the Democrates haven't disavowed it (if you had right wing gangs shutting down free speech, you'd hear about it nonstop on CNN). You also have Dem politicians families in Antifa. Tim Kain's son is a member and Dem Mayors have shown support for it. This look bad for them.

The Russia thing just makes Dems look like tin foil hat wearers. If you haven't found anything at this point, you aren't going to find it. You can't go into the 2018 midterms and say "WE HAVE TO WIN TO STOP RUSSIA." It makes the party look hysterical. Im sorry, everyone you don't like is not Russia and they aren't Hitler. This drives more people from the party. It's already happening.

Demographics - You are right that whites, as a percent, voted less for Trump than Romney. But you also forget that this election had a third party candidate that got about 3 percent of the total vote. According to exit polls, 6 percent of white voters voted for "other" which was mostly Gary Johnson (as an aside, the Libratraians are right leaning). Hillary Clinton lost 2 percent of the white vote.  Keep in mind whites in both elections made up over 70 percent of the vote. Getting a few more votes from whites would have a major different on election results. You will probalby see a far higher percent white vote for Trump in 2020 as you wont have a third party pressence like you did this time and Trump would be an incumbent. Also, keep in mind where Hillary lost. It was the rust belt. In order for Trump to win, he would have to convince white working class Dems to vote for him when they voted Obama in 2008 and 2012. The electoral map doesn't look good for the Dems, and the anti-white message isn't winning. Also, minority votes were higher for Trump, so their "inclusive" platform isn;t working. 

2016 -http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

2012 - http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/

Moderates - I'm looking at this article. There may be a better one out there

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/03/moderates-lose-share-democratic-party/

All this said, I thought your comment was well thought out. Much better than I expected from this thread.



Visit my site for more

Known as Smashchu in a former life