85.2%

[yellowstone123]

"Dr Exiled" wrote:

I think there needs to be a rethinking of how the democrats view and push ideas about how racial groups vote. Racism isn't as bad as the democrats want everyone to believe. I have many hispanic friends that voted for Trump for the same reasons that other Maga supporters did. They definitely don't like the hyper focus on sexual issues that the democrats pushed and they want a strong economy. Trump with his push toward masculine themes like going to the MMA fights and appearing on Joe Rogan and like podcasts is something perhaps the democrats should look into.

I think this is spot on. To add - some of those voters are from first generation American families and are poor, likely Catholic and from Spanish speaking countries whose religion and politics are generally conservative or they are from Africa whose politics and beliefs may seem further right.

One question the Democrats can review is if a first generation American family voted for Trump then ask why? It’s something they need to think about but they may double down on the message they gave at the last election.

If they say Trump, Vance or the Republicans are similar to Hitler and then parrot his unhinged behavior by yelling and screaming on T.V. at someone who speaks for what he believes is right on the trans issue, or writes in a tone that mocks and dehumanizes a person, which actually is right out of the Hitler playbook, then they may hemorrhage more members to the Independent Party or even to the Republicans.

The crazy thing is that Trump may be planning on deporting those who actually support his views. Hopefully the Congress and/or Courts can revise or slow that plan down and just focus on those in the country illegally who are harming Americans or those here who dream of a better life.

[canpakes]

.
Letting billionaires buy the Presidency might also be a problem.

It remains to be seen to what extent the incoming Trump/Musk Administration will be corrupted by this.

[Gadianton]

I think there needs to be a rethinking of how the democrats view and push ideas about how racial groups vote. Racism isn't as bad as the democrats want everyone to believe. I have many hispanic friends that voted for Trump for the same reasons that other Maga supporters did. They definitely don't like the hyper focus on sexual issues that the democrats pushed and they want a strong economy. Trump with his push toward masculine themes like going to the MMA fights and appearing on Joe Rogan and like podcasts is something perhaps the democrats should look into.

Mostly true. I think MAGA's racism is bad, but I don't think the racism is that big of an issue for the races Democrats see themselves as protecting. People don't like to be patronized, for one, for two, it's one factor. As a tough guy, you can respect the leader of the opposite gang. Trump as a slightly racist MMA guy is better than voting for a woman. For three, immigrants are people just like anyone else, they aren't 'bad' but they aren't 'good' either. If they think they can join the cool club, many have no problem shutting the door shut on the rest of their country once they slip through the door.

Then there are the populist issues like being antiwar and focusing on the United States instead of the rest of the world. I think people see the uniparty aspects to our foreign policy and disagree with it. There seems to be a continuing corruption in how we conduct these endless wars, laundering tax dollars through these wars and into the pockets of the donor class.

I think this is untrue. The right-wingers I know haven't got the memo that they're supposed to be against Ukraine or think Putin is a bad ass like Tucker Carlson does. The people you speak of who are so easily bamboozled by an incoherent loud-mouth who went on Joe Rogan don't have deep policy ideals or complex opinions on geo-politics. Trump has already tested "war with Mexico" and if he continues down that rhetorical route, watch and see how quickly Ajax flips from isolationism to expansionism. He made the opposite flip shortly into the Ukraine war just based on what Fox News promoted at the time.

Perhaps the democrats need to throw off the mega donors and return to being the party of the people to counter the populism on the right.

what do you mean? In what way do you think they need to be more for the people, such that they can compete against a guy who blows his own horn on Joe Rogan for hours? I remember Howard Stern saying that he begged Hilary Clinton to come on his show. I think you see the same problem that Stern did, and it's correct, but that's messaging only, it doesn't translate into necessarily being more "of the people". Kotkin's definition of authoritarianism: The rule of the few in the name of the many. Becoming popular with the many, and actually helping the many, are two different things. Figuring out how to help the many will not necessarily translate into becoming popular with the many.

They also need to stop with the name-calling and the censorship. '

What censorship? There will be no censorship like that which Trump will bring about if he can. Are you saying there is no censorship on Truth Social?

As for name calling, I disagree. The right built itself on name calling and it's an effective tactic. Creating a common enemy is a proven sales tactic. Democrats could potentially be more effective name callers, and I would support that. If they can find a way around it and still be effective, that's fine too. I can go either way. I'm not a registered Democrat; so up to them I guess.

My own speculation about the biggest mistakes Democrats have made in particular with Trump, is reinforcing his status as the collective middle finger of stupid people. Pursuing criminal charges was a mistake for this reason -- he went from losing relevance, to being back in the news every day. The market is betting against all of Trump's promises, and he seems to be on track with being the do-nothing blowhard rational people are hoping that he will be. What Trump knows instinctually is that calling for mass deportations or calling for 25% tariffs gets everyone riled up and listening to him and making a big deal about him. I don't have a great answer for this. If someone calls a school with five bomb threats a day, do you not have to take every one of them seriously?

The problem is, the media you think is "censuring" Trump, is making a crap load of money off of Trump. I no longer watch CNN or MSNBC at all, in fact, I'm considering blocking access to all mainstream media sites except AP and Fox via firewall. CNN is the worst, every other day there is a near life-sized hero shot of Trump on their site, and they waffle between condemning him, or translating his stupidity into something coherent; either way, they reinforce this image of him as strong and powerful and intimidating.

What platform Democrats need to take along with their rhetorical strategy isn't something I have an answer for. For my own little part, I do plan on trying to get the ear of smaller social media sites and floating the idea of not posting Trump's picture anymore as clickbait, even if the content is about Trump.

[Jersey Girl]

.
Letting billionaires buy the Presidency might also be a problem.

It remains to be seen to what extent the incoming Trump/Musk Administration will be corrupted by this.

Betcha a dime to a billion $ that Trump now wishes Elon was his VP pick. But who knows, maybe not.

[ajax18]

The best way to know the pulse of an economy is consumer spending. If you're poor, then why are you on this cruise ship?

You can use your EBT card on a cruise ship. Does this mean you aren't poor?

Democrats believe that if you throw enough taxpayer money at green energy subsidies, something more efficient than fossil fuels will inevitably be invented. Democrats believe that if you throw enough taxpayer money at education, you'll inevitably get more productive workers. Thankfully Democrats aren't limited to false and damaging beliefs when it comes to governing and developing the economy. They also believe things that aren't true when it comes to running a political campaign and anyone who values his standard of living should be grateful for that. Democrats actually believe that more big money donors and more celebrity endorsements, a better candidate, and moving even further to the left will win them the next election. In a way, democracy is actually working the way it should. It's just a shame we had to bankrupt the country so badly before people started to see through the mainstream media lies.

[canpakes]

The best way to know the pulse of an economy is consumer spending. If you're poor, then why are you on this cruise ship?

You can use your EBT card on a cruise ship.

Rule changes over decade ago have placed very specific use limits on EBT cards. I’m not thinking that you have a recent anecdote to support that claim, but please share if you do.

https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/ebt ... assistance

Democrats believe that if you throw enough taxpayer money at green energy subsidies, something more efficient than fossil fuels will inevitably be invented.

Are you implying that Republicans will turn against oil industry subsidies? We spend about $20 billion a year on that.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/ ... 20industry.

Perhaps you’re implying that Republicans are against energy infrastructure spending. Or infrastructure spending in general. Is that a good thing?

Democrats believe that if you throw enough taxpayer money at education, you'll inevitably get more productive workers.

Are you implying that if we defund education and perhaps don’t even mandate K-12 school that you’ll get even more productive workers?

Democrats actually believe that more big money donors and more celebrity endorsements, a better candidate, and moving even further to the left will win them the next election.

Are you implying that Republicans are angry that their party has been co-opted by a tech billionaire? Are you suggesting that Republicans believe that running ‘worse’ candidates is the key to winning?

[Gadianton]

Are you implying that Republicans are angry that their party has been co-opted by a tech billionaire?

A tech billionaire who wouldn't be nearly as much of the billionaire he is without government subsidies.

[yellowstone123]

.
Letting billionaires buy the Presidency might also be a problem.

It remains to be seen to what extent the incoming Trump/Musk Administration will be corrupted by this.

Betcha a dime to a billion $ that Trump now wishes Elon was his VP pick. But who knows, maybe not.

I not sure Elon could be Vice-President given his parents were not U.S citizens when he was born. He was born in South Africa. He could take a cabinet position such as Secretary of State but they would bypass him and go to the secretary of treasury if the President, the Vice-President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate pro temp were all taken out in one fell swoop.

Henry Kissinger was born in Germany in the 1920s and Madeleine Albright was born in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s and both later became naturalized citizens like Elon Musk did right after his 18th birthday. They held cabinet positions like Secretary of State but would have been bypassed if those in front were unable to assume the presidency if some crazy catastrophe happened.

[canpakes]

Are you implying that Republicans are angry that their party has been co-opted by a tech billionaire?

A tech billionaire who wouldn't be nearly as much of the billionaire he is without government subsidies.

"I have no choice (but to support E.V.s) because Elon endorsed me very strongly."
- Donald Trump

https://reason.com/2024/11/12/elon-musk ... in-return/

And, certainly there could be no conflict of interest with Musk heading up DOGE, which would include overseeing those billions of dollars worth of his own SpaceX, Starlink and A.I. contracts with the government, as well as those of any competing company.

; )

[Moksha]

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump can have Musk shot. Musk and Ramaswamy will fulfill their positions of dismantling the government of the United States.