You'll be fine. The same thing was said about Trump during the 2016 primaries, obviously minus the "leftist" comment.
I'm not a socialist. I don't want government-funded healthcare, I don't want college debt forgiveness, I don't want to break up corporate agribusiness, I don't want to subsidize a massive expansion of renewable generation. So why would I want to push left and elect someone like Sanders or Warren, who are proposing policies I think are stupid? I'll probably still do it to get Trump out, if that's what it comes to in the general. That is the bet the progressive candidates are making -- that they can pull the moderates along and get away with more of their agenda because the alternative is Trump. But, even if I have the stomach to risk them screwing up more the main pillars of our economy, that doesn't mean enough other people will. Some people will say, Trump's a racist dirtbag but at least he won't do X. It is a much easier prospect to ask a radical to accept a compromise moderate candidate than it is to ask a moderate to pick this radical over that radical. I'm supposed to go along with these bad ideas on the logic that we're likelier to defeat Trump because other people will be excited by these bad ideas and come out and vote? Hows about instead all the socialists get themselves excited about replacing Trump with a floor lamp and we call it a day? Well, I'm not okay about 2016, so this isn't exactly a comfort.
Then I ask you this simple question: Why not just be a Republican? If you're not for substantive change in healthcare, education, energy, and other standard of living issues (this is not socialist, btw)... what is the point of being a Democrat? I'm not asking this in a mean spirit either. This is not a "u don't like it u can gitttttttt out!" post. This is a genuine question. Mild change and status quo thinking are traditionally the lot of the Republicans. Do you feel abandoned by them over the last 20~ years? They have admittedly lost their minds and gone full "lets go back to the 1950s". Because "floor lamp" Democrats are what got us here in the first place. Democrats without the courage to stand up to crappy Republican half-measures like Obamacare and disingenuous political gamesmanship like the Garland debacle. "Floor lamp" Democrats abandoned the working class and they turned in droves to Trump for answers.
You can continue to assume it was moderates and not Hillary Clinton the person who was the issue in 2016. A non Hillary moderate would have done just fine in 2016. The working class abandoned personal responsibility and they turned to Trump in order to be absolved of personal responsibly. Trump didn’t exactly win by a sizeable margin.
Didn't want to get into it because I thought it was a tangent, but since you asked.... I listed some examples of current proposals I think are stupid, mostly because they trample roughshod over market forces. But I have other beliefs that are very left-wing and even radical that do put me on that end. I'm a fan of universal basic income, for example, progressive taxation, the war on coal, Glass-Steagal, BLM, expansion of immigration, reducing the power of the executive, etc. Some of those a moderate will deliver, some would require a President and a Congress who are much more progressive, and no candidate would fit perfectly. So I'm definitely on the liberal end, but it is not a compromise of my values to say I will forego the most leftist candidate in hopes of appeasing moderate voters. I don't like what those leftist candidates are saying; I don't like the moderate alternative, Joe Biden, either, (Klobuchar would be better) but he could give me some of the more modest reforms at least without doing anything crazy. And, what's particularly important to me is slowing the pendulum swing -- I want a president so boring and inoffensive that we won't see Republicans frothing at the mouth in 2028 for undoing everything he's done. Besides, the Republican party is led by a racist a-hole and everyone in the party has either fled or bent over. Why would I want to be a part of that? I used to cast an occasional Republican vote for a candidate I liked, but now absolutely no one with an (R) can get my vote until the whole party goes through a process of de-Trumpification. With minorities and immigrants in my family, forgiveness will not be easy to win.
Quick point here: The examples from earlier are basically removing these commodities from 'the market' altogether. I generally agree with you that meddling with the market is courting disaster, but there's a key distinction between tampering with something versus outright flipping the dynamic on its head. This is where you and I part company. I have lost faith in moderate Democrats to deliver on these ideas. The last 20 years or so (especially the last 10) have really been a punch to the nuts of this concept in particular. Going further, the new dynamic of negotiation is bad faith. You don't come to the table with your true desire. You come to the table with an extreme version of your proposal, and you walk it back to a middle ground. This is how Republicans have dominated policy talk for the last several generations. It may rub you the wrong way, but I don't think we can deny it isn't true. I have to ask you... what Republicans have you been observing the last two decades? What makes you any level of confident that Republicans will not continue to 1) accuse all Democrats of being closet Communists 2) attempt to repeal everything Democrats accomplish and 3) obstruct (without precedent and sometimes directly in contradiction of their own values/statements) everything Democrats do once they gain power? Fair enough.
Am I the only one who noticed the GOP’s free market dogma caused this rapid globalization? Am I the only who noticed that the Democrats have been pushing the idea of using the government to blunt the effects of rapid globalization? Why didn’t the Midwest invest in themselves when it was continually brought and given an option? Instead here we are where the GOP is picking winners and losers.
I have several reasons for doubting this narrative. She lost to Donald Trump. The most odious, philandering, piece of human garbage to run for any federal office in the history of our country. The idea that it was Hillary's sliminess that lost her Obama voters when she was running against America's version of the 7 deadly sins incarnate does not add up. Further, Trump was also a complete political variable/question mark. Hillary, by contrast, had a track record a mile long. Her politics were well known and understood. Trump basically had a twitter feed and that's it. Her politics were rejected by rural and post-industrial America. Would a moderate other than Hillary have won? Maybe. Would it have been too close for comfort? Probably. Really? You think it's the working classes fault that all of their jobs got shipped out or automated away? You think it's the working classes fault that a bunch of unscrupulous pharma execs successfully lobbied to flood rural America with opiates? You think it's the working classes fault that their healthcare options have evaporated and what little there is has become too expensive to even utilize? You think it's the working classes fault that their degrees aren't worth anything and that their tuition bills are sky high and their debt is non-dischargable? You could not devise a better Democratic attitude to get Trump re-elected in 2020 if you tried.
No, he's saying the Republicans did that and they keep voting for them because they can instead just listen to "Mexicans are coming".
It adds up to me. They were both historically unpopular. Clinton had way too much baggage. It also took James Comey interjecting about the email servers at the 11th hour. Maybe Hillary would have won if not for James Comey, maybe not. The opioid issue doesn’t explain almost 50 years of rust... Unfortunately, regions rise and fall throughout American history. Yes, the working class bears most of the blame. Why have other parts of the country done just fine? Are working class folks doing equally poorly across the entire country? If not, why are some doing better than others? Our education system is broken and not producing relevant skills for the 21st century. How is student loan forgiveness going to make people marketable? Like Juan, I’ll vote for a progressive candidate over Trump. My priority is to get Trump out, that should be the democratic attitude. For whatever reason, you want to play into Trump’s hand who is begging to go against a progressive.
Selectively responding. I understand the idea of asking for the world and then 'settling' for the things you actually want. I wouldn't even say it was bad faith. That's just how it goes. But how are we to know what Bernie really wants and what is posturing for a negotiation? Is he going to settle how I want him to settle? How about this, we say we want Bernie and then 'settle' for Biden, and our counter-party thinks they got a deal! Republicans and Democrats are not different species. You can count on Republicans to be as faithless, unfair, and petty as you can count on Democrats being. But the intensity of the vindictiveness will depend on the gravity of the perceived offense. Some took a black president as a great offense and now look where we're at. Trump is a great offense to liberals. Now the Democrats obstruct everything Trump tries to do, accuse all the Republicans of being racists, and will later attempt to repeal everything Trump did accomplish. This would not have happened if Kasich had won. And the cycle will perpetuate when we put a socialist in office.
What do you mean by this? You're saying that the Midwest got what it deserved because it isn't Silicon Valley or Wall Street? Rural America is not doing OK as a whole. The Midwest in particular gets the spotlight because of just how terrible things are there, but Bumblescum Alabama and Whogivesashit Wyoming are not exactly going gangbusters either. Small towns once anchored by regional manufacturing and a smattering of local businesses and private service providers/retails are dying. Those 'big' local employers have either shut down due to consolidation or shed most of their workforce due to automation. Once that goes, main street businesses die because the locals don't have money to circulate. Then schools and hospitals close because the tax base evaporates, and the shrinkage contrinues. It's the death spiral of the 21st century. Most metropolitan areas of the country are doing quite well. LA, SF, DC, NY, Boston, etc. These are where the large firms are holding court and expanding. Wealth from the tech and financial giants of the world have consolidated in a handful of places. It's winner-take-all, and Joe the Plumber could do ****-all to stop it, so blaming them is a one way ticket to Trumpsville. Sure, maybe Joe could have voted for a more progressive Democrat back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s (which the Midwest typically did) that could have made some changes to abate or slow down this problem, but holding that against them now is not anything more than vindictive at best and counter-productive at worst.
That doesn’t follow... I’m saying the opioid issue doesn’t explain 50 years of decline. It’s certainly factor this last decade but it just a piece of the puzzle, albeit recent piece. So it’s now rural areas? Well sure.... urbanization has been a secular trend for over 50 years... I guess I don’t automatically assume working class = rural workers. Automation requires new skills. However, nothing has changed... relevant skills are always in demand. A pragmatic new green deal would prudent, the key is pragmatic.
Yes. It's rural areas and increasing suburban areas. This is part of the stratification of American life. The winners are piling up on one end --- and the losers on the other. We used to be able to sustain a healthy cross-section of urban and rural life. Now, increasingly, rural life is basically a death trap and not a choice like it used to be. Working class is not exclusively rural, however, rural is almost exclusively working class. The data on the effectiveness of re-training is clear; it doesn't work (0-15 percent of re-trainees go on to find work in their new fields). You can't go back in time, and you also can't count on people to all have the foresight or luck to pick skills that will last them through their entire adult life. Further, if you're too poor or disadvantaged to go to school, are you just telling those people tough ****? Because that seems like a bad idea. The day is coming when no amount of training will save you from the technological replacement wave. Telling the 4 million truck drivers about to get sent home due to self-driving cars that this is "their fault" and they need to "learn a new skill" is both cultural and political suicide.
Yep... things change over time. We no longer need a massive rural population considering how we mechanized agriculture. And areas with relevant industries are doing good. You aren’t entitled to have your little piece of the US be relevant. Unfortunately you have to adapt. Re-training? These people need relevant skills, if what they were doing isn’t relevant anymore, then obviously retraining won’t be do much. I don’t think skills are “one and done”... you need to constantly update and require new skills. Both Obama and Clinton tried to increase community colleges throughout the places that needed it most... ... these folks said, “nah”. Why do these people keep turning down help? Because mean old Obama? Crooked hillary? Stop cutting off your nose to spite your face... I’ve seen that video before and it’s a good one. However we still aren’t there. I also support a universal basic income but we aren’t there yet. Essentially you don’t believe in personal responsibility and the ability to improve yourself. That seems like cultural and political suicide as well,
Forcing people into cities to stay... alive... seems like a crappy outcome. Those places are the exception, not the rule, and it's only getting worse (through no fault of their own). How else are you supposed to get "relevant skills" without retraining...? You can believe this but the data says it isn't a workable/realistic strategy. For the people in the midwest in particular they are already there. The retail apocalypse is very, very close (already here basically) and rural america will get decimated by that. I don't "not believe it", I know it for a fact to be untrue. Re-training doesn't work and automation is not anyone's fault. "Git gud noob" is not the campaign message I want to bring to Iowa in 2020, not just because it is electoral lunacy but also because it is morally and functionally inadequate.
Staying put in area with no prospects seems worse. If you don’t adapt, it is your fault. Retraining implies learning skills in a similar field to me. Let’s see the study and see how they define “retraining”. Well they should come on down to Texas, well more so then they already have. Are regions rising and falling a new phenomenon in American history? Yawn. You seem adverse to hard work, Raising America’s floor for the worker class should be the message. I’m not running as a candidate so I’m not sure why you are lazily assuming this would be my message as a candidate...
This is acquiescing to the problem. I'm not a fan of that. There's that "Git gud noob" attitude again. 1) That's an assumption on your part 2) Many fields are being nuked from orbit and so there is no "similar field" to go to. Example: retail, truck driving, etc. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZwLKqis7YAhUKUd8KHeiRCbEQFggnMAA&url=https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/labor/TAA_Synthesis.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0iyIyWLtIH25xqlre7j5DD https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/us/politics/job-corps-training-program.html https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/federal-job-training-fails-again https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...e-false-promises-of-worker-retraining/549398/ https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...at-protecting-workers-from-automation/549185/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/magazine/retraining-jobs-unemployment.html https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20150726/NEWS/307269975/disability-rolls-surge-in-state 1) Rural Texas faces the same problem as anywhere else, so they better go to Dallas/Austin/Houston 2) There's no guarantee that Texas' energy industry workers will not be heavily impacted, through no fault of their own, through advancing technology 3) There's also no guarantee that Texas can sustain such additional population vis-a-vis employment. So, in effect, you're just moving the problem around. 4) This is once again acquiescing to the problem. Moving is difficult. Moving is expensive. Moving is disruptive. We should not simply let the winds of the market and technology push us around. That is like going back in time to when humans had to migrate with the seasons and animals. Do not confuse something that is natural with something that is good. You seem adverse to hard thought. Because you are saying these things: Whether or not you want this to be your message, it would be. "Things change", "you need to adapt", "move somewhere else", "you're entitled", "you're lazy". Good luck trying to win over any swing voter struggling to make ends meet with this kind of attitude. It's so ridiculous it sounds like something straight out of the mouth of a mid-20th century cigar smoking Wall Street Republican cartoon villain.
