He has a point about the leftist trend to label rather than engage. I mean, the left is fairly preoccupied with its own taxonomy. I am not sure how much that played into Hillary's loss though. Mostly she just didn't represent change when people were craving it. I guess his point is that is how Hillary got the nomination, her label as a liberal was good enough. Bernie beat Hillary here in the Michigan primary, and then Trump beat Hillary. In both cases, the polls were totally off. It would be a mistake to think that is because Michigan is full of rednecks.
We'll have to agree to disagree about MI being full of rednecks. I think the Left should give up its preoccupation with guns. The Left has lost on guns to the same extent that the Right has lost on social issues. Guns are a separate issue form crime, and crime would basically go away if economic opportunity were available in the inner cities. People don't turn to violence for the most part when they see a future. I think, strategically speaking, that guns are hurting Democrats more than they're helping them. I suppose this is a non-starter for a lot of people in the party, however.
Hear hear. Each side needs to start dropping their wedge issues. Guns, immigration, abortion, LGBT issues, etc. We need to focus on the ones that common people can reach accord on- namely the economy and climate change.I think the Left should give up its preoccupation with guns.
Because they effect everybody, rather than certain classes. Also, everyone is pretty much on the same side with those issues. Everyone wants the economy to be doing well, not everyone wants abortion to be legal.
Everyone is very much not "on the same side" when it comes to climate change. Everyone wants the economy to be doing well, but the way to get there is one of the most controversial subjects there is. When even George Bush calls "supply side economics" "voodoo economics" and when half the opinions on the Fed are "abolish it" you can't call "the economy" an issue that everyone agrees on. Likewise, climate change. Sure - the majority of the polled public professes a belief in climate change. But the majority of voters (and lobbyist money) doesn't break down that way.
After days of introspection, I'm starting to coagulate around the notion that while liberals endorsed the system, Trumpkins rejected the system. We chose the safe, establishment candidate to preserve the safe, establishment status quo. They chose the dangerous, radical candidate to destroy the safe, establishment status quo.
Did anyone else hear "Change! Change! Change!" as the predominant theme that voters were messaging before the election?
Yeah, but then "we're fuckwits who can't think it through beyond 'this sucks, change it'", which is less than helpful.