ChrisWeigant.com

Rebuilding The Democratic Machine

[ Posted Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 – 18:13 UTC ]

The Democratic Party is in pretty dire straights at the moment. Republicans not only control the United States Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House, but when you take a look down at the state level, things are even more depressing. Republicans have full control (both statehouses and the governor's office) in 25 states. Democrats only have complete control in five. Two-thirds of all the individual statehouses (state senates and state assemblies or houses) are Republican-controlled. Democrats have lost over 900 of the total seats in the statehouses since Barack Obama took office. By some levels, the Democrats are worse off than they've been since the 1920s.

Democrats face headwinds in the 2018 elections, but what's even more concerning than that is what happens after the 2020 Census. The U.S. House will be redistricted, and if Democrats haven't staged a pretty significant comeback by then, Republican governors and statehouses will gerrymander their way into locking up the House for another decade. They successfully did so after the 2010 Census, which is why the House has remained out of reach for Democrats since then.

That's all pretty grim for Democrats to consider. But the only way to fix it is to face the facts and decide to do something about the problems. The first test of this will be who gets elected to head the Democratic National Committee, but there are other things that need to happen if Democrats are going to turn things around. So here's my take on what needs to be done in the next six months or so if Democrats want to successfully rebuild their political machine.

 

Get a dynamic person to chair the D.N.C.

The Washington Post just posted a pretty good rundown from a party insider about what the priorities for picking the next party chair should be. Without taking sides between any of the current candidates, this is a pretty good list of what they'll find on their desk on their first day.

The ideal candidate would be a perfect mix of cheerleader and organizer. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who ran the party during much of Obama's time in office) was a pretty good cheerleader, I have to give her that. She appeared often on news shows, and for the most part did a very good job of defending the Democratic agenda. She was feisty, and she did an excellent job of shooting down the nonsense from the Republicans while explaining why Democratic plans were so much better. The incoming chair has to be very effective on television, because they will be one of the most prominent Democratic voices left standing. There won't be a Democratic president, speaker of the House, or Senate majority leader to talk to, so other than the two minority leaders in Congress, the D.N.C. chair is going to have to be a strong point person to make the Democrats' case to the voters. So being telegenic and having the ability to strongly make the case for the Democratic agenda is an absolute priority for the next D.N.C. chair.

The organizational aspects of the job are just as crucial. Democrats need to rebuild their party down to the state level in almost all of the 50 states. Using all the high-tech wizardry that got Obama elected is important (compiling databases, building a volunteer network, etc.) -- but not just for the presidential race. State efforts can't be ignored, and state candidates' hard work shouldn't be discarded after the election is over. Fundraising has to shift focus to small donors and a Bernie Sanders style of appealing to small donors, rather than just concentrating on how many fatcats can be squeezed at overpriced dinners with famous Democrats. That's what Democrats have been focused on, but there is a better way to raise money that doesn't leave the party beholden to Wall Street and Big Business quite so much.

 

An honest post-mortem

The first thing the new party chair should accomplish is an honest accounting of the 2016 election. The Republicans did this after their 2012 loss, and then completely ignored the document's suggestions (granted, this has worked out pretty well for them since). Democrats need a serious period of self-examination to find out what they need to do better, but it needs to happen pretty quickly. The big three questions this document should address are: the candidate, the campaign, and the message.

How much of the 2016 loss can be placed at the feet of Hillary Clinton? That is going to be a painful subject to address, but it absolutely must be examined. Would Bernie Sanders have beaten Trump? Would a generic Democratic candidate have done so? Why, or why not? Clinton won the primaries, meaning the question is broader than just the D.N.C., because the base of Democratic voters had their say in the matter. In some ways, this may turn into a post-mortem on the entire Clinton influence within the Democratic Party, because neither Hillary nor Bill is ever going to run for president again. This means the Clintons will not be as heavily involved in the next few election cycles, which might free the party up to head in a different direction.

Next, Democrats need to perform a wonky nuts-and-bolts examination of Clinton's campaign. If she had scheduled a few campaign events in Wisconsin, would it really have made a difference? She lost in Michigan and Pennsylvania, after all, and she spent plenty of time in both of those states. What happened to the get-out-the-vote effort that worked so well for Obama but fell woefully short for Clinton? How effective was Clinton's advertising strategy (and tactics)? Would more ads in different places have helped? Would ads with a different focus have helped? There are plenty of unanswered questions about how the Clinton campaign's overall strategy as well as their voter targeting efforts fell short, and they should all be addressed in detail.

The primary campaign needs examination as well, which will be even more of a navel-gazing exercise for the D.N.C. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to step down from her chairmanship right when the Democratic National Convention started, because she was seen as putting a pretty hefty thumb on the scale for Clinton's primary campaign. The WikiLeaks emails confirmed that there was a significant amount of favoritism in play during the primaries. So what changes at the D.N.C. would assure this never happens again? Some very bright lines need to be drawn between the national party organization and individual primary campaigns, so that we never see a repeat of this again. The entire logic of the superdelegate system needs a very hard look as well. Republicans seem to get along without superdelegates at their conventions, so perhaps Democrats should just scrap the whole system -- or, at the very least, reform it considerably.

Finally, Hillary Clinton's campaign messaging needs a close examination. This is going to be crucial to win back two very large demographics who should be eagerly voting for Democratic candidates. The first is young voters, and the second is blue-collar voters. Both were notably lacking in excitement about Hillary Clinton. The people who generate the most excitement in the Democratic base (and, in particular, young and working-class voters) are the strongest voices for economic populism. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have both shown the Democratic Party how excited and enthused and hopeful voters can be when Democrats have a clear and consistent economic message tuned directly in to those who worry about the state of the economy the most. Big and bold get more support from the base, rather than small and incremental. There's a big lesson to be learned from this by the national party as a whole.

 

Offer some hope to the Rust Belt

Wisconsin. Michigan. Indiana. Ohio. Pennsylvania. All these states need a special effort from Democrats right now, or else they'll slip beyond the party's reach for a long time to come. Barack Obama saved the auto industry from absolute ruin, which is a major factor in these states. But that was a while ago -- what have Democrats done for them lately?

Donald Trump has made promises to these states that he's not going to be able to keep. Democrats must be ready with an alternative when Trump fails. So far, Democrats have only two answers for people in factory towns when the factory moves out: get smarter, or move. That's pretty thin gruel for a town decimated by the loss of thousands of good jobs. Get "retrained" for industries that have never operated in these regions, or move to a blue state where the economy's doing better. Democrats have to figure out a way to entice corporations to use the fallow labor force in such towns so that when the factories move out, other industries decide to move in.

Where are the liberal think tanks who are working on this problem? There has got to be a better answer than "you're not smart and talented enough" or "move to the coasts." Industries die and industries are born all the time, and more jobs are being lost to automation all the time. There's a big sector of the workforce that is about to get decimated which will involve millions of jobs in jeopardy (not just primary jobs, but for the whole support network as well). Once automated driverless trucks are allowed on the freeways, there will be an enormous drop in employment as a direct result. These are some of the last jobs left that an average Joe can do and still make a pretty good living -- with only a high-school education. When this industry is disrupted, it's only going to exacerbate the problem, and it is coming soon.

I am not an economic genius, nor have I ever pretended to be. But there are macroeconomic wonks on the liberal side who should really be coming up with some answers, and fast. Is the solution a guaranteed minimum income? I have no idea, but the idea seems worth exploring. Should "enterprise zones" be set up in small towns across the Rust Belt to entice corporations to move there? Certainly seems like it could work. Ideas from across the spectrum need to be identified, because with Republican control of Congress, Democrats may have to decide on some conservative ideas that could be worth supporting if anything is going to actually pass.

What needs to happen to help out the 50-year-old worker in Ohio who has just seen his job move overseas? What can Democrats offer him or her that would provide any sort of hope for the future? This is crucial for Democrats to figure out, because if they don't then they might as well kiss goodbye their electoral chances in states stretching from Pittsburgh to Green Bay. Trump gave these people hope -- many of whom previously voted for Obama. When that hope proves to be false, Democrats must be ready with plans of their own to improve this entire region's prospects for the future.

 

Attacking the gerrymandering problem

This effort has already been announced, because it is what both Barack Obama and Eric Holder plan on doing after January. Statehouses and governors matter. They matter in two big ways -- building a deep Democratic "bench" to use to recruit candidates for national office, and preventing House districts drawn after the 2020 Census from overwhelmingly favoring Republicans. This lasts for ten years, so the entire 2020 decade is really at stake here.

Some states have taken the lead on getting politics as far away from the redistricting process as possible. Arizona and California now have non-partisan panels to draw the district lines, for instance. While moving this trend forward bodes well for regaining balance and fairness in redistricting, that trend is going to take a long time before it bears fruit on a national scale. Until then, Democrats need to win back some statehouses to have a fighting chance at ever retaking the House of Representatives.

Holder and Obama's project should be supported wholeheartedly by the D.N.C., and the incoming chair needs to do whatever is necessary to make the project successful. A 50-state strategy to accomplish this should be one of the top priorities of the Democratic Party for the next four years. This includes much better recruiting of candidates, and it requires supporting local and state candidates from the national organization in new and creative ways (as well as the tried-and-true "providing campaign cash"). Obama has signaled he's not going to fade into non-partisan do-gooding after his presidency (like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done), but rather he's going to get down in the state-level trenches and fight to rebuild the party. The party itself needs to get behind him and support this effort to the hilt.

 

Stay on message!

Finally, Democrats need to do much better at staying on message, once an overall party message has been agreed upon. Speak with one voice rather than hearing different factions of the party endlessly squabbling in public.

Of course, the "herding cats" problem is a longstanding one among Democrats, ever since Will Rogers uttered his famous line: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." In fact, I can end this just by linking to my very first blog post, written over 10 years ago -- when Democrats were also out in the cold in both Congress and the White House. I say this because I ended this foray into the blogosphere by quoting that exact Will Rogers line. When you're the "out" party, you've got to pull together like never before.

So that's my prescription for the Democratic Party. Get someone effective (both on television and in the campaign war room) to run the Democratic National Party. Closely and honestly examine the last election to see what went so wrong, and offer positive solutions for change. Stop ignoring the Rust Belt and being so condescending to "flyover country," because you cannot continue to count on their votes any longer if you do. Plan for 2020 and the redistricting now, so it won't take the party by surprise. And speak with one voice.

The Democratic Party is not dead. But the 2016 election needs a post-mortem, that's for sure. The party needs to revitalize itself and start leading in a direction that young people and working-class people want to go towards. The party leadership itself is in serious need of a shakeup, as is the institutional problems that were on display during the primary season. To rebuild an effective party machine, get a better message for why Democrats should be in charge of things -- a message that appeals to the widest possible swath of voters. A Democratic renaissance is possible, but only if some rather fundamental changes are made.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

66 Comments on “Rebuilding The Democratic Machine”

  1. [1] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Is it warm and comfy in your bubble, CW? That bubble where you fantasize that there will be fair elections in 2018?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Speaking of bubbles ...

    :-)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps you think that if you repeat something enough that it will come true, regardless of how inane it is??

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Most people are blissfully unaware of our political leadership. They tend to know two things - the name of the President and the party he belongs to (yup, I still get to just use the masculine pronoun, sadly).

    Over 40% of people in the run up to the recent election couldn't name even one VP candidate.

    Most people vote on two things:

    1. Are things getting better or worse
    2. Is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House

    Things got visibly better from 2008 to 2012. The change from 2012 to 2016 was far more incremental, and people's income was flat even though more people had jobs. In fact a large percentage of people thought the economy was getting worse.

    I expect 2020 to be the same. The economy is heating up. We haven't had a recession for 8 years. Let's hope it lasts until 12 or 16, or 50, but that would be longer than usual (6-10 years is the average). If we hit a road bump (e.g. a Chinese property market crash, or Brexit becomes Frexit and the Euro collapses, etc.) Trump will get the blame, fair or not.

    As far as the state elections go, a lot of people I know are pissed that government employees get guaranteed pensions - Police, Firefighters, Teachers, etc. and blame the Democrats for supporting union intransigence. Fair or not. Look to Wisconsin - there are lessons there from the Walker recall election.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:
  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    About 75% of millennials can't name either of their state's senators.

    I'm not trying to pick on millennials here, it was just an interesting poll. I'll bet the number doesn't rise much as it should when older people are added.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/poll-millennials-state-senators-114867

  7. [7] 
    neilm wrote:

    Less than half of our voting population know that each state has two senators.

    As I suspected above, only 35% of voters could name even one of their state's senators.

    https://emki-production.s3.amazonaws.com/downloads/64/files/EMK_Institute_Nat._Civic_Survey_Results.pdf?1458221724

    Let's remind ourselves that a popular entertainer won the recent election.

    Tom Hanks (D) 2020

  8. [8] 
    neilm wrote:

    All the Democrats need to do to get the White House back on 2020 is have a Hanks/Bullock ticket:

    http://www.rd.com/culture/readers-digest-trust-poll-the-100-most-trusted-people-in-america/

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    There has got to be a better answer than "you're not smart and talented enough" or "move to the coasts."

    Maybe these are the best answers and the only people left are those that didn't get retrained or move to the coasts?

    Maybe these people can't afford to get educated, or think they aren't "book smart" (an excuse I don't believe, I think there are some people with learning problems, but that the real problem is an aversion to education that is far too common in this country).

    I understand why some people don't want to move away - they might have relatives to look after, or friendships they don't want to lose.

    In the 1800's boomtowns became ghost towns overnight because there was no welfare safety net to keep people fed if all the businesses left town. We can now afford to keep many of these ghost towns on life support.

  10. [10] 
    neilm wrote:

    Once automated driverless trucks are allowed on the freeways, there will be an enormous drop in employment as a direct result.

    Panasonic introduces robotic checkout at a grocery store in Osaka

    Japanese electronics giant Panasonic debuts its new automated checkout system that can scan and bag purchases.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/104166047

  11. [11] 
    neilm wrote:

    An open letter from the Brooking Institute to Donald Trump re One China Policy:

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/12/13/an-open-letter-to-donald-trump-on-the-one-china-policy/

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    An open letter from the Brooking Institute to Donald Trump re One China Policy:

    I don't understand the denigration of using Taiwan as a bargaining chip to get a better deal for the US..

    Sure, it's not politically correct, but it's not as if we're forcing something on Taiwan that it doesn't accept. I mean, it would be different if the Taiwanese were totally and completely committed to independence and the US threw them under the bus.. That would be understandable, yet still morally reprehensible..

    The Taiwanese people are perfectly happy with the status quo so why not use China's desperation to maintain the status quo to get a better deal for the US...

    I have said it before and I will say it again... Looking out for the best interests of the US is not evil or wrong. In fact, it's PRIORITY UNO for any US government...

    I realize that such a concept is foreign to our CURRENT government... Which is why we should all thank our stars that there will be such a big change...

    303

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    MS,

    Is it warm and comfy in your bubble, CW? That bubble where you fantasize that there will be fair elections in 2018?

    I am constrained to point out that the winner or loser of an election in NO WAY determines whether or not the election was "fair"...

    The White House declared that the 2016 election was free from foreign influence or interference...

    Donald Trump won the election fair and square and by the rules..

    There is absolutely NO reason to suspect that 2018 will be any less fair than 2016...

    304

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    re: 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

    Thanx for picking up the slack... :D

    305

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thanx for picking up the slack... :D

    No worries ;)

    I got on a bit of a roll last night after a 3.5 hour commute home (big accident on a bridge, and when you are on a 7 mile long bridge there ain't nowhere else to go).

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    CW,

    Excellent commentary...

    The Democratic Party's biggest problem is exactly the one thing they NEED to do but won't..

    And honest and frank assessment of the 2016 election...

    Pelosi is saying she doesn't think anyone in the Party wants a change..

    Reid is saying that the Democratic Party is just fine.. Just needs a few minor tweaks...

    And THIS is Democrat LEADERSHIP talking!

    I guess if the Democratic Party is happy with winning the Popular Vote and losing elections... then I guess the Democratic Party is, indeed, just fine..

    It would actually be easier for the Democratic Party... All they have to do is campaign in New York, California and Illinois and they can win the Vanity Vote every time! :D

    Of course, the will still lose elections, but hay.. Who cares.. It's the POPULAR VOTE that is important to them....

    If they Democratic Party can't honestly assess their issues, they consign themselves to minority Party status for the rest of our lives... Their only hope is that the GOP utterly and completely royally screws the pooch... Granted, that is a distinct possibility..

    I don't understand why there is such opposition to a frank and honest assessment?? What is the Democratic Party afraid of?? The Clintons have been neutered and are no longer in control of the Democratic Party...

    If the Party leadership doesn't change, they may find themselves left behind.. Even now, there is talk of Democrats defecting to the GOP over TrainWreckCare... One Independent said he would be fine with going to the GOP and calling it TRUMPCARE....

    One of my favorite slogans from Basic Training was LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY

    Democratic Party leadership better pick a lane or one will be picked for them...

    306

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Taiwanese people are perfectly happy with the status quo so why not use China's desperation to maintain the status quo to get a better deal for the US...

    To your point, it does seem that the Taiwanese President initiated the call, or at the very least was a willing participant.

    Taiwan has two parties - the green and the blue. The blue favor the One China policy (they used to dream of taking over the rest of China, but that was decades ago, they are far more realistic now).

    The greens lean towards independence. The current President is a DPP (green) party leader.

    The people I know there (I have one friend I stay in contact with, so this is a very unscientific sample) are just like everybody else, they want good jobs, a good healthcare system, stability, and like to get excited by politics for a couple of months every few years and then forget about it.

    The business community is very pragmatic, they know that China is their #1 trading partner and they have invested heavily in the Mainland building factories, etc. and basically taking Taiwanese expertise in high technology and leveraging low cost labor on the mainland. They do not want to upset the Chinese because they are already an easy target for harassment, and now expect more.

    I truly worry that Trump is being swayed by extremists in the U.S. such as Bolton (who is nuts), and the property developers in Taiwan he does business with. Property developers are very different business people than the rest of the business community - they don't require international trade to be strong for their business to grow, so they have different priorities from most of the rest of the business community. This is one of the reasons that I value Trump's business acumen less in foreign affairs - his experience is not like e.g. Tillerson's who has to develop trade across borders and work with foreign leaders.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Here is something you may find of interest as I think your sense of unfairness in the US election may stem from the large disparity in the popular vote ...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/griping-about-the-popular-vote-get-over-it/2016/12/14/1f85f90a-c220-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.44430ac2a219

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    An honest and frank assessment of the 2016 election...

    Do you think the Republicans would have won the White House this year if they had "learned the lessons" from 2012?

    Trump was the antithesis of the so called "wisdom" trotted out by the Republican Party in their 2012 post mortem.

    I don't blame them, I thought they were right in their post mortem assessment. Shows how smart I am.

    But I am smart enough to learn.

    Here is a thought that might be heretic to the left wing purists, but perhaps the Democrats need to stop being the party of the low income working man, and become the party of the well educated progressives.

    Look at the numbers from the Pew Survey showing support for progressives among the better educated:

    http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/

    About 2/3 of high school graduates are going on to tertiary education in this country now. Can't the Democrats position themselves as the "caring realists" - the Party that really wants to: look after everybody in society with a fair safety net that is well policed for fraud; have strong immigration enforcement but with a realistic view to the people who have been here for decades; deliver healthcare that provides basic coverage for everybody but allows Cadillac plans for the wealthy; equality for all, regardless of color, gender, marital preference, etc.; and a focus on allowing everybody to share in the wealth when the country prospers.

    This is a simple message, and easy to support with simple facts that well educated people can point to when the fake news or "class warfare" nonsense is trotted out by the greedy and their mouthpieces and rabble rousers.

    I would pick 3-4 basic facts that support the progressive cause and are popular already:

    1. Wealth inequality is rising, so only the rich are getting richer - fact: Gini Co-efficient chart

    2. Our welfare system has been very effective at eliminating poverty in the young and the old (lots of charts showing poverty rates declining since the 1960's), so let's keep it generous but invest in fraud elimination

    3. Nobody wants people with pre-existing conditions to be refused the healthcare they need, and everybody should be able to afford basic healthcare and if they can't the government should help them

    4. LGBT rights are becoming almost a third rail in politics - look at Indiana and N. Carolina's experience recently.

    5. Nobody likes it when the company does well and the bosses get big bonuses and everybody else gets nothing.

    Plus get a Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock ticket in 2020 ;)

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Fundraising has to shift to small donors and a Bernie Sanders style of appealing to small donors"
    "Big and bold get more support from the base, rather than small and incremental"
    If only there was some way that rank and file Democrats could work with independents to demand that the Democratic Party candidates finance their campaigns with small contributions.
    It would be even better if rank and file Republicans could also work with independents to demand that Republican Party candidates finance their campaigns with small contributions.
    It would be even better if all these citizens could work together to demand this change from both current major parties while at the same time creating viability for third parties and independent candidates to challenge the current major parties so citizens will have a viable alternative to the current major parties if (when) they do not meet our demands.
    There is no viable alternative to the Big Money candidates and interests that control the current major parties because there is no viable alternative to the current major parties.
    There is no incentive to change because if they wait long enough they will regain control. Only the prospect of losing votes to small contribution candidates in the primaries and to small contribution third party candidates in the general election will provide the impetus for change in the current major parties.
    The Democratic machine needs to be replaced- not rebuilt.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was very hard to read.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Simple principles for the new "Progressive" Democratic Party:

    1. Everybody deserves a fair chance
    2. We cure the sick, not empty their wallets
    3. When America gets richer, Americans should get richer
    4. We want lots more Americans to grow our country, but we get to choose

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don:

    Trump won spending a lot less money than Clinton.

    Perhaps we have hit the law of diminishing returns with campaign funds.

    Perhaps a message that resonated with voters is more important than money in politics.

    If companies learn that the voters have wised up to the manipulation they will cu the funding themselves.

    The amount of funding in the latest election was estimated at $6.6B. There were 140 million voters who had to choose at least 10 candidates or propositions. That comes down to about $4.25/voter, or under 50 cents per voter decision (obviously more was spent on the Presidential decision than others, but it means that the amount of money spent per voter for the Presidential election was probably less than a cup of foofoo coffee.

    Couple that with a more cynical and less easy to manipulate electorate, and money isn't the biggest issues.

    Put another way, our economy is $16.8T. We spent 0.04% picking our leaders in the most expensive election in history.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    obviously more was spent on the Presidential decision than others, but it means that the amount of money spent per voter for the Presidential election was probably less than a cup of foofoo coffee.

    Over the last 18 months!

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    Would you vote for an independent candidate who ran on the principles I outlined above?

    1. Everybody deserves a fair chance
    2. We cure the sick, not empty their wallets
    3. When America gets richer, Americans should get richer
    4. We want lots more Americans to grow our country, but we get to choose

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the $6.6B included the Primaries

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you think the Republicans would have won the White House this year if they had "learned the lessons" from 2012?

    Trump was the antithesis of the so called "wisdom" trotted out by the Republican Party in their 2012 post mortem.

    I don't blame them, I thought they were right in their post mortem assessment. Shows how smart I am.

    Trump, like Obama before him, was a confluence of random events that created the perfect "storm" that is unlikely to be repeated...

    What I call in the laptop/TV repair field, a C.A.R.E problem..

    Cosmic
    Alignment of
    Random
    Events

    :D

    If one accepts this, then one must logically conclude that 2016 was a one-off and the Democratic Party should just keep on keeping on...

    However...

    2016 *WASN'T* a 'one-off'.. It was the culmination of a trend that started in 2010... Each time, the Democratic Party decided to "stay the course" and each time, the subsequent election INCREASED their losses...

    So, the case for making a change is a LOT stronger than the case for staying the course..

    Here is a thought that might be heretic to the left wing purists, but perhaps the Democrats need to stop being the party of the low income working man, and become the party of the well educated progressives.

    That might work eventually... But, in the interim, if Trump and the GOP really does right by the American people, then it is more likely NOT to work...

    Those well-educated progressives, being allegedly well-edcucated, might say to themselves, "Ya self? Trump and the GOP are doing pretty good. My life is pretty good, my families' lives are pretty good, my friends' lives are pretty good... Hmmmmm" and the Democratic Party loses...

    The problem is that the progressive agenda can ONLY succeed if it pits American against American...

    Because the scapegoat of the progressive movement is the WASP American...

    2. Our welfare system has been very effective at eliminating poverty in the young and the old (lots of charts showing poverty rates declining since the 1960's), so let's keep it generous but invest in fraud elimination

    Agreed....

    3. Nobody wants people with pre-existing conditions to be refused the healthcare they need, and everybody should be able to afford basic healthcare and if they can't the government should help them

    OK...

    4. LGBT rights are becoming almost a third rail in politics - look at Indiana and N. Carolina's experience recently.

    Which pits American against American.... LGBT activists want special rights.. Special laws, special regulations, special, special, special.. You can only support the special rights of LGBT activists if you curtail the rights of other Americans...

    THAT is why Democrats lose elections.. Because they pit American against American...

    5. Nobody likes it when the company does well and the bosses get big bonuses and everybody else gets nothing.

    Agreed... Pay and bonuses should be commiserate with contribution... No Participation Trophies in business...

    Plus get a Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock ticket in 2020 ;)

    I'de vote for Sully!!! :D But it should be a Hanks/Denzel ticket :D

    307

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Would you vote for an independent candidate who ran on the principles I outlined above?

    1. Everybody deserves a fair chance
    2. We cure the sick, not empty their wallets
    3. When America gets richer, Americans should get richer
    4. We want lots more Americans to grow our country, but we get to choose

    I did vote for that Candidate...

    And he won! :D

    308

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, OK, a couple of those might be a stretch....

    But ya'all got to admit.. Trump is the most Independent-esque candidate we are likely to see in our life-times...

    I have asked this before but never got an answer..

    CAN Trump switch his political status to INDEPENDENT?? That would really show how he intends to govern...

    309

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    Measures of Economic Optimism Are Shooting Up All Over the Place After Trump's Win
    A morning in America moment?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/measures-of-economic-optimism-are-shooting-up-all-over-the-place-after-trump-s-win

    Can Trump live up to the hype??

    We know Obama couldn't.... But the situation is considerably different...

    So, who knows....

    310

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    It is true that Trump won with less money. But contrary to Trump's claim of self-funding his campaign he did take Big Money contributions in the general election.
    Winning with less Big Money is still winning with Big Money.
    It is also true that the companies will stop the Big Money contributions once they learn that citizens have wised up to the manipulation- but it would be more accurate to say they will stop the Big Money contributions once they are no longer effective.
    The question is what action will send that message?
    Voting for Trump or Hillary was an example of the manipulation being successful. No incentive to stop there.
    Voting for the lesser of two evil Big Money current major party candidates for Congress was also an example of successful manipulation. No incentive to stop there.
    Only a declaration by enough citizens that they will only vote for small contribution candidates and the fortitude to stand by that declaration will send the message that citizens have wised up to the manipulation.
    As you demonstrated the Big Money is really not all that big when put in the perspective of 140 million individual voters and the many different elections in which they participate.
    So 10% of 140 million voters investing 100 dollars in contributions to small contribution candidates could raise well over a billion dollars. 20% could raise close to 3 billion dollars and come with enough votes to impact many elections.
    20% of presidential general election voters could be a significant force in an off year election like 2018 when there is generally lower voter turnout.
    In 2014, 30% of 2012 voters did not vote. If just half of those voters (15% of 2012 voters) had made the demand for small contribution candidates and voted against the Big Money candidates in 2014 rather than stay home it would have totaled 20% of the total vote in 2014.
    If they were joined by another 5% of the 2012 voters that did vote in 2014 it would have totaled near 30% of the total vote in 2014.
    This would have sent the message that citizens want small contribution candidates in 2016 and changed the entire dynamic of 2016. Bernie Sanders would not have had to spend the first 6 to 8 eight months of his campaign establishing the viability of a small contribution campaign. Many that thought it would not be successful may have supported him sooner or supported him instead of playing it safe by supporting Hillary.
    There would have been no vacuum for Trump to step into with his deception of a self-financed campaign.
    80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics. Assuming that percentage stays true for those citizens that vote in presidential elections, just 1 out of 4 presidential voters participating in this approach could be very effective in 2018.
    Big Money controlling our political system is the one issue that affects all other issues. Reducing the influence of Big Money is the first step to creating the environment where the candidates meeting the other criteria that citizens want in their candidates can be competitive because the Big Money interests don't want the candidates meeting the other criteria to succeed because those candidates would be controlled by citizens rather than the Big Money interests.

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And turnout is even lower in the primaries- especially in off year elections. 1 out of 4 presidential general election voters that do not normally vote in the primaries participating in this approach in the 2018 primaries could equal or surpass the number of regular off year congressional primary voters.(That's at least 50% of the primary vote.)
    Just the 2016 Bernie supporters alone participating in this approach in the 2018 primaries and general election could be effective. And that includes the many Bernie supporters that were unable to vote for him in the 2016 primaries. The deadlines are different for congressional elections and citizens are now aware of the deadlines and restrictions so they can be prepared to meet the criteria to participate in 2018.

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    It is true that Trump won with less money. But contrary to Trump's claim of self-funding his campaign he did take Big Money contributions in the general election.

    If accurate, it's likely because the GOP forced it on him...

    The nature of Trump's win made it clear that Trump didn't NEED the Big Money to win..

    That's the difference that makes all the difference..

    For the first time that I can remember, money didn't decide this election...

    311

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Because the scapegoat of the progressive movement is the WASP American...

    As a quintessential WASP, I don't feel that way. I think that most of the leaders of the reactionary side of America are WASPs so they act as lightning rods, plus there is a mint to be made on Fox News by telling WASPs that they are victims.

    On the other side there are some rabble rousers that make hay from "millennia of oppression".

    Both the victim-peddlers on the far right and the oppression-obsessed on the far left should not be allowed to dictate the dialog. Or at least, not any longer. I'm fed up being represented or castigated by extremists whose views I despise and don't represent 99.9% of my personal experience in life.

    In reality white men are still doing great in America. At the same time, the rest of society is doing better. Things are getting better for everybody, and it isn't a zero sum game no matter how much Fox News or HuffPo want us to believe otherwise.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    CAN Trump switch his political status to INDEPENDENT?? That would really show how he intends to govern...

    If he had selected Elizabeth Warren or Bernie for Labor Secretary I'd have been impressed. It would have sent a message to the Rust Belt and Coal Country that he was putting a fighter in place for them. A fast food executive is hardly going to fire them up.

    Let's see how much he deviates from Republican policies before we grant him Independent status.

    Quick question Michale: Do you think trickle down economics works? i.e. Do you expect the majority of Americans will see an income hike due to lower taxes for the rich. (i.e. Not lower taxes for the rest of us, that obviously puts money in our pockets, thus not due to a bubble based on tax cuts and increased deficit spending creating short term cash.)

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    The nature of Trump's win made it clear that Trump didn't NEED the Big Money to win..

    I don't live in a swing state (I live in the antithesis of a swing state), so I seldom see the Presidential candidates ad spend.

    I was on business in Orlando during the 2008 election season and switched on the TV in my hotel room and could only stand about 15 minutes of the constant negativity.

    So my question to Michale and anybody else who lives in a swing state:

    Do you think at the Presidential level:

    1. There was more or less ads in this election than in 2012?
    2. Was Trump spending significantly less than Hillary?

    I know this is anecdotal, and I'm sure there are stats, but I'd like a "feet on the ground" perspective.

    Please try to leave political prejudices on both sides out of your evaluation.

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    In reality white men are still doing great in America. At the same time, the rest of society is doing better. Things are getting better for everybody, and it isn't a zero sum game no matter how much Fox News or HuffPo want us to believe otherwise.

    Damnit, Neil!! You have gotten WAY to reasonable and rational!

    Quit it!!!

    Quick question Michale: Do you think trickle down economics works? i.e.

    I do see the logic of Trickle Down and it does make a certain amount of logical sense.. Remember, it was JFK who said a rising tide raises all boats..

    But I am not the economic powerhouse intellectual you are ( I mean that sincerely) which is why I usually try to absent myself from deep economic discussions...

    Trickle down HAS worked in the past.. There is no reason to think it can't work again...

    Do you expect the majority of Americans will see an income hike due to lower taxes for the rich. (i.e. Not lower taxes for the rest of us, that obviously puts money in our pockets, thus not due to a bubble based on tax cuts and increased deficit spending creating short term cash.)

    I liken it to giving a man a fish versus teaching a man to fish..

    If you give the middle class a tax break you are, in a sense, giving a man a fish...

    If you give the business owners a tax break and they, in turn, treat their employees better, then you are teaching a man to fish...

    If you give a man a fish, he will have a great dinner at the first of the year, tax time....

    If you teach a man to fish (IE give his employer a tax break) then the man can have a great dinner all thru the year...

    Of course, there is the issue where you give an employer a tax break and he DOESN'T trickle it down to his employees..

    If that happens, then the employer finds that all of his employees have left to go work for the employers that DO treat their employees right...

    That's how the market works...

    312

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    Damnit, Neil!! You have gotten WAY to reasonable and rational!

    Quit it!!

    LOL. I'll try harder you jack-booted fascist ;)

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Do you think at the Presidential level:

    1. There was more or less ads in this election than in 2012?
    2. Was Trump spending significantly less than Hillary?

    I know this is anecdotal, and I'm sure there are stats, but I'd like a "feet on the ground" perspective.

    Please try to leave political prejudices on both sides out of your evaluation.

    Can't answer that.. My lovely wife and I haven't watched network TV in over a decade, thanx to the advent of XBMC/KODI.... :D

    But, apart from TV, I know for every ONE Hillary Clinton yard sign, I saw 20 Donald Trump signs..

    However, I'll be the first to concede that I don't get out much.. :D If I travel farther than 50 miles from home, I start to get cold sweats.. :D

    313

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    If that happens, then the employer finds that all of his employees have left to go work for the employers that DO treat their employees right...

    Fair enough - but I think that companies are very well organized at the individual level (basically a coherent hierarchy that brings a lot of people together as a functional unit is the definition of a company), and they act together to protect their own interests (industry groups, lobbyists, etc.)

    Individuals do not have the power that comes with large numbers of organized people working to protect their cause. Unions used to do this, but Union membership has been on a glide path into oblivion since the 1950s with the exception of the Police, Firefighters, Teachers, Government employees etc.

    In fact one of the hurdles that unions face is resentment from people who earn under $250K/year towards extravagant pensions based on manipulated finals years of service (padded with overtime, sick leave, etc.) that Police Unions have won. My cop friends don't understand how grating this is, but they are good guys individually so we say good luck to them, but could you keep your mouths shut in front of people whose retirement planning consists of the coins behind the fridge and a lottery ticket from 1979.

    I sound like a broken record on this, so apologies, but the labor/capital balance has swung very hard to the capital side and the best measurement for that is the Gini coefficient.

    Thus my take on trickle down is that the people at the top won't give money away, but are happy to take more. Call me a cynic ;)

  41. [41] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "This means the Clintons will not be as heavily involved in the next few election cycles, which might free the party up to head in a different direction"

    Thank goodness.

    "Holder and Obama's project should be supported wholeheartedly by the D.N.C., and the incoming chair needs to do whatever is necessary to make the project successful"

    Uh... if the Democratic party decides to head in a different direction (which they are claiming to be doing while clinging to failed leaders), then Obama and Holder, who are Wall Street coddling Dems just like Hillary and both minority leaders, are NOT the best choice to address gerrymandering and thus should NOT be supported wholeheartedly.

    Obama's popularity doesn't mean he is supporting the right policies to rejuvenate the party, and if he is influencing which candidates are chosen to try to win back state houses, governorships, and federal seats, they will be the wrong type of people.

    Obama was the leader of the Democratic party when most of those congressional seats and state houses were lost... he chose and supported Wasserman-Shultz despite the losses... so he deserves a big share of the blame and his policies deserve scrutiny too.

    There wasn't a vote on Obama and Holder (unless you count the recent election in which case they LOST).
    They've appointed themselves to this project.
    The Democratic party shouldn't work that way and may be better served by politely declining their offer.

    A

  42. [42] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    34

    "Things are getting better for everybody"?

    Come on man.
    You know that isn't true.

    A

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Individuals do not have the power that comes with large numbers of organized people working to protect their cause.

    Individuals have the ULTIMATE power in this regard..

    "Chief?? You can take this job and you can shovel it!"
    -Sandra Bullock, DEMOLITION MAN

    :D

    Plus with social media, the employee can make it clear in no uncertain terms why they quit..

    If the complaint is egregious enough, the employer will pay....

    Like I said.. The market at work...

    314

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    Come on man.
    You know that isn't true.

    Fair enough, but on average things are getting better for Americans.

    My wife calls me a cock-eyed optimist (I really need to stop playing South Pacific when she is in my car), but I think the stats are there.

    I know it is a really long tome, and the middle ages were too gruesome for me, but Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature" shows the progress we have made.

    Plus poverty in the U.S. is declining:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/business/economy/millions-in-us-climb-out-of-poverty-at-long-last.html?_r=0

    And there have been billions of people around the world (mostly in China and India) who have been lofted out of poverty in the last 20 years.

    This is a golden age.

    Especially if you are one of the "lottery winners" who happened to be born in the U.S. or other rich Western democracies. Even more if you had the chance to get a University degree. And doubly so if you happen to be male. And again if you are white.

    And don't get me started on how great it is being alive in 2016 instead of 1916, 1416, or especially 1665!

    I almost feel is it an obligation to make the most of my life and do what I can to help other people - I, and probably most of the people reading this, are in the luckiest 1% of the luckiest 1% of all humans who have ever lived.

    Remember what my wife calls me.

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember what my wife calls me.

    Cock-eyed??? :D

  46. [46] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    44

    Well, OK. I get your point.

    But the difference between "on average" and "everybody" is stark.

    Since these discussions are normally limited to recent trends... the Gini has gotten worse, workforce participation rates remain depressed (skewing unemployment figures), a majority of the jobs created in the last eight years pay lower wages with fewer benefits than the ones that were lost, life expectancy even dropped for the first time in forever, etc.

    But, yeah... compared to the Middle Ages, things are awesome.

    It's a lousy campaign slogan though.

    Especially the educated white male part.

    A

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    44 pt 2

    Keep those eyes on the ball, and hold the mayo.

    A

  48. [48] 
    dsws wrote:

    There won't be a Democratic president, speaker of the House, or Senate majority leader to talk to, so other than the two minority leaders in Congress, the D.N.C. chair is going to have to be a strong point person to make the Democrats' case to the voters.

    Television will find someone telegenic, even if they have to dredge among long-retired county drain commissioners. We need someone who can rebuild the Democratic party.

    Donald Trump has made promises to these states that he's not going to be able to keep. Democrats must be ready with an alternative when Trump fails.

    Trump is not going to fail. He's not going to try to keep his campaign "promises": even good politicians can never achieve most of the goals they lay out during a campaign. Sometimes those goals become engrained in the political dialogue as having been promises, and sometimes they don't. Trump has been very good at flip-flopping with chutzpah and panache, and I see no reason to expect that that skill to desert him once he's inaugurated.

    Trump is not going to fail. He's going to keep, not his "promises", but the enthusiastic support of his core supporters.

    Is the solution a guaranteed minimum income?

    That would be one solution, but it can never be politically viable in the US.

    Should "enterprise zones" be set up in small towns across the Rust Belt to entice corporations to move there? Certainly seems like it could work.

    Doesn't seem to me as though it could. Well, if by "work" you mean that it could create a bunch of $40k/year jobs for subsidies of only $200k/year each, then sure. But small Rust-Belt towns aren't a good place for companies to set up, and paying them to move there is a losing proposition.

    I said my take on the question at
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/12/05/a-response-my-election-blame-list/#comment-90364.

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump is not going to fail. He's not going to try to keep his campaign "promises": even good politicians can never achieve most of the goals they lay out during a campaign. Sometimes those goals become engrained in the political dialogue as having been promises, and sometimes they don't. Trump has been very good at flip-flopping with chutzpah and panache, and I see no reason to expect that that skill to desert him once he's inaugurated.

    Trump is not going to fail. He's going to keep, not his "promises", but the enthusiastic support of his core supporters.

    And, if your prediction is wrong and Trump *DOES* keep his promises...

    What then???

    316

  50. [50] 
    dsws wrote:

    [44]

    Hear, hear!

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    Hear, hear!

    "Here!! here!!"
    "Where!?? Where!??"
    "There!! There!!!"
    "Now... Now.."

    -STAR TREK, Ishmael

    :D

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    "Basket of deplorables" wasn't supposed to refer to a huge part of the electorate. She was trying to contrast that huge part with the mere thousands of people who were overtly white-supremacist, antisemitic, and so on. But she said it wrong, as in "half of Trump supporters", because she's just that inept.

    OR.....

    Or she meant what she said because she's just that elitist...

    She was talking about the same group that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.....

    318

    As are many so-called "Progressives"....

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    But, yeah... compared to the Middle Ages, things are awesome.

    It's a lousy campaign slogan though.

    :)

    Vote Democrat! Better than the Black Death!

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Vote Democrat! Better than the Black Death!

    Well, actually,

    Vote Democrat!
    (Or have you forgotten the deep hole we were in eight years ago?)

  55. [55] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, actually,

    Vote Democrat!
    (Or have you forgotten the deep hole we were in eight years ago?)

    American People to Democrats:

    "What have you done for me lately??"

    319

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    (Or have you forgotten the deep hole we were in eight years ago?)

    Democrats DO get credit for arresting the downward slide...

    But it's undeniable that MANY of the policies that Democrats instituted made the recovery a LOT slower, by emphasizing everything (and anything) but jobs and recovery..

    How do we know this??

    The only relevant poll is the one taken at the ballot box....

    321

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    But it's undeniable that MANY of the policies that Democrats instituted made the recovery a LOT slower, by emphasizing everything (and anything) but jobs and recovery..

    Americans were interested in JOBS...

    The Administration was more concerned about trans people and their bathroom rights...

    That's a microcosm of the entirety of the Democratic Party and it's reliance on identity politics...

    322

  58. [58] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    57

    Neil was absolutely correct the other day when he pointed out the job creation record in the Obama years.
    Unemployment fell drastically, even with the influence of the lower workforce participation rate.

    Your assertion is invalid unless you limit it to the quality of the jobs created and where those jobs were created.

    Current unemployment numbers and monthly job creation numbers will be a daunting yardstick by which to measure Trump's success relative to Obama.

    But pretending that Obama and Dems weren't being subservient to business interests is revisionism.
    No minimum wage increase in 8 years.
    No effective new regulation.
    Expanded fossil fuel production.
    Massive increases in "defense" spending.
    Conservative health care "reform" aka subsidies to middlemen.
    On and on.

    It was Democratic devotion to maintaining trickle down economics that prevented more robust growth.

    Sure... they blame Repub obstructionism... but that is just lame PR only suckers believe and an excuse to maintain the status quo in service to their Big Money donors.

    You kept claiming Trump wouldn't serve those same interests, but judging by his cabinet picks, that prediction isn't looking too good.
    We shall see... I hope you're right, but the early signs say "Business as usual".

    A

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/progressive-echo-chamber-in-one-roundtable/

    There is the Left Wing's problem on full display...

    The Left (by and large, obviously there are exceptions) simply CANNOT conceive that a logical and rational American could POSSIBLY oppose a black person's or a women's ideas and policies based SOLELY on the merits (or lack thereof) of the policies or ideas themselves.....

    For the vast majority of the Left, it HAS to be racist or sexist...

    Because if it isn't... And this is the crux of the issue....

    If it ISN'T racism or sexism at work.... ** the Left is incapable of making an argument **

    Again, let me re-iterate that this is not ALL of the Left. There are a few who can actually make an argument without resorting to hysterical cries of RACISM!!! or SEXISM!!!!! Many of them are right here in Weigantia :D

    But the problem for the Democratic Party is that the numbers who ARE like that is the vast majority of the Left... As evidenced by the fact that the Party had it's arse handed to it in 2010, 2014 and 2016...

    323

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Asshole,

    That's what the 'A' stands for, right?? :D

    Unemployment fell drastically, even with the influence of the lower workforce participation rate.

    Your assumption that Unemployment fell drastically because jobs were created is an invalid assumption that is based on nothing but Democrat partisan wishful thinking...

    You kept claiming Trump wouldn't serve those same interests, but judging by his cabinet picks, that prediction isn't looking too good.

    That's because your "judgement" is skewed by your partisanship ideological slavery.... It's not objective and therefore should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt....

    We shall see... I hope you're right, but the early signs say "Business as usual".

    To date, I HAVE been correct... So.... :D

    324

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I thought it was Alice ... :)

  62. [62] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    60

    Getting testy are we?

    Um, no.
    Unemployment fell because millions of jobs were created and people got hired.

    Denying reality is one aspect of trollery at which you excel. Unemployment numbers and job creation numbers are not linked to any partisan ideology though numbskull. Trump's admin will put out the same monthly numbers using the same methodology.
    Denying such basics requires true partisan blinders.

    As far as your predictions...
    Obama served the oil interests.
    Trump is putting oil men in his cabinet.

    Obama had Goldman Sachs execs in his cabinet.
    Trump wants Goldman execs in his cabinet.

    Obama massively increased "defense" spending.
    Trump is saying he'll increase "defense" spending.

    Does imaginary independence have some sort of metric for measurement you care to share?
    Or is your single election prediction going to remain your only claim to fame?

    A

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    61

    Just don't call me late for dinner.

    A

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's my line! :)

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    Troll
    60

    Getting testy are we?

    Nope, just showing you the same courtesy and respect you show me.. :D

    Quit whining.. :D

    Unemployment fell because millions of jobs were created and people got hired.

    Yea, that's yer claim.. As usual, unsupported by ANY facts whatsoever...

    Denying reality is one aspect of trollery at which you excel.

    As usual, you accuse me of what you are guilty of..

    My facts are always impeccable..

    Your facts are, as always, non-existent..

    Does imaginary independence have some sort of metric for measurement you care to share?
    Or is your single election prediction going to remain your only claim to fame?

    You mean, my 689 predictions that countered ya'all's 689 wrong predictions?? :D

    334

  66. [66] 
    altohone wrote:

    Troll
    65

    It's not my claim, it's verifiable government statistics.

    I have yet to see you present ANY facts to counter the reality... on unemployment, jobs... of any of my points actually.

    Have you had blood work done recently?
    I'm getting concerned.
    Claiming success while taking a pass isn't like you. Normally there's at least feigned effort.

    And, no.
    Saying the same thing over and over again is just one prediction. But to be fair, you could add perseverance as a second claim to fame... different category... but whatever.

    A

Comments for this article are closed.