What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[celedhring]

A populist wave - even if one with a more positive framework than the current one - gave Democrats their best Congress and state results in 2008. I don't like it one bit, but that's how voters roll.

[CountDeMoney]

In the words of the Democrat's most successful political strategist of the past quarter century or so, "It's the economy, stupid".

You mean the guy who presided over the collapse of 1994 which has given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress and more and more of the states for most of the past 25 years? Heck I think the only real political victory this guy won was his re-election in 1996. It has been a pretty dismal record of failure since then.

The GOP and a substantial portion of this country do not believe the Democrats are ever legitimately entitled to occupy the White House. You want, the House of Representatives, fine. You can even have the Senate.  But there is a sense of entitlement to the Presidency that the GOP reserves for themselves, and that goes back before Reagan.  Carter didn't belong there, Clinton sure as hell didn't, and you know how they felt about that colored fella.  No girls allowed, either.

[LaCroix]

A populist wave - even if one with a more positive framework than the current one - gave Democrats their best Congress and state results in 2008. I don't like it one bit, but that's how voters roll.

it's lazy to broadly say, "the voters are populist." the key people voting for trump, a majority in the blue wall states, are doing so because he was one of the few pushing issues they wanted -- bring factories back, roll back globalism. first, the democrat must respond to that in a real way. bernie was the only dem candidate who had anything close to an approach for securing those voters

for the midterm, that becomes a more complex argument, because the top democratic leadership needs to get candidates in states and areas they can win, and they need campaign drives tailored to those areas.

[garbon]

In the words of the Democrat's most successful political strategist of the past quarter century or so, "It's the economy, stupid".

You mean the guy who presided over the collapse of 1994 which has given the Republicans control of both houses of Congress and more and more of the states for most of the past 25 years? Heck I think the only real political victory this guy won was his re-election in 1996. It has been a pretty dismal record of failure since then.

The GOP and a substantial portion of this country do not believe the Democrats are ever legitimately entitled to occupy the White House. You want, the House of Representatives, fine. You can even have the Senate.  But there is a sense of entitlement to the Presidency that the GOP reserves for themselves, and that goes back before Reagan.  Carter didn't belong there, Clinton sure as hell didn't, and you know how they felt about that colored fella.  No girls allowed, either.

To be fair, Carter didn't.

[Admiral Yi]

it's lazy to broadly say, "the voters are populist." the key people voting for trump, a majority in the blue wall states, are doing so because he was one of the few pushing issues they wanted -- bring factories back, roll back globalism. first, the democrat must respond to that in a real way. bernie was the only dem candidate who had anything close to an approach for securing those voters

for the midterm, that becomes a more complex argument, because the top democratic leadership needs to get candidates in states and areas they can win, and they need campaign drives tailored to those areas.

It's lazy to say it's lazy.  "Build a tariff wall, bring back great factory jobs" fits the standard definition of populism: identify a concern, find a culprit, make up a simple solution that punishes that culprit and promises to solve the concern.

[Valmy]

it's lazy to broadly say, "the voters are populist."

I am sure there are many things, both untrue and true, that one could say that would be lazy. So what?

the key people voting for trump, a majority in the blue wall states, are doing so because he was one of the few pushing issues they wanted -- bring factories back, roll back globalism.

A very populist position. One that paid dividends in Blue States and did not hurt him at all in Red States. That seems to weaken your position.

first, the democrat must respond to that in a real way. bernie was the only dem candidate who had anything close to an approach for securing those voters

And your example of a cure is a wildly irresponsible and populist politician. Again this weakens your position.

for the midterm, that becomes a more complex argument, because the top democratic leadership needs to get candidates in states and areas they can win, and they need campaign drives tailored to those areas.

So get populists to those areas that respond to populism.

I just don't think you can be so cold bloodedly calculating and local these days as you used to though. Social media and all that require a strong national message as well. Carefully strategizing around local issues in the days when local papers and local media is dying rapidly is tricky. Sure your guy in Michigan may be blasting globalized elites and calling for radical goodness and sunshine to explode from his ass but if the national party is obviously still allied to those elites it will fall a bit hallow. Your opponent will be all like 'I am with Trump, Trump will smash those elites, join me and help Trump make radical goodness and sunshine explode from asses. My opponent is a tool of the Democratic insiders.'

[Valmy]

It's lazy to say it's lazy.  "Build a tariff wall, bring back great factory jobs" fits the standard definition of populism: identify a concern, find a culprit, make up a simple solution that punishes that culprit and promises to solve the concern.

Yep.

[LaCroix]

It's lazy to say it's lazy.  "Build a tariff wall, bring back great factory jobs" fits the standard definition of populism: identify a concern, find a culprit, make up a simple solution that punishes that culprit and promises to solve the concern.

the working class want jobs back home. you can have a populist president, but that doesn't mean the voters themselves are populist. one candidate says, "I'm going to give you jobs by building a tariff wall and bringing back great factory jobs." the other candidate doesn't have a really clear message that they buy on how he's going to help them

[garbon]

It's lazy to say it's lazy.  "Build a tariff wall, bring back great factory jobs" fits the standard definition of populism: identify a concern, find a culprit, make up a simple solution that punishes that culprit and promises to solve the concern.

the working class want jobs back home. you can have a populist president, but that doesn't mean the voters themselves are populist. one candidate says, "I'm going to give you jobs by building a tariff wall and bringing back great factory jobs." the other candidate doesn't have a really clear message that they buy on how he's going to help them

What it does it mean for the voter to be 'populist'? If they are eating up populist soundbites then I'm not sure what meaningful distinction you are drawing?

[LaCroix]

A very populist position. One that paid dividends in Blue States and did not hurt him at all in Red States. That seems to weaken your position.

it worked because there was no real alternative. you had lukewarm-to-no support on one side from a candidate who people didn't like, and crazy-nutso support for them on the other side from a candidate who people also didn't like. trump didn't win the blue wall states by a huge, roaring amount. he barely won the states the democrats needed. ohio (which the democrats didn't need because they had virginia) was the only state that trump blew hillary away. trump just had the better message. hillary's message, despite ineffective attempts to hammer on trump as being racist, etc. felt more pro-corporation to these people, even if that wasn't actually true.

it's like trial strategy where both sides have fairly equal pros and cons -- you have all these facts, but you need to take the facts and make a story that people buy. if people don't buy it in this scenario, that's your fault for not coming up with a better story. it doesn't mean there was something inherently wrong with the jury

And your example of a cure is a wildly irresponsible and populist politician. Again this weakens your position.

I'm not saying bernie is the cure. but he had a far more rational campaign than trump that also appealed to the working class. you can get rid of the more populist, extreme views while keeping the message. figure out a way to help the working class in substantive ways and wrap it up into a message they'll buy.

I just don't think you can be so cold bloodedly calculating and local these days as you used to though. Social media and all that require a strong national message as well. Carefully strategizing around local issues in the days when local papers and local media is dying rapidly is tricky. Sure your guy in Michigan may be blasting globalized elites and calling for radical goodness and sunshine to explode from his ass but if the national party is obviously still allied to those elites it will fall a bit hallow. Your opponent will be all like 'I am with Trump, Trump will smash those elites, join me and help Trump make radical goodness and sunshine explode from asses. My opponent is a tool of the Democratic insiders.'

disagree. I might be changing my view on the progressive approach (from it has no material affect to maybe it does), because I think part of the problem is younger democratic politicians are so concerned with issues that at least the moderates don't really care so much about. for example, a young democratic politician in my state has adopted in the past three years or so what may as well be called the california message of progressive equality. as well, when the indians protested against the pipeline, she was right there with them, etc. the average ND voter hates this, even the moderates think it's dumb. the democratic party got hit massive last November -- she lost.

I think social media can be a problem but in a different way. I think it's easy for especially young politicians to get wrapped up in facebook likes and twitter retweets so that it becomes almost an echo chamber where they lose sight of the issues affecting their communities. this is what happened with the above example re the young democratic politician. I don't know what younger republican politicians do -- maybe they're just not very active on social media, or maybe they're active but in different ways. maybe they have their own fb/twitter communities and get caught in echo chambers too but not as often? I don't know

[LaCroix]

What it does it mean for the voter to be 'populist'? If they are eating up populist soundbites then I'm not sure what meaningful distinction you are drawing?

"populist voter," to me, seems to be someone who's far more prone to eating up populist soundbites (or maybe they always/mostly eats them up?). they choose populist soundbites over (mostly?) anything else. a voter who happened to vote for a populist president because he had a message that reached out to them is someone who can be bought with a more reasonable, less populist soundbite.

[Admiral Yi]

the working class want jobs back home. you can have a populist president, but that doesn't mean the voters themselves are populist. one candidate says, "I'm going to give you jobs by building a tariff wall and bringing back great factory jobs." the other candidate doesn't have a really clear message that they buy on how he's going to help them

Because the other candidate doesn't have a simple solution to a complex problem which scapegoats a culprit, that means the voters who vote for the populist candidate are not populist?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.

[garbon]

What it does it mean for the voter to be 'populist'? If they are eating up populist soundbites then I'm not sure what meaningful distinction you are drawing?

"populist voter," to me, seems to be someone who's far more prone to eating up populist soundbites (or maybe they always/mostly eats them up?). they choose populist soundbites over (mostly?) anything else. a voter who happened to vote for a populist president because he had a message that reached out to them is someone who can be bought with a more reasonable, less populist soundbite.

So then that seems accurate.

[LaCroix]

Because the other candidate doesn't have a simple solution to a complex problem which scapegoats a culprit, that means the voters who vote for the populist candidate are not populist?  That doesn't make a lick of sense.

I don't mean a "simple solution" -- you can have a complex solution to a complex problem, and you can wrap that up in a message that the voters understand. the problem is like you seem to be saying, there's no current solution. I suspect the reason for this is because those voters have been essentially overlooked/forgotten/ignored by both parties until now. the first one in awhile to really reach out to those voters did so with a populist message. that doesn't mean the only way to reach out to those voters is with a populist message.

(edit) I don't think "scapegoat a culprit" is an essential component to reaching out to the working class

[celedhring]

Protecting health care, minimum wage raises, easing of college debt, clean energy subsidies... Dems have long pushed for economic measures to improve salaries, jobs, and the economic problems of lower classes. All those were part of this election, and pushed by Hillary.

I find the whole "Dems only cared for transgender bathrooms" a gross mischaracterization from the right to justify the idiocy of voting Trump.