calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted.

---

---

---

Between you and me, we both know that you're one of those guys who complains about Trump publicly, but alone in the balloting area where no one can see you, you're marking that space next to Trump's name. And you'll do it again in 2020 if you get the chance.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really win in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

I grew up in a typical blue-collar middle to low-middle class neighborhood, and I know that, even more than fiscal values, ready-made sounds bites handed to the Republicans by some loonies on the left will turn people to voting conservative way more often than stupid statements by some loonies on the right. You have to be a pragmatist like Clinton or inspirational like Obama to win the suburbs. It has very little to do with economic policies, since most of my friends' parents believed that their social standings were temporary and they wanted to protect the "American Dream" and hated socialism and communism (viewed as traitors) way more than they hated conspicuous and selfish rich capitalists. I also live and have lived most of my adult life in mostly affluent neighborhoods with middle-aged professional parents with young kids. While most of my friends and neighborhoods are socially moderate (with tilting toward conservative as they have kids), they are turned off just as I am by the racism and bigotry of Trump and Bannon as well as those of the left masked as identity politics. And they are afraid of the weakening of the basic social values. Many of my non-Christian friends struggle with the loonies from the Trump base and loonies from the Sanders base and they do struggle with understanding who has the potential to do the most long-lasting harm. To think that they are becoming socially liberal is misreading everything I have experienced (maybe because I don't live in Oakland). I also know that they are generally fiscally conservative. I would fall under that camp other than for my religion that ensures that I would never ever be a Democrat (mainly because the Democratic party has no room or tolerance for fundamental Christians).

As such, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, and the Democrats better hope that they don't react by making the craziness of Republicans (especially with Trump) seem potentially less risky than craziness of Democrats (putting forth impeachment papers that will never get picked up is an example).

---

You misunderstand me a little. I'm not saying the suburbs are going to turn socially liberal. I'm saying the suburbs are not going to go for the exclusionary rhetoric that Trump puts forth. Not saying the Democrats can put up a Marxist revolutionary to oppose him, but I don't see the Republicans staying successful against generic democrats if they continue the Trump social path.

My point on my home county becoming socially liberal is that Republicans crossed the line into unacceptability on social issues and then provided no counter balance. There is a danger to Republicans that they go that direction for a lot of regions. People want to say California is a whacko place, but we had Republicans as governor for 23 out of 28 years. California republicans basically went Trump before Trump did. They won the battle but lost the war...big time. They got their temporary victories on immigration and affirmative action and now they have zero influence in this state.

There is also the more isolated point that suburbanites tend to be more risk averse in terms of their security and they do not like that Trump is clearly unqualified. That is a bigger threat to their way of life then a couple points either way on the political spectrum.

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

There is no movement, there's just the usual back and forth movement between parties among the undecideds. Progressives can't even get one of their guys nominated in their own party.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

I grew up in a typical blue-collar middle to low-middle class neighborhood, and I know that, even more than fiscal values, ready-made sounds bites handed to the Republicans by some loonies on the left will turn people to voting conservative way more often than stupid statements by some loonies on the right. You have to be a pragmatist like Clinton or inspirational like Obama to win the suburbs. It has very little to do with economic policies, since most of my friends' parents believed that their social standings were temporary and they wanted to protect the "American Dream" and hated socialism and communism (viewed as traitors) way more than they hated conspicuous and selfish rich capitalists. I also live and have lived most of my adult life in mostly affluent neighborhoods with middle-aged professional parents with young kids. While most of my friends and neighborhoods are socially moderate (with tilting toward conservative as they have kids), they are turned off just as I am by the racism and bigotry of Trump and Bannon as well as those of the left masked as identity politics. And they are afraid of the weakening of the basic social values. Many of my non-Christian friends struggle with the loonies from the Trump base and loonies from the Sanders base and they do struggle with understanding who has the potential to do the most long-lasting harm. To think that they are becoming socially liberal is misreading everything I have experienced (maybe because I don't live in Oakland). I also know that they are generally fiscally conservative. I would fall under that camp other than for my religion that ensures that I would never ever be a Democrat (mainly because the Democratic party has no room or tolerance for fundamental Christians).

As such, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, and the Democrats better hope that they don't react by making the craziness of Republicans (especially with Trump) seem potentially less risky than craziness of Democrats (putting forth impeachment papers that will never get picked up is an example).

---

You misunderstand me a little. I'm not saying the suburbs are going to turn socially liberal. I'm saying the suburbs are not going to go for the exclusionary rhetoric that Trump puts forth. Not saying the Democrats can put up a Marxist revolutionary to oppose him, but I don't see the Republicans staying successful against generic democrats if they continue the Trump social path.

My point on my home county becoming socially liberal is that Republicans crossed the line into unacceptability on social issues and then provided no counter balance. There is a danger to Republicans that they go that direction for a lot of regions. People want to say California is a whacko place, but we had Republicans as governor for 23 out of 28 years. California republicans basically went Trump before Trump did. They won the battle but lost the war...big time. They got their temporary victories on immigration and affirmative action and now they have zero influence in this state.

There is also the more isolated point that suburbanites tend to be more risk averse in terms of their security and they do not like that Trump is clearly unqualified. That is a bigger threat to their way of life then a couple points either way on the political spectrum.

---

Trump is a once in a lifetime narcissist and is hopefully a wake-up call for all of us on how divisive our politics have become. I suspect the Republicans have no choice but to have him run again in 2020, but if we have someone like Trump after 2020 lead our party, we deserve to be decimated and made irrelevant.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

---

I predict that they will tilt moderate liberal in the coming decade. Not so much because of anything Democrats or Republicans do right now (well, maybe somewhat due to what Trump is doing now), but because of how the generations will age up. Those family areas will start to be populated by Millennials who came of age supporting Obama.

Republicans might win them back, but it will take a move back towards the left, not playing to the Trump-loving base.

---

What happen to those who were inspired by JFK? Did they become more liberal or more conservative as they aged and acquired wealth?

---

In general, who you voted for in your first election tends to be very predictive of how you will vote in the future.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-1-how-generations-have-changed/

As to your specific question, those who came of age with Kennedy have been pretty swingy (tilting Republican in recent years), but that might not be a great example. JFK did not win by anywhere near the margins Obama did and obviously did not spend nearly as much time in office. Interestingly, Nixon seems to have produced a persistent Democratic lean.

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really win in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

Warren didn't run. Sanders would have routed Kasich in working class areas. He did well there against Clinton particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Trump won the election. Independents would have been closer but Sanders would have won the election over Kasich since Kasich was a terrible candidate who won one primary, his own. Sanders would also turned out and retained the young people who drifted third party

Yogi Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

There is no movement, there's just the usual back and forth movement between parties among the undecideds. Progressives can't even get one of their guys nominated in their own party.

---

The Democrats aren't a progressive party. And yes a Jewish socialist from f$ckin Vermont had to carry the water.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

I grew up in a typical blue-collar middle to low-middle class neighborhood, and I know that, even more than fiscal values, ready-made sounds bites handed to the Republicans by some loonies on the left will turn people to voting conservative way more often than stupid statements by some loonies on the right. You have to be a pragmatist like Clinton or inspirational like Obama to win the suburbs. It has very little to do with economic policies, since most of my childhood friends' blue-collar parents believed that their social standings were temporary and they wanted to protect the "American Dream" and hated socialism and communism (viewed as traitors) way more than they hated conspicuous and selfish rich capitalists. I also live and have lived most of my adult life in mostly affluent neighborhoods with middle-aged professional parents with young kids. While most of my friends and neighborhoods are socially moderate (with tilting toward conservative as they have kids), they are turned off just as I am by the racism and bigotry of Trump and Bannon as well as those of the left masked as identity politics. And they are afraid of the weakening of the basic social values. Many of my non-Christian friends struggle with the loonies from the Trump base and loonies from the Sanders base and they do struggle with understanding who has the potential to do the most long-lasting harm. To think that they are becoming socially liberal is misreading everything I have experienced (maybe because I don't live in Oakland). I also know that they are generally fiscally conservative. I would fall under that camp other than for my religion that ensures that I would never ever be a Democrat (mainly because the Democratic party has no room or tolerance for fundamental Christians).

As such, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, and the Democrats better hope that they don't react by making the craziness of Republicans (especially with Trump) seem potentially less risky than craziness of Democrats (putting forth impeachment papers that will never get picked up is an example).

---

Paragraph 2, last sentence. What you say also insures that the Republican Party, as it was, will continue to diminish in importance with time. A minority party, divided by an insistence on certain principles, will but become more of a minority. Throwing out RINOs, insisting on prioritizing fundamentalist values in issues that numerically supersede those values standing as one, just alienates other Republicans. The big umbrella becomes a pup tent.

Right now, you have a party splintered in many ways, and it is a minority party whose numbers are decreasing with time, and with the changing nature of the politics of millennial vs. seniors will only change more. Yet, your ilk would like to throw stones at fellow Repubs who may find abortion an acceptable solution among other things. The threat of losing the numbers of fundamentalists from the ranks keeps their power alive in the party, but the lack of socially moderate political views with pragmatic fiscal views will be the end of the Repub Party. What you hold dear politically (not religiously, as that is your purview) is the wave of the past, not that of the future.

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really win in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

Warren didn't run. Sanders would have routed Kasich in working class areas. He did well there against Clinton particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Trump won the election. Independents would have been closer but Sanders would have won the election over Kasich since Kasich was a terrible candidate who won one primary, his own. Sanders would also turned out and retained the young people who drifted third party

---

I can't say I agree or disagree with you on Sanders versus Kasich. I suspect Sanders would have won. That is why I didn't present that option. I think Sanders captured people's frustration with establishment in the same way that Trump did and would have been just as big of a wild card. In fact, I suspect that Bannon and Sanders would have had a lot more in common on economic and nationalist views, with them being on opposite spectrum on social issues (although I suspect Bannon and Trump really don't give a crap about social issues - Bannon just wants to blow up the entire establishment). I think Sanders would have been a disaster of a president as well. You and I clearly disagree, and that is the fun of playing "what if". Neither one is right or wrong.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

I grew up in a typical blue-collar middle to low-middle class neighborhood, and I know that, even more than fiscal values, ready-made sounds bites handed to the Republicans by some loonies on the left will turn people to voting conservative way more often than stupid statements by some loonies on the right. You have to be a pragmatist like Clinton or inspirational like Obama to win the suburbs. It has very little to do with economic policies, since most of my childhood friends' blue-collar parents believed that their social standings were temporary and they wanted to protect the "American Dream" and hated socialism and communism (viewed as traitors) way more than they hated conspicuous and selfish rich capitalists. I also live and have lived most of my adult life in mostly affluent neighborhoods with middle-aged professional parents with young kids. While most of my friends and neighborhoods are socially moderate (with tilting toward conservative as they have kids), they are turned off just as I am by the racism and bigotry of Trump and Bannon as well as those of the left masked as identity politics. And they are afraid of the weakening of the basic social values. Many of my non-Christian friends struggle with the loonies from the Trump base and loonies from the Sanders base and they do struggle with understanding who has the potential to do the most long-lasting harm. To think that they are becoming socially liberal is misreading everything I have experienced (maybe because I don't live in Oakland). I also know that they are generally fiscally conservative. I would fall under that camp other than for my religion that ensures that I would never ever be a Democrat (mainly because the Democratic party has no room or tolerance for fundamental Christians).

As such, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, and the Democrats better hope that they don't react by making the craziness of Republicans (especially with Trump) seem potentially less risky than craziness of Democrats (putting forth impeachment papers that will never get picked up is an example).

---

Paragraph 2, last sentence. What you say also insures that the Republican Party, as it was, will continue to diminish in importance with time. A minority party, divided by an insistence on certain principles, will but become more of a minority. Throwing out RINOs, insisting on prioritizing fundamentalist values in issues that numerically supersede those values standing as one, just alienates other Republicans. The big umbrella becomes a pup tent.

Right now, you have a party splintered in many ways, and it is a minority party whose numbers are decreasing with time, and with the changing nature of the politics of millennial vs. seniors will only change more. Yet, your ilk would like to throw stones at fellow Repubs who may find abortion an acceptable solution among other things. The threat of losing the numbers of fundamentalists from the ranks keeps their power alive in the party, but the lack of socially moderate political views with pragmatic fiscal views will be the end of the Repub Party. What you hold dear politically (not religiously, as that is your purview) is the wave of the past, not that of the future.

---

I don't follow. How do you take what I wrote and come up with what you wrote? You jumped a bunch of steps there, Skippy. Don't project your desire to divide to me. I never cast stones or called anyone a RINO from the Republicans party other than Trump, Moore and Bannon. Maybe you would like to refer to my post where I have or you are just reverting to your tendency to divide and project that to me? Or you are just hostile to Christians in general.

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really win in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

Warren didn't run. Sanders would have routed Kasich in working class areas. He did well there against Clinton particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Trump won the election. Independents would have been closer but Sanders would have won the election over Kasich since Kasich was a terrible candidate who won one primary, his own. Sanders would also turned out and retained the young people who drifted third party

---

I can't say I agree or disagree with you on Sanders versus Kasich. I suspect Sanders would have won. That is why I didn't present that option. I think Sanders captured people's frustration with establishment in the same way that Trump did and would have been just as big of a wild card. In fact, I suspect that Bannon and Sanders would have had a lot more in common on economic and nationalist views, with them being on opposite spectrum on social issues (although I suspect Bannon and Trump really don't give a crap about social issues - Bannon just wants to blow up the entire establishment). I think Sanders would have been a disaster of a president as well. You and I clearly disagree, and that is the fun of playing "what if". Neither one is right or wrong.

---

I don't ageee with you about Bernie and Bannon having a lot of agreement on economic and nationalistic interests. Both are anti globalist but that's it. Bernie would never accept a corporate tax cut or a cut on high earners. Bannon favors the former, though he actually favors a higher rate for individual high earners. Bernie doesn't fAvor ending Obamacare; Bannon does. Bernie isn't anti- immigrant; Bannon is. On global warming, again Bernie would want to do something; Bannon does not. There's probably more agreement on foreign policy - non interventionist; let others pay

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The suburbs have been fertile for the Democrats since Bill Clinton. The win in Virginia for Governor was no big deal-Clinton carried those districts. What was a big deal was the energy and wins down market, not only in Virginia but in other states, many by newcomers- socialists, transgenders, people of color- who might portend a grass roots movement for change. Let's hope it extends to the party leadership.

The suburbs themselves are not going to win the Presidency back- Trump won the suburbs, Romney won the suburbs, Obama won the suburbs but they weren't game changers. What was game changing was the working class white vote, the rural vote and Clinton's inability to match Obama's strength with minorities and young people. She also underperformed in the suburbs.

---

On the left was a historically bad candidate in Clinton. On the right was a historically unqualified candidate in Trump. If it were Warren versus Kasich, you do you think would really win in in those working class areas? How about the independents? In general, I think this grass root movement toward progressive across the country is oversold.

---

Warren didn't run. Sanders would have routed Kasich in working class areas. He did well there against Clinton particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Trump won the election. Independents would have been closer but Sanders would have won the election over Kasich since Kasich was a terrible candidate who won one primary, his own. Sanders would also turned out and retained the young people who drifted third party

---

I can't say I agree or disagree with you on Sanders versus Kasich. I suspect Sanders would have won. That is why I didn't present that option. I think Sanders captured people's frustration with establishment in the same way that Trump did and would have been just as big of a wild card. In fact, I suspect that Bannon and Sanders would have had a lot more in common on economic and nationalist views, with them being on opposite spectrum on social issues (although I suspect Bannon and Trump really don't give a crap about social issues - Bannon just wants to blow up the entire establishment). I think Sanders would have been a disaster of a president as well. You and I clearly disagree, and that is the fun of playing "what if". Neither one is right or wrong.

---

I don't ageee with you about Bernie and Bannon having a lot of agreement on economic and nationalistic interests. Both are anti globalist but that's it. Bernie would never accept a corporate tax cut or a cut on high earners. Bannon favors the former, though he actually favors a higher rate for individual high earners. Bernie doesn't fAvor ending Obamacare; Bannon does. Bernie isn't anti- immigrant; Bannon is. On global warming, again Bernie would want to do something; Bannon does not. There's probably more agreement on foreign policy - non interventionist; let others pay

---

As I mentioned, on social issues such as healthcare, environment and immigration, they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. On economic and trade and foreign policy issues, they are in a lot of ways aligned (close borders for trade, high tax rates to eliminate the ruling, wealthy class, protect blue-collar manufacturing workers, stay out of foreign affairs and let other countries solve their own problems at their own costs). However, I don't know how much Bannon cares about social issues in general.

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Are you talking about all women? Without going into the race/education status/wealth status/religious status, I posit there are large cohorts of "left behind women" who could care less about the sexual assault issue. Why do I say this? Because you can't elect a puussy grabber without the complicity of large cohorts of women in america.

Women voted for Clinton 54 - 42 over Trump. That was before women were galvanized by Trump's victory. I am seeing women work tirelessly for change in my community - already. The slice I see is predominantly white, educated, and affluent. Polling shows less educated white women were big supporters of Trump.

dajo9 said:

---

Women voted for Clinton 54 - 42 over Trump. That was before women were galvanized by Trump's victory. I am seeing women work tirelessly for change in my community - already. The slice I see is predominantly white, educated, and affluent. Polling shows less educated white women were big supporters of Trump.

---

Uneducated white women brought it home for Trump. The sooner he screws them and their families over, the sooner we can turn the page on the Trump chapter.

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think Republicans just guaranteed their tax bill will get zero Democratic votes.

---

I can recall years of GOP complaints that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation and now they are doing the same thing with the tax bill.

---

Except it was always a lie that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation. They refused to participate in any productive way.

---

Don't disagree. Noting the irony since there will be no Democratic input after the GOP did this.

Also, even more Senate changes per CNN:

The Senate tax overhaul plan underwent some big changes overnight.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed a package of sweeping changes, including growing the child tax credit, reducing the tax rates for some income brackets, and reducing the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
Also among the proposals: making nearly all of the tax changes for individuals temporary, while keeping major corporate changes permanent.

Dumb question: How do they make the corporate changes permanent and meet reconciliation requirements? Not being snarly I don't know the process.

---

A big part of how they permanently offset the corporate tax deduction is by making the tax brackets increase based on "chained CPI" rather than regular CPI. Chained CPI goes up more slowly and since the inflated increase in brackets reduces taxes, moving the brackets up more slowly is effectively a tax increase on everybody. Net result is a permanent corporate tax cut offset by a permanent across-the-board individual tax increase.

This is what passes for draining the swamp in some circles.

---

While I don't like the approach being used, I still don't get how you can make permanent corporate tax cuts (or any permanent tax cuts) through reconciliation. What if there is no CPI increase, chained or otherwise. How do you not create a deficit with "permanent" corporate tax cuts thereby blowing the reconciliation requirements?

calbear93 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

The Democrats are in a position to really make advances in suburban America, and this tax bill falls into their hands if they have the sense to capitalize (which they probably don't, they are Democrats)

---

FWIW, Democrats have made major gains in state elections in suburban districts during the Trump era (the big win in Virginia was pretty much based on that). So we have already seen it happen.

---

What that represented to me is that certain portion of white, educated, suburban folks may vote for Trump when presented with a binary choice of voting for H. Clinton but are generally not aligned with Trump's divisive tactics. The nationalists platform (including from the right like Bannon or from left like Sanders) may play well in the South and certain parts of the Midwest, but it will not play well in the suburbs with more moderately-conservative independents. The Republicans will need to play the role of fiscal conservative with moderate, diverse global social values in the suburbs. Even before Trump and other than when faced with Clinton, many of the same folks in the suburbs would not have voted for Trump's nonsense and would have voted for Obama. Now, you bring a far left candidates in those suburbs again without the countering threat of nationalist bile, you will see it tilting to conservative again in the same districts.

---

Don't disagree with a lot of this, but definitely disagree with the word "again" in the last sentence. Hillary is not a far left candidate. She is a dishonest candidate that had a ton of baggage and that the left was unenthusiastic about. I'm not saying my pick to win the suburbs would be to go far left (it wouldn't be). But the mistake for Democrats last election was not picking a far left candidate. It was picking Clinton. Polling from counties that flipped from Obama to Trump or that moved significantly toward the Republicans between Romney and Trump has for quite a while shown favorability ratings that look like Obama>>>Sanders>Generic Republican>Trump>>>>>>>Clinton. I'm not saying that is what appeals to suburban counties, but I think you underestimate the problem that Republicans will have there if they are not careful.

I grew up in a highly educated, affluent, suburban county. All of my childhood it was Republican. When the Republicans went socially conservative, culminating in Reagan, they lost that county forever. It had been a fiscally conservative, socially moderate area for the most part, that usually voted pocketbook. Once the Republicans lost on the social issues, it snowballed into a fiscally left of center, socially liberal area.

People with college educations do not like dividing people based on intrinsic traits. Suburbia is becoming more and more educated - harder to get in without that degree. They aren't socially liberal, but they aren't socially conservative either. Trump is an anchor there. And their two most important issues are their house and their kids' education. Why the Republicans would hit those deductions, I can't fathom.

It's not just Virginia. Republicans have been underperforming in the suburbs in almost every election since last November.

---

There were a lot of things that I didn't like about Clinton, but it wasn't that she was far left. Far left would have been Sanders, and I think Sanders and Trump would have been a nationalist, populist election, and I would have stayed home and not voted. When I think about far left, I think Sanders and more and more Warren (although from an intellectual standpoint, I think Warren far outshines Sanders). I strongly doubt far left social platform will play well in most suburbs. I just have a hard time believing that white picket fence soccer moms and white collar office dads with 2 kids will not tilt toward moderate conservative and I strongly doubt that Sanders and Warren would have done better than Biden, Bullock, or Cuomo in the suburbs.

I grew up in a typical blue-collar middle to low-middle class neighborhood, and I know that, even more than fiscal values, ready-made sounds bites handed to the Republicans by some loonies on the left will turn people to voting conservative way more often than stupid statements by some loonies on the right. You have to be a pragmatist like Clinton or inspirational like Obama to win the suburbs. It has very little to do with economic policies, since most of my childhood friends' blue-collar parents believed that their social standings were temporary and they wanted to protect the "American Dream" and hated socialism and communism (viewed as traitors) way more than they hated conspicuous and selfish rich capitalists. I also live and have lived most of my adult life in mostly affluent neighborhoods with middle-aged professional parents with young kids. While most of my friends and neighborhoods are socially moderate (with tilting toward conservative as they have kids), they are turned off just as I am by the racism and bigotry of Trump and Bannon as well as those of the left masked as identity politics. And they are afraid of the weakening of the basic social values. Many of my non-Christian friends struggle with the loonies from the Trump base and loonies from the Sanders base and they do struggle with understanding who has the potential to do the most long-lasting harm. To think that they are becoming socially liberal is misreading everything I have experienced (maybe because I don't live in Oakland). I also know that they are generally fiscally conservative. I would fall under that camp other than for my religion that ensures that I would never ever be a Democrat (mainly because the Democratic party has no room or tolerance for fundamental Christians).

As such, I wouldn't count my chickens yet, and the Democrats better hope that they don't react by making the craziness of Republicans (especially with Trump) seem potentially less risky than craziness of Democrats (putting forth impeachment papers that will never get picked up is an example).

---

Paragraph 2, last sentence. What you say also insures that the Republican Party, as it was, will continue to diminish in importance with time. A minority party, divided by an insistence on certain principles, will but become more of a minority. Throwing out RINOs, insisting on prioritizing fundamentalist values in issues that numerically supersede those values standing as one, just alienates other Republicans. The big umbrella becomes a pup tent.

Right now, you have a party splintered in many ways, and it is a minority party whose numbers are decreasing with time, and with the changing nature of the politics of millennial vs. seniors will only change more. Yet, your ilk would like to throw stones at fellow Repubs who may find abortion an acceptable solution among other things. The threat of losing the numbers of fundamentalists from the ranks keeps their power alive in the party, but the lack of socially moderate political views with pragmatic fiscal views will be the end of the Repub Party. What you hold dear politically (not religiously, as that is your purview) is the wave of the past, not that of the future.

---

I don't follow. How do you take what I wrote and come up with what you wrote? You jumped a bunch of steps there, Skippy. Don't project your desire to divide to me. I never cast stones or called anyone a RINO from the Republicans party other than Trump, Moore and Bannon. Maybe you would like to refer to my post where I have or you are just reverting to your tendency to divide and project that to me? Or you are just hostile to Christians in general.

---

Paragraph 2, Sentence last Skippy. I, like many, have little tolerance for fundamentalist Christian views when they are superimposed on political outcomes. Value your views unto yourself but please keep them from derailing political outcomes. They are personal views that are enomorously important to you, maybe even, all important, but for the rest of us when carried to the political arena they are but a roadblock.

I have dealt with such issues intrafamily, and when they leach out into the entire fabric of others lives they create nothing but problems. Cherish your religious views personally, but keep them close to chest. I am a Christian, albeit a very relaxed one (Scandinavian, Protestant Reformation, baptized Lutheran). And that is about as much as I will ever get in your face about my religion. I would defend our Christian historical basis in this country to the ends, but would never push my religious beliefs on another, politically or otherwise. It is invasive and destructive.

I guess you might suggest that the fundamentalist vote is somewhat critical to the Repubs success. It may be, but it is also one of the biggest hindrances as far as social issues are concerned.

How about, instead of asking me to keep my views to myself, you keep your views to yourself? What makes you think I would give any weight to your bigoted views? Because you're a "moderate"? What makes you think your personal preference or your prejudicial views would impact how I practice my faith? How about I say that your kind of neither here nor there secular, muddled views pollute the political sphere? Will you now then become religious? No, right? Then take your presumptuous, pandering, no conviction suggestions and run along, Skippy.

Looking at Burritos chart, how did a majority of white women vote for Trump? I'm sure it will tilt more the other way, but it is still shocking that a majority of white women voted for an admitted predator. WTH, right? That has to make you wonder how confident you are that the grassroots movement of the left is truly taking place.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

---

The Tea Party movement was real and did result in Republican wins up and down the ballot. Democrats figured out too late that this was something to be concerned about. I think Republicans are doing the same with the current anti-Trump "resistance" movement.

It hasn't just been governor's races, it's been seats in state houses all over the country, and unusually close margins in Congressional districts that are heavily Republican. Trust me, I'm not just looking at my own personal circles here, I'm looking at statistical indicators like polling and actual vote counts from actual elections, plus anecdotal examples from articles like the above. These things point to a likely Democratic wave. Yes, it's possible that something else happens to reverse this trend (Trump suddenly becoming more popular, for example), but that's not how I would bet.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think Republicans just guaranteed their tax bill will get zero Democratic votes.

---

I can recall years of GOP complaints that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation and now they are doing the same thing with the tax bill.

---

Except it was always a lie that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation. They refused to participate in any productive way.

---

Don't disagree. Noting the irony since there will be no Democratic input after the GOP did this.

Also, even more Senate changes per CNN:

The Senate tax overhaul plan underwent some big changes overnight.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed a package of sweeping changes, including growing the child tax credit, reducing the tax rates for some income brackets, and reducing the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
Also among the proposals: making nearly all of the tax changes for individuals temporary, while keeping major corporate changes permanent.

Dumb question: How do they make the corporate changes permanent and meet reconciliation requirements? Not being snarly I don't know the process.

---

A big part of how they permanently offset the corporate tax deduction is by making the tax brackets increase based on "chained CPI" rather than regular CPI. Chained CPI goes up more slowly and since the inflated increase in brackets reduces taxes, moving the brackets up more slowly is effectively a tax increase on everybody. Net result is a permanent corporate tax cut offset by a permanent across-the-board individual tax increase.

This is what passes for draining the swamp in some circles.

---

While I don't like the approach being used, I still don't get how you can make permanent corporate tax cuts (or any permanent tax cuts) through reconciliation. What if there is no CPI increase, chained or otherwise. How do you not create a deficit with "permanent" corporate tax cuts thereby blowing the reconciliation requirements?

---

It's all based on the CBO model, which has an assumed CPI increase and an assumed chained CPI increase which is lower. Assumed being the key word here.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

---

If you don't know any women that voted for Clinton I've got two things to say.
1 - You've got to get out more. Talk about living in a bubble, I mean, you live in a state Clinton won among women by 39 points.
2 - Do you know any minority women?

Anyway, this week a lesbian won a state seat in Oklahoma in a district Trump won by 40 points. The 4th flip this year, just in Oklahoma. The movement will proceed with or without your acknowledgment.

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

sycasey said:

---

I'd also say that if you live in Orange County, I'd give better than even money that your Congressional district is represented by a Democrat after 2018.

---

Demographics are moving that way.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think Republicans just guaranteed their tax bill will get zero Democratic votes.

---

I can recall years of GOP complaints that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation and now they are doing the same thing with the tax bill.

---

Except it was always a lie that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation. They refused to participate in any productive way.

---

Don't disagree. Noting the irony since there will be no Democratic input after the GOP did this.

Also, even more Senate changes per CNN:

The Senate tax overhaul plan underwent some big changes overnight.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed a package of sweeping changes, including growing the child tax credit, reducing the tax rates for some income brackets, and reducing the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
Also among the proposals: making nearly all of the tax changes for individuals temporary, while keeping major corporate changes permanent.

Dumb question: How do they make the corporate changes permanent and meet reconciliation requirements? Not being snarly I don't know the process.

---

A big part of how they permanently offset the corporate tax deduction is by making the tax brackets increase based on "chained CPI" rather than regular CPI. Chained CPI goes up more slowly and since the inflated increase in brackets reduces taxes, moving the brackets up more slowly is effectively a tax increase on everybody. Net result is a permanent corporate tax cut offset by a permanent across-the-board individual tax increase.

This is what passes for draining the swamp in some circles.

---

While I don't like the approach being used, I still don't get how you can make permanent corporate tax cuts (or any permanent tax cuts) through reconciliation. What if there is no CPI increase, chained or otherwise. How do you not create a deficit with "permanent" corporate tax cuts thereby blowing the reconciliation requirements?

---

It's all based on the CBO model, which has an assumed CPI increase and an assumed chained CPI increase which is lower. Assumed being the key word here.

---

So basically you can get around reconciliation by deeming very aggressive assumptions? Look at the last 5 years and the CPI index has ben low. Doesn't that make the whole process a sham?

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I think Republicans just guaranteed their tax bill will get zero Democratic votes.

---

I can recall years of GOP complaints that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation and now they are doing the same thing with the tax bill.

---

Except it was always a lie that they were shut out of the Obamacare legislation. They refused to participate in any productive way.

---

Don't disagree. Noting the irony since there will be no Democratic input after the GOP did this.

Also, even more Senate changes per CNN:

The Senate tax overhaul plan underwent some big changes overnight.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed a package of sweeping changes, including growing the child tax credit, reducing the tax rates for some income brackets, and reducing the tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero effectively eliminating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
Also among the proposals: making nearly all of the tax changes for individuals temporary, while keeping major corporate changes permanent.

Dumb question: How do they make the corporate changes permanent and meet reconciliation requirements? Not being snarly I don't know the process.

---

A big part of how they permanently offset the corporate tax deduction is by making the tax brackets increase based on "chained CPI" rather than regular CPI. Chained CPI goes up more slowly and since the inflated increase in brackets reduces taxes, moving the brackets up more slowly is effectively a tax increase on everybody. Net result is a permanent corporate tax cut offset by a permanent across-the-board individual tax increase.

This is what passes for draining the swamp in some circles.

---

While I don't like the approach being used, I still don't get how you can make permanent corporate tax cuts (or any permanent tax cuts) through reconciliation. What if there is no CPI increase, chained or otherwise. How do you not create a deficit with "permanent" corporate tax cuts thereby blowing the reconciliation requirements?

---

It's all based on the CBO model, which has an assumed CPI increase and an assumed chained CPI increase which is lower. Assumed being the key word here.

---

So basically you can get around reconciliation by deeming very aggressive assumptions? Look at the last 5 years and the CPI index has ben low. Doesn't that make the whole process a sham?

---

I think the CBO has a history of doing credible analysis, but yes, if the CBO were ever politicized and lost its integrity it could play with assumptions such as you say.

As for the current process being a sham, well, only if you believe every financial model used is a sham. Assumptions should be reasonable, consistent, and explainable. That is what keeps it from being a sham.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

---

If you don't know any women that voted for Clinton I've got two things to say.
1 - You've got to get out more. Talk about living in a bubble, I mean, you live in a state Clinton won among women by 39 points.
2 - Do you know any minority women?

Anyway, this week a lesbian won a state seat in Oklahoma in a district Trump won by 40 points. The 4th flip this year, just in Oklahoma. The movement will proceed with or without your acknowledgment.

---

Your making may point. I'm in a state that Clinton won big, but I'm surrounded by GOP neighbors. Even the minorities (the few black and particularly Hispanic business people) hate liberals. Rolling Hills has 61% GOP registration, and 19% Democratic registration, and I don't know any of the Dems (they may be afraid to show their faces). They watch Fox and ***** about regulation or other GOP hot topic issues. Our other house is in Southern OC, and the thought that a Democrat is going to be our next congressperson is a joke (in response to another post). We have many people driving around our community in golf carts with impeach Obama bumper stickers. In contrast, when we lived in West Los Angeles, my wife was the only one in the neighborhood who was a registered Republican.

We have many liberal friends - they don't live near us. In particular, I know several women of various diversities I used to work with who are liberal and have become more active. That still doesn't add any new Democratic voters. Minority women tend to vote democratic. So what has changed? And their activism certainly doesn't change the mind of people where I live. Pointing out one state election result in Oklahoma is not convincing anyone of any trend. Here are the six congressional races in the year of the "Great Democratic Landslide":

House of Representatives:

• California's 34th congressional district: Democrat Xavier Becerra resigned to become the Attorney General of California.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-2][2][/url] The primary election was held on April 4, 2017. With no candidate receiving 50% of the vote,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-3][3][/url] a runoff between the top two candidates, Democrats Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn, was held June 6. Gomez defeated Ahn 60.1% to 39.9% to become the new representative.
• Georgia's 6th congressional district: Tom Price resigned February 10, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-4][4][/url] A special election was held on April 18, 2017. A runoff was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Karen Handel.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-5][5][/url]
• Kansas's 4th congressional district: Republican Mike Pompeo resigned January 23, 2017, to become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-6][6][/url] A special election was held on April 11, 2017, and won by Ron Estes, the Republican Kansas State Treasurer.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-7][7][/url]
• Montana's at-large congressional district: Ryan Zinke resigned March 1, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of the Interior.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-8][8][/url] Republican Greg Gianforte, a businessman and nominee for the previous year's gubernatorial race, defeated Democrat Rob Quist and Libertarian Mark Wicks 49.7% to 44.1% and 5.7%.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-9][9][/url]
• South Carolina's 5th congressional district: Mick Mulvaney resigned February 16, 2017, to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A special election was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Ralph Norman.
• Utah's 3rd congressional district: Jason Chaffetz resigned June 30, 2017 for health reasons. Governor Gary Herbert scheduled a special election, the primary was held on August 15 and the general election was held on November 7. Republican John Curtis was elected.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-10][10][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-11][11][/url]

There is one Senate seat up this year in Alabama and who knows how that turns out.
Notice a trend here? I really think the Saturday Night skit sums up the situation.

I see the electorate divided more than ever before, by where they live and what information sources they use. And I saw 3 divisive Presidential candidates: Sanders, Clinton and Trump, who rose from the primaries. I don't see any Democratic candidate currently who will bridge any gap with independents like me or more moderate Republicans. And the Republicans have Trump who is not exactly a consensus builder. It just see more of the same. Just look at the posts on this thread.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

---

If you don't know any women that voted for Clinton I've got two things to say.
1 - You've got to get out more. Talk about living in a bubble, I mean, you live in a state Clinton won among women by 39 points.
2 - Do you know any minority women?

Anyway, this week a lesbian won a state seat in Oklahoma in a district Trump won by 40 points. The 4th flip this year, just in Oklahoma. The movement will proceed with or without your acknowledgment.

---

Your making may point. I'm in a state that Clinton won big, but I'm surrounded by GOP neighbors. Even the minorities (the few black and particularly Hispanic business people) hate liberals. Rolling Hills has 61% GOP registration, and 19% Democratic registration, and I don't know any of the Dems (they may be afraid to show their faces). They watch Fox and ***** about regulation or other GOP hot topic issues. Our other house is in Southern OC, and the thought that a Democrat is going to be our next congressperson is a joke (in response to another post). We have many people driving around our community in golf carts with impeach Obama bumper stickers. In contrast, when we lived in West Los Angeles, my wife was the only one in the neighborhood who was a registered Republican.

We have many liberal friends - they don't live near us. In particular, I know several women of various diversities I used to work with who are liberal and have become more active. That still doesn't add any new Democratic voters. Minority women tend to vote democratic. So what has changed? And their activism certainly doesn't change the mind of people where I live. Pointing out one state election result in Oklahoma is not convincing anyone of any trend. Here are the six congressional races in the year of the "Great Democratic Landslide":

House of Representatives:

• California's 34th congressional district: Democrat Xavier Becerra resigned to become the Attorney General of California.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-2][2][/url] The primary election was held on April 4, 2017. With no candidate receiving 50% of the vote,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-3][3][/url] a runoff between the top two candidates, Democrats Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn, was held June 6. Gomez defeated Ahn 60.1% to 39.9% to become the new representative.
• Georgia's 6th congressional district: Tom Price resigned February 10, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-4][4][/url] A special election was held on April 18, 2017. A runoff was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Karen Handel.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-5][5][/url]
• Kansas's 4th congressional district: Republican Mike Pompeo resigned January 23, 2017, to become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-6][6][/url] A special election was held on April 11, 2017, and won by Ron Estes, the Republican Kansas State Treasurer.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-7][7][/url]
• Montana's at-large congressional district: Ryan Zinke resigned March 1, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of the Interior.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-8][8][/url] Republican Greg Gianforte, a businessman and nominee for the previous year's gubernatorial race, defeated Democrat Rob Quist and Libertarian Mark Wicks 49.7% to 44.1% and 5.7%.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-9][9][/url]
• South Carolina's 5th congressional district: Mick Mulvaney resigned February 16, 2017, to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A special election was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Ralph Norman.
• Utah's 3rd congressional district: Jason Chaffetz resigned June 30, 2017 for health reasons. Governor Gary Herbert scheduled a special election, the primary was held on August 15 and the general election was held on November 7. Republican John Curtis was elected.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-10][10][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-11][11][/url]

There is one Senate seat up this year in Alabama and who knows how that turns out.
Notice a trend here? I really think the Saturday Night skit sums up the situation.

I see the electorate divided more than ever before, by where they live and what information sources they use. And I saw 3 divisive Presidential candidates: Sanders, Clinton and Trump, who rose from the primaries. I don't see any Democratic candidate currently who will bridge any gap with independents like me or more moderate Republicans. And the Republicans have Trump who is not exactly a consensus builder. It just see more of the same. Just look at the posts on this thread.

---

What were the margins between D and R in those Congressional races, as compared to the previous? All of them were in safe Republican seats (except the CA seat, which is a safe Dem seat), so the fact that the Republican won is not a surprise.

But if you apply that margin shift to a closer district . . .

And yes, history shows that the margin of special elections is predictive.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-can-democrats-win-georgia-6-ossoff-handel/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-overperforming-in-special-elections-almost-everywhere/

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think much of this discussion about suburbs is missing the point in regards to women.

I live in a blue state (New Jersey) but in a suburban County so Republican it reliably voted against FDR. 4 years ago our district state Senator was unopposed. This month the Republican only won 52-48 in what a local pundit called an "oh ****" moment. We have had a Republican Congressman forever but now he is losing to a generic Dem in the polls and we have good candidates lined up to run against him and they are raking in the bucks from local donors. My point is, the suburban shift is much broader than Virginia.

My other point is that women are leading these efforts. I know because our town has monthly meetings and it is 80%+ women. They are the energy behind the movement and the movement is having affect.

Their interests are healthcare, climate, education (including respect for science), and traditional women's issues (Planned Parenthood, sexual assault, etc.). Issues of lesser concern for these affluent, educated women are low taxes and "traditional" values.

I see frustrated women, saying "damnit, we are going to do it ourselves" which is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. This is what I'm seeing in my community. From what I see in the news I think it's widespread.

---

Good piece I saw today about this:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/11/09/year-one-resistance-research/

In one of the early threads after the inauguration I mentioned the Indivisible movement and how I thought it might be the right way forward for liberals/progressives: https://www.indivisible.org/

Seems like it's taken root (along with several other movements) and is starting to show results in different districts around the country. This is good, IMO. Directives from the top of the national Democratic Party were not going to help rebuild support in some of these rural and suburban districts the Dems had let wither. It had to come from local efforts, because people are more willing to listen to other locals when deciding about who to vote for (or whether to vote at all).

---

I'm taking a different tact. American communities appear to have grown more politically and economically homogenous in recent decades, particularly in suburban areas, and you may think activists from either side of each party are taking over, but I think the last Saturday's Satruday Night Live skit sums up the last election results and Democratic party leadership real well. You could certainly make the same case for the GOP, as their leadership tries to figure out why Trump won their nomination, and pundits waxed on how impressive the Trump movement was after the GOP won several meaningless special elections after Trump took office. The mid-term elections are a light years away in political terms (with apologies to Jesse Unruh) and analyzing purported trends and the like at this point is fairly meaningless. What media we listen to and what we hear from our neighbors depends on where we live, and we all think movements are occurring around us (tea party anyone?). I don't know any woman in the neighborhoods (plural intended) I live in that voted for Clinton and I don't think they would vote for her if the election was held today. But I live in Republican areas (Rolling Hills and Orange County) Congrats to the Dems, they won two governor races is states Clinton won. What an incredible movement.

---

If you don't know any women that voted for Clinton I've got two things to say.
1 - You've got to get out more. Talk about living in a bubble, I mean, you live in a state Clinton won among women by 39 points.
2 - Do you know any minority women?

Anyway, this week a lesbian won a state seat in Oklahoma in a district Trump won by 40 points. The 4th flip this year, just in Oklahoma. The movement will proceed with or without your acknowledgment.

---

Your making may point. I'm in a state that Clinton won big, but I'm surrounded by GOP neighbors. Even the minorities (the few black and particularly Hispanic business people) hate liberals. Rolling Hills has 61% GOP registration, and 19% Democratic registration, and I don't know any of the Dems (they may be afraid to show their faces). They watch Fox and ***** about regulation or other GOP hot topic issues. Our other house is in Southern OC, and the thought that a Democrat is going to be our next congressperson is a joke (in response to another post). We have many people driving around our community in golf carts with impeach Obama bumper stickers. In contrast, when we lived in West Los Angeles, my wife was the only one in the neighborhood who was a registered Republican.

We have many liberal friends - they don't live near us. In particular, I know several women of various diversities I used to work with who are liberal and have become more active. That still doesn't add any new Democratic voters. Minority women tend to vote democratic. So what has changed? And their activism certainly doesn't change the mind of people where I live. Pointing out one state election result in Oklahoma is not convincing anyone of any trend. Here are the six congressional races in the year of the "Great Democratic Landslide":

House of Representatives:

• California's 34th congressional district: Democrat Xavier Becerra resigned to become the Attorney General of California.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-2][2][/url] The primary election was held on April 4, 2017. With no candidate receiving 50% of the vote,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-3][3][/url] a runoff between the top two candidates, Democrats Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn, was held June 6. Gomez defeated Ahn 60.1% to 39.9% to become the new representative.
• Georgia's 6th congressional district: Tom Price resigned February 10, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-4][4][/url] A special election was held on April 18, 2017. A runoff was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Karen Handel.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-5][5][/url]
• Kansas's 4th congressional district: Republican Mike Pompeo resigned January 23, 2017, to become Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-6][6][/url] A special election was held on April 11, 2017, and won by Ron Estes, the Republican Kansas State Treasurer.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-7][7][/url]
• Montana's at-large congressional district: Ryan Zinke resigned March 1, 2017, to become the United States Secretary of the Interior.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-8][8][/url] Republican Greg Gianforte, a businessman and nominee for the previous year's gubernatorial race, defeated Democrat Rob Quist and Libertarian Mark Wicks 49.7% to 44.1% and 5.7%.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-9][9][/url]
• South Carolina's 5th congressional district: Mick Mulvaney resigned February 16, 2017, to become the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. A special election was held on June 20, 2017, and was won by Republican Ralph Norman.
• Utah's 3rd congressional district: Jason Chaffetz resigned June 30, 2017 for health reasons. Governor Gary Herbert scheduled a special election, the primary was held on August 15 and the general election was held on November 7. Republican John Curtis was elected.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-10][10][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2017#cite_note-11][11][/url]

There is one Senate seat up this year in Alabama and who knows how that turns out.
Notice a trend here? I really think the Saturday Night skit sums up the situation.

I see the electorate divided more than ever before, by where they live and what information sources they use. And I saw 3 divisive Presidential candidates: Sanders, Clinton and Trump, who rose from the primaries. I don't see any Democratic candidate currently who will bridge any gap with independents like me or more moderate Republicans. And the Republicans have Trump who is not exactly a consensus builder. It just see more of the same. Just look at the posts on this thread.

---

Hope it doesn't come true but I think Issa and Rohrbacher are going to have a run for their money this time around (in response to South OC)

A lot of this is who is galvanized and who is not. Trump increased turnout of his base. Clinton did not. If she did, she would have won. (She was actually depending on the wrong thing- disillusioned Republicans ). We're in a period of insurrection where large parts of the base are unhappy with their leadership and central power.

Wait until folks in the OC see what happens to their personal tax bills when this thing goes through. Hello 60% effective tax rate. And that's only at the top of the ladder. And in terms of impact on discretionary spending, middle class families are going to get hit much harder. Good luck.

The tax proposal is polling at a 25% approval rate among all voters and losing by 40 points with those with a college education. And, again, all while adding at least $1.5tn to the national debt. Awesome.

One party rule is bad, We don't have to look far to see that. That's true regardless of what side of the aisle you sit and CA losing their voice in the Republican leadership is no bueno - although I wish some of them would follow the lead of Peter King and Republicans from the Northeast and start representing the interests of their state over the interests of their party. No representative from CA should vote for this.