Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 01, 2016

E.J. Dionne Jr, Washington Post: Democrats are in danger of moving from complacency to panic. Neither is particularly helpful. ... [Hillary] Clinton's popular vote advantage speaks to other opportunities. It reflected a shift toward the Democrats in Sunbelt states with large minority populations that is likely to continue. In Texas, Clinton got some 560,000 more votes than President Obama did in 2012, while [Donald] Trump ran 4.6 percentage points behind Mitt Romney's showing. Trump also fell short of [Mitt] Romney's percentages in California, Arizona and Georgia.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

A panicky abandonment of their core commitments is the last thing Democrats need. Far better advice comes from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who urges the party to re-engage with rural and small-town voters. Also promising: the formation of a Blue Collar Caucus in the House announced this week by Reps. Brendan Boyle, an Irish Catholic from Philadelphia, and Marc Veasey, an African-American from Fort Worth.

I mention the backgrounds of this pair of Democrats because their cross-racial partnership sends exactly the right message. Progressivism's embrace of social and economic justice is about lifting up the left-out across all of our dividing lines.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Damn. Another chance to name my band! "Blue Collar Caucus" just plain rules.

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-12-01 05:51 PM | Reply

In one sentence, it says Dems don't need to abandon their core commitments, then it says that the party needs to re-engage with small-town voters and common folk (white people). So, to "re-engage, they would have had to "dis-engage" from this former core group, which means that they had already abandoned their core commitments. "Boom!" goes your mind.

#2 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-12-01 05:58 PM | Reply

In one sentence, it says Dems don't need to abandon their core commitments, then it says that the party needs to re-engage with small-town voters and common folk (white people). So, to "re-engage, they would have had to "dis-engage" from this former core group, which means that they had already abandoned their core commitments. "Boom!" goes your mind.

#2 | POSTED BY COOKFISH

And no. Drifting away is not dis-engaging.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2016-12-01 06:35 PM | Reply

Every talking head has an opinion of what the Dems should do. Since none of them were even remotely correct predicting the previous 18 months, what makes these bozos think that people are suddenly going to listen to their advice?

#5 | Posted by CaseyJones at 2016-12-01 06:37 PM | Reply

#2 |

More of a subdued "pop" in such a small mind, I 'spect.

Hillary is now past 2.5 million ahead in the popular vote. It wasn't a matter of not enough votes, but an average of about 1 percent of the vote across three Rust Belt where certain susceptible marks are plentiful.

The Dem party should have, I guess, lied as well as Trump did about, "bad trade deals", when it was 80 plus percent automation that was the job loss problem. And lied about, "bringing those jobs back", too.

The article author is correct about the Dem vote expanding in purple and red states... not to mention the minority demographic that has all the White Power fish spawning their nonsense.

Naw, taking care of their long-time blue collar base, as they appear to be doing, expanding in other states, and taking advantage of real world demographics is tweaking, not a war.

It's just hard, especially at first, to convince scared angry white guys that some policies help lift all boats, including theirs. That it's not a zero sum game between them and growing minorities.

But even some of them will have their eyes opened at 4 years of Plutocrat Plus, Tinkle Down on Steroids policies from the Billionaire in Chief.

Tinkle Down on Steroids being a better name for your boy band away. White Power Fish isn't bad, either.

#6 | Posted by corky at 2016-12-01 06:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And no. Drifting away is not dis-engaging.

Perception is everything in elections, dude. Ask all the white working people that put Hillary out of business about that. Many of these same people voted Obama in the previous elections.

#7 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-12-01 06:53 PM | Reply

"A panicky abandonment of their core commitments is the last thing Democrats need."

No, we just need to define what those core commitments are.

For hillary voters, they are committed to corporate money and identity politics.

For Sanders voters, they are committed to economic justice and fighting corporate power.

Which of those sounds like the winning way forward, considering how this election turned out?

Hillary's "core commitments" were whatever she thought would get her elected.
Next time we need to pick a nominee who actually has core commitments.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 06:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hillary is now past 2.5 million ahead in the popular vote.

This would be a relevant fact if our elections were based on this. They just aren't Cork, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. I'd take you a lot more seriously had I seen all the "Electoral College-Bad!" threads BEFORE the election. Go grab a therapy puppy and and your lumpy wet pillow with Hilly's face on it.

#9 | Posted by cookfish at 2016-12-01 06:58 PM | Reply

- a relevant fact

It's a relevant fact to the article premise, dummy, as the article mentions.

Of course, a whitefish like you is still all about gloating over the horse race you somehow think you "won". If you aren't a 1 percenter, though, you are just another rwing mark stupid enough to swallow the lies you were told..... hook, line, and sinker, fishy.

But rwingers have a lot of experience swallowing whatever their billionaire masters throw their way, this will be no different.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2016-12-01 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This would be a relevant fact if our elections were based on this. They just aren't Cork, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. I'd take you a lot more seriously had I seen all the "Electoral College-Bad!" threads BEFORE the election. Go grab a therapy puppy and and your lumpy wet pillow with Hilly's face on it.

#9 | Posted by cookfish

If the electoral college does their duty and refuses to elect trump, I imagine you'll be singing the opposite tune as well.

www.factcheck.org
"As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In other words, the electoral college exists to prevent morons from electing trump. If they go ahead and elect him anyway, then they serve no purpose and should be abolished.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Trump is no more unfit than Hillary. It would be criminal to ignore the electoral vote just because Speaks opposes the outcome of the election.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 08:16 PM | Reply

Trump is no more unfit than Hillary. It would be criminal to ignore the electoral vote just because Speaks opposes the outcome of the election.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

Really? Was hillary pledging on the campaign trail that she was going to break domestic and international law and torture people? Did she say the press needed to have it's first amendment protections restricted?

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 08:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It seems some are looking for vindication that will never come. It's like a millstone of shame as they were lied to the entire election process beginning with the primaries.

Many cannot admit they were lied to and will suffer from that denial. People who previously thought of themselves as liberal or progressive have turned to the comfort of bigotry to soothe the pain of denial while completing the cycle of loss.

#14 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-12-01 09:04 PM | Reply

Hillary sought to nominate judges who would overturn CU which would be a direct 1st Amendment infringement. We've seen all sorts of Constitutional violations over the past 20 years. Her charity foundation was in complete synergy with the State Department.

Yeah, she's pretty unfit.

Which brings us back to square one. Respect the process.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 09:15 PM | Reply

Hillary sought to nominate judges who would overturn CU which would be a direct 1st Amendment infringement. We've seen all sorts of Constitutional violations over the past 20 years. Her charity foundation was in complete synergy with the State Department.

Yeah, she's pretty unfit.

Which brings us back to square one. Respect the process.

Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 09:15 PM | Reply

Your ignorance is showing. CU isn't covered by the first amendment please do get more educated upon the subject matter Jeff.

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-12-01 09:17 PM | Reply

Also, politicians say really stupid and offensive ---- on the campaign trail. If that was a disqualification nobody would ever get elected.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 09:18 PM | Reply

According to SCOTUS it is. Government can't censor books and movies especially ones that are political.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 09:19 PM | Reply

Also, politicians say really stupid and offensive ---- on the campaign trail. If that was a disqualification nobody would ever get elected.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

Saying stupid --- is different from pledging to break the law.

To make trump seem normal you have ignore most of what he's said.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-01 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

According to SCOTUS it is. Government can't censor books and movies especially ones that are political.

Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 09:19 PM | Reply

And SCOTUS is wrong. The first 9 Amendments pertain to ACTUAL PEOPLE not corporations therefore CU doesn't apply to the first amendment.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-12-01 09:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump is no more unfit than Hillary.

C'mon.

You know I loath Hillary but this is just absurd.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2016-12-01 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

#12 Jeff, I'm gonna get dumped but ---- off! Hillary has issues but Trump literally wants to destroy the rule of law. You have to be inbred if you can't tell the difference

#22 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-12-01 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump talked about violating law. No question. Hillary violated law over and over. To suggest that the electors should ignore the election results and just hand it over to Hillary is absurd.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-01 11:42 PM | Reply

Minorities.

Start moving to the rural areas.

Let's start really taking their jobs.

Much of the "White working class" of today isn't as intelligent as the founders of the country.

They are lazy and dumb.

#24 | Posted by klifferd at 2016-12-01 11:55 PM | Reply

"The Dem party should have, I guess, lied as well as Trump did about, "bad trade deals", when it was 80 plus percent automation that was the job loss problem."

CORKY believes if he tells this lie enough it will eventually become the truth

#25 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-02 12:17 AM | Reply

[N]ot corporations therefore CU doesn't apply to the first amendment.

Why? The FA is about expression, ideas, even conduct. you posted conduct examples recently. Why does the vehicle of transmitting (by one, two, five, twenty, one hundred ...) the expression, idea or conduct matter?

Person as an answer is weak. For example, can Laura and some of her friends pool their money for whatever reason to express themselves? If so, why not others that pool their money for whatever other expressive purposes?

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2016-12-02 12:21 AM | Reply

Person as an answer is weak. For example, can Laura and some of her friends pool their money for whatever reason to express themselves? If so, why not others that pool their money for whatever other expressive purposes?

#26 | POSTED BY ET_AL

"Because money isn't 'speech'."

Of course, outside of standing on a soapbox on a street-corner and preaching, just about every other form of speech requires money. Printing fliers costs money. Maintaining a weblog requires money. Publishing a book requires money. Producing a movie requires money. Etc, etc.

I have pointed this out on countless occasions and have yet to receive a substantive response as to how the 1st Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from censoring these things. The only argument I've ever gotten is Snoofy's inane equivalencies between censoring a movie critical of Hillary and censoring child-porn.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-02 01:09 AM | Reply

For example, can Laura and some of her friends pool their money for whatever reason to express themselves?

Yes, but only as individuals, not as a for-profit entity created for the initial purpose of economic enterprise and profit.

Just because some things can be fit inside the construct of law doesn't mean it was meant to based on the law's original spirit. It's synonymous with the Federalist Papers' explanation of the Electoral College and it's unambiguous charge to usurp the choice of the voters if the choice is obviously unfit or a threat to the furtherance of our republican form of government.

The spirit of our Constitution is not to empower those already possessing outsized wealth and influence over the federal government and the process to elect our representatives. I believe it is imminently fair for each eligible voter to give money to their heart's content as long as it's a race in which they themselves have a vote. I do not believe it fair that any citizen or group not under direct representation of a candidate or being directly impacted by referendum or ballot should be able to use money to sway the opinion of those who are/do. It's about that old representation thing. Admittedly, there are no laws restricting these activities, but I feel more strongly that if the Founders could have imagined our future they would have taken steps to make sure non-human entities were never afforded equal constitutional rights (outside of the protections needed for the conduct of business) as it regards the elective processes of corporeal citizens. There is no indication within our recorded history showing that such a reality was ever considered in their time. Logic tells us that capitalism is an amoral construct, ie. business exists for profits regardless of how they are accumulated. And our SCOTUS doesn't recognize that fact when they say the Constitution grants them the same rights as corporeal citizens living under laws defined as being based in morality and created to be just?

Again, wholly conjecture, but it's how I view the Founder's meta beliefs.

#28 | Posted by tonyroma at 2016-12-02 01:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The founders' biggest concern when writing the 1st was government using its powers to squelch criticism of government and political speech in general.

SCOTUS got it right with CU.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-02 01:22 AM | Reply

Yes, but only as individuals, not as a for-profit entity created for the initial purpose of economic enterprise and profit.

#28 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2016-12-02 01:12 AM | FLAG:

That's retarded. You are saying people can't start a business that expresses their views.

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 08:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"SCOTUS got it right with CU."

You are full of crap and you know it. Worst decision by the SC in my lifetime. Not supported in the Constitution at all, if anything, it goes diametrically opposed to the views of the founders. Scalia pretended to be an originalist, but he was an originalist who completely ignored the views of the founders. He was more of a FAscist than a founding father. You seem to emulate him.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-02 08:26 AM | Reply

"Of course, outside of standing on a soapbox on a street-corner and preaching, just about every other form of speech requires money. Printing fliers costs money. Maintaining a weblog requires money. Publishing a book requires money. Producing a movie requires money. Etc, etc."

Tiny amounts of money which is completely possible among average citizens, Buting $100 million dollars worth of advertising on TV, not so much. If you think the founding fathers wouldn't have seen the difference then you insult their memory. Of course they would have, they wanted average citizens to have an equal voice to the rich, CU destroys that concept that good men and women died for. What you support is virtually exactly what the King in 1776 stood for. You should at least brand yourself as a Tory.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-02 08:32 AM | Reply

The founders' biggest concern when writing the 1st was government using its powers to squelch criticism of government and political speech in general.

SCOTUS got it right with CU.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-02 01:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

No Sir they did not get it right. First of all money isn't speech and 2 corporations aren't people but artificial government constructs therefore allowed to be regulated.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-12-02 09:12 AM | Reply

#26, money corrupts minds. Access to political communication generally depends more on money than truth. I say generally because Trump beat the system at its own game, an event so rare as to have little bearing on what makes for good policy. Except for Bernie Sanders the 2016 campaign was devoid of any substantive content regarding policy and its consequences.

A country needs a sound industrial policy in order to prosper. That accounts for the rise of Japan and China. The abandonment of manufacturing and substitution with a service economy means there is less money for everyone. There are only two issues in politics money and morality. The democratic principals on which this country was founded and subsequently refined to include women and minorities are under attack. Our geography and resources form natural limits to the constant growth Capitalism demands.

We are in decline as a direct consequence of a deindustrialization policy and endless wasteful unnecessary war. Individuals, cities and states must operate with conservative principles. But world wars and the bank bailouts prove unequivocally that the Federal Reserve and Federal Government are not bound by similar constraints. It can and should spend with wild abandon when necessary and that is the only way to save our economy.

#34 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-12-02 09:51 AM | Reply

"Individuals, cities and states must operate with conservative principles. "

No, we must not operate with conservative principles, that is what causes stagnation. We must operate with progressive princples or else we will be left behind by history. Look at Russia, that's a nation operating on conservative principles. There is no innovation, no growth. Yes, we need to bring back some of our manufacturing because we have a large segment of our population that is poorly educated (who Donald Trump just loves) but the future of our nation is not in manufacturing. It is in innovation, invention, finance, advertising, entertainment, etc. It's the brave new world, get used to it. When we stop changing we will be history not the future.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-02 10:06 AM | Reply

Danni,

When it comes to court rulings you NEVER cite statutes or the Constitution. Never. You evaluate every case based upon your preferred political outcome. That's not how the Constitution and our legal system works. There is no way you can print the 1st Amendment on the screen and from that make the argument that the government has the power to squelch books, movies, etc.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-02 12:08 PM | Reply

"The Dem party should have, I guess, lied as well as Trump did about, "bad trade deals", when it was 80 plus percent automation that was the job loss problem."

CORKY believes if he tells this lie enough it will eventually become the truth

#25 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM

You can't handle the truth...

"From 2006 to 2013, "manufacturing grew by 17.6%, or at roughly 2.2% per year," according to a report from Ball State University. The study reports as well that trade accounted for 13% of the lost U.S. factory jobs, but 88% of the jobs were taken by robots and other factors at home."

fortune.com

"Why robots, not trade, are behind so many factory job losses"

bigstory.ap.org

The Myth and the Reality of Manufacturing in America (Ball State study)

conexus.cberdata.org

Thanks SO much much for helping Trump convince those Rust Belters he was right.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2016-12-02 12:53 PM | Reply

The more I listen to news, the more I think Bernie could have won. You Dems lost a chance there..

#38 | Posted by boaz at 2016-12-02 12:54 PM | Reply

To suggest that the electors should ignore the election results and just hand it over to Hillary is absurd.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ

Not only is it not absurd, it's their job to keep dangerous con men out of the white house. If their jobs are no longer relevant, they should be eliminated.

#39 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-02 01:18 PM | Reply

In every election, if the electors don't hand the presidency to the Democrat, regardless of the actual results, they should be abolished.
-Speaksoftly

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-12-02 02:18 PM | Reply

In every election, if the electors don't hand the presidency to the Democrat, regardless of the actual results, they should be abolished.
-Speaksoftly

#40 | Posted by JeffJ

Already refuted that point. No one ever said the electoral college should prevent the elections of dubya, bush, or reagan.

Repubs can be safely installed in the presidency. Trump can not.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-12-02 02:30 PM | Reply

Is Jeff "#NeverTrump",

Turning into "#Make'MuricaGreatAgain" Jeff?

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-12-02 02:49 PM | Reply

To suggest that the electors should ignore the election results and just hand it over to Hillary is absurd.
#23 | Posted by JeffJ

And yet. Isn't that why the electoral college was created. To ignore the will of the voters should someone like Trump come along?

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-12-02 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort