http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...m_source=atltw

That was Bernie's message and ironically his message (like Trump's) was chosen by the free market of ideas. He has said the same thing all his life, but the time was right and it caught on.

Hillary's was carefully crafted by a bunch of swells trying to figure out what the market wanted and then forced it on them.

Maybe having a free for all with 17 candidates works better than having the league of extraordinary Democrats pick.

Democrats could design tournaments, local and then national, with debates and elections. Eight finalists, along with whoever has their own campaign going, gets on the ballots for the primaries.

Half joking maybe.

TV show: The Candidates

Fight reality TV with reality TV.

Van Jones is actually someone people should listen to. Remember when he was too radical to be in the Obama administration?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...clinton-racism

You still think the DNC power brokers will give up power to the voters?

You'd be better off trying to become one of the super-delegates yourself.

Thanks for the link

I'm just making a suggesting not a prediction. I have no idea what they'll do. But, there can be shifts in power.

I'm sure you know, but just to point out "too radical" was an intense smear job put out by Glenn Beck and other puppets of the Koch Bros who really didn't want Obama to do anything progressive about energy.

Wow this is a crazy turnaround in 4 years. My grandmother lived in Ashtabula county.

I refuse to believe it's the economy as the economy has gotten at least marginally better since 2012, and Ashtabula went for Obama big then.

More likely reason: Dislike of Hillary and disgust with the liberal elites in general. The Dems are now the party of safe spaces and microaggressions. They have become a parody of themselves.

It's too bad, I have always considered myself a liberal and support gay marriage, raising the minimum wage, women's right to choose, etc. But somewhere along the line dems became the party of laughable P.C. bulls***t. This was Ashtabula (and many other counties) giving them the middle finger.

Other than supporting gay marriage, how did the dems become the party of laughable PC bull****?

I believe you that people are voting against Hillary because they saw a 17 year old yelling at her professor on youtube about offensive halloween costumes, but that's not very good decision making.

This seems more like a triumph of Republican framing than anything to do with actual Democratic party policy.

MA is not a typo, it actually means Massachusetts.

Post reality world. Democrats are the party of fiscal irresponsibility despite being better for the ecomony than republicans at every turn, democrats are the party of anti patriotism despite starting fewer wars and getting fewer troops killed. If the dems continue "going high" when going low is empirically proven to be the only winning strategy then they truly are dead. Pragmatism demands dirty tricks, lies and overton shifting framing devices. It may already be too late.

Did Trump ever refer to safe spaces or microaggressions in his campaign?

I was tentatively planning on running for some local office in a couple years but now that you mention it maybe I should find a different hobby. Like gardening.

Republicans have a whole info news entertainment network, conservative false news is far more prevalent on Facebook than is liberal false news, etc

Don't think so, it's just stuff the news reports. The real news, not the alt-right news. Stories from legit newspapers that get passed through facebook, usually with a 'Can you believe these people?' message.

Not sure, not that I remember. But the anti-PC backlash is a big reason for his success imo.

Fair enough but a lot of these stories are not alt-right stories. They were regular news stories covered in the NY Times, etc. The PC stuff tilts conservatives.

I really have no idea why you are always on this crusade to kiss conservative ass. Obama did that for 8 years and look what that got us?

Democrat Party could adopt the following simple and minimal concessions and win solid majorities in all of the Federal Govt. elected positions. It would be trivially easy on their part.

I'm 100% certain that none would happen any time soon.

1) Declare Heller and McDonald as a core part of the DNC party platform and that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment is the same as "the people" in the 1st Amendment.

2) Initiate a policy of "home rule" process where rural stakeholders have final approval over federal regulations applied locally. Essentially, government by consent.

3) Agree to expedited deportation for all non-citizens (legal or otherwise) who are convicted of any crime where incarceration is an available punishment.

4) Agree to term limits for US Congress and US Senate members. Personally, I'd like 2 Senate terms and 4 House terms, but, w/e.

This would co-opt enough of the GOPs platform so as to take away enough rural voters to make the Electoral College a non issue.

It would not interfere with any other part of the DNC platform that I'm aware of.

There is obviously a similar list of DNC platform issues which the GOP could adopt (e.g. abortion, marriage rights), which would make them an exceptionally strong competitor. But its unlikely that these would be adopted either.

ETA... DP adoption of these issues as part of their current platform probably wouldn't even require the elimination of the super-delegate system, which then guarantees the power brokers remain in power.

Has nothing to do with sucking up to conservatives. The Dems have lost their way. The anti-PC backlash is warranted. Yale students essentially getting a professor fired for writing an innocuous email about Halloween costumes may seem like a small story in the grand scheme of world problems... but it is symptomatic of how laughably PC liberals have become. We used to be the party of unions and working people.

Sure, college PCism is dumb. I think we should acknowledge that the specific crazy form it takes on liberal arts college campuses sounds dumb to a lot of liberals too. But crazy college PCism isn't representative of PCism in American life. What percentage of people are affected by Wesleyan dumb gender stuff? 0.0005% of the population or the like?

The opposite side would be imagining saying that what really irks liberals about Conservatives is religious cults. I mean they're out there and maybe a lot of them are Conservative but they're not really representative of the normal religious life in America.

You can look at it a couple of ways. One, the gotcha and focusing on certain phraseology is dumb when focusing on the underlying idea of PCism being a stumbling, halting, method of trying to be more inclusive. So we shouldn't focus on making sure people use the correct word all the time when it's obvious they're trying to be inclusive.

On the other hand you can see the focus on PCism with college campus PCism being the focus as a kind of bait and switch. Since college campus PCism doesn't affect a whole lot of people what Conservatives hear when they here PCism is the PCism that does affect their lives, namely "they can't speak the facts about minorities" and the focus on PCism is a nice way to tie of liberals who now have to expand energy defending calling someone 50 genders or having Straights Declare Their Sins Day" or whatever. It's probably a bit of everything.

Or it could be that heterosexuality binary genders is the intuitive baseline and it's not possible to move the culture too far away from it without a backlash no matter how nice you are. Who knows?

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...hip-in-one-map

"The party of unions" has a lot less meaning in these days.