n/t

Not one person promoting this bullshit meme has backed it up with any facts.

It's shocking what the media gets away with. Their readers don't care about facts.

I disagree as no many others

Show me the factual information that backs up the claim in either article. It isn't there.

I have written about how feature writers openly solicit people for articles, and then the writers select the most interesting interviewees for publication in their papers.

It is SOP. Nothing wrong with it but people need to realize you can't extrapolate on the basis of a handful of people.

A few years ago, thanks to having been a participant on a discussion board of unemployed people, I was in email correspondence with a New York Times reporter named Michael Luo. I was going through severe financial hardship (still am though not quite as severely), and he did several email interviews with me. He was doing a series of articles about people who were negatively affected by the last economic downturn. My story was not selected for publication.

Yes, he exists:

http://www.nytimes.com/by/michael-luo


In the case of Trump, it is clear what the meme is. They are trying to draw false comparisons between Trump and Reagan.

I believe there were FAR more "Clinton Republicans" than there were EVER "Trump Democrats."

It is a media MEME--flat-out propaganda--in order to peddle a narrative that there are Trump Democrats just as there were "Reagan Democrats."

It is ALL bullshit.

Trumbull county is one of the areas in the rust belt that showed significant losses for the Democrats.


Obama won twice with over 60% of the vote and over 60,000 votes each time.

Clinton lost getting only 44.8% of the vote and getting only 42,130 votes.


Obama won Trumbull county with 60% of the vote in 2008

Tanking and votes in California- they den of inequity - should not count.
What do you think we should take from that?

....in swing states are socialist?

I do know that the word socialism isn't the scary word it once was tho.

I was making the point that those who decide Presidential election in swing states are centralist who lean either left or right depending on which way the wind is blowing. A far left or far right agenda is not going to attract those people.

About socialism: In a famous recent Gallop poll people were asked, If your party were to nominate a generally well qualified person who happened to be _______, would you vote for that person?

Here are the results "would" and "Would Not&quot and remember it is "your party" that nominates this person):

Catholic 93% 6%
A woman 92% 8%
Black 92% 7%
Hispanic 91% 8%
Jewish 91% 7%
Mormon 81% 18%
Gay or lesbian 74% 24%
An evangelical Christian 73% 25%
Muslim 60% 38%
An atheist 58% 40%
A socialist 47% 50%

Among Democrats only 59% say they would vote for a Socialist, Independents 49% and Republicans 26%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

The reason I used the word scary is because the media tried to use socialism as a scare tactic and it didn't really pan out. IMHO if this was 2000 or even 2008 it would be a different story.

I also agree with you in regards to the fringe on both sides. They can be equally toxic. I still believe moving further to the right won't help us in the end.

If those numbers are somewhat accurate, I'm pretty happy about them. They are a bit higher than I would have guessed.

But I'm not disputing that a majority have a negative view of "socialism."

that the Democrats were "too invested in "identity politics". Ordinary voters don't talk in those terms.

What ordinary voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (who normally would have Democratic) have said is that they were tired of losing jobs to outsourcing to other countries and automation (which a President can do little about) and that they believed Trump's lies about bring jobs back to this country. They believed those lies because that is what they wanted to here.

Perhaps you are saying that Hillary should have lied to the voters as well?

I still vastly prefer it!

There are some people absolutely too wet behind the ears or too insulated to understand the need for the social justice the democratic party is seeking, and so they are wrongly pushing for us to lay off of those issues, and to focus on "jobs." That misses the Sanders economic point greatly. The two are inseparable, and we can't win by abandoning the plights of our brothers and sisters. We need to fight for each other.

The rest of us might feel like we keep losing because we keep trying to play the game according to the rules of the people who keep winning. The prevailing wisdom here I think, is that we have to quit playing nice with corporations, and just go populist already. Those same corporations we're playing nice with don't declare all out war on us because we're a palatable alternative to their diet of choice, so that the public feels like it has one, but all our work to try to get a place at that table doesn't pay off most of the time. We water down our social justice and our economics and the corporations still have their media machine destroy us.

It was the media, more than anything else that elected Trump, so yes, we can stop blaming Sanders and we can stop blaming the Clinton campaign and the DNC, except that it is our very unwillingness to go after these mechanisms that ensured this loss and ensures all of the painful losses to come. We need to fight the corporate messaging. We need to call it out for what it is and suffer the consequences already, because we get those no matter what.

of the House Democrats, the unions, many of the major environmental groups, and even Doctors Without Boarders opposed the TPP

Opposing the TTP was NOT moving to the right.

The TPP was corporate trade policy written by corporations for corporations.

Clinton, Sanders, and Trump all opposed the TPP...