Forget you're a Democrat, you belong to no party

[Laura PourMeADrink]

The pendulum swings, sometimes a lot, sometimes barely.

A budget cutter after a spendthrift. A peacenik after a war monger.
Brilliant after idiot. Etc. etc.

What is your gut feeling about the mood of the general public - what would they
be looking for in a new president.

[Historic NY]

1. Someone sane.

[30cal]

2. An honest man or woman who will bring manufacturing jobs back to this country

Bottom line is the majority of Americans can't make it working for the service industry and that's what this nation has become.

They pay shit , they offer no benefits and they don't hire full time.

The reason people were able to afford homes , two cars in the driveway
was because there were manufacturing jobs that paid a living wage to the worker.

[Fumesucker]

5. Manufacturing may be coming back but a lot of the jobs aren't

Of all enterprises manufacturing is the most susceptible to automation, robotics. Fewer and fewer people are needed in an environment of robotic manufacture.

I'm not sure a magic bullet for employment exists, the way things are now is the the new normal.

[30cal]

6. maybe but they still need people to operate it

And this doesn't help the cause

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?_r=0



The president’s call follows on legislation introduced earlier this month to grant him fast-track authority as a way of forcing Congress to speed up its consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation pact with Latin American and Asian nations.

But Mr. Obama’s desire for fast-track authority on the T.P.P. and other agreements clashes with another priority in his speech: reducing income inequality.




The shift in employment from high-paying manufacturing jobs to low-paying service jobs has contributed to overall wage stagnation

[Savannahmann]

42. You better hope not.

Because the only way that economy works is if people stop caring about their fellow citizens, and says fuck you I got mine. That mentality is not the one that is normally associated with the Democratic Party.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Hate to say this but except for the honest part...Trump. But, I agree

with you wholeheartedly. It is the root. That's why the top are paying most of
the taxes...people can not even afford to pay taxes.

[hack89]

48. Labor intensive manufacturing will never come back

all that is left in America is high tech manufacturing of high end capital goods. That sector is doing very well but it uses a lot of automation.

[Cofitachequi]

3. I think that the GOP might pick up the Senate, and strengthen (by a few) the House in 2014.

That will force them to reveal their policies- fortunately with a veto proof President in the Whitehouse- so they can't do too much harm.

When the country sees what the teabag GOP has in mind for the country, the Dems will have an opportunity to distinguish common sense policies and candidates....

[sheshe2]

12. Nope!

When the country sees what the teabag GOP has in mind for the country, the Dems will have an opportunity to distinguish common sense policies and candidates....

We have already been watching that played out. To name a few,

GOP shut down the government

Government Shutdown Cost $24 Billion, Standard & Poor's Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/16/government-shutdown-cost_n_4110818.html

50 attempts to repeal Obamacare

House Republicans reach pathetic milestone: 50th Obamacare repeal vote

How many times have you read a variation on that paragraph in the last three years? At least 50! At a cost to taxpayers of something like $72.5 million, in case you're keeping track.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/05/1282420/-House-Republicans-reach-pathetic-milestone-50th-Obamacare-repeal-nbsp-vote#

The Republican IRS Witch Hunt Cost Taxpayers $14 Million and Counting
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/26/republican-irs-witch-hunt-cost-14-million-counting.html

To name just a few. Yes we have already seen what the GOP has in mind for us.

[Dawson Leery]

17. A repsectable GOTV effort will see the margins in both houses decrease,

though partisan control will not change.

Which is fine, as long as we keep one chamber of congress at minimum.

[DebJ]

50. As long as these voters stay home or stay unaware:

women, minorities, the poor.

Unfortunately voter turn out at mid-terms totally stinks. I think in my area in 2006 turnout was like 15%.

[Warpy]

4. Democrats are going to have to fight hard to keep the presidency

no matter what fucking screwball, er, unacceptable radical they decide to run. John Q Low Information Voter likes to change back and forth because he thinks the thieves are less organized that way.

[KoKo]

7. The historical statistics for what comes after a Two-Term President

seems to consistently show that the Party in Power for Two Terms has to pass the torch to the Other Party.

So...we need to be aware of that.

[nomorenomore08]

20. Not always. What about Bush I '89-'93?

[hfojvt]

49. seem to be plenty of counter-examples

Roosevelt-Taft
Lincoln-Grant
Roosevelt-Truman

Nixon imploded, so he didn't finish two terms
LBJ was only elected to ONE
Ike was a bit of an outlier, a war hero and a moderate, IIRC the Democratic Party at the time was trying to get Ike to run as a Democrat.

Wilson was a bit of a fluke too. A Democrat surrounded by Republican Presidents from McKinley to Hoover. He only won in the first place because of TR's third party campaign.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. That is not actually true.

Especially historically.

[RainDog]

8. A economic populist

I think people buy the b.s. from Palin, etc. because it's the closest rhetoric to populism out there. No matter that it's not actually populist in positions, beyond skewering the beltway.

No politician can talk about the crisis facing us - the environmental issues that are worldwide. People can't think that longterm when they're worried about paying their bills.

But people are not too happy with DC - with the stuff Congress has done.

A presidential candidate who campaigned against Congress might have some traction - but this would have to come from someone outside of the beltway to be believed. If someone talked about Congress' record, refusing to acknowledge the plight of too many Vets, etc... that would probably find a lot of sympathy in voter land.

People want a nation that "does" something - has a goal - a better future.

The economic news is all about the two tiers of society and the widening gap and the sincerely deluded views of those who won the lottery and think it was because they deserved it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. That's Getting Easier and Easier to Do.

Oh... sorry... you said something about a "pendulum"?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. Many ways to answer this question...

1. probably the biggest factor, party hardliners will vote for who they perceive is most electable
2. outliers will vote for real change and go for candidates to the left/right of the favorite
3. swing voters...I have no idea who they are and what they stand for if anything. In this polarized political climate, you've got to have had your head in the ground for years to be undecided; of course, that describes a shit ton of Americans

I think Americans will play it safe and go for the candidate who is right-of-center over the candidate who is far-right. And it's truly a disgrace, because there's no way in hell this country is right-of-center. The irony is that ROC Dems benefit from low voter turnout, too.

I don't think outliers will be in play in 2016. Republicans have successfully scared the shit out of Dems that Dems will always vote for the right of center Dem candidate rather than seeing someone from the far-right. (That's Republicans winning the war.)

I'm presuming Hillary will run, and I suppose like Obama, she'll ignite a fire under voters who would normally stay home. So I think a Hillary run will be met with high voter turnout and, in the process, take swing voters out of the equation.

[MelungeonWoman]

11. Someone who's more 'hands on'

Obama has been portrayed as standoffish and elusive, I think voters will be looking for someone more involved and direct, someone who isn't afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump into the fray.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. good point. Maybe someone from outside the beltway with common sense

solutions. Maybe someone from the West - not west coast though.

[LumosMaxima]

13. I think people are getting sick of RW extremists.

A candidate needs to capitalize on that and show how we can take our country back from the extremists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely,

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken

As was proven by the glorious presidencies of Ronnie (the Drool) Reagan and George W(itless) Bush.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Of cours Mencken was an actual elitist, an opponent of representative democracy who

literally advocated against democracy. The quote you give is clever but he means it, he is saying that 'the pain folks of the land' should not be permitted to have a say in government. Do you agree with that viewpoint?
Mencken gives me the creeps, because I know about him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. I think he is making a valid observation. There are many who hold the "plain folk" as an ideal.

It was the much ballyhooed "plain folk" who gave us Reagan and GWB and the "hard hat" and 3rd Way Democrats who longed to have presidents the "could have a beer" with.

[msongs]

15. so when do you we get the peacenik? nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. good point ! At least Obama is the antithesis of the bomb bomb bomb Iran

crowd. And, we're still out of Afghanistan this year, right? or did I mess another extension?

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. The public wants economic security, jobs. The big money wants a stable govenrment friendly

to development and expansion. Those are not mutually exclusive, though they are worlds apart because the serve very different groups.

I think it is near impossible to predict the issues that will drive the electorate in 2016. The public only has a small say on who the candidats will be. Primaries are a bit of an illusion, since we really don't get just anyone. Only a candidat with national stature with a party has a chance of rising to the top.

And as for independents, those who are not decalred for a party. In 2008, they went for Obama. In 2012, the tended Romney. I think they will oppose another Democrat because they seem to tend more to vote in oppositon to who ever is in charge.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I don't know who among the GOP could actually win in '16. I'm not saying it's impossible though.

The thing is, the remaining Republican base has moved so far to the right that only a far-right-winger (or someone who blatantly panders to them) can realistically win the primaries. And someone that right-wing is likely to have a difficult time getting 50% of the popular vote, especially with the recent leftward shift on issues like gay marriage and the economy.

[winter is coming]

23. It would have to be a better bullshit salesman than anyone they've got now.

IMO, economic inequality is going to be a huge issue this year and in 2016. The number of people they can sucker in with the "job creators" bullshit is shrinking daily. Candidates who are willing to talk about inequality -- and offer up plausible ways to address the problem -- will have a major advantage over candidates who sidestep and bullshit on this issue.

[CJCRANE]

47. At CPAC they were told not to talk about "the middle class"

which led to the absurd spectacle of Ann Coulter talking about "the poor" and "the upper classes".

So in Coulter's class system it would be: Poor, Upper Class, Upper Upper Class.

So we're all Upper Class now!



(Except for the poor but they don't count).

[CK_John]

18. Another Herbert Hoover with great quotes and a total asshole, but... everybody

knows it and he/she is going to take care of them. No more thinking, worrying, or confusion.

[pipoman]

19. Denouncing the wars, the war on drugs, and unfair trade agreements

Would win regardless the party.

[arely staircase]

21. I am a Democrat nt

[mattclearing]

25. That's only the queston if you believe the system works.

IMHO, the real question is, who is the person who best suits the public's mood while being suitable to simultaneously accommodate the needs of TPTB.

For instance, Obama was suitably removed from Bush's military policy while being friendly to corporate interests.

Howard Dean was financed by small donors, and wasn't as easily controlled. Hence unacceptable, especially with a willing pragmatist like Kerry in the race.

You're probably looking for someone who can talk the talk during the election and then pivot to govern for the 1% while throwing everyone else a bone or two.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. True...I was just talking about the mood...leaving aside all the other factors. nt

[Adam051188]

28. bill gates for president!!!! (i know...."a billionaire?!?!?!?" right?)

hopefully someone who doesn't go ape$hit crazy with our military after china decide's it's finally had enough of our currency games.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Well, one thing Bill Gates could do, for sure, would be to open up the

eyes of the selfish selfish people here to the actual life and death problems we are facing, at home and in the rest of the world.

He's kind of like Romney only completely different. haha

[Adam051188]

31. that's step 1 right? realizing you have a problem.

he has good intentions and is not beholden to anyone.

[BainsBane]

32. Jobs and the economy

same as last time.

[valerief]

33. Someone who'll provide JOBS, social safety nets, clean air and water, and can

kick the ass of Congress. Impossible, I know, since we're already a fascist state, but whatever.

[flvegan]

34. One of us.

No dynasty, no 1%. They don't understand how it is. Reality is a bitch, and they need to come back to it.

I want the new president to get elected without a receipt held by folks that don't care about me. Won't happen. America is too stupid too stupid make that change.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. It'll be someone much more hawkish than Obama on foreign policy. Bank on it! n/t

[treestar]

36. Apparently, they are looking for the President to have all the power

and do away with Congress and the courts. Otherwise, they should be looking for someone who would sign/veto bills of which they approve and work to get people in Congress who would pass such bills.

[Adam051188]

37. i think we need someone who will tell the truth openly

someone who isn't scared, who won't lie, and who isn't trying to personally gain anything. and someone smart.

i wish there were more people like that who found their way in to politics but that's not how our system is designed.

[spin]

38. Perhaps a President who would actually be the President Obama campaigned to be. ...

I had great hopes that he would be one of the great Presidents in our nation's history but I feel he is merely an average President. He's no FDR, JFK, Lyndon Johnson or even Bill Clinton. He's still better than most Republican Presidents.

Of course he still has time left to become what he could be with his ability to communicate and his skill as an oratorical speaker. He just needs to become a leader. Of course that is not as easy as it sounds especially when getting Congress to cooperate is like herding cats.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. So you think the mood of the country is that they want someone who is more

liberal than Obama? Or just one who has the ability to put his words into action?

I wonder if there is anyone out there like that, given our current state of obstruction.

Could Obama have done anything that would have changed the fact that the right met on his first inauguration day and pledged never ever to go along with anything he wanted?

I really can't see him "over-riding" that obstruction - unless he seriously, seriously, compromised by giving them something they really really wanted. And, there would not have been anything like that that he could have given them that would not have been totally against our principles.

I think the days are gone where someone like a Bill Clinton could have smoked a cigar with them and schmoozed them into something. The right are too solidified in their NO AGREEMENT position.

Our only hope is to take the house back

[spin]

55. The sign of a great leader is that he overcomes opposition. ...

I agree that Obama faced great difficulty with the Republicans in Congress. Still he had the majority of the country behind him and Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress in the first two years of his presidency.

He did manage to create the ACA or "ObamaCare" yet the roll out was a fiasco. That may well be the highpoint of his presidency as I doubt that it will ever be repealed. I fear it needs a lot more improvement before it will be a world class healthcare system. I have been voting for Democrats for years in hopes of getting an improved healthcare system and I feel the ACA will prove to be far better than what we had.

Obama also has managed to keep our nation out of unnecessary wars, ended the war in Iraq and significantly reduced the war in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately our nation is still recovering from the Great Recession but we appear to finally be making some headway. At least the policies Obama implemented stopped us from sliding into a depression.

So maybe I was unrealistic when I hoped Obama would be a truly great President who would alter the direction of our nation in many ways. He is such a charismatic speaker with so many great ideas that perhaps I got my hopes too high. However I still suspect that if only he had the leadership skills to match his charisma he could have accomplished far more. Sadly, sometimes the best leaders are not the most charismatic individuals. Lyndon Johnson was an example.

I will agree that the mood of our nation is far different than it was in the past. We are definitely divided on many issues. "Compromise" is a word endangered of extinction in our society.

It would be great if we can take the House back after the midterm elections. Realistically I fear that will not happen based on analysis by the political "experts" and they suggest the Senate is in some danger of falling to the Republicans.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. I know exactly how you feel - having higher hopes. We all went

through the realization that it wouldn't happen, (charisma equating to change in the real world) guess at various times. That is what is depressing - knowing maybe that the country is too jaded perhaps - or
way too fractured (the right going off the deep end) to ever support one person
again. I see the same thing happening for Hillary - unfortunately - they will
block her and criticize her every step.

Personally, I think compromise is impossible. Healthcare for all, in the past, would have been something both sides agreed on - with maybe the money and the method being the subject of debate. Today you have one side, though, who doesn't even agree that all people deserve to be able to see a doctor. So you have an adamant no on one side and an adamant yes on the other. No way to compromise unless they at least agree on some base level.

We CAN'T lose the Senate. We all need to stop talking and actually DO something, huh...

[spin]

57. I feel that warning others that we could lose the Senate ...

is a way to get more people to try to ensure that it doesn't happen. I always advocate never underestimating your opponent and it is known that usually in a midterm election the party that sits in the White House loses seats in Congress.

Our party faces a tough fight this year. We all need to work hard to hold the power we have and hopefully gain seats.

One thing that is working to our advantage is that the Republican Party is viewed as the party of "No." The roll out of ObamaCare or the ACA was a fiasco but I feel most people hope to see the law improved and not repealed as the Republicans desire. There is no doubt in my mind that it will survive and eventually we will have a world class healthcare system.

Another advantage we have is that the Republican Party is in disarray. It's torn between those who want to say 'No" and those who say "Never." Most Americans wish to see our lives improving and not return to the days of Ronald Reagan.

So all hope is not lost. Still I fear we face what might be an uphill battle.

[Romulox]

40. I think people want more of the same--an old retread from the past to double down on the status quo.

[Savannahmann]

41. The people want jobs.They want honesty in Government

They want the world that existed for their parents, and grand parents when they were young. The chance to have a blue collar job and a middle class lifestyle. Look, I've put this information out there so often that if I keep doing it I'm going to be relegated to the cheerleader catagory. It's just too easy, and wrong to assert that this is the new normal. I for one refuse to accept that the new normal is that we have to ignore 1/6th of our population and pretend in official numbers that they do not exist. Does anyone realize what that will mean?

Second, the people want to trust their Government not to do immoral and illegal things. The revelations of Snowden have brought privacy to the fore in people's minds. The behavior of the police and the Federal agencies keeps moving closer and closer to cinematic examples of thug dictatorships. The police regularly lie with impunity. This information is becomming more and more well known, and will result in a growing feeling of discontent and outrage. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024630713

So who stands the best chance of being the next President? The one who puts these truths out there and says he/she will address these problems, and gives the outlines of a plan. That person will almost certainly be the next President.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. I totally agree with your first two sentences. But, the core of the problem

is that there are no jobs that fit the category which will afford a decent middle class
life style. Really, thank god there are government jobs that pay well or there would
be none. There are lower jobs in the service industry and then a huge gap to the people
who own businesses, work on Wall St, have family money, or are in some kind of management.

Not enough manufacturing at all. BUT...that is the catch. Unless we stop importing cheaper
stuff...we can't produce products that compete. I wish our government would do a PSA
every hour to tell people to buy American, local, etc. Many of us do that as much as possible.
But, the average Joe, with limited resources, goes automatically for cheap.

[DebJ]

51. Laura I like the slant of your question. Hard to answer, but

perhaps the impact of Rmoney's 47% quote might be some indication of how things COULD go,
if those campaigning play their cards right. Two years from now, the economy isn't going to be
much different than it is today, barring some unforeseen disaster making it even worse. Not only
will remaining optimism and hope be drained even more over this stagnant (at best) time period,
families resources will be increasingly drained as they face life's inevitable 'oopsies' that sock
everyone now and again.... In the past, people might have simply 'tightened their belts' and pressed
on thinking well, we will recover, times will get better. But now too many people have their belts
as tight as they can go, and really, not much giving them hope for recovery...instead, fear for the
future 'oopsies' still to come.

This is going to make income and wealth inequality become more and more of an issue that people will
focus on. Bread and butter, kitchen table stuff, like it so often is. The Republican mantra is rigidly stuck
on the issue being 'the gubment takes all your money'. But at this point, there have been so many cuts
in government services at state and local levels, after a few years of this even some conservatives might
wake up and realize they do not want to lose yet more teachers, police, fire fighters, etc. That's one of the
big differences between today's slow economy and prior slow economies: for the first time ever, government
jobs actually were slashed left and right. So now conservatives can walk the walk and see just how wonderful
less government is. IF someone helps them make that connection, tries to turn the lights on and insure someone
is home inside..... I do know that Governor Gashole here in Pennsyltuckey has really lit a fuse by slashing education
spending. Suddenly, people are thinking Hey, I don't like what this does to MY life. (Everything here is MY life, OMG.)

But if the opposing campaigns do run on the inequality platform, they have to find a way to do so without demonizing the wealthy, because I don't think conservatives want to let go of their fairy tale that we all can be the 1%. We need someone to tell the tales without demonizing. Maybe by pointing out in a positive fashion those companies that do pay a fair wage instead of a minimum wage, and do so in competitive industries like restaurants. Then perhaps some will say why not? Why don't other companies do this? In other words, they will be given opportunity to draw the conclusion for themselves.

That's the only hope I see.

I don't think the gay rights issue is going to be an issue by then. I think the Repukes will just remain silent and let it melt away. Much the same for pot decriminilization/legalization....not that I think the latter issue ever had much impact on voters. But I think the gay rights issue definitely struck home with young voters. The out-and-out bullying attitude of the Republicans struck a chord, and they responded to that.

Perhaps the continuing bad news on the economy will also motivate young voters to pay attention and actually continue to come out and vote as well. School of hard knocks at a younger age.

Thanks for your question. I really like it and think it might be the BEST question to be asking!

[polichick]

52. No peaceniks - all mic all the time. All corporations all the time...

The people want a government that's about them.

[Maedhros]

53. From "The American President":

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.


President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

[Orsino]

54. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

I wish we wanted something more far-sighted, but given enough jobs, we would put up with almost anything else the ruling class wanted to inflict.