Though I was heartbroken by the the way the election went I was not terribly surprised the HRC lost the election and we all know why; It likely was the FBI Investigations, her foundation, and I think most important of all, a lack of enthusiasm from the electorate, and her perceived insularity to the interests of a lot of people from the working class to millennials who just saw "career politician" in her and I think that is why her and the Democrats are in bad shape with the American people.

I think Joe Biden said it right: "Democrats have stopped talking to white, working-class voters". as quoted in the Washington Post.

1) Dems cannot rely solely on changing demographics for support

2) Dems must listen and not just talk and be open to new ideas

3) Dems must not take any vote for granted

4) Dems must ditch the dynasties

What do you guys think? What other ideas do you have on this, the GOP or other related topics?

The dems will have to start working really soon on candidates capable of winning big in the midterms in 2018 and most importantly of course bearable nominees for 2020.
Who could that be?
>I'm really interested in seeing if Michelle actually runs.
>Bernie will most definitely just be too old by the beginning of the campaign, but at least one Berniecrat should be on (Gabbard?).
>Biden could run a bid.
>One candidate whose lack of popularity I failed to understand was O'Malley so who knows.

My current favorite would be some ticket under Michelle. She could go true left progressive (either a Berniecrat and/or a second woman on the ticket) or stay center-left (although I can't imagine Biden playing VP again) or in my all-out crazy fantasy attack Trump on his "outsider" front and get Kanye, who also announced a candidacy, on board Obama/West 2020!!

I see two rough paths Trumps presidency will go and both should look promising for Dems (that is if they get their act together in the primary process):


1.) Trump relies on his campaign promises and goes full racist hardliner. He will immediately lose the popular vote majority that already despises him now plus probably some of those who voted him merely out of protest/disgust for Clinton. After he yields the GOP a landslide loss in the midterms his power is strongly decimated which might turn off some additional supporters. If the candidate is to be Michelle indeed she'll turn out more African-Americans than Hillary could, and seal the deal for 2020.

2.) Trump attempts to weigh in on his "President for all Americans" promise. Those who hate him now won't vote for him in 2020 either but he'd also lose large parts of this year's electorate: All those who voted him for being the racist bully. There is no more real appeal to him so they could pick it up too.

Just my personal impression though...

2707200X wrote:

4) Dems must ditch the dynasties

If by dynasty you mean atleast an 8 year term - while the Clintons will mostly be out of the picture like the Bush Family, I'm sure President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama will be seen supporting a future candidate(s) in their party running for President. Maybe Michelle would run for President or some political position, but likely after her daughters were older.

My ideas, in addition to yours:

1) Learn from Sanders. What did he do right, in spite of being old, male, white and a career politician - mostly like Clinton?

2) The party should form a powerful, standing committee to identify and avoid conflicts of interest, especially those involving candidates and those involving the party's core values. The Clinton Foundation and the fact that they accepted donations from big companies, foreign governments and other entities was harmful. But Clinton did not care.

3) Likewise, the party should form a "Red Team", proactively identifying every threat to candidates. They should play "war games" with neutral umpires in order to wreck the campaign behind closed doors before it happens in the real life.


David

The Dems need to start work, today and take stock of where they are and where they want to be.

As posted above, Demographics alone, at least for the next 2 to 4 election cycles, isn't going to solve the problems. It gives them more opportunities that the GOP, who clearly doesn't want to court or even cares about minorities of any kind, save the uber-rich American.

They have to find a good balance between keeping the burgeoning minority populations and have polices that also resonate with the white working class. Among those would be a bold, long-term infrastructure program, complete with new training, that can employ tens of thousands of American for decades to come, not simply for a few years. The can roll out realistic, long-term plans to re-invent areas like the Coal Belt of Southeastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia and help transform it into an area that can be the renewable energy hub, with manufacturing and research facilities that will help the nation kick the oil and coal habit, and be at the forefront of manufacturing and developing renewable energy sources, that can also be well-paying, steady jobs for thousands of Americans.

I believe if Trump goes uber-protectionist, those that voted for him will approve, but it will turn and bite the U.S. in the ass. In many industries, the U.S. is at a disadvantage in trade, as a lot of things aren't made in the U.S. anymore. Despite his talk, I don't see Trump pushing legislation that would punish Americans companies for outsourcing jobs to other nations, but the Democrats should make that a key component of their future platform. If you move jobs overseas, or move your headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes, you put in a penalty severe enough that a company will think twice.

Another thing that won't happen with GOP control is a change in how we prosecute corporations and industries who have deliberately broken laws to get ahead, like the recent Well Fargo scandal, and in how the housing and banking markets help send the economy into the Great Depression. I know the GOP won't do it, because they want to remove all oversight from businesses, and we know from experience that without that oversight, they will defraud the American people at every turn. Push a platform, and make it known to the working class that no longer will we just fine a corporation when it breaks the law, but that we will prosecute and jail the executives who push these law-breaking schemes, and that the penalty will be a stiff minimum jail time, and taking away most of their wealth. As Eddie Murphy, playing Billy Ray Valentine in the movie Trading Places once said "It occurs to me that the best way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people." And until we start punishing the people who make these decisions that break laws, and not just the corporation, the faster we can end such corruption. This is one thing that pisses off the middle class workers, be they white, black, purple or whatever. They hate that these rich cheaters get away with such things.

It's also time that the Democrats push for Term Limits. I used to be against those, but until we curb the power of individuals, Congress will be as dirty as many of those executives I just mentioned. You allow only 8 years in the House, 12 in the Senate and 8 for the presidency. You put in your platform that anyone who serves in Congress or the Presidency cannot become a lobbyist for, say, 10 years after leaving office, and cannot become a lobbyist for a foreign nation or company.

I believe one thing that should really be pushed is to overturn Citizens United. You overturn it, then try to push a Constitutional Amendment that forbids any private money to be used in Federal elections, and those elections would be financed by the American people. You then make it illegal for lobbyists to exchange any money or gifts to Legislators on the Federal Level, or anyone running for Federal Office. They can still push what they want, but no money or favors can change hands. You would find that very popular with all blue-collar workers. It evens the playing field. The Average American doesn't have a say-so, because the only ones who get noticed are those with money. If you take out the economic incentive, you force politicians to pay attention to all voters, not just wealthy ones.

Those are starts. The Democrats need to boldly outline a future that includes all workers, and all races, creeds and colors. The white population is dwindling, but as Van Jones at CNN said last night, the white population is still capable of "Whitelash" that can overturn the conventional wisdom on elections.

Another idea: As a high school student, I was active with the youth socialists, the youth organization of the social democrats. And they have delegates in every governing body of the social democrats. They can talk with the "adults" on any level.

Given that the young people are idealists with some dreams left, they have an important function as keepers of the Holy Grail - they can speak into the conscience of the party, and serve as a corrective.

David

So I may take some heat for this, but we just elected Donald Trump for president, so maybe not. Who do Democrats look to to run in 2020? This should be a wake up call to establishment Dems to look to party members they may otherwise not. Someone like Tulsi Gabbard? If you want to keep the younger more left-leaning and the working class in your fold, who better than the woman who endorsed Sanders and nominated him on the convention floor. Gabbard-Warren 2020.

A332DTW wrote:

So I may take some heat for this, but we just elected Donald Trump for president, so maybe not. Who do Democrats look to to run in 2020? This should be a wake up call to establishment Dems to look to party members they may otherwise not. Someone like Tulsi Gabbard? If you want to keep the younger more left-leaning and the working class in your fold, who better than the woman who endorsed Sanders and nominated him on the convention floor. Gabbard-Warren 2020.

Pocahontas will be 71 in 4 more years, running at age 69, like HRC and Trump so not aged out entirely. I think she's very type A and would not want to be a second fiddle to anyone. The Dem party can do better

dmg626 wrote:

A332DTW wrote:

So I may take some heat for this, but we just elected Donald Trump for president, so maybe not. Who do Democrats look to to run in 2020? This should be a wake up call to establishment Dems to look to party members they may otherwise not. Someone like Tulsi Gabbard? If you want to keep the younger more left-leaning and the working class in your fold, who better than the woman who endorsed Sanders and nominated him on the convention floor. Gabbard-Warren 2020.

Pocahontas will be 71 in 4 more years, running at age 69, like HRC and Trump so not aged out entirely. I think she's very type A and would not want to be a second fiddle to anyone. The Dem party can do better

What? Tulsi Gabbard is 35. Not sure who you're thinking of.

Edit: you were referring to Warren I presume.

They need to tone down the accusatory rhetoric of their supporters. Calling white men "privileged" or "rape apologists", Trump supporters racists, women hating pigs is one of the reasons they lost. Why am I automatically privileged because I'm white? My opinion or viewpoint doesn't matter because I'm white? That sounds pretty racist to me.

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man. There's no ribbons or NFL uniforms for me, no government protections or even acknowledgement for the struggles of my class of people. We are privileged white people, what do we have to complain about? Shut up or we'll call you a bigot racist pig and splatter your face and name all over social media.

That is one of the reasons the Democrats lost. AND I'M A DEMOCRAT.

They need to drop the urban superiority complex and actually fight for the rights of those who really support the Democrats- don't call them names and alienate them.

Here's a nice start of the autopsy for Democrats:
1. Ditch the family power. Bill Clinton was a formidable president and I'm certain Hillary would have been too, but when you're out in the spotlight for decades, people resent it one way or another. So this talk about Michelle being a contender for president in 2020...STOP! It's not going to happen. If she wants to run for Congress, so be it (I think she'd be a great senator), but let's stop the family transfers.
2. Decide who your core supporters are. The election showed that white, non-college educated voter can come out in droves if needed. This alone was enough to push Trump in many battleground states. It's good to reach out, but don't alienate the class that is still a majority in the nation. What happened in Appalachia (a region that used to support Democrats)? What are the proposals for helping that region if the goal of zero coal comes to fruition? What about the South? What can Democrats do to help regain a foothold in states that were once solidly theirs (true, conservative, but Democrat nonetheless)?
3. Stop focusing on the presidential election alone. The president is the most powerful office, but it's still one office. Where are the Democrats in state legislatures?
4. What is your message? What do you stand for?
5. Shake up leadership in existing offices. Pelosi and Hoyer? OUT! Schumer and Durbin? OUT! Bring in new blood and show them that the party evolves with time.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Here's a nice start of the autopsy for Democrats:
1. Ditch the family power. Bill Clinton was a formidable president and I'm certain Hillary would have been too, but when you're out in the spotlight for decades, people resent it one way or another. So this talk about Michelle being a contender for president in 2020...STOP! It's not going to happen. If she wants to run for Congress, so be it (I think she'd be a great senator), but let's stop the family transfers.
2. Decide who your core supporters are. The election showed that white, non-college educated voter can come out in droves if needed. This alone was enough to push Trump in many battleground states. It's good to reach out, but don't alienate the class that is still a majority in the nation. What happened in Appalachia (a region that used to support Democrats)? What are the proposals for helping that region if the goal of zero coal comes to fruition? What about the South? What can Democrats do to help regain a foothold in states that were once solidly theirs (true, conservative, but Democrat nonetheless)?
3. Stop focusing on the presidential election alone. The president is the most powerful office, but it's still one office. Where are the Democrats in state legislatures?
4. What is your message? What do you stand for?
5. Shake up leadership in existing offices. Pelosi and Hoyer? OUT! Schumer and Durbin? OUT! Bring in new blood and show them that the party evolves with time.

You make some excellent points. Two people that you keep front and center are Warren and Bernie. They're more flamethrowers than Hillary, and I think they can better energize the rank and file.

Your point about state legislatures and governorships is a home-run point. You look in states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, which are swing states, and they're dominated by Republicans. The benches for the Dems is incredibly thin. That's where work needs to be done to recruit young talent. Start them on the state level, and see if you can get some superstars to rise up eventually to the national level.

I mention those states because there is a large segment that doesn't like the GOP, but there's no organization on the Dem's side. We can kind of forgive voters in places like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, because Satan himself could run for governor as a Republican and he's win. It doesn't matter that many of those states are white, dirt-poor, uneducated hicks, they vote Republican even though Republicans do nothing for them. Texas is starting to become more competitive, but even there, it's still an uphill climb.

Veetwo wrote:

They need to tone down the accusatory rhetoric of their supporters. Calling white men "privileged" or "rape apologists", Trump supporters racists, women hating pigs is one of the reasons they lost. Why am I automatically privileged because I'm white? My opinion or viewpoint doesn't matter because I'm white? That sounds pretty racist to me.

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man. There's no ribbons or NFL uniforms for me, no government protections or even acknowledgement for the struggles of my class of people. We are privileged white people, what do we have to complain about? Shut up or we'll call you a bigot racist pig and splatter your face and name all over social media.

That is one of the reasons the Democrats lost. AND I'M A DEMOCRAT.

They need to drop the urban superiority complex and actually fight for the rights of those who really support the Democrats- don't call them names and alienate them.

This.

Democrats need to stop demonizing white people the same way Republicans need to stop demonizing immigrants. Or else they will continue to lose.

Hillis wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Here's a nice start of the autopsy for Democrats:
1. Ditch the family power. Bill Clinton was a formidable president and I'm certain Hillary would have been too, but when you're out in the spotlight for decades, people resent it one way or another. So this talk about Michelle being a contender for president in 2020...STOP! It's not going to happen. If she wants to run for Congress, so be it (I think she'd be a great senator), but let's stop the family transfers.
2. Decide who your core supporters are. The election showed that white, non-college educated voter can come out in droves if needed. This alone was enough to push Trump in many battleground states. It's good to reach out, but don't alienate the class that is still a majority in the nation. What happened in Appalachia (a region that used to support Democrats)? What are the proposals for helping that region if the goal of zero coal comes to fruition? What about the South? What can Democrats do to help regain a foothold in states that were once solidly theirs (true, conservative, but Democrat nonetheless)?
3. Stop focusing on the presidential election alone. The president is the most powerful office, but it's still one office. Where are the Democrats in state legislatures?
4. What is your message? What do you stand for?
5. Shake up leadership in existing offices. Pelosi and Hoyer? OUT! Schumer and Durbin? OUT! Bring in new blood and show them that the party evolves with time.

You make some excellent points. Two people that you keep front and center are Warren and Bernie. They're more flamethrowers than Hillary, and I think they can better energize the rank and file.

Your point about state legislatures and governorships is a home-run point. You look in states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, which are swing states, and they're dominated by Republicans. The benches for the Dems is incredibly thin. That's where work needs to be done to recruit young talent. Start them on the state level, and see if you can get some superstars to rise up eventually to the national level.

I mention those states because there is a large segment that doesn't like the GOP, but there's no organization on the Dem's side. We can kind of forgive voters in places like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, because Satan himself could run for governor as a Republican and he's win. It doesn't matter that many of those states are white, dirt-poor, uneducated hicks, they vote Republican even though Republicans do nothing for them. Texas is starting to become more competitive, but even there, it's still an uphill climb.

Don't discount the fickleness of the American voter. Ann Richardson, a Democrat, was the Governor of Texas in the 90's. She was replaced by Bush after a brutal smear campaign by Rove. She was actually as decent as a Democrat in Texas would allow. All those Obama voters are still out there, as are the Bush voters from 2004. It really does come down to message rather than these large "safe" areas we have seen up until now.

Veetwo wrote:

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man.

Sorry man, but cry me a river. The day you walk down a street fearing for your safety due to the color of your skin, your sexual preference, and/or your religion, I'll buy into this. In the meantime, even the poorest middle class White male has more protection than his non-White counterpart (male or female), and that's not considering their sexuality or their religion.

The main reason I fear a Trump presidency has to do with an incident I myself had in a very red county in Maryland (yes...red counties do exist in uber blue states). I got off lucky IMO. However, in a county that worships guns, I wonder if I'll be as lucky the next time around. With so much rhetoric against Muslims and Mexicans (and those who have seen me know that I can fit in nicely in both groups based on appearance), why would I believe that all gun loving Trump supporters are logical enough to distinguish if someone is a threat or not? Many will, but I worry about the one or two kooks who will somehow feel validated by Trump's victory and take matters into their own hands.

If your arguments stems from the fact that people will call you racist or xenophobe or whatever due to your opinions, that's a different story. Free speech is still protected and I will agree that political correctness has been WAY overblown (I opened a thread on this a few years ago). But don't say that you're the least protected demographic when there are people going to bed these few days wondering what awaits them come January.

Veetwo wrote:

They need to drop the urban superiority complex and actually fight for the rights of those who really support the Democrats- don't call them names and alienate them.

Problem is: who supports Democrats? It's been established that cities tend to have more progressive views (hence they support Democrats) while rural areas have more conservative views (hence Republican support). So where do you make up the difference? And how do you balance rural interests with urban interests? It's easier said than done. You can't force either side to consider the other. How do you make the move such that there's a reconciliatory tone?

You know how the urban/rural divide will be wiped out? Eliminate the electoral college. That way even a rural voter's voice has the same impact as an urban voter. Why would a Democrat, for example, go to Appalachia these days? The states in the region are locked for Republicans so why would you care about their interest? However, eliminating the "state vote" implies that your message now has to carry through the region so now you're forced to find more centrist views (which in both parties is a sin??).

Lots of good points being made, but a big one (IMHO) is being missed, the Dems need someone that the voters feel they can trust.

I had what was for me a disturbing facebook conversation with a friends kid, he is white, 19 years old, in college and gay, living in the south of Florida and he voted for Trump, when I asked him why, the reason was simple, he couldn't relate to HRC and he didn't trust her, he also mentioned that HRC trying to "be in touch" with the millennials came across as condescending more than anything.

Next he mentioned Wikileaks and the FBI investigations and causing him to trust her less, he knew nothing about the RICO cases for Trump or the sex with a minor case, HRC was proud to say "when they go low, we go high" , well maybe she should of attacked a couple of times.

During the debates when Trump was mentioning jobs being shipped off shore, why in the hell didn't she hit him HARD, the small fact that his very own "Make America Great Again" caps were made in China, FFS I would have rammed that down his throat, but nope, she barely hit on it, what I am saying is, the Dems need to find somebody that can go toe to toe and stand up for themselves.

They failed terribly to connect with voters in the rust belt, they need to have someone who understands what people are going through AND that the people know that they are being understood, one of them in essence.

To me there is one clear person that can do all of the above and that is Cory Booker, he is young enough and "street smart" enough to appeal to the younger generations, he is smart enough to to hold his own in a debate against Trump or whoever, he can relate to the people in the midwest states like Michigan and Ohio and he can get the financial backing he needs.

My thoughts.

Be nasty. Stop this "when they go low, we go high" crap. Republicans want dirty? They are living in the dirt. Use it. Use their game against them. If they don't like it, too damn bad. That is how they made American politics. And use innuendo. Don't actually tell people any facts, just give them an idea.

The problem with the Democrats right now is that they don't really have a strong crop of up-and-coming leaders, The party's most well-known names Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Schumer are probably too old to run in 2020. Prior to the scandal that has ripped through his administration, I always thought Gov. Andrew Cuomo might run in 2020 or 2024, but that looks less and less likely. It would be interesting to see if the Michelle Obama idea materializes into anything, but once again, that's a political dynasty ala the Clintons. I think a name to keep an eye on in the next few years might be Tammy Duckworth. She's young, she just easily beat incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk to win her first term in the Senate after a term in the House, she's an Iraq War veteran who lost both legs in combat, and she spoke at the last three Democratic conventions, giving her some national name recognition outside of Illinois. Her positions are pretty standard for a Democrat, and what appears to be an upside, she doesn't have the decades of political baggage that Clinton did.

Another thing the Dems need to do is take a good, hard look at their nominating process. Clinton may well have won the primary under any system, but the optics of the DNC aiding the Clinton campaign turned a lot of people off from her. Furthermore, as crazy as it may sound, Bernie Sanders probably would have done better against Trump than Clinton did. I have no doubt he would have carried all the states Clinton did, and I suspect he would have done better with white working class voters in the Midwest, probably winning PA, MI, and WI, and thus the WH. I was never high on Sanders, but in hindsight, he was probably the best candidate the Dems could have nominated.

jetwet1 wrote:

Next he mentioned Wikileaks and the FBI investigations and causing him to trust her less, he knew nothing about the RICO cases for Trump or the sex with a minor case, HRC was proud to say "when they go low, we go high" , well maybe she should of attacked a couple of times.

During the debates when Trump was mentioning jobs being shipped off shore, why in the hell didn't she hit him HARD, the small fact that his very own "Make America Great Again" caps were made in China, FFS I would have rammed that down his throat, but nope, she barely hit on it, what I am saying is, the Dems need to find somebody that can go toe to toe and stand up for themselves.

I totally agree. I think Clinton played it too safe in the debates, hoping Trump would self-destruct while she could just steer clear of the whole thing. He did say some ridiculously stupid stuff, but managed to avoid falling into his own grave. Clinton thought she could raise her approval rating by appearing to be above the fray, but in reality, that ship had long sailed. It's impossible to say how it would have affected the election, but I really don't see how getting down and dirty could have made Clinton any more unpopular than she already is/was. Obviously its easy to critique strategy in hindsight, but the Dems definitely played it too cautiously, buoyed in large part by the polls that showed them way ahead, even after Comey's reopening of the email investigation.

"When they go low, we go high" was really, really stupid; in fact it was really, really REALLY stupid: "Let's mimic Michael Dukakis's election strategy."

Good plan. (eye roll)

jetwet1 wrote:

During the debates when Trump was mentioning jobs being shipped off shore, why in the hell didn't she hit him HARD, the small fact that his very own "Make America Great Again" caps were made in China, FFS I would have rammed that down his throat, but nope, she barely hit on it, what I am saying is, the Dems need to find somebody that can go toe to toe and stand up for themselves.

A lie by any other name is still a lie.

You can play dirty all you want, but at some point you have to decide if you're gonna be just as bad or worse than the opponent.

Let the Republicans take power (mission accomplished). When things don't magically change in 2018 or 2020, reap the rewards.

cledaybuck wrote:

Let the Republicans take power (mission accomplished). When things don't magically change in 2018 or 2020, reap the rewards.

Bad idea: Ignorant Republicans don't hold their candidates responsible (except when they aren't crazy far enough right). No matter how badly Republicans screw this country up, it will always be the liberal's fault and they will still vote for them. Unless we get rid of Gerrymandering, Democrats will never hold the House again - Republicans have been programmed to think all things liberal are wrong and nothing will change their minds. I am powerless to change this, so I'm out, done with this miserable country.

LittleFokker wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

Let the Republicans take power (mission accomplished). When things don't magically change in 2018 or 2020, reap the rewards.

Bad idea: Ignorant Republicans don't hold their candidates responsible (except when they aren't crazy far enough right). No matter how badly Republicans screw this country up, it will always be the liberal's fault and they will still vote for them. Unless we get rid of Gerrymandering, Democrats will never hold the House again - Republicans have been programmed to think all things liberal are wrong and nothing will change their minds. I am powerless to change this, so I'm out, done with this miserable country.

The partisans on either side don't hold their "team" to the same standard as the other team, but that is nothing new. The last time the Republicans "screwed this country up", the Democrats were handed the President, House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

The party in power almost always overplays their hand and loses seats in the next election. We can already see it happening with talk of mandates from the Republicans despite the fact they got fewer votes for President and lost seats in both houses of Congress.

Adipasquale wrote:

The problem with the Democrats right now is that they don't really have a strong crop of up-and-coming leaders, The party's most well-known names Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Schumer are probably too old to run in 2020. Prior to the scandal that has ripped through his administration, I always thought Gov. Andrew Cuomo might run in 2020 or 2024, but that looks less and less likely. It would be interesting to see if the Michelle Obama idea materializes into anything, but once again, that's a political dynasty ala the Clintons. I think a name to keep an eye on in the next few years might be Tammy Duckworth. She's young, she just easily beat incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk to win her first term in the Senate after a term in the House, she's an Iraq War veteran who lost both legs in combat, and she spoke at the last three Democratic conventions, giving her some national name recognition outside of Illinois. Her positions are pretty standard for a Democrat, and what appears to be an upside, she doesn't have the decades of political baggage that Clinton did.

Cory Booker is also someone who I could see with 2020 ambitions, although he is somewhat controversial among people in NJ (less so on a national level though).

2707200X wrote:

I think Joe Biden said it right: "Democrats have stopped talking to white, working-class voters". as quoted in the Washington Post.

Well, if the candidates have to speak like that to be heard (insults, mockery, racism, conspiracy theory ...), you have a serious problem in the US.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man.

Sorry man, but cry me a river. The day you walk down a street fearing for your safety due to the color of your skin, your sexual preference, and/or your religion, I'll buy into this. In the meantime, even the poorest middle class White male has more protection than his non-White counterpart (male or female), and that's not considering their sexuality or their religion.

Yea, that is overlooking some large issues and largely bs. One of which - why are your (theoretical) children given preference over his through affirmative action programs? What did you, or any other non-white immigrant, do to deserve to jump to the front of the line for many education and employment benefits?

And yes, there are plenty of places where whites cannot safely go. Anybody with an ounce of experience knows that. Meanwhile, today's POC college student is expecting "safe-zones", areas that white men would be prohibited from going. This attitude is just unacceptable.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man.

Sorry man, but cry me a river. The day you walk down a street fearing for your safety due to the color of your skin, your sexual preference, and/or your religion, I'll buy into this. In the meantime, even the poorest middle class White male has more protection than his non-White counterpart (male or female), and that's not considering their sexuality or their religion.

If your arguments stems from the fact that people will call you racist or xenophobe or whatever due to your opinions, that's a different story. Free speech is still protected and I will agree that political correctness has been WAY overblown (I opened a thread on this a few years ago). But don't say that you're the least protected demographic when there are people going to bed these few days wondering what awaits them come January.

Veetwo wrote:

They need to drop the urban superiority complex and actually fight for the rights of those who really support the Democrats- don't call them names and alienate them.

Problem is: who supports Democrats? It's been established that cities tend to have more progressive views (hence they support Democrats) while rural areas have more conservative views (hence Republican support). So where do you make up the difference? And how do you balance rural interests with urban interests? It's easier said than done. You can't force either side to consider the other. How do you make the move such that there's a reconciliatory tone?

You know how the urban/rural divide will be wiped out? Eliminate the electoral college. That way even a rural voter's voice has the same impact as an urban voter. Why would a Democrat, for example, go to Appalachia these days? The states in the region are locked for Republicans so why would you care about their interest? However, eliminating the "state vote" implies that your message now has to carry through the region so now you're forced to find more centrist views (which in both parties is a sin??).

Yeah, I HAVE been afraid to walk down the street due to my skin color. Would you feel comfortable walking down the street on the south side of Chicago at night? What about walking down the street in east LA? You're an absolute LIAR if you say you wouldn't be concerned as a white person doing that.

What protections as a white man do I have that a minority doesn't have? I don't have WIC or SNAP benefits, I don't have the NAACP rallying for my cause, I don't have black lives matter. I don't have university grants or scholarships based solely on my race.

Your response is exactly the kind of "punishment mentality" that the Democratic party has at the moment and its turning off the nation. But I'm just a lucky white guy so I'll just go shut up and take what I deserve.

seb146 wrote:

Be nasty. Stop this "when they go low, we go high" crap. Republicans want dirty? They are living in the dirt. Use it. Use their game against them. If they don't like it, too damn bad. That is how they made American politics. And use innuendo. Don't actually tell people any facts, just give them an idea.

Democrats tried that in 2016. That's what created the stealth Trump vote. People aren't going to change their values because you are mean to them.

DfwRevolution wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Be nasty. Stop this "when they go low, we go high" crap. Republicans want dirty? They are living in the dirt. Use it. Use their game against them. If they don't like it, too damn bad. That is how they made American politics. And use innuendo. Don't actually tell people any facts, just give them an idea.

Democrats tried that in 2016. That's what created the stealth Trump vote. People aren't going to change their values because you are mean to them.

The only "values" that mattered to most Trump voters is that they want a whitebread world, and still cannot accept those that are different, and are willing to even back a ghastly man like Trump to hold back the march of change. They won the day, even though despite this huge white turnout, they still lost the popular vote, but they're going to lose as time goes on.

The values they voted for are akin to Jim Crow. Some values.

Veetwo wrote:

What protections as a white man do I have that a minority doesn't have? I don't have WIC or SNAP benefits, I don't have the NAACP rallying for my cause, I don't have black lives matter. I don't have university grants or scholarships based solely on my race.

Your response is exactly the kind of "punishment mentality" that the Democratic party has at the moment and its turning off the nation. But I'm just a lucky white guy so I'll just go shut up and take what I deserve.

Oh spare me your pathetic "Poor pitiful me, I'm a white man" bullshit. You have been a member of the most powerful group of human being ever to walk the earth: a white person in America. Our race has visited so many crimes upon minorities in this nation that it's staggering. Slavery, Jim Crow, the slaughter of the Native American, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent. And you have the balls to wail that you're so put upon.

Know what protection you have? You have the protection like the white guy in Florida last week, who pulled a weapon on teenagers, and even after the police arrived on the scene, wasn't shot dead in 10 seconds, but was quietly talked down, while a black man in Minnesota who told police he had a concealed carry permit, and told them he was going to get his wallet out to show them, was shot dead immediately.

You have the protection of a white guy in Michigan who was acting strangely and carrying an assault weapon around, who lived to tell about it because the police talked to him for 40 minutes and even sat on the curb with him, and was able to hold on to his weapon, while police in Cleveland drove up to a gazebo where a 12 year old boy was playing with a toy gun, and no sooner did they hit the breaks that one officer got out and within 2 seconds shot him dead.

You're so fracking privileged that most of the world can't even comprehend it. You embarrass yourself and all people, not just whites, with your pity party that somehow you're discriminated against. The contempt I feel for self-pitying fools like yourself is limitless.

Hillis wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

What protections as a white man do I have that a minority doesn't have? I don't have WIC or SNAP benefits, I don't have the NAACP rallying for my cause, I don't have black lives matter. I don't have university grants or scholarships based solely on my race.

Your response is exactly the kind of "punishment mentality" that the Democratic party has at the moment and its turning off the nation. But I'm just a lucky white guy so I'll just go shut up and take what I deserve.

Oh spare me your pathetic "Poor pitiful me, I'm a white man" bullshit. You have been a member of the most powerful group of human being ever to walk the earth: a white person in America. Our race has visited so many crimes upon minorities in this nation that it's staggering. Slavery, Jim Crow, the slaughter of the Native American, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent. And you have the balls to wail that you're so put upon.

Know what protection you have? You have the protection like the white guy in Florida last week, who pulled a weapon on teenagers, and even after the police arrived on the scene, wasn't shot dead in 10 seconds, but was quietly talked down, while a black man in Minnesota who told police he had a concealed carry permit, and told them he was going to get his wallet out to show them, was shot dead immediately.

You have the protection of a white guy in Michigan who was acting strangely and carrying an assault weapon around, who lived to tell about it because the police talked to him for 40 minutes and even sat on the curb with him, and was able to hold on to his weapon, while police in Cleveland drove up to a gazebo where a 12 year old boy was playing with a toy gun, and no sooner did they hit the breaks that one officer got out and within 2 seconds shot him dead.

You're so fracking privileged that most of the world can't even comprehend it. You embarrass yourself and all people, not just whites, with your pity party that somehow you're discriminated against. The contempt I feel for self-pitying fools like yourself is limitless.

Just to be clear, you're judging me based solely on the color of my skin. What exactly do you want me to do to atone for the wrongs of "my people"?

Veetwo wrote:

Hillis wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

What protections as a white man do I have that a minority doesn't have? I don't have WIC or SNAP benefits, I don't have the NAACP rallying for my cause, I don't have black lives matter. I don't have university grants or scholarships based solely on my race.

Your response is exactly the kind of "punishment mentality" that the Democratic party has at the moment and its turning off the nation. But I'm just a lucky white guy so I'll just go shut up and take what I deserve.

Oh spare me your pathetic "Poor pitiful me, I'm a white man" bullshit. You have been a member of the most powerful group of human being ever to walk the earth: a white person in America. Our race has visited so many crimes upon minorities in this nation that it's staggering. Slavery, Jim Crow, the slaughter of the Native American, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent. And you have the balls to wail that you're so put upon.

Know what protection you have? You have the protection like the white guy in Florida last week, who pulled a weapon on teenagers, and even after the police arrived on the scene, wasn't shot dead in 10 seconds, but was quietly talked down, while a black man in Minnesota who told police he had a concealed carry permit, and told them he was going to get his wallet out to show them, was shot dead immediately.

You have the protection of a white guy in Michigan who was acting strangely and carrying an assault weapon around, who lived to tell about it because the police talked to him for 40 minutes and even sat on the curb with him, and was able to hold on to his weapon, while police in Cleveland drove up to a gazebo where a 12 year old boy was playing with a toy gun, and no sooner did they hit the breaks that one officer got out and within 2 seconds shot him dead.

You're so fracking privileged that most of the world can't even comprehend it. You embarrass yourself and all people, not just whites, with your pity party that somehow you're discriminated against. The contempt I feel for self-pitying fools like yourself is limitless.

Just to be clear, you're judging me based solely on the color of my skin. What exactly do you want me to do to atone for the wrongs of "my people"?

I'm judging you on the statements you have made. YOU brought up the fact that you think the color of your skin makes you a victim, not me. Don't try to turn it around. I'm not asking you to do anything to atone, but it won't fly with me or anyone else with morals and decency that you're somehow a wretch because you're a white person.

What you said is pitiful, in every regard. You can't do anything about the past, neither can I, except perhaps read about it and learn from it. but you can stop pretending your some pitiful victim of race, when race was the primary reason Donald Trump just won the election. You're part of the most privileged group of people walking the earth. Stop acting like you're on the bottom of the rung in this world, get some balls, and man up, will you?

Hillis wrote:

The only "values" that mattered to most Trump voters is that they want a whitebread world, and still cannot accept those that are different, and are willing to even back a ghastly man like Trump to hold back the march of change.

The values they voted for are akin to Jim Crow. Some values.

Yeah, sure. The states like WI, MI, OH, and PA with no history of segregation and having twice voted for Barack Obama are now adopting values akin to Jim Crow.

You are precisely demonstrating why Democrats lost this election. You hold millions of good, ordinary people in utter contempt. Your transparent hatred will not win them back to the Democratic party.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Hillis wrote:

The only "values" that mattered to most Trump voters is that they want a whitebread world, and still cannot accept those that are different, and are willing to even back a ghastly man like Trump to hold back the march of change.

The values they voted for are akin to Jim Crow. Some values.

Yeah, sure. The states like WI, MI, OH, and PA with no history of segregation and having twice voted for Barack Obama are now adopting values akin to Jim Crow.

You are precisely demonstrating why Democrats lost this election. You hold millions of good, ordinary people in utter contempt. Your transparent hatred will not win them back to the Democratic party.

Stop being so one-dimensional in your thinking. It doesn't matter where the votes came from. It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor. And the statement is clear: white people still cannot accept African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino's, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews and LGBTQ's. The cry of "we want our country back" wasn't happenstance. It refers to a time where the white man was not challenged by those groups, and where it was permissible for whites to treat everyone else with impunity.

Conservative whites, and even some not-so-conservative whites are like Veetwo on here, who feel he's persecuted, even though the opposite is true. Most of them didn't vote for Obama in '08 or '12, and the others didn't vote at all. But they see LGBTQ's being allowed to marry, they see Hispancs and Latino and otherwise, becoming larger in numbers in the U.S., see the nation becoming the largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world in the next 30 years, and an African-American president, and this was their chance to rebel, and to say "we're taking our country back".

You can deny this. And you will. But the rhetoric Trump employed during the election in frightening people about Mexicans, Muslims, LGBTQ's and others was directed solely at white people. This is, quite literally, the last stand of white America in the United States. By 2020, the percentage of whites voting will drop by about 4%, and another 4% after that. They're losing their 400-year grip on this nation, and they don't like it. This was their way to try and stop the unstoppable changes. It worked now, but I feel that it could rip the nation apart, and it will fail in the long run.

Hillis wrote:

It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor. And the statement is clear: white people still cannot accept African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino's, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews and LGBTQ's.

Whites in America are by far the most LGBT friendly demographic group, homophobia is much more common among many other mentioned groups. Your thinking is extremely one dimensional, you can only see whites vs everybody else, as if it was that simple. What about Muslim attitudes towards LGBT for example? Is there no issue at all?

I think you are easily as intolerant and racist as hardcore Trump supporters on average. Yes, you can be racist against whites too, didn't the school books tell you that?

Hillis wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Hillis wrote:

The only "values" that mattered to most Trump voters is that they want a whitebread world, and still cannot accept those that are different, and are willing to even back a ghastly man like Trump to hold back the march of change.

The values they voted for are akin to Jim Crow. Some values.

Yeah, sure. The states like WI, MI, OH, and PA with no history of segregation and having twice voted for Barack Obama are now adopting values akin to Jim Crow.

You are precisely demonstrating why Democrats lost this election. You hold millions of good, ordinary people in utter contempt. Your transparent hatred will not win them back to the Democratic party.

Stop being so one-dimensional in your thinking. It doesn't matter where the votes came from. It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor. And the statement is clear: white people still cannot accept African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino's, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews and LGBTQ's. The cry of "we want our country back" wasn't happenstance. It refers to a time where the white man was not challenged by those groups, and where it was permissible for whites to treat everyone else with impunity.

Conservative whites, and even some not-so-conservative whites are like Veetwo on here, who feel he's persecuted, even though the opposite is true. Most of them didn't vote for Obama in '08 or '12, and the others didn't vote at all. But they see LGBTQ's being allowed to marry, they see Hispancs and Latino and otherwise, becoming larger in numbers in the U.S., see the nation becoming the largest Spanish-speaking nation in the world in the next 30 years, and an African-American president, and this was their chance to rebel, and to say "we're taking our country back".

You can deny this. And you will. But the rhetoric Trump employed during the election in frightening people about Mexicans, Muslims, LGBTQ's and others was directed solely at white people. This is, quite literally, the last stand of white America in the United States. By 2020, the percentage of whites voting will drop by about 4%, and another 4% after that. They're losing their 400-year grip on this nation, and they don't like it. This was their way to try and stop the unstoppable changes. It worked now, but I feel that it could rip the nation apart, and it will fail in the long run.

You're pulling a lot of stuff out of your ass. I'm a Clinton supporter and I voted for her, so there's that. I did not vote for Obama in 2008 but I did in 2012. I have this rare ability that we don't see nowadays of being able to put myself in the shoes of another person so I can understand where that viewpoint they hold is coming from. That was the point of my first post- stating the fact that many white members of society who feel like they are being blamed and discounted for all the wrongs of society when in reality its just Jim and Dave and Ashley Q public trying to go to work and pay for their mortgage. There's not a giant white patriarchy ruling over the nation. Get over it.

You're pre-judging millions of people based on your opinion of what you think they are. Listen to the words that you are writing. They are just as judgmental and hate filled as those you claim to be against.

pvjin wrote:

Hillis wrote:

It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor. And the statement is clear: white people still cannot accept African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino's, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews and LGBTQ's.

Whites in America are by far the most LGBT friendly demographic group, homophobia is much more common among many other mentioned groups. Your thinking is extremely one dimensional, you can only see whites vs everybody else, as if it was that simple. What about Muslim attitudes towards LGBT for example? Is there no issue at all?

I think you are easily as intolerant and racist as hardcore Trump supporters on average. Yes, you can be racist against whites too, didn't the school books tell you that?

They're losing their 400-year grip on this nation, and they don't like it. This was their way to try and stop the unstoppable changes. It worked now, but I feel that it could rip the nation apart, and it will fail in the long run.

Okay. But why do you demonize this? Do you think blacks, Muslims, Latin-Americans or whatever would act ANY different in same situation, if roles were switched? Do you believe whites are more selfish, evil or greedy on average than other demographic groups?

If so, let me tell you a wisdom : People suck universally.

2707200X wrote:

Though I was heartbroken by the the way the election went I was not terribly surprised the HRC lost the election and we all know why; It likely was the FBI Investigations, her foundation, and I think most important of all, a lack of enthusiasm from the electorate, and her perceived insularity to the interests of a lot of people from the working class to millennials who just saw "career politician" in her and I think that is why her and the Democrats are in bad shape with the American people.

I think Joe Biden said it right: "Democrats have stopped talking to white, working-class voters". as quoted in the Washington Post.

1) Dems cannot rely solely on changing demographics for support

2) Dems must listen and not just talk and be open to new ideas

3) Dems must not take any vote for granted

4) Dems must ditch the dynasties

What do you guys think? What other ideas do you have on this, the GOP or other related topics?

Maybe start by not considering every member of the working class to be dumb, racist rednecks? The working class used to be the Democrat's base - what happened? As Lin Manuel Miranda said in Hamilton, "talk less...listen more."

Hillis wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

What protections as a white man do I have that a minority doesn't have? I don't have WIC or SNAP benefits, I don't have the NAACP rallying for my cause, I don't have black lives matter. I don't have university grants or scholarships based solely on my race.

Your response is exactly the kind of "punishment mentality" that the Democratic party has at the moment and its turning off the nation. But I'm just a lucky white guy so I'll just go shut up and take what I deserve.

Oh spare me your pathetic "Poor pitiful me, I'm a white man" bullshit. You have been a member of the most powerful group of human being ever to walk the earth: a white person in America. Our race has visited so many crimes upon minorities in this nation that it's staggering. Slavery, Jim Crow, the slaughter of the Native American, the imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent. And you have the balls to wail that you're so put upon.

Know what protection you have? You have the protection like the white guy in Florida last week, who pulled a weapon on teenagers, and even after the police arrived on the scene, wasn't shot dead in 10 seconds, but was quietly talked down, while a black man in Minnesota who told police he had a concealed carry permit, and told them he was going to get his wallet out to show them, was shot dead immediately.

You have the protection of a white guy in Michigan who was acting strangely and carrying an assault weapon around, who lived to tell about it because the police talked to him for 40 minutes and even sat on the curb with him, and was able to hold on to his weapon, while police in Cleveland drove up to a gazebo where a 12 year old boy was playing with a toy gun, and no sooner did they hit the breaks that one officer got out and within 2 seconds shot him dead.

You're so fracking privileged that most of the world can't even comprehend it. You embarrass yourself and all people, not just whites, with your pity party that somehow you're discriminated against. The contempt I feel for self-pitying fools like yourself is limitless.

The above is incredibly condescending and it's precisely why the Democrats lost. You and I might be "privileged" because in the game of globalization, we have won. But the coal miner's son, whose father lost his job because of coal regulations, and who isn't going to get that "green job" he was promised in return because it doesn't exist, and who will now be lucky to eat dinner tonight, isn't so "privileged"....regardless of the pigmentation of his skin.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

I'm the least protected demographic that exists in the Western World: a 30-something year old struggling middle class white man.

Sorry man, but cry me a river. The day you walk down a street fearing for your safety due to the color of your skin, your sexual preference, and/or your religion, I'll buy into this. In the meantime, even the poorest middle class White male has more protection than his non-White counterpart (male or female), and that's not considering their sexuality or their religion.

The main reason I fear a Trump presidency has to do with an incident I myself had in a very red county in Maryland (yes...red counties do exist in uber blue states). I got off lucky IMO. However, in a county that worships guns, I wonder if I'll be as lucky the next time around. With so much rhetoric against Muslims and Mexicans (and those who have seen me know that I can fit in nicely in both groups based on appearance), why would I believe that all gun loving Trump supporters are logical enough to distinguish if someone is a threat or not? Many will, but I worry about the one or two kooks who will somehow feel validated by Trump's victory and take matters into their own hands.

If your arguments stems from the fact that people will call you racist or xenophobe or whatever due to your opinions, that's a different story. Free speech is still protected and I will agree that political correctness has been WAY overblown (I opened a thread on this a few years ago). But don't say that you're the least protected demographic when there are people going to bed these few days wondering what awaits them come January.

Veetwo wrote:

They need to drop the urban superiority complex and actually fight for the rights of those who really support the Democrats- don't call them names and alienate them.

Problem is: who supports Democrats? It's been established that cities tend to have more progressive views (hence they support Democrats) while rural areas have more conservative views (hence Republican support). So where do you make up the difference? And how do you balance rural interests with urban interests? It's easier said than done. You can't force either side to consider the other. How do you make the move such that there's a reconciliatory tone?

You know how the urban/rural divide will be wiped out? Eliminate the electoral college. That way even a rural voter's voice has the same impact as an urban voter. Why would a Democrat, for example, go to Appalachia these days? The states in the region are locked for Republicans so why would you care about their interest? However, eliminating the "state vote" implies that your message now has to carry through the region so now you're forced to find more centrist views (which in both parties is a sin??).

http://youtu.be/hFO8LKtjak8

Do you think this guy will be afraid to walk down the street tomorrow?

Veetwo wrote:

http://youtu.be/hFO8LKtjak8

Do you think this guy will be afraid to walk down the street tomorrow?

No. Quite the contrary. He'll probably arm himself with a couple of guns and shoot anyone who crosses him, because in the end:

A White man with a gun = patriot.
A Black man with a gun = criminal.
A Brown man with a gun = terrorist.

Do I condone this? Absolutely not, which is why I've never supported BLM. But you and I know the reverse happens far more often and is not recorded.

From this second on, Democrats need to blame the human cheeto for everything as loudly as possible, never even considering what the other side is saying and Democrats need to be victims constantly.

It took 30 or so years, but Republicans proved that is how to get elected.

Or the dems could convince the electors from the electoral college to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote, when they vote on December 19th.

Kiwirob wrote:

Or the dems could convince the electors from the electoral college to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote, when they vote on December 19th.

It's not going to happen. They already started the transition of power. Hypothetically speaking, however, it would make the current protests look like tea parties when Trump supporters hit the streets with guns.

I will say that after seeing Trump sit down with President Obama as President-Elect, "it's not going to happen", has become a wary group of words to me.

Hillis wrote:

It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor.

I'd say it was more down to the failure of black and other ethnic minorities to turn up and vote that won it for Trump, you can't hold whites responsible when others don't bother turning up. BTW less blacks and latinos voted for Hillary than Obama and more blacks and latinos voted from Trump than Romney.

Kiwirob wrote:

Hillis wrote:

It was the white turnout that turned this election, but barely, in Trump's favor.

I'd say it was more down to the failure of black and other ethnic minorities to turn up and vote that won it for Trump, you can't hold whites responsible when others don't bother turning up. BTW less blacks and latinos voted for Hillary than Obama and more blacks and latinos voted from Trump than Romney.

I wonder why all of these left-wingers, liberals, Democrats and Hillary supporters say they are going to move to Canada but not Mexico?

777Jet wrote:

I wonder why all of these left-wingers, liberals, Democrats and Hillary supporters say they are going to move to Canada but not Mexico?

Maybe that's just a media perception.

From Wikipedia:

According to the Canada 2006 Census, 316,350 Canadians reported American as being their ethnicity, at least partially. There are also between 900,000 and 2 million Americans living in Canada, either as full-time or part-time residents.

It's estimated that 1 million or so American citizens live in Mexico

salttee wrote:

777Jet wrote:

I wonder why all of these left-wingers, liberals, Democrats and Hillary supporters say they are going to move to Canada but not Mexico?

Maybe that's just a media perception.

From Wikipedia:

According to the Canada 2006 Census, 316,350 Canadians reported American as being their ethnicity, at least partially. There are also between 900,000 and 2 million Americans living in Canada, either as full-time or part-time residents.

It's estimated that 1 million or so American citizens live in Mexico

I'm just talking about the ones, including many celebrities, who stated that they would move to Canada if Trump wins. Why not Mexico? Are they racist all of a sudden? They sure attacked Trump for wanting to build a wall, secure the border, and deport illegals. Why don't they flee to Mexico then instead of Canada?