A fundamental shift in the South to the Democratic side would result in a “lock” on the Presidency for decades.
I think the article is a little optimistic. It may take decades for that kind of major shift to happen. And it IS possible the GOP could start fielding candidates who can appeal to minorities.
There’s also the rise of Elizabeth Warren, the likelihood that President Obama will assume some sort of leadership role (unofficial of course) and the possibility of Hillary in the White House next year.
AI don’t know if it’s so much that the Dems are on the upswing as it is the GOP is sitting in their car in the garage and the engine is running.
The question is, will they be able to open the garage door and pull themselves into the future?
I’m not getting an optimistic vibe about the situation.
Democrats won a special election for the Oklahoma State Senate in a very red area. Granted, the Republican who forced the election plead guilty to embezzlement and the Republican nominee in this election wasn’t very personable, but this is the second seat Oklahoma Dems were able to pick up since September (that was a House race in another reliably red area). Republicans still overwhelmingly control everything in Oklahoma, but it’s nice to see Dems getting some wins.
The Oklahoman middle class has been embracing solar energy more than most states, something Republicans took notice of when they tried to take away the tax incentives for going solar. Maybe the state is getting a more progressive streak?
The Oklahoman middle class has been embracing solar energy more than most states, something Republicans took notice of when they tried to take away the tax incentives for going solar. Maybe the state is getting a more progressive streak?
[/quote]
Yeah I wouldn’t say there’s a big Progressive streak happening in the State. Tulsa has always been the most progressive city in the state. Here in OKC there’s been major strides towards progressive attitudes, but re-electing Mary Fallin shows that most of the state is still Republican.
Also I bought a house a couple years ago and looked into solar panels, but our governor signed a bill to force a tax on alternative energy, effectively taking away any incentives for going solar.
With the energy companies losing money hand over fist and laying off hundreds of workers there are a lot of people in this state that are flat out terrified. And that’s not even bringing the sudden explosion of earthquakes over the last couple of years. The Republicans are using that fear effectively.
There’s hope for the Democratic party here (and in the south) but personally I don’t see a many changes that signify a major party shift happening.
I couldn’t quite remember if Oklahoma effectively enforced a tax on alternative energy and didn’t have the time to do the proper research, so thank you for the information. That’s really too bad that the state was able to stifle the movement, especially considering that prices are becoming more affordable. I had read for awhile that Oklahoma’s middle class was very willing to go in that direction, and it was one of the more exciting environmental stories going.
The earthquakes have made me think that Democrats could have an opening there, if they effectively explain the dangers of over-fracking. Then again, you’re saying that Oklahoma energy companies are laying workers off, so I’d imagine that Republicans could quickly extol the benefits of fracking through job creation.
I’ve actually never been to San Francisco, but I’ve had friends who lived there briefly and felt like they were priced out almost immediately. Many of my New York friends have felt the same way. The article brings up Jason Furman (chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers) who recently stated that land-use regulations could be driving up economic inequality, while the writer brings up that one of his Bloomberg colleagues thinks that housing affordability could be a good inroad for Republicans in big cities.
Housing affordability truly is an issue Democrats need to be better on, and I’ve been waiting to see how cities attack this.
In 2013, Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago had 50 public schools (all in poor areas) shut down. There were protests, anger and lots of worries about kids falling through the cracks. It turns out those worries had some truth to them:
That article is almost a year old now, but I bring it up because, now, equipment from those closed schools is missing too (and because possible children missing school is far more serious, obviously).
Barbara Byrd-Bennett, a former CPS schools chief, is getting the blame for bad record-keeping. If that’s true or not, who knows? Byrd-Bennett is an easy scapegoat right now because she’s in trouble for giving contracts to a former employer for promised kickbacks. Byrd-Bennett was an Emanuel appointee, though, so her guilty plea is just another pedagogical blemish for his administration.
I don’t know if Anita Alvarez will win reelection or if the Laquan McDonald controversy will be enough for Kim Foxx to get in. What I do know is that Foxx would be better suited for Cook County State Attorney.
Which would be fine for the year 2020 after the investigation has finished, granted she not be in prison during that time. We cant have a candidate who might be indited during the general election, or even presidency. Only in an ultra corrupt system can a person facing ongoing investigation by one of the highest law enforcement agencies the country has and still be able to run for public office.
So if someone recognizes the reality of a situation and shows concern for something that is a pretty big deal, they must… what? Support Trump? Why would you even go right to that?
I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t deny supporting Trump…
OR
Perhaps are you a disgruntled Bernie supporter?
Seriously, I’m just tired of hearing all this anti-HC bullshit put forward by someone who more than likely can’t understand how monumentally fucked this country would be if someone like Trump were to be elected POTUS.
As I get older I realize that when it comes to US politics, idealism with an eye looking toward the future is incredibly important, but you have to temper it with a healthy dose of pragmatism.
The GOP offers nothing but past, failed policies.
So, given the choice between a not-so-squeaky-clean Dem and a raging, ignorant, narcissistic pseudo-Repub. asshole…I’ll choose the Dem every time because at least there is a chance of getting something positive accomplished with a Dem in power…compare this to the death-cult that is the GOP.
No, only in an ultra corrupt system would merely being “under investigation” by law enforcement officially curtail the rights of a citizen to participate in the democratic process, prior to formal indictment. This is a major cornerstone of civics you’re bleating about, so if you’re going to be so high-handed about it, try not to get it completely, 180 degrees wrong.
She’s well within her rights, of course … but I get your anger. Clinton’s sleazy, nasty, a lapdog to Wall Street, and her so-called foreign policy expertise can fit into a thimble (the Libya intervention, for example, was a colossal fuck-up that the Dems do their best to ignore). I also find it hilarious when people try to describe her as progressive, since she’s basically a neocon.