Forum Post: Elizabeth Warren as our spokeswoman?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 12:42 p.m. EST by qlab
(27)
from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have seen many talking heads on the right and a few on the left take jabs at the Occupy Wall Street movement for not choosing a figure head to represent them. How great would it be to watch them squirm, if they chose Elizabeth Warren?
What are you thoughts on contacting her to see if she has any interest?
If you do not know who this woman is, you can educate yourself with this wonderful write-up on her. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111
Getting Elizabeth Warren - an attorney and former Harvard Law Professor - on board is a great idea. Obama purportedly did not choose her to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she'd made too many enemies on Wall Street by exposing their unethical actions. This led her to vie for the US Senate representing Massachusetts as the voice for the disappearing middle class. She is not yet a "pol", but she's making great headway in her race. I've sent her a message suggesting she consider speaking with the OWS movement to share her wealth of knowledge. Unfortunately, she may be too far down the path in her campaign to switch her focus. I suggest those of you who are not from Massachusetts learn more about her. She’d be a great, credible ally who would strengthen the OWS movement.
She would be a great voice!
Very much for this idea, if she'll have us!
We are open to all ideas.
We are the ideas.
We have no leader.
We are the leaders.
We stand united.
We stand as a voice of the people.
We hope for a constitutional government.
We hope for a sustainable economy.
We hope you will join us if you have similar interests.
I have vry similar intersts to the ones you listed but socialism is out of the question, youll never get it, just keep trying. Youll be run out of the country just like every time they have tried before. Sorry
I want a democratic government and a sustainable economy. Not socialism.
Thank you for clearing that up sir. By democratic you mean greece? They are the purest form of it. The reason we have lasted this long is because we are NOT a democracy, we are a republic where we do not allow mobs to rule and make laws. Imagine kids in the street protesting getting up early for school and it being made law simply because they cause unrest and the cops cant stop them because theres too many people that will demonize them for doing their jobs. Its a radical example but I think you can see the point.
Four steps to a constitutional democracy:
Not sure about any economy being able to sustain these demands.
The current fractional-reserve baking system will not sustain itself.
Our economy is a time bomb.
If you have a better idea, by all means propose it. Otherwise it's time we start thinking outside the box unless you'd like to move half of America into Hoovervilles.
I have a bunch but they are not worth mentioning here as I would be shouted and shot down by the majority that frequent these boards. Back on point, no economy has ever been able to sustain a democracy. A democracy will only survive if the people are perfect individuals. We do not have that, obviously. It will last for awhile but will bankrupt us and make Greece look like a preschool playground. if we look at history we can tell the future, there has to be a better way.
Constitutional democracy is the foundation of America. If we don't resort back to the constitution in a progressive manor, America will be a very, very ugly place to live.
Sorry you have been misinformed. The founders knew that democracy would only work for so long until the leeches break the economy. That is why we are and have always been a Republic for the people by the people. Not mobs that decide they want a christmas list full of cool stuff that they just deserve because other people have it. Its already an ugly place to live, to fix it we will have to hurt alot of peoples feelings. Look at the states that have gotten themselves out of this mess by cutting entitlements and not accepting fed loans, people hate the governors and senators, but the state is out of debt. Gonna have to piss alot of people off to fix this, fair share indeed.
While we are a republic, republics too have failed. Just look at rome. What we need is the best of both worlds:
We need a republic to do what they do now.
But we need a process of direct democracy that allows the whole country to vote against something that passes congress. A citizens veto.
If we had that, half the bull shit in this country wouldn't exist, because all the people that hate it could shoot it down, since the republic isn't ver "for the people" anymore.
For example: "Congress passes a law to raise income tax to 75%. Obviously, n one would like this law, but would have no way to stop it if it was ratified. So they resort to rioting. If, however, we instead had a set process to veto that bill, well there would be no more rioting.
I agree, we will have to piss a lot of people off to fix it.
Yes, but if you keep giving people everything they want you wont fix anything, youll ruin us.
We will revolutionize America.
You will be stomped into the ground just like every other socialist since the 30s. Shoulda told your leaders to stay hidden for longer to attract more people, you have already lost.
What leaders? We have no leaders. Who have we lost to?
Soros, Moore, Bar, Piven. You have lost to America. Anything else?
Oh God... Tell me, how are Glenn and Rush coming along with their tinfoil hats?
Please explain to me how America was the most prosperous nation on the planet 20 years AFTER starting our social programs. Tell me how high corporate tax on some of the largest corporations in existence stifled their growth at that same time. You cant, because your history is flawed.
We STARTED social reform in the 30's. It didn't start becoming a talking point for the GOP to condemn ALL social programs until the 80s. Social programs are important, you just cant let them run a muck. This Tea Party idea of all social programs need to go, is just as insane as trying to move the US as a whole to socialism... Come back to the middle, buddy.
If we want to fix things, we should be looking back at a point in time where our country worked properly. That point in time is from 1930-1980.
I agree, and so does Paul Krugman. So does Elizabeth Warren. So does Robert Reich.
If that be, what could we do to unify the many different ideas and organize a path towards progress? We can't rely on change to happen itself. That's what we've been doing for 40 some years.
That's the end goal. How are we going to get there?
non-violent protests
Not good enough... The american public at large views us as a large unorganized mass with no clear goals and rightly so. Protest alone is not enough.
Dont take this the wrong way, but if protesting is all you can think to do to bring about the changes we want, then you are typifying the "hippie" view that the media is currently giving us.
Because all the leaders arent showing their faces, but enough have to help me make up my mind about it.
Pissing and sexing in public, hell even blocking the streets is whats typifying the hippie view. Find a good goal, stop bringing life and buissness to a halt for good honest hard working people. March on the damn whitehouse or congress what is with this wallstreet bulllshit. See how many people join then and I will think about taking it seriously.
Elizabeth Warren exudes wisdom, intelligence, and understanding. The entire republican congressional membership gives us nothing but hate, economic decay, and entrenchment of the plutocrats. How can you deal with those republican traitors?
Getting Elizabeth Warren - an attorney and former Harvard Law Professor - on board is a great idea! Obama purportedly did not choose her to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she's made too many enemies on Wall Street by exposing their unethical practices. This led her to vie for the US Senate representing Massachusetts as the voice for the disappearing middle class. She is not yet a "pol", but she's making great headway in her race. I've sent her a message suggesting she consider speaking with the OWS movement to share her wealth of knowledge: Elizabeth is articulate, wise and fearless. I suggest those of you who are not from Massachusetts learn more about her and those who are familiar with her to contact her and solicit her involvement. Sadly, she may be too far down the path in her campaign to switch her focus; but you never know… She’d be a fantastic, credible ally who would strengthen the OWS movement. Elizabeth has single handedly been beating the same drum as OWS for a long time.
I think her support would be great, but I'm not sure this movement should start espousing leaders. This is about WE THE PEOPLE. We speak for ourselves and we can come together, discuss, and solve our problems. That's an important message. We can do this. We don't need leaders or politicians telling us what's good for us and we don't need them to be our mouthpieces. At least, not during this movement. I understand we elect leaders for office, but we shouldn't for this protest if it's to mean anythng.
The danger to this movement that an “alliance” with the reactionary fraud that is the Democratic Party presents cannot be overstated. Working from within that organization should not even be contemplated until the political establishment has made many SOLID concessions. Their rhetoric, in other words, should be ignored.
Actually, if this system of political power, based as it is on two institutionalized “parties” of the state (Those two “parties” are supported by repressive ballot-access laws in most states. Since they owe their position in government substantially to rule of law, they are official organs of the state.), concedes anything in the way of genuine reform, it will only be to keep the better part of their system of merciless plunder intact. Therefore, I would agree that cooperation with the Democratic Party is not the way to go.
Moving beyond left and right is a matter of political necessity, as is moving beyond a mindset that cannot transcend the rigid mental boundaries that have been drilled into the collective American mind be the sham (official) “two-party” system. The American people, from all political traditions, need to understand that the brutal parasites who control Washington care absolutely nothing for ideology, apart from that “ideology” which serves their selfish interests. In fact , it is unknown what a two-party system based on democracy would look like. Likely the economic interests of ordinary Americans would be better protected in a democracy.
I agree... but the point you maybe missing is, so does she...
She has not changed her stance on these ideas for close to 30 years. Thats not a politician, thats a statesman or in this case a stateswoman.
Not a democracy a republic. Mob rule does in fact introduce problems. In fact it would introduce the same types of problems that an uncontrolled free market would for the same reasons. Mob rule and the uncontrolled free market both look at short-term gains before the overall picture.
Warren talks the talk, but where are the prosecutions and enforcement for all her talk. I would consider someone more like William Black who actually did something during the S and L crisis..... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black
So her getting up there and showing all the evidence of wrong doing, at these banks only to have nothing come of it is her fault. She did her part, but she was in position to force prosecutions.
She got "knee-capped" right in front of the cameras by the president himself when he handed over control of the enforcement agency she designed (C.F.P.B) to Richard Cordray... How is this her fault or her failing?
I agree it was no fault of hers for getting knee-capped, and it would be great to have someone voice the evidence of wrong-doing, especially someone with the experience and political clout of Elizabeth Warren. You make an excellent point, and I would definitely listen to her; she may be a very vocal voice for OWS.
Absolutely, but I think she's a little busy with her campaign.
Honestly, I am usually against a spokesperson but I am more for Elizabeth Warren than any other living person in the country. I would take Roosevelt, Teddy or FDR if I had a choice about dead ones. You could do worse than to have Elizabeth Warren speak out.
Elect Elizabeth Warren. Dump Brown.
I wish she would join us.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution
I love Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born.
Right On!!!!!!!!
She knows the history of wall street regulation since the turn of the century and how and why the great depression and the great recession happened.
She also know what needs to be done to correct the problems.
She is running for the Senate in MA so I don't think she can or will take this on but it is worth asking her.
You got my vote!
Choosing a Socialist to represent the movement would only prove it to be as illegitimate as opponents think it is.
Choosing a Socialist to represent the movement would only prove it to be as illegitimate as opponents think it is.
Ohhhh GOD!!!
She is not a socialist... Wanting social programs does NOT make you a damn socialist.
Good Post! What a good idea. But we do not want to lose her as a Senator. She could really mix things up!
what's her view on war?
No spokesperson, let the people continue to speak. More dialogue please.
we do not need any kind of spokes person. none.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=169262663125231#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=165096780208486 V.I.I.R.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=168277696557061
University Project First Steps
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=168279776556853
University Project Brainstorm
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=168142193237278
NICE University
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=167877999930364
Psychonautics Textbook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=167448986639932
Socratic Method
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166330673418430
Different Kinds of Geothermal Power
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166259990092165
Common Myths and Misconceptions About Geothermal Power
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166255476759283
Zero Carbon Cities
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166254060092758
Energy cost Benefit Analysis
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166057976779033
Applications In Practice and Theory for Arcologies
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=166041926780638
Mega Scale Engineering Criteria
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=docs#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=163547577030073
main Problems Clusters
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=169262663125231#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=165334013518096
sugestions on how to proceed
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=169262663125231#!/home.php?sk=group_163532010364963&view=doc&id=165099426874888
WAR vs Economic Social Justice
I would love elizabeth Warren. She is very informed and clearly on the side of the people. Is it too late to scrap her campaign? Can someone press her on this issue?
Elect Elizabeth Warren. Dump Scott Brown in the cesspool of pornography from which he came.
I am a tea party libertarian and i think this movement would go farther if it's not co-opted by the democrats.
We should sack Wall st. the republicans and the democrats
I agree, but she is NOT a politician... I do not care if someone calls themselves republican, democrat, left, right, center or whatever terms you can come up with. There is nothing wrong with any of these as long as your end game is the betterment of the nation.
I dont agree with almost ANY of Ron Pauls ideas, but I respect him as a statesmen.
She has been fighting the "politicians" in her own party, so that alone puts her on our side.
I don't know enough about Warren.
Ron Paul may be wrong about everything but he won't lie to you about it. He sticks out like a sore thumb amidst crooked politicians.
the fact that the ultra right fox-minded Christofacists hate her is my cue to trust and support her.
You got the sheep part down. Go for it I say.
I love Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born. Both have suffered insults and oppression from stupid white males who have power but no wisdom.
Yep, she'd be a brilliant choice.
I'd love it; she's brilliant, in my view. Two of the best two minutes I've spent on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs
Almost 700,000 views. She's too anti-status quo to have been picked fort the organization she helped design.
I was talking to a stranger at the protest and he said that there needs to be more women leading politics because they tend to be more sensitive to others' needs over self gain. It is an interesting angle. Women also know what it is like to be oppressed and have a disadvantage, whereas most of straight white men can't relate. Can you blame them? Privilege is blind.
About 40% of Americans have no assets. They include folks of all races and faiths-anyone operating at that economic level understands what it is to operate at a serious disadvantage.
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann disagree with you...
Women can be just as callous and cold as men and those two CUNextTuesday'S are a perfect example.
This is true, but these women would never even be considered to lead this movement in the first place.
I know, lol It was more of a joke then a serious response.
based on their beliefs, I mean.
I love Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born.
She has her own movement to worry about. If she wants to be with this one she knows were to find it.
You do know that at times you have to reach out to others, right?
You are right, but I don't want to throw something on Elizabeth's plate that she doen't want right now. She's trying to get a seat in the senate. We believe that shes on our side so we should allow her to run her race. If she thinks the OWS movement is going to make or break her election she will come to us.
Fair enough
I love Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born. May one of them become President of the United States in 2016 when Obama's second term ends.
There it is again. Wait for it: "At a time of record corporate profits, a time when 14 million Americans are out of work"
Okay, does anyone want to take a guess what the problem is with this statement?
Consider that Vanity Fair is complaining about record corporate profits but the only way an economy can create 14 million jobs is to create more profits.
Try reading the rest of the article, instead of trolling for lines you disagree with.
Can you honestly say that her overall message is wrong? If so, why?
I create jobs, and I could not do that if the startup company that I'm involved in were not profitable.
Well how did start-up's succeed from the end of the Great Depression to the late 70s?
Even without that question asked, there are plenty of ways around not stifling start-ups, while still raising taxes on companies. Off the top of my head... Give tax breaks to a start-up for X number of years, with X being determined by the number of jobs you create. Of course there would need to be other stipulations to make sure said start-ups are not Shell Corporations or the like for larger entities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Government_support
Oh no ... ONE example of someone misusing government funds and tax breaks... guess the whole idea is flawed. Also lets avoid the fact that I was talking about smaller startups such as your company. Ok that was your lame answer for the second statement... Where is your answer for the first question?
PS... if this is going to be the Rights argument example, which it looks like they want to, Id say it looses pretty bad to the Lefts Enron argument.
They have the profits already; the question is how they use them.
The corporations are sitting on record piles of money. If they invested them in machinery, or hired people, or even paid the money out in dividends to stockholders (which include a lot of middle class 401k's), the money would be in circulation and the economy would likely start to move.
The last time corporate coffers got full (although not this full), the result was a huge amount of wasteful spending and windfalls for CEO's and corporate boards, according the the economic research.
No this is not true. For instance I can sell tons of Chinese goods online and only a couple US jobs are created, yet my profits may soar. We don't need to 'create jobs', but simply reclaim them from China. Both the corps and consumers need reform.
If the movement is directed into the Democratic Party, Wall Street will win.
No. This woman does NOT represent me or my views.
Ok... what are your views and why do they not align?
Predictably, she is in favor of raising taxes.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/08/09/why_taxing_the_rich_does_not_work_99172.html
Awesome I can post rebuttal links as well... http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/24/why-taxing-the-rich-is-good-for-america/
How do you explain the fact that the US's strongest point in our history coincides with the highest corporate tax rates? Whats more how do you explain that most of these businesses felt that paying these taxes and putting back value into the nation was part of their patriotic duty?
Whats worse is the fact that taxes are a small part of her views and yet you latch onto it like its the end all be all to right and wrong.
The thing is: neither of these articles are really about taxation of entrenched, concentrated wealth. Income taxation can't really do that-but something like a direct asset tax might-say a tax of 1% on assets over $5 Million per family.
Its already been said that Taxes are not her main focus, its just part of the plan.... Some people here cant get over the tax part to see the rest of it though.
I haven't seen anything new in her tax policies. She is basically asking for a return to Roosevelt style policies. Those policies might be better than what we have now-but they did have serious side effects.
If we really want to create a new concensus, I think we are going to have to look beyond the current range of political debate.
What in your opinion are the "serious side effects"?
I think it would behove you to read Game Theory. You can find it at Stanfords Open Library. It will NOT tell you which form of government is the best, but it will show you that they are all inevitably flawed. It shows that you cant even create the perfect society with a world filled by only altruists. So if we have a system that we know did work, ie the system in place from the 1930's-1970's but it had a few problems, whats wrong with the idea of tweaking that system to avoid as many "side effects" as possible.
ie Why reinvent the wheel?
Im not arguing you, I would just like to hear your opinion.
First of, keep in mind, the New Deal worked in the context a) pretty extreme limits on immigration/trade compared to what we have now b) a situation in which the US had a VERY strong trade position/little debt compared to now.
The New Deal policies always had some problems. I knew Maynard Kruger at U of Chicago quite well(I had two courses with him as an undergraduate). Kruger was Norm Thomas's running mate in 1940. The New Deal was lifted almost entirely from the socialist party platform-the Kruger played a major role in helping write. The big things that were left out were a) taxation of asset concentrations b) broad based taxation of real estate wealth. Kruger very openly admitted that a lot of features of the New Deal-like public housing, just didn't work out like he and others he was working with had hoped.
What I honestly think: if we go back to the New Deal, it won't work as well as it did. The world is just too different-and these differences will weaken key parts of that approach. The New Deal policies worked ok when the US was a self-sufficient economy, big trade barriers, severe immigration restrictions-and there was a huge demand for US exports world wide. One side effect of that situation: folks that could cheat on their taxes effectively made out like bandits. that doesn't necessarily put the people you want into control of the commanding heights of the economy. Job growth-particularly for entry level jobs-could also be sluggish under that regime-especially after the postwar boom was slowing down. What is clear is that it is more than just the upper 1% that have a problem with those policies. The GOP has a lot of backers in the upper 5-10%-but not upper 1% that have real serious reservations about new deal policies.
The tax plan the GOP is promoting now(a national sales tax-fairtax or now Cain's 999 plan)-is similar to what Townsend originally proposed to fund something like Social security. Fairtax or 999 might even get tried. I just don't think it will work as advertised. It will concentrate assets even more.
I think we need to look seriously at some ideas that haven't been tried before-or haven't been tried on a large scale before.
I think in this case it means starting to contain further concentration of wealth and real estate. That is where the big gains have been since Reagan-and that was something the people behind the Reagan economic plan denied would happen.
My personal opinion is the Reagan plan had some positive short-term effects, but is has been a distributional nightmare. When the reagan policies went into effect, there was some significant low end jobs growth. the problem was trickle up-and as a result concentration of decision making. Part of what is killing the US economy is over-centralization of wealth and political power. This means we have problems similar to what the old soviet union had. There are just too few people involved in making major decisions.
I'm 52. I was working some in the 70's. Taxes were an utter nightmare for any kind of small business person-and I really can see why Reagan hypnotized a lot of those folks. If we want a real consensus, we need to talk to those folks seriously-there are just too many of them for us to claim to have a consensus if their concerns aren't addressed.
One thing I've thought about seriously is looking at how we can tweak the GOP fairtax proposal to make it less of a distributional nightmare. If you paired fairtax with an asset tax, you could have a lower tax rate-and mitigate some of the trickle up effects(which the fairtax supporters are in denial would exist at all).
If fairtax or 999 would really work as advertised, it wouldn't be so bad. What I would like is a rider that would go into effect if we say increased concentration of assets in the hands of the upper 1%. Now the fairtax folks will deny this is neccessary-but it kind of calls their bluff when folks say essentially, why would you object to this rider if you deny this concentration will happen in the first place?
One big problem that evolved with the New Deal: programs like social security became middle to lower income transfer programs. Social security was sold in the first place as an insurance program. The thing is: the folks on the lower end don't pay as much in as they get back. Middle income savings rates have decreased markedly from what we had years ago.
I don't object in theory to wealth/income redistribution. The things is, we need to be careful not to redistribute the most productive assets in our society-which is largely what we saw towards the end of the "new deal" period.
At this point, the smaller asset holders have made pretty meager gains the last 30 years-the bulk of gains since Reagan have been in the hands of folks with more than $5 million in assets. Exactly what the GOP has organized against is a return to the new deal-which is part of why I think there is a need to seriously consider something rather different.
I agree overall with respect to being careful not to go too far. If I were to badge myself, I guess I would have to say Im a left leaning centralist.
With that said, I have no problem with the folks on the lower end getting back more then they paid in. Ive always felt that any economy needs to have a lower class in order to be productive and successful. Im talking about the jobs that need to be done first, in order for the rest of the machine to operate. The jobs that are not that popular from a social status standpoint. It just seems unfair to me that we would not reward these people in some way over the long haul of their lives.
Did I misunderstand what you meant above, or is it just a difference of ideology?
I dont mind taking a different rout. Im just not willing to allow the GOP to force a system that continues putting band-aids on something we failed to move in the right direction on 40 years ago. As you said, its a short-term fix, for a growing problem.
The thing is this: the big redistributive program is social security right now. Folks with average income lower than $35K or so get more back from SSA than they put in on average over their lifetime. Folks with average income over $35K pay more back in. One thing: those payments are distributed proportionally only up the cap on SSA contributions. That means the folks with income above the break even point and less than the cap are proportionally paying more of their overall income.
This situation evolved in part because people with incomes above the cap are more likely to pay income tax and the whole idea of social security was politically sold to the public as an insurance program.
The problem is that the the folks paying most heavily into the system have been the folks that have lost the most ground the last 45 years. The folks with heavily entrenched wealth have done VERY well. The very rich benefited enormously from globalization(i.e. removal of trade barriers and lessening of restrictions on immigration). Even if US wages were lowered, the property of the rich appreciated-so those with the most property had a net gain. Globalization also meant that US wages and risk capital simply couldn't adjust upward if the supply of labor in the US was reduced-the US had to pay world market rates for risk capital and labor. That meant the tax cuts of the Reagan era inevitably trickled up into the hands of the very wealthy.
Both parties are now in the hands of wealthy interests. The very rich donate to both sides. The GOP depends more on folk with real estate wealth-and the Democrats depend more on successful attorneys, doctors and what not with special positions that protect them from market conditions. Poor whites tend to support the GOP and non-whites tends to support democrats.
The real political question now: will anyone create a new political consensus that unites less advantaged folks?
Huey Long was able to do things like get the KKK to accommodate adult literacy programs in Lousiana-and support a program of massive redistribution at the high end. I dare say folks like Pat Buchanan aren't nearly as unreasonable as the KKK were-and Buchanan gets rather little support from the upper 1%(he does get some from a few specific donors).
If you really want to unite the 99% or even get to 80% it means getting folks to talk to each other that tyically don't under current political rules.