Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Good thing I ctrl-c'd on my edit.

The Democrats are seriously going to have to start talking to their progressive wing soon and admitting that Clinton just wasn't that good a candidate. It wasn't all her fault—sexism, biased media and a long campaign to paint her as unlikable and deceitful did a lot to screw her over—but at the core she was an uncharismatic career politician who campaigned on "America Is Already Great" and was way too moderate on issues progressives cared about.

Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. With that wretched turnout, he couldn't beat McGovern*. Secretary Clinton beat herself. She was carried through the primary debates by her party's blatant endorsement and half-won just by virtue of the media narrative saying she would win. People complained that Bernie Sanders was hampering her and weakening her prior to the general, forgetting that the point of a primary is to weed out easily-weakened candidates.

They preached the same premise again and again during the primary, remember. It hinged on two notions:

1. Bernie is too extreme to win. Independents hate extremists. Independents overwhelmingly favored Sanders over Clinton. Contrary to popular mythology, incidentally, Independents did not vote much for Trump in his primaries. That was something Rubio tried to push to convince people he could win Florida.

2. The Bernie-Or-Busters will fall in line. Hillary-Or-Busters did in 2008! Yes, because Hillary was supported by people who'd been lifelong Democrats, not a handful of Independents, young disillusioned Democrats, ex-libertarians starting to reconsider their ideology, and old Greens and socialists looking for a chance at real change.

When you adopt the tone establishment Democrats did last year—"These Bernie supporters will fall in line, they have to, it's the lesser of two evils"—those voters become disenchanted with the process. So sure, you can be pissed at Bernie-Or-Busters. They are kind of childish a$+$+&~s. "Hillary is as bad as Trump"—b@*@$@!+. But blaming the voters has never been a winning strategy. Remember #1? A primary isn't just about picking your favorite candidate, it's about picking a winning candidate. Last year, we didn't.

Democrats are really going to need to redefine their tactics. They need to stop abandoning red and blue states' local elections. They need to stop assuming midterms are a lost cause without even trying. They need to reach back towards economic justice to recover young voters and Rust Belt workers who feel left behind and don't bother voting anymore. And most of all, they need someone who isn't Cory Booker to run in 2020.

Disclaimers:
I voted for Hillary Clinton in the general, and "identity politics" is a s%~*ty buzzword for "civil rights". The "all Bernie supporters are rich white dudebros" narrative Clinton's campaign tried to push was pretty s**$ty, though.

*Not to say McGovern would have won with the numbers he got, but he likely would have beat Trump in this election.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow, one gets shut down, you immediately get another started.

Were we going through political discussion withdrawal... ;-)

Edit: Just poking fun, not being serious, have fun. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was actually writing this post for that thread. Didn't want it to go to waste. :P

But yes.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Out of curiosity, have you read Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72.

A great book if you haven't. Your mention of McGovern reminded me of it is all. :-)


Sadly, my literary pedigree remains questionable at best. I'm familiar with the main beats of McGovern's loss, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I want a more progressive and liberal Democratic party.

I can't vote for her (I don't live in Boston), but I am following Brianna Wu. I think she can do well.


I like a lot of Wu's politics, though her advocacy for Clinton over Sanders was of course a disappointment. I wish her the best of luck in her bid for Congress. She's funny as hell on Disruption.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Keep in mind that just eight years ago Democrats had just taken the Presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate (though that was delayed by GOP refusal to seat Franken).

In short, they had a stronger grip on federal power than the GOP does now.

Ergo, it is equally possible for the current catastrophe to swing back the other way.

Yes, the GOP will attempt to cement their position (which is what the Democrats should have done eight years ago)... but as most of the population does not support GOP positions, the only way they can reliably accomplish that is through ever greater voter suppression... which must eventually hit a point of diminishing returns.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sadly, my literary pedigree remains questionable at best. I'm familiar with the main beats of McGovern's loss, though.

Oh, read Fear and Loathing. Hunter Thompson was the best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Democrats were basically lifted by Obama, though, and they were still losing local elections as badly as ever. They managed to take charge for two years after a massively despised Republican two-term president and one of the strongest Democratic candidates in years. And with the Blue Dogs and New Democrats fighting them on issues like single-payer health care, they were never really in control of Congress, even then.

I fully expect midterms to swing in the Democrats' favor if they really do wise up.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
They managed to take charge for two years after a massively despised Republican

Well... at least we've got that going for us again.


I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...


Yeah, but two years ain't nearly enough. And if Trump is a two-term president, I swear to god...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Keep in mind that just eight years ago Democrats had just taken the Presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate (though that was delayed by GOP refusal to seat Franken).

In short, they had a stronger grip on federal power than the GOP does now.

Ergo, it is equally possible for the current catastrophe to swing back the other way.

Yes, the GOP will attempt to cement their position (which is what the Democrats should have done eight years ago)... but as most of the population does not support GOP positions, the only way they can reliably accomplish that is through ever greater voter suppression... which must eventually hit a point of diminishing returns.

Not necessarily. A lot can be done to control the mechanics of power, even as they become more of a minority. With the Supreme Court under their control, most of the checks on gerrymandering and voter suppression go away.

And Democrats shouldn't have cemented their position - not like the Republicans plan to. Cement it by doing more to appeal to the population, sure. Cementing it by changing the rules to weaken the other party, no.

I've no interest in refighting the primary wars or speculating about who could or couldn't have done better than Clinton did. I do agree with KC that Democrats need to work on tactics - 50 state strategy and a focus on the mid-terms and local elections in particular.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...

Oh?

Wikipedia wrote:
As an advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, Carville told The New York Times on March 22, 2008, that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who had just endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, was comparable to Judas Iscariot. It was "an act of betrayal," said Carville. "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. Governor Richardson had served in President Bill Clinton's administration as both United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy, and Carville believed that Richardson owed an endorsement to Senator Clinton in exchange for being offered those posts by her husband. Carville also claimed that Richardson assured many in the Clinton campaign that he would at least remain neutral and abstain from taking sides.

Wow.


I'll repeat that this is not a "Bernie Would Have Won" thread. Whether or not Bernie would have won is irrelevant—what matters is that we cannot make the same mistakes again. It's time for the postmortem. The GOP did theirs; now it's the Democrats' turn.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Sadly, my literary pedigree remains questionable at best. I'm familiar with the main beats of McGovern's loss, though.

Oh, read Fear and Loathing. Hunter Thompson was the best.

Like how he got to ride in a car with Nixon because he was the only reporter that promised not to talk about the election. :-)

To the bookshelf!!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...

Oh?

Wikipedia wrote:
As an advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, Carville told The New York Times on March 22, 2008, that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who had just endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, was comparable to Judas Iscariot. It was "an act of betrayal," said Carville. "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. Governor Richardson had served in President Bill Clinton's administration as both United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Energy, and Carville believed that Richardson owed an endorsement to Senator Clinton in exchange for being offered those posts by her husband. Carville also claimed that Richardson assured many in the Clinton campaign that he would at least remain neutral and abstain from taking sides.
Wow.

While interesting, I was more thinking of how he declared the GoP was "dead, and would never recover".

The pendulum always swings. The Dems will be in power again, it's just a matter of time.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lots o' stuff

Yea that about sums it up. H lost for a whole host of reasons all working together. If any of them hadn't happened, she'd be our president.

  • If she actually engaged the media instead of hiding away, she might have been perceived as a more likable person.
  • If H hadn't pulled advertising funding out of rust belt states/visited more often (or at all).
  • If Jill Stein had dropped out and endorsed H.
  • If the media had a little more self control and hadn't covered Drumpf like the "greatest reality show ever."
  • If democratic states have some seriously liberal voting laws (early voting, open primaries, automatic voter registration).

I can keep on going. At the end of the day, the democratic powers that be wanted her and that's what they got.

Here's the real question though: if it had been Bush or Rubio or whomever, would she still have lost? I have to believe, yes. I don't believe she would have done anything different other than what she said in the debates, and she would have ended up losing the presidency and possibly even the popular vote.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, yes, the "pendulum" school of thought: a massive simplification of what's going on.

The Democrats have been losing for a long, long time. It's only just now caught up with them in a way they can't ignore. This isn't a pendulum—it's a bouncing rubber ball that bounces a bit lower each time. Look at the state senates. Look at the governors. The Democrats didn't only just die.

As for the GOP's "death", their survival has been purchased like a lich's phylactery. Gerrymandering and voter suppression allow them to hold onto states like Texas and Arizona that should be purple by now, preventing the nonwhite vote from overwhelming them. This, combined with a groundswell of white nationalism and incredibly weak campaigning by the Democrats, has allowed them to defy the majority opinion. Whether or not that lasts depends on the integrity of a few moderates like McCain who will soon be faced with the choice of whether or not to gut their own democracy to save their party from its own inability to evolve past the 60s.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Indeed.

New York Times wrote:

Pundits who obsessively follow each twist and turn frequently make the mistake of graphing the future as a straight line out from today. Remember the spate of books claiming 2008 heralded Victory Forever for the Democrats? Books like “The Death of Conservatism” by Sam Tanenhaus and “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation” by James Carville?

Today, the Democrats are at an 86-year-low in both House and Senate seats. There are Republican governors in 31 states.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Lots o' stuff

Yea that about sums it up. H lost for a whole host of reasons all working together. If any of them hadn't happened, she'd be our president.

  • If she actually engaged the media instead of hiding away, she might have been perceived as a more likable person.
  • If H hadn't pulled advertising funding out of rust belt states/visited more often (or at all).
  • If Jill Stein had dropped out and endorsed H.
  • If the media had a little more self control and hadn't covered Drumpf like the "greatest reality show ever."
  • If democratic states have some seriously liberal voting laws (early voting, open primaries, automatic voter registration).

I can keep on going. At the end of the day, the democratic powers that be wanted her and that's what they got.

Here's the real question though: if it had been Bush or Rubio or whomever, would she still have lost? I have to believe, yes. I don't believe she would have done anything different other than what she said in the debates, and she would have ended up losing the presidency and possibly even the popular vote.

I'm actually a bit of a Stein apologist, in that I refuse to believe she played any part, good or ill, in this election. She was no Nader. If she hadn't been running, her voters would've gone for Vermin Supreme. That's how bad a candidate she was.


Did old boot head run this year?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wikipedia wrote:
[Vermin Supreme] received the vote of a single delegate in the first round of presidential nomination voting at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention.

Hahaha! Libertarians, never change.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...

Everytime I see Carville on TV, my immediate lizard brain impulse is that he is the inventor of Cookiepuss. I know this is wrong everytime the thought occurs, yet I somehow cannot write over this erroneous mnemonic record.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...
Everytime I see Carville on TV, my immediate lizard brain impulse is that he is the inventor of Cookiepuss. I know this is wrong everytime the thought occurs, yet I somehow cannot write over this erroneous mnemonic record.

Every time I see him on tv I think "That's what Colonel Sander's and Mr Clean's love child would look and sound like". :)


Wait for the boomers to twilight?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Wait for the boomers to twilight?

I thought a lot of them already liked Twilight? Not sure if sparkly vampires will help.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Pawns Subscriber

Well before the election, my friend sent me this article (warning: contains obscenities), and it really resonated with me, and explains a huge amount of my frustration with the Democratic party as a whole.

As of the last 10 years or so, they have entirely painted themselves as "the minority party". Not as in, "We have fewer people in the House or Senate," but as in, "Our primary focus is on immigrants, inner city blacks, the LGBT community, and anyone else who has been historically underrepresented."

They have done this to the detriment of their former base: Blue-collar workers, unions, and others who needed protection from megacorporations.

My friend's immediate family all voted for Trump. Why? Because they, along with all of their neighbors, have been reduced to subsistence-level living by the loss of manufacturing-level jobs in their area. They hunt for their meat. They grow their own vegetables. They go to Wal*Mart once a year for staples, but otherwise are so poor that they MUST live off the land. They have no other choice.

And all they ever hear from the Democrats is about the poor immigrants, the poor inner city kids, or how great free trade is.

And the Republicans foster the resentment. "Those immigrants steal your jobs. Those inner city kids are all on welfare, and that's where all your tax dollars have gone. Those free trade deals moved all your jobs overseas."

The Democrats have lost the ability to present any coherent message to the 46.2 million people who live in true rural communities, and hear nothing but a continuing message that it's "tree-hugging environmentalists and their strangling regulations" that cost them their livelihoods.

The ultimate Democrat elitism was shown when Clinton called Trump supporters, "Deplorables".

More than any single instant, THAT galvanized many rural folks' opinions that Clinton and the Democrats cared nothing whatsoever for their plight.

Most of you already have, I'm sure, but look at the election results by county in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Rural America gets a message and votes in an incredibly-cohesive block. In swing states, that block matters immensely. And dismissing the rural poor as "not worth courting" is something the Democrats can no longer afford to do.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
And Democrats shouldn't have cemented their position - not like the Republicans plan to. Cement it by doing more to appeal to the population, sure. Cementing it by changing the rules to weaken the other party, no.

Eh. I would have had no problem whatsoever if, instead of devoting the few days they held the Senate supermajority to passing Obamacare, they had made voting day a federal holiday... or passed legislation mandating less than 30 minute wait times at all voting sites on penalty of the state losing its electoral college votes... or guaranteeing universal voter registration... or requiring early voting and/or unrestricted mail in voting in all states... or updating the voting rights act to apply to suppression efforts in ALL states (rather than just those that were guilty of such when it was first written).

Any of those would have strengthened democracy... which would inherently weaken the GOP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And Democrats shouldn't have cemented their position - not like the Republicans plan to. Cement it by doing more to appeal to the population, sure. Cementing it by changing the rules to weaken the other party, no.

Eh. I would have had no problem whatsoever if, instead of devoting the few days they held the Senate supermajority to passing Obamacare, they had made voting day a federal holiday... or passed legislation mandating less than 30 minute wait times at all voting sites on penalty of the state losing its electoral college votes... or guaranteeing universal voter registration... or requiring early voting and/or unrestricted mail in voting in all states... or updating the voting rights act to apply to suppression efforts in ALL states (rather than just those that were guilty of such when it was first written).

Any of those would have strengthened democracy... which would inherently weaken the GOP.

None of that I'd have any real problem with - except that most of it wouldn't be Constitutional. Voting rules are very much a state matter.

They could move election day or make it a federal holiday, though I'm not sure how much that would really help. Who actually gets federal holidays off, anyway?


NobodysHome wrote:

Well before the election, my friend sent me this article (warning: contains obscenities), and it really resonated with me, and explains a huge amount of my frustration with the Democratic party as a whole.

As of the last 10 years or so, they have entirely painted themselves as "the minority party". Not as in, "We have fewer people in the House or Senate," but as in, "Our primary focus is on immigrants, inner city blacks, the LGBT community, and anyone else who has been historically underrepresented."

They have done this to the detriment of their former base: Blue-collar workers, unions, and others who needed protection from megacorporations.

My friend's immediate family all voted for Trump. Why? Because they, along with all of their neighbors, have been reduced to subsistence-level living by the loss of manufacturing-level jobs in their area. They hunt for their meat. They grow their own vegetables. They go to Wal*Mart once a year for staples, but otherwise are so poor that they MUST live off the land. They have no other choice.

And all they ever hear from the Democrats is about the poor immigrants, the poor inner city kids, or how great free trade is.

And the Republicans foster the resentment. "Those immigrants steal your jobs. Those inner city kids are all on welfare, and that's where all your tax dollars have gone. Those free trade deals moved all your jobs overseas."

The Democrats have lost the ability to present any coherent message to the 46.2 million people who live in true rural communities, and hear nothing but a continuing message that it's "tree-hugging environmentalists and their strangling regulations" that cost them their livelihoods.

The ultimate Democrat elitism was shown when Clinton called Trump supporters, "Deplorables".

More than any single instant, THAT galvanized many rural folks' opinions that Clinton and the Democrats cared nothing whatsoever for their plight.

Most of you...

interesting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The democrats just have to figure out a way to win against a party that ignores reality, is offended by logic, and is able to consistently win with fewer votes than their opponents.


thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And Democrats shouldn't have cemented their position - not like the Republicans plan to. Cement it by doing more to appeal to the population, sure. Cementing it by changing the rules to weaken the other party, no.

Eh. I would have had no problem whatsoever if, instead of devoting the few days they held the Senate supermajority to passing Obamacare, they had made voting day a federal holiday... or passed legislation mandating less than 30 minute wait times at all voting sites on penalty of the state losing its electoral college votes... or guaranteeing universal voter registration... or requiring early voting and/or unrestricted mail in voting in all states... or updating the voting rights act to apply to suppression efforts in ALL states (rather than just those that were guilty of such when it was first written).

Any of those would have strengthened democracy... which would inherently weaken the GOP.

None of that I'd have any real problem with - except that most of it wouldn't be Constitutional. Voting rules are very much a state matter.

They could move election day or make it a federal holiday, though I'm not sure how much that would really help. Who actually gets federal holidays off, anyway?

They would if it were mandated for all non-emergency personnel. It would suck to have everything closed for a day, like literally everything, but we'd have more people voting, so it'd be worth it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Well before the election, my friend sent me this article (warning: contains obscenities), and it really resonated with me, and explains a huge amount of my frustration with the Democratic party as a whole.

As of the last 10 years or so, they have entirely painted themselves as "the minority party". Not as in, "We have fewer people in the House or Senate," but as in, "Our primary focus is on immigrants, inner city blacks, the LGBT community, and anyone else who has been historically underrepresented."

They have done this to the detriment of their former base: Blue-collar workers, unions, and others who needed protection from megacorporations.

My friend's immediate family all voted for Trump. Why? Because they, along with all of their neighbors, have been reduced to subsistence-level living by the loss of manufacturing-level jobs in their area. They hunt for their meat. They grow their own vegetables. They go to Wal*Mart once a year for staples, but otherwise are so poor that they MUST live off the land. They have no other choice.

And all they ever hear from the Democrats is about the poor immigrants, the poor inner city kids, or how great free trade is.

And the Republicans foster the resentment. "Those immigrants steal your jobs. Those inner city kids are all on welfare, and that's where all your tax dollars have gone. Those free trade deals moved all your jobs overseas."

The Democrats have lost the ability to present any coherent message to the 46.2 million people who live in true rural communities, and hear nothing but a continuing message that it's "tree-hugging environmentalists and their strangling regulations" that cost them their livelihoods.
The ultimate Democrat elitism was shown when Clinton called Trump supporters, "Deplorables".

More than any single instant, THAT galvanized many rural folks' opinions that Clinton and the Democrats cared nothing whatsoever for their plight.

Most of you already have, I'm sure, but look at the election results by county in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Rural America gets a message and votes in an incredibly-cohesive block. In swing states, that block matters immensely. And dismissing the rural poor as "not worth courting" is something the Democrats can no longer afford to do.

You're not going to like hearing this, but there are reasons for that and it really is all about race. If you look at the shift in voting patterns, it's been gradual, but it all really dates to the Civil Rights Era. Resentment over the Democrats breaking official segregation started the shift, at first in the South but later moving through the rest of the country - white flight decimating the cities, for example. Or even "liberal" northeasterners fighting busing and attempts to actually integrate the schools. The attacks on welfare and government support programs started in earnest when blacks had more access to them and they could be painted as "us working to support them".

The White Working Class (or actually the working middle class) left the Democratic party in droves - Reagan Democrats, the Silent Majority, the Moral Majority, etc. Democrats didn't abandon them, they left the Democratic party and the Democrats were left scrambling to patch together some kind of replacement coalition.
Despite that, and despite actual policy shifts, I still maintain that Democratic policies are far better for working people, minority or not. Union support, wage laws, regulation that protects workers, etc. Republicans are able to feed off the resentment and still maintain the myth that Democrats only help minorities and that the jobs would come back if only the Democrats weren't killing them.
Even under Obama - the signature law, the ACA, for all its problems wasn't aimed at minorities or city dwellers. It might have disproportionally helped minorities, simply because they're more likely to be poor.
There's been a lot of focus in the last few years on LGBT rights and on BLM, but that hasn't been driven by Democrats, but by grassroots activism. By the court and state victories on gay marriage and the backlash to those on the one hand and by public reaction to more common video of police killings of black men on the other. I think those being so much in the news of late contributed to that impression and to the backlash that brought us Trump.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And Democrats shouldn't have cemented their position - not like the Republicans plan to. Cement it by doing more to appeal to the population, sure. Cementing it by changing the rules to weaken the other party, no.

Eh. I would have had no problem whatsoever if, instead of devoting the few days they held the Senate supermajority to passing Obamacare, they had made voting day a federal holiday... or passed legislation mandating less than 30 minute wait times at all voting sites on penalty of the state losing its electoral college votes... or guaranteeing universal voter registration... or requiring early voting and/or unrestricted mail in voting in all states... or updating the voting rights act to apply to suppression efforts in ALL states (rather than just those that were guilty of such when it was first written).

Any of those would have strengthened democracy... which would inherently weaken the GOP.

None of that I'd have any real problem with - except that most of it wouldn't be Constitutional. Voting rules are very much a state matter.

They could move election day or make it a federal holiday, though I'm not sure how much that would really help. Who actually gets federal holidays off, anyway?
They would if it were mandated for all non-emergency personnel. It would suck to have everything closed for a day, like literally everything, but we'd have more people voting, so it'd be worth it.

That's not a federal holiday though. That's something else entirely. I'm not at all sure that would be Constitutional either. It would definitely face challenges.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Mitch McConnell, ladies and gentlemen, supporting the attempt to block Trump from getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed:

Quote:
Our hope would be that our Democratic friends would treat President Trump’s nominees in the same way we treated Clinton and Obama.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Democrats last election (including me to be honest) I think fell into a trap of taking a lot of "blue states" for granted and talking big about "demographic shifts" turning at least some southern states blue, without really fully being aware that for parts of the Midwest, other shifts were turning those states red. Well before the election I was worried about Michigan going red. Almost all my cousins as well as myself plus a good chunk of my high school cohort (the potential cohort most likely to vote dem) fled the state due to lack of jobs. The economy of many of those areas is in a bad states.

I believe strongly in many of the key principles relating to progressive values. But for people in rural areas, those concerns seem esoteric. All they are concerns about is jobs and the safety and continued existence of their communities. Dems have done an absolutely horrible job of outreach on those issues, both on the local level as well as in the election.

If dems are going to succeed in taking control again, they need to improve upon outreach there at local and state issues. And they badly badly need to encourage a new crop of leadership. Right now there isn't really any, and we shouldn't be turning to a former president to spearhead the upcoming election fights. If the party can't find a charismatic eligible strong leader for the next election under the age of 70 we are screwed.

I remain...pessimistic that things will change enough in 2 years to see much in the way of improvement for the next election. Democrat politicians seem mostly confused on what to do, and how to do it, and resistant to taking any blame in losing the election.

Silver Crusade

thejeff, I'm a little confused. The articles I found said he said the Dems should allow the vote. Am I misunderstanding you?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lucky7 wrote:
thejeff, I'm a little confused. The articles I found said he said the Dems should allow the vote. Am I misunderstanding you?

I'm mocking him.

Of course he thinks Dems should allow the vote. The point is that he's saying Dems should treat Trump's nominee like they treated Obama's, for example, Merrick Garland, who was denied even a hearing in a completely unprecedented move.

He also complains "Apparently there’s yet a new standard now, which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all" which is the standard he set. And says he doesn't think the American people will stand for this.

</explaining the joke>

Silver Crusade

Thank you kindly for explaining it; I can be a bit of a doof sometimes.

Paizo Employee Community & Digital Content Director

Removed a couple of posts. Folks, let's reign in the hyperbole so as to not devolve the conversation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't believe I engaged in any hyperbole... but ok.

NobodysHome wrote:
And the Republicans foster the resentment. "Those immigrants steal your jobs. Those inner city kids are all on welfare, and that's where all your tax dollars have gone.

Polls and other studies have consistently shown that most people who believe such things vote Republican anyway.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"This time run a candidate with a charisma score higher than that of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal"

Not a HUGE change for the democratic party, but the only change they need to make really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

"This time run a candidate with a charisma score higher than that of a bowl of lukewarm oatmeal"

Not a HUGE change for the democratic party, but the only change they need to make really.

Hasn't really worked for them though. Not over the last ~30 years.

The charismatic front man can win the Presidency, but they need Congress and the states too. Any plan that just relies on holding the White House isn't enough.

1 to 50 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.