| 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.
2. The Bernie-Or-Busters will fall in line. Hillary-Or-Busters did in 2008!
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"—bullshit. 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.
*Not to say McGovern would have won with the numbers he got, but he likely would have beat Trump in this election.
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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.
| 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.
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...
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...
Oh?
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. |
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!!
I'm reminded of James Carville for some reason...Oh?
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.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
Lots o' stuffYea 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. |
[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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
| 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.
|
|
I don't believe I engaged in any hyperbole... but ok.
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.
| 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.