| 1 person 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...
I'd like to summarize this position to see if I understand it:
Because Democrats appeared to be nice to African-Americans, white America voted for a Republican.
Is that the thesis?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ultimate Democrat elitism was shown when Clinton called Trump supporters, "Deplorables".
This, along with "America is Already Great", might have been the most confounding gaffe of the entire election. At least Trump says his dumb s+$% off the cuff. At least Trump's too dumb to know any better. Secretary Hillary Clinton is smart. She knows politics, she knows history. She knows how the game is played. We all know that. So how the hell didn't she think of what happened to Romney?
A hidden camera. Of an unscripted answer. It was surreptitious, and maybe accidental, but it was a devastating gaffe nonetheless. Romney was insulting the voters. You never, ever insult the voters.
And Clinton went on-camera and willingly condemned half of Trump's supporters as a "basket of deplorables". It was a cute insult, but it was still insulting. The cockiness of it still confounds me. I think her campaign genuinely didn't get why Romney's gaffe was considered a gaffe.
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.
I agree with a lot of this, but I think it's hard to deny that New Democrats and neoliberals—once perhaps a necessity for the party to survive during the 90s—have begun to rip the party away from those white union workers in Ohio and Wisconsin.
The bigoted backlash got people to vote for Trump, but Trump didn't have many voters. It's not like a ton of people liked him—the trouble was, nobody really liked Clinton. It was the abandonment of economic justice, in my opinion, that truly wounded Clinton in the Rust Belt. How do you lose a state like Wisconsin in your primary and never visit it in the general?
"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.
If that's really all Democrats take away from this disaster, we're in for a rough eight years.
Seriously. Charisma is important, but it's not just Clinton's charisma that alienated voters—it was her checkered record, her only reluctant willingness to criticize free trade deals, her tone-deaf "America is Already Great" campaign, her patronizing contempt for voters who didn't already support her. Oh, and her blatant embrace of being part of the establishment.
Few people called Nixon charismatic, but he understood the rules of the game and played it very well.
Why, hello Democrats!
I couldn't help but notice your thread from across the way and I wanted to come by and help welcome you to the neighborhood!
Yes, it's so great since the Lifting of the Politroll Ban, we can all just set up our threads in the open again, not like hiding in a secret, impregnable bunker for the last month, oh no!, out in the open again, enjoying the day, taking a stroll.
Anyway, it's true, I hope your party crumbles into dust and is swept into the dustbin of history, but I did want to come by and let you know you can always stop in and borrow some sugar.
Bye! Take care now, you hear?
|
I'm not naive enough to think that inherent racism (and sexism) didn't play a factor. I just wish Democratic supporters would stop acting like they were the only factor.
Racism, sexism, and religious bigotry are only a few of the reality denying factors underlying the GOP at this time.
The belief that Democrats did nothing to reach out to the white working class is another.
What was Obamacare if not an effort to provide the working poor with decent health care? What did the GOP block on Medicare expansion in states they control accomplish except denial of health care to that white working class?
Which party supports unions? Which has been systematically demolishing the power of unions to organize and leverage change for decades?
Yes, the Democrats could always do better with their messaging... but, 'they only care about the immigrants and the minorities' is just another GOP deception and delusion.
Why, hello Democrats!
Aah! A goblin! CBD, get the broom!
Ah yes Goblins the one race kobolds can look down on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not true! We also have mites. And we don't exactly look down on pugwampi, per se, but people hate them way more than us.
And kenders.
Everyone hates kenders.
Red Dragons don't hate kenders from what I understand they taste great with ketchup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the DP needs. Red dragons.
Can we call up the otherkin and see about forming a coalition?
|
To my mind, it's really very simple. Americans like to vote for outsiders.
In my lifetime (call it since 1970), if there wasn't an incumbent president running, the outsider candidate has only lost once. (Bush v Dukakis). And even incumbent presidents are only 63%.
Clinton's only chance would have been against Jeb! because he's the only Republican who could have been potrayed as more of an insider than she was.
Savvy political types like to make it more complicated than that, like people vote on issues or stuff. But only savvy political types do. Everyone else just knows that everything is broken, and hopes that the candidate least invested in the way things are will be most likely to fix it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But only savvy political types do.
Weird premise, but: Maybe we should listen to people who spend their lives learning how a system works?
Mind you, the whole "we're tired of experts" attitude is part of what led to Trump winning. Damn elitists, daring to know stuff...
|
|
But only savvy political types do.Weird premise, but: Maybe we should listen to people who spend their lives learning how a system works?
Mind you, the whole "we're tired of experts" attitude is part of what led to Trump winning. Damn elitists, daring to know stuff...
Oh, I'm definitely a filthy elitist myself. I'm just pointing out this isn't a new Trump dynamic, this has been going on for decades.
We have not elected an establishment Democrat to the presidency in my lifetime. Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama were all outsiders. Why anyone thought Hillary Clinton could break that streak, instead of ending up like Gore and Kerry is beyond me.
"Establishment" is by and large a matter of perspective and how the Republicans paint you. We're talking about a lot of very established senators.
I suppose there is some merit in Socrates idea of scholar kings. Separated from society similar to Buddhist monks. they spend their days learning and researching how to make the world a better place and making the laws for everyone else. The idea being the only way to make just rules without incorporating your own biases is to take you out of the system entirely. so you give up all earthly belonging and ties to family and go live on top of a mountain.
Too many People go into politics now to make profit or make the world better for themselves and people like them. So the idea is not entirely without merit.
I suppose there is some merit in Socrates idea of scholar kings. Separated from society similar to Buddhist monks. they spend their days learning and researching how to make the world a better place and making the laws for everyone else. The idea being the only way to make just rules without incorporating your own biases is to take you out of the system entirely. so you give up all earthly belonging and ties to family and go live on top of a mountain.
Too many People go into politics now to make profit or make the world better for themselves and people like them. So the idea is not entirely without merit.
You're Fired.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look when I want advice about popcorn ill come see you...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And kenders.
Everyone hates kenders.
hey!! ! I love Kender!!
I've been pounding my head trying to think of a single 'decent' candidate that the Democrats can bring forward without having two election cycles of circular political suicide like the Republicans had after W...
...and I'm really not seeing *anyone* in that area that is really solid as a candidate. By the time the election rolls around, anyone that was viable this time will have 'aged out'.
So not only do they need to revitalize and return to the roots, but they also need to get a new crew, well grounded in reality -- perhaps someone who was in the Occupy movement but with a bit more sanity?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The future of the Democratic Party starts NOW, not in two years, not in four years, NOW.
|
Its true HRC was the dems Romney candidate. A slick long time insider who only the base loves the cut of their jib. Also, an apathetic attitude towards the country and those with opposing views.
If Bernie was the dems Ron Paul, who will be their Donald the disruptor?
Who cares? And the last thing we need is a "Donald the disruptor". Crazy, incompetent, offensive but sort of liberal isn't what we need.
More importantly, we need to stop focusing on the top of the ticket. Democrats need to be able to win Congressional races, even when there isn't a Presidential election in play. They desperately need to be able to win governorships and state houses.
The future of the Democratic Party can't wait to 2020. It really starts in 2018. There are even off year elections this year in some states. That's where we need to focus.
Id love to help, but i'm in a locked up blue state. I cant really comment on congressional races and what it takes to turn one.
I do think top leadership is important and right now anybody who gets close gets butchered by the party and the media. Not looking forward to the next few years to be honest.
[Sees Pan talking, vaguely remembers Pan is a Minnesotan, surreptitiously drops anti-Democrat, revolutionary socialist link]
Ginger Jentzen announces run for Minneapolis Council seat under Socialist Alternative banner
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Sees Pan talking, vaguely remembers Pan is a Minnesotan, surreptitiously drops anti-Democrat, revolutionary socialist link]
Ginger Jentzen announces run for Minneapolis Council seat under Socialist Alternative banner
Ah, I'm in ward 1, but ill keep an eye on this. (Still don't know why Mpls has 13 council seats....)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Looks at "Daily To-Do List" and checks off "Communist Propagandizing in the Democrat Thread"]
I've been pounding my head trying to think of a single 'decent' candidate that the Democrats can bring forward without having two election cycles of circular political suicide like the Republicans had after W......and I'm really not seeing *anyone* in that area that is really solid as a candidate. By the time the election rolls around, anyone that was viable this time will have 'aged out'.
So not only do they need to revitalize and return to the roots, but they also need to get a new crew, well grounded in reality -- perhaps someone who was in the Occupy movement but with a bit more sanity?
Schoomer has a chance. He's john connering the resistance to trump by being the face of it, has political experience. I can't decide if his coziness with wallstreet is a benefit or a hindrance: on the down side the bernie crowd will be mad at him, but on the plus side less opposition from big business. I don't think we'll HAVE a bernie or bust crowd after four years of trump.. or ..well,... it will just be a goblin with a sign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Puh-leeze. I never supported Bernie.
I've been pounding my head trying to think of a single 'decent' candidate that the Democrats can bring forward without having two election cycles of circular political suicide like the Republicans had after W......and I'm really not seeing *anyone* in that area that is really solid as a candidate. By the time the election rolls around, anyone that was viable this time will have 'aged out'.
So not only do they need to revitalize and return to the roots, but they also need to get a new crew, well grounded in reality -- perhaps someone who was in the Occupy movement but with a bit more sanity?
Schoomer has a chance. He's john connering the resistance to trump by being the face of it, has political experience. I can't decide if his coziness with wallstreet is a benefit or a hindrance: on the down side the bernie crowd will be mad at him, but on the plus side less opposition from big business. I don't think we'll HAVE a bernie or bust crowd after four years of trump.. or ..well,... it will just be a goblin with a sign.
Bernie was too mainstream for the goblin.
Schumer would be unfortunate. He's capitulated to Trump on a fair bit already. Neither he nor Booker are the sorts of Democrats we really need—they're both pretty weak on a lot of issues (a couple of capitalist running dogs)—but I seem to recall you being extremely defensive of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, so maybe you favor the neoliberal moderates.
n February 2012, Schumer said that he disagreed with the Obama administration's call to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year, calling for a million-dollar level instead. According to Schumer, "there are a lot of people who make above 250 who aren't rich."
God, these two are just the worst. We could actually lose with them, which is astounding.
For the record, I like Secretary Clinton better than either one of them.
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.
They also would have been struck down as unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the states control on how elections are ministered. You would actually need Amendments for everything but the federal holiday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its true HRC was the dems Romney candidate. A slick long time insider who only the base loves the cut of their jib. Also, an apathetic attitude towards the country and those with opposing views.
If Bernie was the dems Ron Paul, who will be their Donald the disruptor?
Who cares? And the last thing we need is a "Donald the disruptor". Crazy, incompetent, offensive but sort of liberal isn't what we need.
More importantly, we need to stop focusing on the top of the ticket. Democrats need to be able to win Congressional races, even when there isn't a Presidential election in play. They desperately need to be able to win governorships and state houses.
The future of the Democratic Party can't wait to 2020. It really starts in 2018. There are even off year elections this year in some states. That's where we need to focus.
Or on the other hand 2018 puts the Democratic Party in the same place as the Whigs when the latter entered final free fall and created the opening for the third party that nominated Abraham Lincoln. The fact that the Democrats have retained Nancy Pelosi as their Congressional leader, should inspire no great confidence in the long term future of the party.
Neoliberals, New Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats are pretty much inescapable, sad to say. We'll need to work with them up until we can primary them. But we don't want one taking the highest, most influential office in the country.
Imagine Lieberman 2020.
|
|
The Constitution gives the states control on how elections are ministered.
Bush v Gore pretty much smoked that... and the Voting Rights Act had long prevented states from imposing burdens on voting until SCOTUS gutted it.
Basically, the states determine how elections are administered... within constitutional limitations as stated by the federal government.
Bush v Gore held that having different standards which could effect the count was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. On that basis the federal government should be able to require minimum standards to ensure that everyone has a reasonable opportunity to vote (e.g. no hours long lines).
Or on the other hand 2018 puts the Democratic Party in the same place as the Whigs when the latter entered final free fall and created the opening for the third party that nominated Abraham Lincoln. The fact that the Democrats have retained Nancy Pelosi as their Congressional leader, should inspire no great confidence in the long term future of the party.Its true HRC was the dems Romney candidate. A slick long time insider who only the base loves the cut of their jib. Also, an apathetic attitude towards the country and those with opposing views.
If Bernie was the dems Ron Paul, who will be their Donald the disruptor?
Who cares? And the last thing we need is a "Donald the disruptor". Crazy, incompetent, offensive but sort of liberal isn't what we need.
More importantly, we need to stop focusing on the top of the ticket. Democrats need to be able to win Congressional races, even when there isn't a Presidential election in play. They desperately need to be able to win governorships and state houses.
The future of the Democratic Party can't wait to 2020. It really starts in 2018. There are even off year elections this year in some states. That's where we need to focus.
Except there really isn't anything like a viable third party candidate to step and take over for the dems.
We might see the democrats get "tea partied" in the upcoming years, but I don't see the party going away. The blue states they have kept they have a pretty firm grasp of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been pounding my head trying to think of a single 'decent' candidate that the Democrats can bring forward without having two election cycles of circular political suicide like the Republicans had after W......and I'm really not seeing *anyone* in that area that is really solid as a candidate. By the time the election rolls around, anyone that was viable this time will have 'aged out'.
So not only do they need to revitalize and return to the roots, but they also need to get a new crew, well grounded in reality -- perhaps someone who was in the Occupy movement but with a bit more sanity?
Well, if you are just looking for a win (ie, best shot to win, no real concern about a "progressive" mandate), The best democrat field would be something like Bill Gates / Joe Manchin.
Bill Gates because he directly challenges the "success" credentials of Trump. Basically, everything Trump has done, Gates has done better. He also is poised to strike a huge social media presence as he is already in the top 100 followed twitter accounts.
Joe Manchin because he is a Democrat from a southern state, and he is in the current Senate leadership so he is likely to be well received by the establishment. Plus, he has a background as the president of a coal mining company.
Also, they are both white dudes.
Gates/Manchin 2020 is about the best we could hope for at this time with the current information.*
*Extremely likely to change as 2020 approaches.
To thejeff's point; the 2018 elections are WAY more important as Democrats are poised to get *crushed* in the Senate. Also, if you aren't already, get ye involved in your county and state races. Take take State houses back!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
—but I seem to recall you being extremely defensive of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, so maybe you favor the neoliberal moderates.
Your recollection is correct. The rationale is not.
If lukewarm oatmeal is my best option then I'm getting lukewarm oatmeal.
We need lukewarm oatmeal today to work our way towards pizza tomorrow.
And now i'm really hungry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lukewarm oatmeal doesn't get many people interested in eating, though. It doesn't get the Independent excited anymore. Too many people just skip breakfast altogether nowadays because all they're offered is a choice between lukewarm oatmeal and sticking a metal fork into a toaster to retrieve some burnt bread.
Well, if you are just looking for a win (ie, best shot to win, no real concern about a "progressive" mandate), The best democrat field would be something like Bill Gates / Joe Manchin.
Bill Gates because he directly challenges the "success" credentials of Trump. Basically, everything Trump has done, Gates has done better. He also is poised to strike a huge social media presence as he is already in the top 100 followed twitter accounts.
Joe Manchin because he is a Democrat from a southern state, and he is in the current Senate leadership so he is likely to be well received by the establishment. Plus, he has a background as the president of a coal mining company.
Also, they are both white dudes.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Trump didn't win for his financial success. That was just an excuse to make up for his complete lack of real experience—"Sure, he has no idea how government works, but LOOK HOW SUCCESSFUL HE IS!" It would also only fly with Republicans, since Democrats generally hate Big Business more than they hate career politicians. Clinton was disliked by progressives because she was seen as being in bed with Big Business.
Bill Gates is an elitist, through and through—Republicans would hate him as a smug, extremely rich city liberal, and Democrats would hate him as a smug, extremely rich citizen of Wall Street. Independents would shrug it off as an election between two corrupt 1%ers, just like they shrugged off Clinton vs. Trump.
I don't understand this idea that being part of the establishment is what Democrats need right now to win. Their problem is being seen as out-of-touch. Do you think Clinton lost because the establishment wasn't behind her?
Being the president of a coal mining company is the only thing that might actually help them, though it would only alienate progressives more. And contrary to your assumptions, Democrats need the progressives. That's the f**~ing young vote right there. It's not huge, but losing it does cost them.
And you think them being white would be a boon? All they'd be doing is avoiding alienating racist voters, and those racists are voting for Trump anyways because "he tells it like it is". Meanwhile, they'd be alienating working class black and Latino voters.
I mean, dear God. It's like someone saw Clinton's election and went, "You know why she lost? She was too relateable."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lukewarm oatmeal doesn't get many people interested in eating, though. It doesn't get the Independent excited anymore. Too many people just skip breakfast altogether nowadays because all they're offered is a choice between lukewarm oatmeal and sticking a metal fork into a toaster to retrieve some burnt bread.
Well, if you are just looking for a win (ie, best shot to win, no real concern about a "progressive" mandate), The best democrat field would be something like Bill Gates / Joe Manchin.
Bill Gates because he directly challenges the "success" credentials of Trump. Basically, everything Trump has done, Gates has done better. He also is poised to strike a huge social media presence as he is already in the top 100 followed twitter accounts.
Joe Manchin because he is a Democrat from a southern state, and he is in the current Senate leadership so he is likely to be well received by the establishment. Plus, he has a background as the president of a coal mining company.
Also, they are both white dudes.
Please tell me this is a joke.
Trump didn't win for his financial success. That was just an excuse to make up for his complete lack of real experience—"Sure, he has no idea how government works, but LOOK HOW SUCCESSFUL HE IS!" It would also only fly with Republicans, since Democrats generally hate Big Business more than they hate career politicians. Clinton was disliked by progressives because she was seen as being in bed with Big Business.
Bill Gates is an elitist, through and through—Republicans would hate him as a smug, extremely rich city liberal, and Democrats would hate him as a smug, extremely rich citizen of Wall Street. Independents would shrug it off as an election between two corrupt 1%ers, just like they shrugged off Clinton vs. Trump.
I don't understand this idea that being part of the establishment is what Democrats need right now to win. Their problem is being seen as out-of-touch. Do you think Clinton lost because the...
You have confused my statement about who is most likely to actually win, with who I think should win, or what I think is best for the country right now. I didn't answer those second two questions.
But the point I was making about Gates is that he has *actual* chops in creating jobs. He has innovation experience; in creating an industry which dominates in demand for high paying America-based jobs to the point that we have to import HUMANS to fill all the spots. (H1B visa). That's the "sell" point for Gates over Trump.
Also, his ability to galvanize a movement using an existing social media presence.
Establishment is needed to funnel in the cash during the general, and also getting party folks with a voice behind you.
Manchin being a Southern Democrat is a huge difference in trustability/relatability with blue collar. Also, he has direct ties to the coal industry.