Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

and now we all need to live in a house where someone blew all the fuses, set the kitchen on fire and refuses to call the fire department because they know fire fighting better than the fire department. Mostly because of people with butter knives, but also partially because people thought they were too good for oatmeal. Oatmeal didn't speak to their existential existance.

Some people think this will lead directly to that shiny new range top oven, but more likely we're going to be so busy spending to put in new wiring that we can't


thejeff wrote:

I say again, even more strongly: If the future of the Democratic party is angry arguments over who should run for President in 2020, the party is toast.

There are elections everywhere in 2018 and some local ones even sooner. That's where we need to be focused. Well, there and encouraging our current Congresscritters to do what they can to blunt the damage of the next couple years.

Forget 2020 for now. Build the party locally. Shape it towards what you want if you can.

BigDTBone wrote:
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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:


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.

That was exactly what the established thought was for the "Blue Wall" states of the Rust Belt, which had historically been strong union states for the Democrats. Trump took just about every single one of them. Trump won because he took a significant amount of voters who had previously voted for Obama.

Those voters would have gone for Sanders because 1. He did speak to their issues the way Trump had (and Clinton did not sufficiently), and 2. Sanders was running under the Democratic flag which they ordinarily would have been predisposed to vote for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dems need to keep ahold of the progressive votes: Selling out on progressive values at any level of the election for government isn't likely to work super well, unless we want a lot of Democrat in name only folks.

I think the thing is...if you are operating in areas outside of a big city, pitch your campaign platform around progressive ideas revolving around education, economy, and health care. Those issues not only touch everyone but do so in a really obvious way that touches people lives.

Reading on Politico today Betsy De Vos may actually not get her nomination confirmed, because education is the one thing to raise concern amongst voters of very different backgrounds.

And actually have fundraising folks and the DNC throw there weight behind some of these elections, rather than completely writing them off. Even if they spend money with modest results, the next election cycle may benefit for the ground work laid down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

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.

BigDTBone wrote:

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

...

No, I'm saying that your choices would never win. They're terrible, terrible candidates nobody would support.

Also, the Rust Belt isn't southern.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

and now we all need to live in a house where someone blew all the fuses, set the kitchen on fire and refuses to call the fire department because they know fire fighting better than the fire department. Mostly because of people with butter knives, but also partially because people thought they were too good for oatmeal. Oatmeal didn't speak to their existential existance.

Some people think this will lead directly to that shiny new range top oven, but more likely we're going to be so busy spending to put in new wiring that we can't

None of this is wrong (except the last paragraph, which is where the metaphor starts to break down into incrementalist slush), but as I said, it's pointless to blame the voters. If the Democrats' plan is to complain about how voters "should have known better", they'll be making the exact same mistake all over again.

"They'll fall in line."
*They don't fall in line*
"Well, they should have, and the moral victory is what really matters."


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

No, I'm saying that your choices would never win. They're terrible, terrible candidates nobody would support.

Also, the Rust Belt isn't southern.

So, assuming that someone who disagrees with your position is ignorant is a dangerous place to go. Assuming that I don't know the geography of the US instead of perhaps looking more deeply for the link I am implying is a short sighted reaction at best.

As for the other point; SHRUG if you say so. I think your response ignores the methodology of the current candidate that won the office, in favor of a method that you believe would have "fixed" the previous losing campaign.

Which has a higher reliability? Replicating the current winning strategy or trying to guess what went wrong with the losing strategy?

Also, you may find this interesting: PBS Newshour Quiz


I didn't assume you were "ignorant"—you're just taking my disagreement overly personally. My not agreeing with you is not an attack on you as a person. I already explained why your candidates would lose, but to recap the problems with your reasoning:

1. Trump's main appeal was not that he was a businessman. That was the excuse his supporters clung to to justify his lack of real experience. They liked him because he was an outsider, because he said what they wanted to hear. They wanted a wall. They wanted a guy who would talk s@*~ about Europe and China. They wanted a guy who told them, "It's not racist to be afraid of Muslims. Political correctness has gone too far." And they wanted him because he wasn't Clinton. "He's a businessman" was an excuse, not a real motivation. You can tell because he's not actually a very good businessman. His followers might have recognized that if they hadn't been caught up with his message.

2. Trump was a Republican candidate. They have different standards and different hatreds. Trump isn't the "winning strategy", he's the winning Republican strategy. And even then, he got historically low turnout.

Additionally, you are determined to run candidates markedly similar to the candidate who just lost the election: Wealthy white moderate insiders with close ties to Wall Street and little ability to relate to the working stiffs of America. So you're actually replicating a losing strategy, then magnifying it.

EDIT: Also, it's sort of funny that you complain about me painting you as "ignorant", then immediately try to paint me as being in a "bubble" for not believing one of the richest, whitest, most urban men alive wouldn't be able to relate to the poor rural working class.


Mmm... incrementalist slushie...

Yes. We are stuck with incrementalism.

Right now you can barely get enough democrats into office to pass any legislation on a good year: the electorate is still too gerrymandered from the republicans last push into the state and local elections. They're running at too much of a disadvantage because of unlimited amounts of dark money that can be poured into campaigns, and some of their core voting blocks have a lot more trouble voting these days.

Getting moderate democrats into office can undo some of that, and THAT can get a progressive elected. Yes, firing up the base is important, but you have to remember that it turns away the middle voters, and there's a lot more of them, especially democrats.


This is more a failure of the "top-down" approach Democrats unwisely attached themselves to than a reason to race further to the right.

"Middle voters" as the incrementalists paint them are a myth from a bygone era. Independents and non-voters aren't firm moderates, they're politically "illiterate"* or feeling alienated by the two parties. The only real win Democrats have gotten since Clinton was with a president who promised strong progressive action. Trouble was, Democrats were still fighting top-down and neglected too many key regions, leaning to people like Blue Dog Democrats screwing them over and Republicans winning the propaganda war.

*And before someone gets outraged about this, what I mean is they don't really have strong opinions or information about politics.


there was very little difference between hillary's and obama's positions, much less the policies that came out.

The difference is he pumped charisma


BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

No, I'm saying that your choices would never win. They're terrible, terrible candidates nobody would support.

Also, the Rust Belt isn't southern.

So, assuming that someone who disagrees with your position is ignorant is a dangerous place to go. Assuming that I don't know the geography of the US instead of perhaps looking more deeply for the link I am implying is a short sighted reaction at best.

As for the other point; SHRUG if you say so. I think your response ignores the methodology of the current candidate that won the office, in favor of a method that you believe would have "fixed" the previous losing campaign.

Which has a higher reliability? Replicating the current winning strategy or trying to guess what went wrong with the losing strategy?

Also, you may find this interesting: PBS Newshour Quiz

You're also assuming a winning Republican strategy will work for Democrats. Here's a hint. It won't.

Especially not without decades of prep work we don't have and 8 years of specific Tea Party rage to build on.
Trying to imitate Trump with Trump-lite isn't an option. It would be a disaster.

Honestly the plan for 2020 is to see if Trump crashes and burns. If he does, whichever Democrat wins the nomination will take the general in a walk. If he doesn't, it won't matter.


thejeff wrote:
whichever Democrat wins the nomination will take the general in a walk.

That is literally the assumption that got us here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

You're also assuming a winning Republican strategy will work for Democrats. Here's a hint. It won't.

There's a saying about the effectiveness of tacking right for the Democrat in the Post-Reagan years.

"If you give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll take the Republican."

The Democrats are not the mono-culture that defines the Republican base. They can't play that game, at least at this point I think they can't play that game.

Unfortuntely a lot of Democrats that still hold their seats are up for re-election in states that went for Trump in a big way. I don't see how the party avoids even more shrinkage in 2018.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

there was very little difference between hillary's and obama's positions, much less the policies that came out.

The difference is he pumped charisma

In terms of actual effective policies? Yeah, not much difference. But Obama billed himself as a progressive, while Clinton billed herself as an incrementalist. Guess who won? :P


BigNorseWolf wrote:

there was very little difference between hillary's and obama's positions, much less the policies that came out.

The difference is he pumped charisma

He also came off 8 years of Bush. I think even Hillary would have done okay with that dynamic.

A good chunk of voters have memories that don't last a couple of election cycles. It's turned dem politics into a dance where every time we move a step forward...we get knocked back two steps in the next election.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
whichever Democrat wins the nomination will take the general in a walk.
That is literally the assumption that got us here.

Not at all. The environment is completely different if the Republicans have just burned the country to the ground.

Following a fairly, but not wildly successful President from your own party is a different story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To reply to multiple convo threads:

The democratic party should not moderate itself as a whole anymore than it already has. If your running in a red state...Focus on economy/healthcare/education, and be moderate. If your in a blue state, swing for ever more progressive goals. You can win more territory and swing for progressive goals...it's not an either/or

As for the presidential election, Trump's win is a perfect storm of political and cultural events that I don't think can be replicated by either party in a future election cycle. You have a businessman concerned with image who used the appearance of success to launch a reality show that turned him into a celebrity, and he then used that celebrity status as a platform for free publicity and the airing of political thoughts. Neither the news or members of both parties treated him as a serious contender until he was nominated, and a crowded field meant he didn't need to win all that much support to come out on top, especially in an anti-establishment year.

Dem's can't really turn to a non-politician for the next election to replicate that effect (As much as they might want to seriously recruit George Clooney and a few other actors), especially since a lot of trump's argument style just doesn't translate well to dem voters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
whichever Democrat wins the nomination will take the general in a walk.
That is literally the assumption that got us here.

Not at all. The environment is completely different if the Republicans have just burned the country to the ground.

Following a fairly, but not wildly successful President from your own party is a different story.

The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.

It doesn't matter if the Republicans just burned the country to the ground.

Republicans will look people right in the eye and say everything going well is happening because of heroic Republican efforts in the face of unprecedented obstructionism from the Democrat. But, despite that Republicans were able to deliver the goods. Then they will say everything going wrong is 100% the fault of the obstructionist Democrats, it's all because of entitlements, identity politics, taxes, and government overreach. If Republicans could just get those Democrats out of the way then we could make things REALLY good.

And Democrats will sit there slack-jawed, bumble around with some charts, and then try to use the truth to prove the previous statements wrong. But they can't. Because they suck at sales. They can't sell it. And that is all that matters today. If this is a post-fact world then the Democrats need to be prepared to wage a post-fact campaign. Democrats need to learn to criticize first and deny later. Democrats need to learn to be hypocrites and condemn in others those actions they pride themselves in.

The Republicans could literally burn the country down, get caught with the lighter and the gas in their hands, and they would still blame it on the Democrats. And because the Republicans are GOOD at sales; people will believe them.

Like you said earlier, the Republicans are playing for keeps. They are going to load up the Supreme Court with 50-somethings, Gerrymander the hell out of every district they can find a way to re-draw, suppress voting rights for 2 generations, and laugh on the way to the bank.

Do you think the Republicans will play fair?

Do you think the Democrats can afford to play fair?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's an exaggeration. The Republicans were widely blamed for the Bush disaster. Trouble is, it didn't last—not because Democrats are bad at sales, but because they never bothered to sell at all to the places where it mattered when it mattered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
whichever Democrat wins the nomination will take the general in a walk.
That is literally the assumption that got us here.

Not at all. The environment is completely different if the Republicans have just burned the country to the ground.

Following a fairly, but not wildly successful President from your own party is a different story.

The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.

It doesn't matter if the Republicans just burned the country to the ground.

Republicans will look people right in the eye and say everything going well is happening because of heroic Republican efforts in the face of unprecedented obstructionism from the Democrat. But, despite that Republicans were able to deliver the goods. Then they will say everything going wrong is 100% the fault of the obstructionist Democrats, it's all because of entitlements, identity politics, taxes, and government overreach. If Republicans could just get those Democrats out of the way then we could make things REALLY good.

And Democrats will sit there slack-jawed, bumble around with some charts, and then try to use the truth to prove the previous statements wrong. But they can't. Because they suck at sales. They can't sell it. And that is all that matters today. If this is a post-fact world then the Democrats need to be prepared to wage a post-fact campaign. Democrats need to learn to criticize first and deny later. Democrats need to learn to be hypocrites and condemn in others those actions they pride themselves in.

The Republicans could literally burn the country down, get caught with the lighter and the gas in their hands, and they would still blame it on the Democrats. And because the Republicans are GOOD at sales; people will believe them.

Like you said earlier, the Republicans are playing for keeps. They are going to load up the Supreme Court with 50-somethings, Gerrymander the hell out of every district they can find a way to re-draw, suppress voting rights for 2 generations, and laugh on the way to the bank.

Do you think the Republicans will play fair?

Do you think the Democrats can afford to play fair?

If Republicans get far enough with the voter suppression it might not matter. Hell, we might not even have elections or they might be completely rigged. That renders all of this basically moot.

Short of that, the state of the country matters. It matters more than anything else.


BigDTBone wrote:

Do you think the Republicans will play fair?

Do you think the Democrats can afford to play fair?

The Democrats can not use the Republican playbook. For one very basic reason. The Republicans can basically play to a mono-culture and those who want to suck up to that mono-culture. The Democrats on the other hand are a Big Tent party which encompasses a bunch of cultures that don't neccessarily like each other that much. And they really can't play the game of pick one and screw the others.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's an exaggeration. The Republicans were widely blamed for the Bush disaster. Trouble is, it didn't last—not because Democrats are bad at sales, but because they never bothered to sell at all to the places where it mattered when it mattered.

Unwilling to / Didn't do / Bad at

These are distinctions without differences


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Do you think the Republicans will play fair?

Do you think the Democrats can afford to play fair?

The Democrats can not use the Republican playbook. For one very basic reason. The Republicans can basically play to a mono-culture and those who want to suck up to that mono-culture. The Democrats on the other hand are a Big Tent party which encompasses a bunch of cultures that don't neccessarily like each other that much. And they really can't play the game of pick one and screw the others.

There is more than one way to not play fair.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Admittedly if you are unwilling to fire a bow, you are de facto bad at archery.


BigDTBone wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Do you think the Republicans will play fair?

Do you think the Democrats can afford to play fair?

The Democrats can not use the Republican playbook. For one very basic reason. The Republicans can basically play to a mono-culture and those who want to suck up to that mono-culture. The Democrats on the other hand are a Big Tent party which encompasses a bunch of cultures that don't neccessarily like each other that much. And they really can't play the game of pick one and screw the others.
There is more than one way to not play fair.

We're talking about ways that can or actually have been practised. The Republicans have a winning strategy, we've established that the Democrats aren't built to use that strategy. No one however has come up with a magic bullet to defeat the Republican's winning strategy.

And again because the Democrats have let themselves be caught flatfooted with Republican gains on the local level, the window of recovery may simply be closed for this party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And again because the Democrats have let themselves be caught flatfooted with Republican gains on the local level, the window of recovery may simply be closed for this party.

If that is true, we're f@~*ed. However badly off the Democratic party is, no alternative has anything like the strength, the base or the position. In the best of cases that would likely mean ceding the country to the Republican party for a decade or so. Given the current nature of the Republican party and its willingness to rewrite the rules to its advantage, I doubt any new opposition party would have the chance to arise - except possibly through in-fighting in the GOP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.

Allan Lichtman, seemingly the only person alive who predicted Drumpf's win, was actually wrong. The test he uses to predict presidential wins doesn't distinguish between popular and electoral votes -- it assumes that he or she who wins the popular wins the White House. This test correctly predicts every presidential election since 1860, and yet it got Hillary wrong by 3M votes. She beat the odds.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Hillary fanboy, and would happily voted Bernie in the general. But Hillary's loss doesn't have anything to do with her -- she lost because the EC favors red states, because there is an entire industry and cultural movement based on fake news and lies, because Republicans have gerrymandered the frak out of their districts, and because they are largely amoral. (Dark money, dirty tactics.) The playing field is slanted toward the red goalposts.

So I think that all of the Democratic introspection I've heard since the election is largely frivolous. What we have to do to win is simple: we have to dig our feet in, obstruct, and give the Republican party a taste of their own hateful medicine over the next four -- or sanity forbid eight -- years. (See Indivisble: a Practical Guide to Resisting the Trump Agenda.) We have to gerrymander the frak out of our districts in 2020 -- at least until an opportunity arises to institute the popular vote -- so that we can start crushing the Republican party in both local and national elections. We need to ignore Drumpf & co's inane tweets and press releases that everyone sane knows are lies, call him out for his exec actions, call Republican congressfolk out for their legislation, and ensure that Drump's failures stick to the party. We need to be the better first party, but we might have to compromise our morals -- we live in an ugly political reality, and we can't create progress from the minority position.

Yeah, it sucks and I hate it. I'd love to be more idealistic, and be able to ignore politics when it's not voting day. But the truth is awful and banal: We've got a long and ugly grind ahead of us, and we'll only get progress via constant vigilance and action.


I'm not buying the "dems suck as salesmen" argument, otherwise the democratic party wouldn't exist. Politics is about convincing folks you are better than the other person, and it's not like people in red states are a completely different species.

If Dems are doing poorly in those states, it more that they are not selling their message as well to that audience


Vidmaster7 wrote:

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.

Not sure about the "top of a mountain" part, but I agree on the "cutting ties" parts.

Kinda like the Military, to some degrees.


MMCJawa wrote:

I'm not buying the "dems suck as salesmen" argument, otherwise the democratic party wouldn't exist. Politics is about convincing folks you are better than the other person, and it's not like people in red states are a completely different species.

If Dems are doing poorly in those states, it more that they are not selling their message as well to that audience

Sales in this context means controlling the discussion;

For no reason besides that the Democrats haven't been able to stop them, Republicans currently control the discussion in the following topics:

Domestic safety / domestic terrorism
Immigration
Gun control
Climate change / energy policy
Job creation
Healthcare
Education
Military policy

So how the f$&# did that happen?!? They literally SUCK at all of those topics! But they have been able to control the conversation either by claiming to be superior or by juxtaposing separate issues in a way that seems related to uninformed people.

It happened because they are better at sales. Democrats still win in some places because those places are left stronghold and aren't flipping anytime soon, OR in places/times when those topics are not forefront.


MMCJawa wrote:

I'm not buying the "dems suck as salesmen" argument, otherwise the democratic party wouldn't exist. Politics is about convincing folks you are better than the other person, and it's not like people in red states are a completely different species.

If Dems are doing poorly in those states, it more that they are not selling their message as well to that audience

Sucked this Election =/= Suck all the time.


MMCJawa wrote:

I'm not buying the "dems suck as salesmen" argument, otherwise the democratic party wouldn't exist. Politics is about convincing folks you are better than the other person, and it's not like people in red states are a completely different species.

If Dems are doing poorly in those states, it more that they are not selling their message as well to that audience

Consider that they're not selling the same product: the democratic party actually IS better but they suck at sales.

The republican party sucks but is amazing at sales.

In no case can you assume either the product or the salesmanship based on the final result.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

there was very little difference between hillary's and obama's positions, much less the policies that came out.

The difference is he pumped charisma

In terms of actual effective policies? Yeah, not much difference. But Obama billed himself as a progressive, while Clinton billed herself as an incrementalist. Guess who won? :P

That would be charisma. That would be spin. That's what we need to get the ball rolling. Not some drastic overhaul that may or may work.. or might drive people away.


It's more about message than charisma. Nobody's going to say Bernie Sanders is a pillar of charisma, but he was very, very focused on his message.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.

Allan Lichtman, seemingly the only person alive who predicted Drumpf's win, was actually wrong. The test he uses to predict presidential wins doesn't distinguish between popular and electoral votes -- it assumes that he or she who wins the popular wins the White House. This test correctly predicts every presidential election since 1860, and yet it got Hillary wrong by 3M votes. She beat the odds.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Hillary fanboy, and would happily voted Bernie in the general. But Hillary's loss doesn't have anything to do with her -- she lost because the EC favors red states, because there is an entire industry and cultural movement based on fake news and lies, because Republicans have gerrymandered the frak out of their districts, and because they are largely amoral. (Dark money, dirty tactics.) The playing field is slanted toward the red goalposts.

So I think that all of the Democratic introspection I've heard since the election is largely frivolous. What we have to do to win is simple: we have to dig our feet in, obstruct, and give the Republican party a taste of their own hateful medicine over the next four -- or sanity forbid eight -- years. (See Indivisble: a Practical Guide to Resisting the Trump Agenda.) We have to gerrymander the frak out of our districts in 2020 -- at least until an opportunity arises to institute the popular vote -- so that we can start crushing the Republican party in both local and national elections. We need to ignore Drumpf & co's inane tweets and press releases that everyone sane knows are lies, call him out for his exec actions, call Republican congressfolk out for their legislation, and ensure that Drump's failures stick to the party. We need to be the...

I'm not that interested in arguing over whether or not Clinton's loss "beat the odds", but I will say this:

Obstructionism generally favors the Republicans, because they're the ones who run on "the federal government is incompetent".


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm gonna disagree with a lot of folks here: Hillary won the vote, and she won it big despite the odds.

Winning the vote doesn't matter diddly squat if you can't win the Electoral College. And that's been the Republican strategy that they've been working on for decades.. stack the votes to win the EC. And locally the Democrats did not get the gains they were expecting to sweep over in the Senate and the House. The Party itself has been in freefall since the first Obama victory. The party is losing badly in the local and state votes because their constituency is overall less fired up to vote... and those who are fired up are dealing with an ever increasing tide of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

And to those who say "Junk the Electoral College" not going to happen unless the Republicans are on board with doing so.

After the projected Dem losses in 2018, the installation of the Scallia clone this month, there won't be a thing the Dems can do to block a single Republican action. I can't remember the last time a single party had unilateral control over all three branches of government.

It's Game Over, and they've won.


In actual news, rather than rehashing the primaries: Two Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowksi (AK), have announced they'll vote against confirming Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Since it looks like no Democrat will support her, one more Republican backing out and she can be rejected.

Likely prospects are apparently Jeff Flake (AZ) and Dean Heller (NV), somewhat less likely might be Rob Portman (OH), Pat Toomey (PA), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Deb Fischer (NE) and Jerry Moran (KS). If you live in one of those states, give them a call. It might actually make a difference.

Hell, call your Senators anyway. A little pressure, or support depending, never hurts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like how thejeff's post artfully, and entirely accidentally, refuted Drahlianna's "Game Over" declaration.

Trump's control over the Senate remains frail at best, and can be shattered with effortful electioneering. Keep the pressure on and we just might survive the next two years.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Schumer wrote:
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.

Schumer is not actually wrong here. Earning $300,000 and living in Cedar Rapids Iowa and $300,000 in Manhattan are two very different things. For the price of a studio apartment in Manhattan you can live in an entire house in Iowa.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I like how thejeff's post artfully, and entirely accidentally, refuted Drahlianna's "Game Over" declaration.

Trump's control over the Senate remains frail at best, and can be shattered with effortful electioneering. Keep the pressure on and we just might survive the next two years.

We have to bring the A game to the mid-terms. Of 33 senate seats up in 2018, 25 are Democrats or vote with Democrats. In a mid-term election that could spell some fairly substantial losses.


If the Democrats loose in 2018 I want them to at least go down fighting. I am going to see what I can do to help the local Democratic party here despite being an independent voter. The Republican party is now the Alt-Right party and needs to be stopped. We may loose but the Republicans will know that they have been in a fight.


BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I like how thejeff's post artfully, and entirely accidentally, refuted Drahlianna's "Game Over" declaration.

Trump's control over the Senate remains frail at best, and can be shattered with effortful electioneering. Keep the pressure on and we just might survive the next two years.

We have to bring the A game to the mid-terms. Of 33 senate seats up in 2018, 25 are Democrats or vote with Democrats. In a mid-term election that could spell some fairly substantial losses.

And how many of those 25 Democrats are in states that voted Red last year?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I like how thejeff's post artfully, and entirely accidentally, refuted Drahlianna's "Game Over" declaration.

Trump's control over the Senate remains frail at best, and can be shattered with effortful electioneering. Keep the pressure on and we just might survive the next two years.

We have to bring the A game to the mid-terms. Of 33 senate seats up in 2018, 25 are Democrats or vote with Democrats. In a mid-term election that could spell some fairly substantial losses.
And how many of those 25 Democrats are in states that voted Red last year?

And quite frankly the Democrats have been fighting a rear guard action since Reagan's landslide.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Pan wrote:

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.

Anything is possible. I wasn't so much boldly proclaiming the resurgence of the Democratic Party as trying to move away from the myopic focus only on the Presidential race.

Again, it's possible we're seeing the collapse of the party. I don't think so, but it's possible. Given the nature of the modern Republican Party and the fact that any such collapse almost guarantees at least one more cycle of total Republican domination, I hesitate to guess at what comes next. The level of gerrymandering and voter suppression that will allow almost guarantee that any replacement party will have a very hard row to how to succeed. That might well mean an extended period as a one-party state. Or, more likely a fracturing of the dominant Republican...

The gutting of the voting rights act is part of what led to the recent gerrymandering that assisted Trump to a win (well that and pulling minority voters off of roles). I think that if Trump actually manages to bring jobs back to lower middle and middle class workers he will be hard to beat in a 2020 election. Between voter suppression and the belief by a blue collar base that he kept his promise where the Democrats have not (whether that is true or not) would be tough to overcome. Unless he makes some other YUGE mistakes along the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot's going to change in two years. Remember, the real problem wasn't voters flipping—it was voters sitting the election out because they were frustrated with Clinton.

Fear and anger are going to go a long way if the Democrats learn to use them.

Storyteller Shadow wrote:
The gutting of the voting rights act is part of what led to the recent gerrymandering that assisted Trump to a win (well that and pulling minority voters off of roles). I think that if Trump actually manages to bring jobs back to lower middle and middle class workers he will be hard to beat in a 2020 election. Between voter suppression and the belief by a blue collar base that he kept his promise where the Democrats have not (whether that is true or not) would be tough to overcome. Unless he makes some other YUGE mistakes along the way.

And that brings us to the Democrat's Party's secret weapon—don't tell anybody, shh!

Trump is actually extremely bad at literally everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I like how thejeff's post artfully, and entirely accidentally, refuted Drahlianna's "Game Over" declaration.

Trump's control over the Senate remains frail at best, and can be shattered with effortful electioneering. Keep the pressure on and we just might survive the next two years.

We have to bring the A game to the mid-terms. Of 33 senate seats up in 2018, 25 are Democrats or vote with Democrats. In a mid-term election that could spell some fairly substantial losses.
And how many of those 25 Democrats are in states that voted Red last year?

The whole House is up every 2 years. Gerrymandering swings that towards Republicans, but since they spread votes out to get more red districts it leaves them vulnerable in a wave election.

IOW, despite appearances, the House is more likely to change sides than the Senate. Don't get me wrong. It's an uphill battle and depends on both Dems fighting for it and Trump doing enough damage to register to people, but it's what we've got to work with.

So go call your Senators. :)


thejeff wrote:

In actual news, rather than rehashing the primaries: Two Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowksi (AK), have announced they'll vote against confirming Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. Since it looks like no Democrat will support her, one more Republican backing out and she can be rejected.

The committee also voted to change the rules so that Democrats can't forestall the process by boycotting the meetings.

In addition the Scalia-Clone has finally been unwrapped from it's plastic sheeting.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday encouraged Republican leaders in Congress to "go nuclear" if Democrats on the Hill move to block his Supreme Court nominee.

Speaking at at the White House, the president said Neil Gorsuch deserved a "unanimous endorsement" and if Democrats cause gridlock, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has his blessing to choose the so-called "nuclear option."

The move would rob the minority party of the right to filibuster a nominee, allowing Republicans to confirm Gorsuch with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 normally needed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

By the way, Drahliana, can I ask what you think you're accomplishing in this thread by posting to say "let's all give up"? Are you trying to save us some trouble? Seeking the intellectual high ground over us? We have other threads to complain, is the thing, so if that's what you want to do, you might be spared the arguments over there. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Storyteller Shadow wrote:
The gutting of the voting rights act is part of what led to the recent gerrymandering that assisted Trump to a win (well that and pulling minority voters off of roles). I think that if Trump actually manages to bring jobs back to lower middle and middle class workers he will be hard to beat in a 2020 election. Between voter suppression and the belief by a blue collar base that he kept his promise where the Democrats have not (whether that is true or not) would be tough to overcome. Unless he makes some other YUGE mistakes along the way.

Sure, but that's a YUGE "if". If he manages to pull that off, I'll give him a hell of a lot of credit. It would be a miracle - especially since he appears to plan to do it with tax cuts and bullying. Frankly, I'll be shocked if keeps from crashing the economy before 2018.

The coal jobs aren't coming back. Manufacturing might, but it's going to be even more automated and less labor intensive.

101 to 150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards