2017: Whither Democrats?


This just isn’t how it works. When you get beat on your right, you move right. You only move left when are beaten by or trying to stave off a challenge from your left. Other than specious claims of a glorious revolution, what exactly would a Bernie-like agenda have accomplished? Does the Rust belt want higher taxes paying for free college and universal healthcare, or does it want lower corporate taxes, protectionist trade policies, and fewer non-white job-seekers? Did people in MI, WI, and PA fail to vote for Hillary because she wasn’t sufficiently pro safety net?

This seems like a key issue and one that should receive some attention from a ballgame standpoint. Why didn’t they try to correct the problem in Michigan instead of taking it for granted? My guess is that polls were off and their polls made MI seem safe. I saw a piece on some show (I think it was the news, but it could have been the Daily Show) earlier in the year, where a union organizer was speaking to his members about the importance of voting for Hillary and what democrats would do for them. The place was nearly empty and had a bunch of people with arms crossed clearly not interested in the message. That seemed worrisome at the time but faded into background as so much else happened.

I do think this was part of the problem. In other words, Hillary’s policies were much better for the white working class in the Rust belt, she had concrete items that would actually improve their lives. But she didn’t pitch those things as her core message, she didn’t try to connect with those people in her ads, speeches, and debate performances. She only spouted policy points in response to direct questions about how to help them. Trump showed that he realized how bad things were for them, shared their anger at being left behind by technological progress, and provided them a set of scapegoats to blame for their problems (i.e., Obamacare, immigrants, NAFTA). I was truly scared when he started beating the NAFTA horse in the first debate, but I got caught up in all the scandalous stuff just like everyone else did. Most people vote their gut. My gut reviles the man for his attitude, his affiliations, and his rhetoric. If those things don’t bother you too much then you can be swayed by him saying a bunch of stuff you agree with, even if you know that it will be difficult to implement or perhaps even actively bad. That’s why people voted for Bernie too (though there at least they didn’t have to overcome vile character traits). For someone whose policy was firmly grounded in her ability to listen to people’s concerns, Hillary did a poor job of parroting those concerns to convince people she understood the problem. I don’t say that to knock Hillary, who was trying to use her resources the best she could and probably just underestimated the problems with former union-blue states.

Yes, Hillary proposed several things that would help them. The problem is that they don’t want to hear about a way forward, they want to hear how to get the old ways back (and, as I said above, Hillary was really bad at the affinity fraud game). Specifically, the ideas of (1) raising the minimum wage so people with jobs in the service sector can live more comfortably and buy more stuff, increasing the need for people to who make and sell stuff, (2) fixing the ACA so that people don’t have to remain locked in a job for healthcare and don’t have to choose between health and money, (3) making college free for people who make less than $125k would help all these families and their children improve their lives, and (4) investing in the green economy to create new jobs at solar and wind farms and new jobs making the components and designs that go into green products. These things will all help the Rust belt and will all be good specifically for people who are currently hurting by clinging to old, dying industries that keep cutting or outsourcing jobs.

To be fair here, though, Trump has also proposed things that will help these folks. Massive infrastructure improvements would create lots of jobs in a way that would have a lasting benefit for the country. We should have done it in 2009, but even now it would be good. Protectionist trade policy will only be useful if it targets China and even there it will hurt people by drastically increasing the cost of products. People who get a job out of it will be better off that they were without a job, but if a group of friends & family knows 2-3 people without jobs and therefore are all voting for protectionism, then they are hurting the rest of the group to help those 2-3 people. They would be better off with more government jobs paid for by their taxes, but protectionism will still help a little for the worst-off. Corporate tax incentives for bringing jobs to America would be a good way to lower corporate taxes and also create jobs. It wouldn’t be better in the long run, because the money is likely to be poorly spent mostly paying the richest folks even more, but in the short term it could create jobs in places that need them most. It only works at all, though, if the tax reduction specifically requires making stuff in the US and not just moving your headquarters here.


One thing that seems very clear: the ballyhooed Democratic digital team was playing checkers.

The RNC was playing chess.

Hillary Clinton in Arizona the last week of the campaign looks pretty silly now.


If that happens the Never trumps have someone to vote for, and Dems keep their base. Bernie still wins, but it’s close, or you get the House voting in Bloomberg.

Trump doesn’t get 270.


I don’t know if that’s the right analogy, but it certainly seems to be true that the Clinton team did not have good data. Here’s the thing, though, every indication was that Trump and his advisers also thought they were done, and their strategy was a hail mary because they really had no other option. It’s what I would do in their spot, but it doesn’t mean that they had some master plan and outplayed her. If you go all-in with J10 because it’s the best hand you’ve seen in hours and called by Aces, then flop 2-pair, you were lucky. Skill might have kept you in the game to that point, but your master plan wasn’t to survive long enough to get lucky on a longshot. I think what happened was Trump’s folks looked at the polls and said, “For us to win, these polls have to be right and the others have to be wrong, so let’s act like these polls are right.” Clinton’s team tried to run up the score in a game that looked won, instead of crushing all counter-play.



While I would normally agree with you the Dems weren’t beat by the traditional right at the executive level. Trump might even block or incapacitate traditional conservatives, yet to be seen. Moving left on a few key economic issues might offer a nice contrast to where Trump’s office ends up.


It only helps if there are votes there to grab, and the kinds of issues to move “left” on that appealed to Trump voters this time were old-guard stuff like pure union red meat. More extreme versions of the stuff she did propose don’t seem likely to have won more votes this year. I think the issue will be selling the policies and the new face of the party when it regains its footing will be someone who can sell them well. How left-leaning that makes the party will be more a matter of demographic shifts and the personal loyalties of that new face. Let’s hope it’s Warren or someone equally left-leaning.


Trump’s platform was straight up authoritarianism.

He combined leftist economic policies, with social conservative policies. Basically, whatever involves the greatest government power, that’s what he was pushing.

Although he would then also say he wanted to limit the size of government. Laughably, no one noticed that this didn’t match up with what he was actually proposing.


I had this discussion with a friend, and I asked her to name some up-and-coming Democrats…

She came up with Booker and Harris (CA AG). That was it. I’m having trouble seeing either of them in 2020.

There’s a complete dearth of promising young Dems. Biden, Bernie, and Warren are all Hillary’s age or older.

If you think about Bill Clinton and Obama, they both made their marks in the presidential cycle prior to their election. Both were onstage in prime time at the convention. I’m not sure we have anyone like that today.

Hell, Harry Reid and Obama are both officially retired in two months. The party is going to be leaderless soon.

Maybe Bloomberg goes for it? Maybe we can flip Cuban and run him as a conservative Dem?


Redditors love to tout Tulsi Gabbard as the next great liberal hope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

MD baggage aside, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of Martin O’Malley in four years’ time, but i have a soft spot for wonkish technocrats that’s a mile wide.

While a resident there, I really liked Massachusetts’s Deval Patrick, but he might have a bit too much MA Democrat baggage to be viable nationally. Then again, a candidate who probably raped half a dozen women just won the presidency, so what’s a few Big Dig bribes between friends?


[quote=“triggercut, post:82, topic:126881”]
One thing that seems very clear: the ballyhooed Democratic digital team was playing checkers.

The RNC was playing chess.
[/quote]That’s judging on outcomes, not process.


Republicans voted in the same numbers as 2012.
Liberals and left leaning voters stayed home, because unless the candidate is oratorically gifted, then why bother, right?

I’m think I’m now on board with the liberals are stupid train.


Julian castro
Eric garcetti
Michael Bennett
Deval Patrick
Cory booker
Kirsten gillibrand
Tulsi Gabbard
Martin O’Malley
Andrew cuomo
Amy klobucher
Chris Murphy
John hickenlooper


Apparently not, if these accounts are to be believed.

“It was a mismanaged campaign from the start, 150 percent,” one aide said. “There was so much stuff that needed fixing. I thought we might have learned some lessons from the primary. But as you can tell from last night, probably not.”

Less than 24 hours after the mood at the Clinton election night party at the Jacob Javits Convention Center turned from celebratory to funereal, aides wondered how they could have lost so badly, why they didn’t see it coming, and how the Democrat could have lost to Trump.

One surrogate blamed the poor sampling models and analytics that the campaign was so reliant on. It hadn’t done traditional tracking polls for the last month.

Other aides and surrogates pointed to an arrogance that came from the top.

Some faulted the top brass for not properly allocating the resources they needed to win states.

Given Clinton’s primary loss to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in Michigan, allies questioned why the Democratic nominee didn’t double down in the state much earlier.

Allies on the ground complained for weeks that they weren’t getting the resources they needed.

“The big question is ‘How much money did you spend? And what’s left in the bank?’ ” said one Clinton surrogate. “Because there were states like Michigan that kept sounding the alarm and no one was taking it seriously until the very end. They never really got everything they wanted.”

“We underestimated the Midwest,” acknowledged one longtime Clinton friend.

Clinton became the first Democratic presidential candidate since 1984 to lose Wisconsin, and the first since 1988 to lose Michigan and Pennsylvania.

“I don’t think we ever understood the political climate there,” the Clinton friend said. “I know some are questioning why we never went there in the final days.”[/quote]


Look, I’d vote for Black Santa, too, Especially if he picks Richard Sherman as his running mate, but it’s not gonna happen.


I’m skeptical of a lot of the names, but a charismatic unknown is still an option, and has 3 years or so to stake a claim. In terms of other up-and-comers, let’s not forget Tammy Duckworth and perhaps Catherine Cortez-Mastro. They might not be 2020 presidential names, but they could play big roles in a party looking for new leadership. I hope Pelosi and Schumer step aside and let Warren, Bernie, and the kids start running things. I suspect they won’t, though, at least not yet. For a 2020 field, my money’s on all of the following trying it out:

Julian Castro, Cory Booker, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin O’Malley, Tim Kaine, and perhaps Elizabeth Warren. There will likely be other names by then, but Gillibrand would be my top choice after Warren, followed by Booker.


[quote=“Telefrog, post:94, topic:126881”]
Apparently not, if these accounts are to be believed.
[/quote]Ah, that would be different then.

So evreyone was screwing around on that front.


[quote=“fdsaion, post:91, topic:126881, full:true”]

Trust me, I was judging process and not results. I’d been hearing many of the same complaints from the midwest and especially Colorado.


I was gonna say Obama should run for senate in 2018, but looks like there’s not a single beatable R up for reelection.

I hadn’t realised how messed up the senate was. There are 44 senate seats in 22 solid red states. Totalling 180 EVs.

So that’s states with 136 representatives, less than 32% of the total population wise (ish).

The same numbers for the Dems: 28 senate seats in 14 solid blue states. Totalling 183 EVs.

States with 157 representatives, just over 36% population wise (ish).

Now you can quibble over my solid red/ solid blue division, and there’s probably some errors in my math, but that’s a mockery. I knew it was bad, but not that bad.


Keep fucking that chicken DNC. Just keep fucking it.

Good on Zach for telling the truth, not that anyone listened.