2017: Whither Democrats?


#121

I think you have it exactly right. Both parties actually do better with unconventional or at least new candidate. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton weren’t new to politics but compared to the mostly Senators they were up against they were fresh faces. It was a bit easier George W Bush to make the case he was an outsider than McCain (although they both had pro’s and con’s in the front.)

Overall what I find absolutely shocking is the complete lack of diversity of Democratic candidates. For all the talk of diversity in the Democrat party, it is all such a superficial diversity, race, sex, sexual orientation. So many of Democratic politician went to law school, then got jobs as staffers or in the government, or academia.

Al Franken is about the last non-politician I can remember the Democrats having with some national prominence. If you think about there are probably 10 Democrats in the entertainment field for every Republican. But Republicans have had Reagan, and Arnold, Clint Eastwood and Congressman Sono Bono and a lot of sports stars. Now, I think it is ridiculous to run for President without having some political experience. But for Senate, or Governer, or big city Mayor, it is fine. You don’t have to work your way up from city council member to state senator etc. Precious few Democratic politician have had much of life outside of government or law. Where are the Democrats who ran charities, invented something, directed movies, found the Titanic, or did anything in the private sector?

I think there is little chance of convincing the America public you want to fix the system if you’ve spent your whole life in it. Unless you have tons of charisma, like Obama or Bill Clinton.


#122

In PA, every statewide state office was won by a Democrat.


#123

Yeah, I guess I get the anger of folks protesting a legal election in the streets and signing that goofy petition to recruit faithless electors (good luck with that; the Republican electors were carefully chosen from the ranks of fervent Trump supporters). I understand the helplessness.

But here’s the stark truth: 33 of 50 governors in 2017 will be Republicans. Of the 99 state legislative chambers in the United States, in 2017, 68 will be controlled by Republicans. Democrats put way too much importance on just the 4-years presidential elections, and it’s killed them.

So, if you want to protest Trump and if you want to hold the GOP accountable for nominating him and electing him, do this instead: make a pledge to vote in every single piddly ass election in your community no matter how small, forevermore. Town council elections, school board elections, statewide elections, congressional midterms, whatever. Vote in those things. They really do matter. And they’re the only practical way to rebuild the Democratic Party.


#124

God damn right Trig. This is the solution, and this has been part of the problem.

Do you want to know why Pennsylvania Republicans have 13 of 18 seats in the US house, despite the vote being very nearly an even split? THIS IS WHY! They won when they needed to so they could redraw the districts.

Do you want to know why states like Wisconsin were able to sign laws that disenfranchised minority votes? THIS IS WHY!

So let’s do it people. Get your ass off the couch for that municipal office. Get the hell out and vote en masse in 2018. Do your damn civic duty.


#125

On a related note, how in the hell can I make a lick of difference though? I live in one of the safest D districts in one of the most firmly blue states, with 2 Democrat senators, in a county where most offices were uncontested by Republicans. There is literally zero electoral impact I can have, at any level, for the national party.


#126

Interesting, but lots of speculation. If true though, holy hell that’s some arrogance.

To make matters worse, because Republicans had a non-existent ground game in many areas this cycle, this powerful reminder from a Clinton volunteer to get out and vote might have been the only personalized GOTV communication these Trump voters received…Volunteers reported as many as 30% of the replies they received from voters they were urging to get out were Trump supporters.

That doesn’t make any sense…those should have been handled early. Unless, again, arrogance and ignoring the critical feedback loop in making predictions off data, where when your predictions aren’t reflecting reality, you figure out why - is is just bad RNG and to hold the line or is something actually there. I can’t believe that didn’t happen (back to arrogance).

Also, lol at trying to sell “big organizing” ala Bernie as the correct approach, or as if it’s a different approach at all. It’s the same thing - figure out who’s likely to support you. That data gathering process isn’t exactly foreign (or maybe it was, back to arrogance again)


#127

So speaking of Democratic leadership… looks like the DNC chair battle is going to be Keith Ellison vs. Howard Dean (vs. Brazille, presumably)? Anyone hearing other names getting involved?


#128

Donating to quality candidates in contested districts?


#129

Okay, so maybe some of us should decide to run for local offices?


#130

[quote=“AntediluvianArk, post:106, topic:126881”]
I don’t think the Bernie “dead-enders” are really the cause of Hillary’s loss.[/quote]
I think that’s probably right, but the probabilities said that Clinton would win the general election, so who knows? It’s certainly an interesting hypothetical, and given how close the race was I think it’s reasonable to wonder how the campaign would have gone if Bernie Sanders hadn’t provided Donald Trump with quite so many talking points about how Clinton was a compromised candidate.

Asking if Sanders would have done better than Clinton is not an interesting hypothetical, since a head-to-head competition proved Clinton to be a more popular candidate than Sanders among Democrats. Expecting the socialist candidate to make up for that shortfall on the left by winning the hearts and minds of conservative Americans is silly.

I guess “what if Biden had run?” might also be an interesting hypothetical, both because we don’t have the results of a primary to help us answer it, but also because I’m more willing to believe that Biden might have had some real crossover appeal to non-Democrats. But I think “socialism” is going to remain a toxic label in national American politics for at least the next decade.

[quote=“Alstein, post:118, topic:126881”]
The big thing that turns out low-motivation voters is consumers and workers rights , and their pocketbook. That’s why I think Bernie could have won.[/quote]
This sounds like a plausible list of the big motivators for low-motivation Democrats, not low-motivation voters. And, once again: Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary running on these issues. Why do you think he would have fared better in the general election?


#131

Well the question then becomes: were those voters classic lower case c- conservative, or were they socially moderate, even indifferent, people who wanted the populist economic message of Trump?

Because that second group? Yeah, they could have been reachable. Remeber, Sanders won Michigan in the primary.

Now I am not positing Sanders would have won, but I am positing that it is very possible he may have energized some of those very people that cost Clinton the election. Would it have outpaced those he lost for his message? Given how (irrationally) hated Clinton is, I sincerely doubt it. Her name alone probably turned off as many voters as Sanders labels would have.


#132

They just wanted to buy into a strong man who told them that he’d fix things.

Sanders would have been equally demonized to them as being “a socialist”. And that would have been the end of that. They never would have voted for him.


#133

But we already hear word about how, in Union rallies in Michigan, there was low turnout and low enthusiasm. These are traditional reliable Democrat votes. Did they not vote, and might have for a different message/ candidate? Did they vote Donald due to protectionism pie in the sky talk?

If the answer is yes to either question it is quite plausible that they might have voted in enough numbers to swing the election. Remember how close Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania were. It wouldn’t need much.

Plus there is, I posit, an equally large number of people who would NEVER vote for Clinton. I have one co-worker, ex army, who is a traditionally Republican voter. One who, in both 2008 and 2012, voted Obama. But this year he voted Trump. And his own words say that is because of Clinton. He didn’t like Trump, but despised Hillary. Now, granted, his vote was irrelevant because of state, but don’t you think that there was more than a little of that?

Perhaps you are right, and he would have been just as doomed. But I do not take that as a given.


#134

Yeah. Hilllary ran ahead of the single-payer measure in CO, as an example.

The run up weeks to the election were literally dominated by hundreds of different stories all from her hacked email. It worked. People worked themselves up into a hate frenzy.

She seems to be doing okay anyway post election:


#135

That’s as probable as all the posts how any other Republican candidate could beat Clinton. Until the experts understand, if ever, why people voted how they voted, who the hell knows…


#136

It’s possible. But honestly, I think that the Democrats just had a weak field. As laughable as the GOP’s clowncar was, at least people like Rubio could potentially be a future for the party.

The fact that we had two absolutely ancient people running for office was not a good choice.

We need younger people in government, who are better in touch with the modern world.


#137

The People’s Champion!


#138


#139

Bernie lost due to a combination of HIllary getting BIll’s black church vote and a heavy Dem thumb on the scales. He might have won a fair primary, and I believe he would have won the general.


#140

And the infighting over the next DNC chair has already begun: