0 - 4
I cannot think of any change in any position the Democratic Party could take that would attract more voters than it would repel.
Gun control
Abortion
Immigration
Taxation
Healthcare.
I am really interested in an answer.
The democrats could (and should) give up on gun control. Some guy executed 25 3rd graders and we still couldn't get meaningful gun control debated - let alone passed.
It's a lost cause. Give it up. What are liberals going to do? Vote republican?
RobB said:
The democrats could (and should) give up on gun control. Some guy executed 25 3rd graders and we still couldn't get meaningful gun control debated - let alone passed.
It's a lost cause. Give it up. What are liberals going to do? Vote republican?
No. Stay home or vote Third Party.
paulsurovell said:
Finally, A Democrat with the guts to say it.
Did any of the four Democratic Candidates make an issue of Russia? Did any even mention it?
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
Finally, A Democrat with the guts to say it.
Did any of the four Democratic Candidates make an issue of Russia? Did any even mention it?
Did the four Democratic Candidates campaign in a vacuum?
RobB said:
The democrats could (and should) give up on gun control. Some guy executed 25 3rd graders and we still couldn't get meaningful gun control debated - let alone passed.
It's a lost cause. Give it up. What are liberals going to do? Vote republican?
Except ...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Virtually every Democratic position on any issue is overwhelmingly popular with the American public. GOP positions are generally quite unpopular. And yet the GOP wins in the House, Senate and presidency. There are reasons of course:
- Gerrymandering
- Equal representation of every state in the Senate
- Electoral College.
- People don't vote the issues, they vote their identity or image of themselves
I don't see the Democratic Party taking back Congress any time soon barring some major, major shift in attitudes among tens of millions of people. But how that would happen, I have no idea. Now that people can choose their own media and essentially their own "fact," how does any information penetrate the bubble? How do the Democrats ever convince enough people to vote for them to overcome the gerrymandered advantage baked in for Republicans? How do they ever convince enough people in states like Indiana or Kentucky to vote for Democratic Senate candidates? I don't see it happening any time soon.
LOST said:
RobB said:
The democrats could (and should) give up on gun control. Some guy executed 25 3rd graders and we still couldn't get meaningful gun control debated - let alone passed.
It's a lost cause. Give it up. What are liberals going to do? Vote republican?
Except ...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Maybe the Democrats need to find a movie star/TV personality to run. Americans seem to vote in people they've enjoyed watching previously. It's worked for the Repubs (Reagan, Bono, Schwartzenegger, Trump), and even for the Democrats (Franken).
LOST said:
RobB said:
The democrats could (and should) give up on gun control. Some guy executed 25 3rd graders and we still couldn't get meaningful gun control debated - let alone passed.
It's a lost cause. Give it up. What are liberals going to do? Vote republican?
Except ...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
That 52% lives in states like CA, NY, MA, etc
From today's Best of the Web :
In the wake of Republican Karen Handel’s Tuesday victory over Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, Democrats are naturally looking for someone to blame. And unlike Mr. Ossoff during his campaign, many of them admit that they have formed an opinion about the leadership of their party in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The New York Times reports:
Among Democrats in Washington, the setback in Georgia revived or deepened a host of existing grievances about the party, accentuating tensions between moderate lawmakers and liberal activists and prompting some Democrats to question the leadership and political strategy of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader.
A Journal report suggests that Ms. Pelosi did help to encourage turnout, though perhaps not exactly in the way that Mr. Ossoff wanted:
Democratic divisions surfaced in the wake of Mr. Ossoff’s defeat by Republican Karen Handel, whose campaign mobilized GOP voters by linking Mr. Ossoff to liberal national party leaders. Republicans who sat out the first round of voting in April flocked to the polls, producing record-breaking turnout, in part because the race had drawn so much attention.
In a nutshell, the structural problem for the contemporary Democratic party is that its funding constituency in mostly urban areas on the coasts embraces Nancy Pelosi’s left-wing politics, but most voters don’t. Considering this situation, an increasingly vocal group of Democratic lawmakers now seem willing to risk fewer donations from Ms. Pelosi’s coastal check-writers in the hope of collecting more votes further inland.
And even some Democrats from coastal districts see the controversial Ms. Pelosi as no longer able to build a House majority. The Times reports:
Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, an open critic of Ms. Pelosi, called the Georgia result “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party.
Representative Kathleen Rice of New York told CNN the entire Democratic leadership team should go.
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who tried to unseat Ms. Pelosi as House minority leader late last fall, said she remained a political millstone for Democrats. But Mr. Ryan said the Democratic brand had also become “toxic” in much of the country because voters saw Democrats as “not being able to connect with the issues they care about.”
“Our brand is worse than Trump,” he said.
Someday, a conservative at MOL will start a thread giving us insight and perhaps a fresh way of looking at things that might cause us to say "hmmm. maybe he's right."
That day clearly has not arrived.
Call it what you want ML1, but the point is clear that many inside the Democratic party agree with me that the party's branding and messaging stink. But of course, as part of the Pelosi coastal coalition, you'd be less inclined to see or admit to that.
they're very good at concern trolling
drummerboy said:
Someday, a conservative at MOL will start a thread giving us insight and perhaps a fresh way of looking at things that might cause us to say "hmmm. maybe he's right."
That day clearly has not arrived.
ice said:
Call it what you want ML1, but the point is clear that many inside the party agree with me that the Democratic Party's branding and messaging stink. But of course, as part of the Pelosi coastal coalition, you'd be less inclined to see or admit to that.
the fact is, that polling shows those "left wing" "coastal" values are actually very popular with voters. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Generally, in aggregate more people vote for Democratic House and Senate candidates than Republicans.
There are things the Democratic Party needs to do differently to win elections. But listening to concern trolling pundits and frustrated DLC-types in their party is generally a losing strategy.
here's one example. There are others.
What right-wing populism? Polls reveal that it’s liberalism that’s surging.
The Dem popular vote margin...
...decreased almost 2 percentage points overall from 2012 to 2016, and
...decreased in 12 of the 13 swing states from 2012 to 2016, and
...was singlehandedly centered within California for 2016, which alone represented ~150% of the total margin (even NY, the second-largest Dem state, saw a decline).
Those coastal values seem increasingly popular with the one state that makes up most of the west coast apparently. If CA breaks off and falls into the ocean, it'll be one-party time for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.
there were the candidates, and there are the issues/values. The polls in the article I linked to show overwhelming support for liberal positions. And in those national polls, that can't be driven by just NY and CA.
it certainly isn't translating to Democratic victories. And that's likely because voters rightly decided that Democrats were also not coming through on those liberal values. So the notion that Democrats path to success is to tack right makes no sense. For 25 years they've been tacking right, doing worse at the ballot box, all while opinion polls show the country's people moving to the left.
The solution is obvious and clear. But the million-dollar pundits ridicule the notion that we can do anything for the working people who are struggling. Maybe we can't. But if we don't try, this country is in for more trouble than we've seen lately. Leaving a hundred million people without hope that their lives can better isn't a viable plan for the future.
ctrzaska said:
The Dem popular vote margin...
...decreased almost 2 percentage points overall from 2012 to 2016, and
...decreased in 12 of the 13 swing states from 2012 to 2016, and
...was singlehandedly centered within California for 2016, which alone represented ~150% of the total margin (even NY, the second-largest Dem state, saw a decline).
Those coastal values seem increasingly popular with the one state that makes up most of the west coast apparently. If CA breaks off and falls into the ocean, it'll be one-party time for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:
Did any of the four Democratic Candidates make an issue of Russia? Did any even mention it?
Did the four Democratic Candidates campaign in a vacuum?
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Why not?
They did not campaign in " a vacuum". They campaigned in their own Districts. I doubt that more than half a dozen voters in any one of the for Districts voted Republican because of Russia. OTOH there certainly may have been Independents and Republicans in those very Republican leaning Districts that went over to the Democrats because of the perceived closeness of some in the Trump Administration to Russia and even more so because of Trump's over reaction and defensiveness on the issue.
Simply because your obsessed over this does not mean the average citizen gives a hoot about it.
ice said:
Call it what you want ML1, but the point is clear that many inside the Democratic party agree with me that the party's branding and messaging stink. But of course, as part of the Pelosi coastal coalition, you'd be less inclined to see or admit to that.
So tell me specifically what changes the Dems should make to attract voters like you,
ctrzaska said:
Those coastal values seem increasingly popular with the one state that makes up most of the west coast apparently. If CA breaks off and falls into the ocean, it'll be one-party time for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.
California is not going to break off, but if California were actually to secede who would it hurt more, California or the US? Without the Coasts this isn't much of a country.
The US without New York, LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Boston is like France without Paris, Great Britain without London or Italy without Rome.
@ctrzaska, for better or worse, people form into factions. If one party dies, factions would form in the remaining one. Look at what happened when the Whig party died.
If we're going to go with the sports analogy @ice started this thread with, the correct one would be a team (the GOP) winning squeakers they should be blowing out. As a dem-leaning voter, of course I would have been thrilled to see the GOP lose in any of these special elections, but so far what we're seeing is strong a strong showing by the Dems with a good shot of taking the House in 2018.
This whole chat at 538 I found informative, but again, keeping the sports analogy going, here's Nate Silver:
Certainly, we can debate the strategy in individual races. But basically it’s like if an obscure college football team goes and plays against Ohio State at Ohio Stadium, and loses 30-27 when they were big underdogs going in. It’s disappointing for them, but, at the same time, an indication that the team has bright things in its future and that Ohio State has a lot to worry about.
Now OTOH, I will say that as a American, I'm chagrined and dismayed that Donald Trump has not destroyed the Republican party. He's certainly destroyed conservatism as a functioning ideology -- the fact that so many who identify as "conservatives" continue to stick with him, rather than abandoning him and either splitting the Republican party into Trump and Conservative factions, or else creating a new party altogether -- is a pretty daming indictment, and reflects poorly on the whole country. I'm short-term optimistic about Dem's electoral hopes, but longer-term feeling pretty down about our national political culture lately.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:Why do you answer a question with a question?
LOST said:Did the four Democratic Candidates campaign in a vacuum?
Did any of the four Democratic Candidates make an issue of Russia? Did any even mention it?
Why not?
They did not campaign in " a vacuum". They campaigned in their own Districts. I doubt that more than half a dozen voters in any one of the for Districts voted Republican because of Russia. OTOH there certainly may have been Independents and Republicans in those very Republican leaning Districts that went over to the Democrats because of the perceived closeness of some in the Trump Administration to Russia and even more so because of Trump's over reaction and defensiveness on the issue.
Simply because your obsessed over this does not mean the average citizen gives a hoot about it.
You are correct that the average citizen doesn't give a hoot about the Russian allegations.
But you fail to understand that the Democrats' obsession on Russia has mangled their message, as Chris Murphy points out. And at the same time, most Republicans have been energized because they see Trump as the victim of Democrats and the media by their constant attacks on him over the Russia issue.
I'm no fan of Kelly Ann Conway (she creeps me out a bit), but it was amusing to see a few moments on CNN this morning as she berated the anchor about CNN spending so much time on Russia coverage. The anchor was pretty far back on her heels.
ice said:
I'm no fan of Kelly Ann Conway (she creeps me out a bit), but it was amusing to see a few moments on CNN this morning as she berated the anchor about CNN spending so much time on Russia coverage. The anchor was pretty far back on her heels.
I saw the beginning. She was asked about Russian hacking and replied with the mantra that there is no evidence of collusion or that Trump's election was not legitimate. It wasn't what the anchor was asking.
paulsurovell said:But you fail to understand that the Democrats' obsession on Russia has mangled their message, as Chris Murphy points out. And at the same time, most Republicans have been energized because they see Trump as the victim of Democrats and the media by their constant attacks on him over the Russia issue.
All I see and hear the Democrats talking about is Health Care. The Media wants to talk about Russia.
But a foreign government attempting to interfere in our Election is a big deal. The Intelligence Community, not the Democrats, are the ones most upset about it.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I think a much younger candidate with some of Bernie Sanders' core ideas would work. However this person must put away the pitchfork (or at least put protective covers over the sharp tips), and not be a ranting/raving Larry David. Keep maybe 2/3 of the platform, ditch the 1/3 that was pie-in-the-sky give-away-the-store stuff.
I'm not sure if anyone is out there who fits this profile. Cory Booker *possibly*, but most likely this will be someone who comes out of the woodwork sometime in the next couple years, a la Bill Clinton.