The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Romalae]

Make Keith Ellison the chair so that any deluded whites who still vote Democrat will snap out of their trance and realize how much their party hates them, and thus move over to the Republicans.

Sounds like white identity politics to me.

I'm white, and will probably continue to vote mostly Democratic unless there's a realignment in the future.

[Gauthier]

Make Keith Ellison the chair so that any deluded whites who still vote Democrat will snap out of their trance and realize how much their party hates them, and thus move over to the Republicans.

Sounds like white identity politics to me.

I'm white, and will probably continue to vote mostly Democratic unless there's a realignment in the future.

Just goes to show that people lecture Democrats on how identity politics is a bad thing while Republicans double down on identity politics and get rewarded for it.

[Romalae]

Sounds like white identity politics to me.

I'm white, and will probably continue to vote mostly Democratic unless there's a realignment in the future.

Just goes to show that people lecture Democrats on how identity politics is a bad thing while Republicans double down on identity politics and get rewarded for it.

The hypocrisy and impunity is maddening.

[USS Monitor]

Sounds like white identity politics to me.

I'm white, and will probably continue to vote mostly Democratic unless there's a realignment in the future.

Just goes to show that people lecture Democrats on how identity politics is a bad thing while Republicans double down on identity politics and get rewarded for it.

GOP's version of identity politics sure as fuck turns me off, but I guess some people have different parameters to choose how they vote.

[Ngelmish]

There is literally an article about their incompetence with ignoring Michigan and such like that, when they were blatantly told there was a problem. So yes, I'd say the Clinton campaigns arrogance is a big part of their loss. If they were simply competent, they could have won those.

You'll notice I acknowledged that the Clinton campaign made mistakes that hurt it. But was that really the main thing that caused things to turn out as they did? Let's extrapolate a bit in terms of competence here: If winning is a determinant of competence, isn't that basically Trump's argument in favor of himself? That he's a winner who won, and winning is in itself virtuous?

As I recall, you're generally hostile towards establishment (I actually reject that term, but in this context, it's the most useful) politics, so of course the loss of the Clinton campaign is a chance to discredit that model. But it's not the only factor going on here: Demographics, economics, character assassination, so on and so forth -- Blaming her campaign, and Clinton herself by extension, is an extremely attractive option for those who were never enthusiastic about her or what she represented, but coalition building in the long and short term is going to require more than spitting vitriol at your putative ideological fellow travelers; most people are not good listeners when having their motives questioned and methods criticized with open contempt.

[Corrian]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

[Major-Tom]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

Honestly. Progressives dislike Booker, the right wing despises Booker, and the run of the mill Democrats are only mildly enthusiastic for him.

All he has going for him is charisma, and even then, his charm is pretty superficial, to the point where its easily visible.

[Ngelmish]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

Honestly. Progressives dislike Booker, the right wing despises Booker, and the run of the mill Democrats are only mildly enthusiastic for him.

All he has going for him is charisma, and even then, his charm is pretty superficial, to the point where its easily visible.

There's a plausible opening for Booker so long as the party fixates on Clinton's charisma deficit. Of course, if Trump spends the next 4 years bloviating, flailing with little direction, and generally making an ass of himself, it may create a rare opening for an avowed anti-charisma candidate -- bland, competent and aggressively normal.

Booker's probably making the right choice to get himself into the mix now, it's not particularly likely that conditions will continue to be favorable for him. It's going to be hard enough to be percieved as Obama-lite only 4 years after Obama without accounting for the other vagaries of politics. He wants to at least put himself on the VP map.

[Romalae]

Honestly. Progressives dislike Booker, the right wing despises Booker, and the run of the mill Democrats are only mildly enthusiastic for him.

All he has going for him is charisma, and even then, his charm is pretty superficial, to the point where its easily visible.

There's a plausible opening for Booker so long as the party fixates on Clinton's charisma deficit. Of course, if Trump spends the next 4 years bloviating, flailing with little direction, and generally making an ass of himself, it may create a rare opening for an avowed anti-charisma candidate -- bland, competent and aggressively normal.

Booker's probably making the right choice to get himself into the mix now, it's not particularly likely that conditions will continue to be favorable for him. It's going to be hard enough to be percieved as Obama-lite only 4 years after Obama without accounting for the other vagaries of politics. He wants to at least put himself on the VP map.

My guess is that Booker's name will be thrown around in the media until it gets exhausted, and once the Bookermentum fades they will latch on to some headline-getting dark horse instead.

You're right, though, maybe he's intending to make a play for VP. I honestly feel ill already prognosticating for 2020. Trump hasn't even taken office yet.

[Socialist Nordia]

The popular vote polling was almost spot on.

The state polling was a mess.

It was an unpredictable election, but as a whole, polling is still generally reliable.

Also, I don't think the Bernie or Busters really made Clinton lose. I think Clinton made Clinton lose. Incompetent campaigning. Thinking they had these states in the bag despite people on the ground trying to tell them that there was a problem. If we had competent campaigning, things probably would have gone fine.

Well, if Bernie had been nominated, you wouldn't see "Hillary or bust" nonsense all over the place. They would have seen the better general election choice. Quite a few Bernie supporters were not capable of that. Just saying.

Republicans didn't really gain votes, democrats just lost votes. And all of those same democrats who couldn't stand Hillary were quite enthusiastic 4 and 8 years ago about practically the same platform championed by Obama. This shows two things. 1. Way too many people couldn't get over the primary and 2. Too many Americans don't care about the actual policies and substance of a candidate, and only want someone they consider charismatic and "relatable".

[Gauthier]

The popular vote polling was almost spot on.

The state polling was a mess.

It was an unpredictable election, but as a whole, polling is still generally reliable.

Also, I don't think the Bernie or Busters really made Clinton lose. I think Clinton made Clinton lose. Incompetent campaigning. Thinking they had these states in the bag despite people on the ground trying to tell them that there was a problem. If we had competent campaigning, things probably would have gone fine.

Well, if Bernie had been nominated, you wouldn't see "Hillary or bust" nonsense all over the place. They would have seen the better general election choice. Quite a few Bernie supporters were not capable of that. Just saying.

Republicans didn't really gain votes, democrats just lost votes. And all of those same democrats who couldn't stand Hillary were quite enthusiastic 4 and 8 years ago about practically the same platform championed by Obama. This shows two things. 1. Way too many people couldn't get over the primary and 2. Too many Americans don't care about the actual policies and substance of a candidate, and only want someone they consider charismatic and "relatable".

Style Over Substance. Just like the 2016 election. Plus decades of Republican indoctrination.

[Corrian]

You'll notice I acknowledged that the Clinton campaign made mistakes that hurt it. But was that really the main thing that caused things to turn out as they did? Let's extrapolate a bit in terms of competence here: If winning is a determinant of competence, isn't that basically Trump's argument in favor of himself? That he's a winner who won, and winning is in itself virtuous?

As I recall, you're generally hostile towards establishment (I actually reject that term, but in this context, it's the most useful) politics, so of course the loss of the Clinton campaign is a chance to discredit that model. But it's not the only factor going on here: Demographics, economics, character assassination, so on and so forth -- Blaming her campaign, and Clinton herself by extension, is an extremely attractive option for those who were never enthusiastic about her or what she represented, but coalition building in the long and short term is going to require more than spitting vitriol at your putative ideological fellow travelers; most people are not good listeners when having their motives questioned and methods criticized with open contempt.

I'd consider it one of many stupid mistakes on the Democrats part, honestly. Not all of it rests on her, but the party itself.

[Ngelmish]

There's a plausible opening for Booker so long as the party fixates on Clinton's charisma deficit. Of course, if Trump spends the next 4 years bloviating, flailing with little direction, and generally making an ass of himself, it may create a rare opening for an avowed anti-charisma candidate -- bland, competent and aggressively normal.

Booker's probably making the right choice to get himself into the mix now, it's not particularly likely that conditions will continue to be favorable for him. It's going to be hard enough to be percieved as Obama-lite only 4 years after Obama without accounting for the other vagaries of politics. He wants to at least put himself on the VP map.

My guess is that Booker's name will be thrown around in the media until it gets exhausted, and once the Bookermentum fades they will latch on to some headline-getting dark horse instead.

You're right, though, maybe he's intending to make a play for VP. I honestly feel ill already prognosticating for 2020. Trump hasn't even taken office yet.

In terms of maneuvering, personalities, the DNC chair race 2020 is extremely relevant to internal Democratic politics right now, so I don't think we should take it off the table. The caveat is that 4 years out is a long time for things to change, but in terms of understanding what's going on we have every reason to be analyzing it. Booker's merely been one of the most obvious candidates. Warren, Gillibrand, O'Malley and possibly Klobuchar are also making visible movements towards it.

[Corrian]

Well, if Bernie had been nominated, you wouldn't see "Hillary or bust" nonsense all over the place. They would have seen the better general election choice. Quite a few Bernie supporters were not capable of that. Just saying.

Republicans didn't really gain votes, democrats just lost votes. And all of those same democrats who couldn't stand Hillary were quite enthusiastic 4 and 8 years ago about practically the same platform championed by Obama. This shows two things. 1. Way too many people couldn't get over the primary and 2. Too many Americans don't care about the actual policies and substance of a candidate, and only want someone they consider charismatic and "relatable".

I don't think you've seen some of the nasty Hillary supporters who still rail against Bernie. And Bernie supporters, ACCORDING to an election poll, went over to Clinton faster than Clinton supporters went to Obama.

So yes, I'd expect there would be bullshit "Hillary or Bust" people. They just might not flaunt it as blatantly. Until they come around eventually, of course. Just like they did with Obama.

My moms seen enough nasty Clinton supporters to know how some of them would go. Hell, one of those was at our caucus, trying to sway us to her by starting out with "Bernie supporters make me MAD". Yeah, sure, that will help me vote for your candidate (The other two were fine)

And I didn't even vote for Obama in 2012, so yeah.

[Romalae]

My guess is that Booker's name will be thrown around in the media until it gets exhausted, and once the Bookermentum fades they will latch on to some headline-getting dark horse instead.

You're right, though, maybe he's intending to make a play for VP. I honestly feel ill already prognosticating for 2020. Trump hasn't even taken office yet.

In terms of maneuvering, personalities, the DNC chair race 2020 is extremely relevant to internal Democratic politics right now, so I don't think we should take it off the table. The caveat is that 4 years out is a long time for things to change, but in terms of understanding what's going on we have every reason to be analyzing it. Booker's merely been one of the most obvious candidates. Warren, Gillibrand, O'Malley and possibly Klobuchar are also making visible movements towards it.

Yes, I was talking about the 2020 election and not the DNC chair race. I, too, don't think we should take that off the table. That'll be a crucial signal as to what direction the party intends on going in.

[Gauthier]

In terms of maneuvering, personalities, the DNC chair race 2020 is extremely relevant to internal Democratic politics right now, so I don't think we should take it off the table. The caveat is that 4 years out is a long time for things to change, but in terms of understanding what's going on we have every reason to be analyzing it. Booker's merely been one of the most obvious candidates. Warren, Gillibrand, O'Malley and possibly Klobuchar are also making visible movements towards it.

Yes, I was talking about the 2020 election and not the DNC chair race. I, too, don't think we should take that off the table. That'll be a crucial signal as to what direction the party intends on going in.

And short of a Republican Lite being made chairman the general response will be contemptuous sneering.

[USS Monitor]

The popular vote polling was almost spot on.

The state polling was a mess.

It was an unpredictable election, but as a whole, polling is still generally reliable.

Also, I don't think the Bernie or Busters really made Clinton lose. I think Clinton made Clinton lose. Incompetent campaigning. Thinking they had these states in the bag despite people on the ground trying to tell them that there was a problem. If we had competent campaigning, things probably would have gone fine.

Well, if Bernie had been nominated, you wouldn't see "Hillary or bust" nonsense all over the place. They would have seen the better general election choice. Quite a few Bernie supporters were not capable of that. Just saying.

Republicans didn't really gain votes, democrats just lost votes. And all of those same democrats who couldn't stand Hillary were quite enthusiastic 4 and 8 years ago about practically the same platform championed by Obama. This shows two things. 1. Way too many people couldn't get over the primary and 2. Too many Americans don't care about the actual policies and substance of a candidate, and only want someone they consider charismatic and "relatable".

Obama and Hillary do not agree on everything -- for example, Obama is less aggressive on foreign policy -- and there were some strong preferences on both sides when they ran against each other.

[Romalae]

Well, if Bernie had been nominated, you wouldn't see "Hillary or bust" nonsense all over the place. They would have seen the better general election choice. Quite a few Bernie supporters were not capable of that. Just saying.

Republicans didn't really gain votes, democrats just lost votes. And all of those same democrats who couldn't stand Hillary were quite enthusiastic 4 and 8 years ago about practically the same platform championed by Obama. This shows two things. 1. Way too many people couldn't get over the primary and 2. Too many Americans don't care about the actual policies and substance of a candidate, and only want someone they consider charismatic and "relatable".

Obama and Hillary do not agree on everything -- for example, Obama is less aggressive on foreign policy -- and there were some strong preferences on both sides when they ran against each other.

The other glaring difference between them was on TPP, but I don't know how much of that really is the case.

[Geilinor]

Obama and Hillary do not agree on everything -- for example, Obama is less aggressive on foreign policy -- and there were some strong preferences on both sides when they ran against each other.

The other glaring difference between them was on TPP, but I don't know how much of that really is the case.

Except for foreign policy, Obama is to the right of Hillary. The positions that show it are the TPP, charter schools, and the DC v. Heller decision.

[The Serbian Empire]

The other glaring difference between them was on TPP, but I don't know how much of that really is the case.

Except for foreign policy, Obama is to the right of Hillary. The positions that show it are the TPP, charter schools, and the DC v. Heller decision.

Hillary is also known to be socially more conservative in comparison as seen by her very late endorsement of same-sex marriage after states as centrist as Iowa had already had judges legalize it. You know, the state that voted Trump this year. She never openly mentioned transgender people unlike Obama.

[Arlenton]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

Honestly. Progressives dislike Booker, the right wing despises Booker, and the run of the mill Democrats are only mildly enthusiastic for him.

All he has going for him is charisma, and even then, his charm is pretty superficial, to the point where its easily visible.

I do think he would be a serious contender in the Democratic primary. Establishment and black, he has the south and many big cities locked down.

I do not know whether or not he will be more of a threat to Trump than one of the Bernie/Warren wing candidates. But starting a vast right wing conspiracy against him wouldn't do us any harm.

[Arlenton]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

Oh I am seeing this first hand. Some Bernie people have already started calling him "Corporate Cory".

If he's the nominee, this should be hammered into their heads.

[Romalae]

Arlenton, I don't think you have to worry about a "smear campaign" against Cory Booker. The "progressives" seem to be working on it fine themselves.

Oh I am seeing this first hand. Some Bernie people have already started calling him "Corporate Cory".

If he's the nominee, this should be hammered into their heads.

Taking a page out of Trump's book, then, I see. They ought to just call him Crooked Cory.

[Ngelmish]

Except for foreign policy, Obama is to the right of Hillary. The positions that show it are the TPP, charter schools, and the DC v. Heller decision.

Hillary is also known to be socially more conservative in comparison as seen by her very late endorsement of same-sex marriage after states as centrist as Iowa had already had judges legalize it. You know, the state that voted Trump this year. She never openly mentioned transgender people unlike Obama.

And yet Clinton made it much, much easier for transgender people to get passports with their preferred gender on it, cutting out almost all of the red tape and awkwardness when she was SoS. She should have talked about that more if she wanted credit for it, but her record on social issues was always pretty reflexively liberal -- within the prevailing political culture of the time.

[Geilinor]

Except for foreign policy, Obama is to the right of Hillary. The positions that show it are the TPP, charter schools, and the DC v. Heller decision.

Hillary is also known to be socially more conservative in comparison as seen by her very late endorsement of same-sex marriage after states as centrist as Iowa had already had judges legalize it. You know, the state that voted Trump this year. She never openly mentioned transgender people unlike Obama.

She made it easier for transgender people to change the gender on their passports at the State Department.