The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Corrian]

I know I prefer the progressives but I honestly think even the progressives, despite being farther left in some ways, are more diverse and less likely to be anti-gun. Sanders for example, until pushed otherwise, was less about anti-gun rhetoric than the rank-and-file Democrats, and I think right candidates like that in the right places would go over well. Kind of like how the guy in Missouri did rather well for what people expected. He wasn't even progressive I don't think, but his campaign strategy was perfect.

[Valrifell]

I know I prefer the progressives but I honestly think even the progressives, despite being farther left in some ways, are more diverse and less likely to be anti-gun. Sanders for example, until pushed otherwise, was less about anti-gun rhetoric than the rank-and-file Democrats, and I think right candidates like that in the right places would go over well. Kind of like how the guy in Missouri did rather well for what people expected. He wasn't even progressive I don't think, but his campaign strategy was perfect.

Democrats are only on the wrong side of an issue with guns (given the rest of their policies are more or less supported by a majority of Americans). It just so happens that's the same issue which people have been convinced is the sole and most important issue in most rural areas.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I know I prefer the progressives but I honestly think even the progressives, despite being farther left in some ways, are more diverse and less likely to be anti-gun. Sanders for example, until pushed otherwise, was less about anti-gun rhetoric than the rank-and-file Democrats, and I think right candidates like that in the right places would go over well. Kind of like how the guy in Missouri did rather well for what people expected. He wasn't even progressive I don't think, but his campaign strategy was perfect.

Democrats are only on the wrong side of an issue with guns (given the rest of their policies are more or less supported by a majority of Americans). It just so happens that's the same issue which people have been convinced is the sole and most important issue in most rural areas.

I wouldn't say it's the only issue they're on the wrong side of but it is one that needlessly hurts them. All the nonsense in the platform about "weapons of war" and repealing things like PLCAA has no upside and just drives people away. There's plenty of Dems at lower levels who are neutral or pro-gun and get NRA endorsements and whatnot, trying to adopt some of those positions at the national level couldn't hurt.

New blood and changes in gun policy(Or at least the emphasis on it) doesn't sound half bad the whole "Turn into rabid anti-sjws and become rabid in your pro-gunness" is just wrong.
It almost as if the author didn't notice the low voter turnout or didn't notice that more voted for the dems.

New blood is easier said than done. The Dems don't have very many people who are well known that aren't old. It's also worth noting that while the Dems won the popular vote for POTUS they lost it for Congress.

[Corrian]

I don't know if being endorsed by the NRA is still a good thing, though.

Also, they did still won the popular vote in the Senate, right? Even if not enough so.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't know if being endorsed by the NRA is still a good thing, though.

Also, they did still won the popular vote in the Senate, right? Even if not enough so.

It's very much a good thing, the NRA has several million members who vote primarily for gun rights so an endorsement opens up a lot of potential votes.

The Dems did win the popular vote for the Senate yes, by quite a wide margin.

[Corrian]

I guess I just don't like the NRA's tactics.

[Gauthier]

I guess I just don't like the NRA's tactics.

When pragmatism doesn't mean shit because Muh Preshus.

[Corrian]

I guess I just don't like the NRA's tactics.

When pragmatism doesn't mean shit because Muh Preshus.

Have fun winning things against when you sarcastically reply like this on serious issues for some people. Enjoy continuing to lose.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe the Dems should run Mark Cuban in 2020, battle of the billionaires and all that

[Gauthier]

When pragmatism doesn't mean shit because Muh Preshus.

Have fun winning things against when you sarcastically reply like this on serious issues for some people. Enjoy continuing to lose.

When an entire society can be socially engineered over a single issue that's not a good sign.

[Corrian]

Maybe the Dems should run Mark Cuban in 2020, battle of the billionaires and all that

Oh god no.

When an entire society can be socially engineered over a single issue that's not a good sign.

I can't disagree, but hey, got to cater to it or have fun losing.

[Valrifell]

Maybe the Dems should run Mark Cuban in 2020, battle of the billionaires and all that

Wasn't there talk that Mark Zuckerberg was thinking about getting into politics?

[Gauthier]

Maybe the Dems should run Mark Cuban in 2020, battle of the billionaires and all that

Oh god no.

When an entire society can be socially engineered over a single issue that's not a good sign.

I can't disagree, but hey, got to cater to it or have fun losing.

So Republican Lite or Bust.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maybe the Dems should run Mark Cuban in 2020, battle of the billionaires and all that

Wasn't there talk that Mark Zuckerberg was thinking about getting into politics?

There is yeah, and I know Cuban has been voicing his opinion on politics more and more and has kicked around the idea of running.

Oh god no.


I can't disagree, but hey, got to cater to it or have fun losing.

So Republican Lite or Bust.

If the Dems changing their position on one topic makes them Republican lite you probably have bigger problems, tbh.

[Corrian]

So Republican Lite or Bust.

To an extent, yes, though I wouldn't specifically consider "Supporting guns" to translate to "Republican lite".

But when you run an anti-gun progressive or whatever in the Senate in Wisconsin, well, have fun. Especially in a senate race that should have been freaking easy to win at that.

[New Serrland]

Wasn't there talk that Mark Zuckerberg was thinking about getting into politics?

There is yeah, and I know Cuban has been voicing his opinion on politics more and more and has kicked around the idea of running.

So Republican Lite or Bust.

If the Dems changing their position on one topic makes them Republican lite you probably have bigger problems, tbh.

Zuckerberg and Cuban could have far, far, far more influence outside elected office than in it. They absolutely should NOT run.

[Novus America]

I don't know if being endorsed by the NRA is still a good thing, though.

Also, they did still won the popular vote in the Senate, right? Even if not enough so.

It's very much a good thing, the NRA has several million members who vote primarily for gun rights so an endorsement opens up a lot of potential votes.

The Dems did win the popular vote for the Senate yes, by quite a wide margin.

However popular vote for Senate says little, as only one third of Senators run, and many states do not vote at all in a given year. It depends on what states are voting that year.

[Novus America]

I guess I just don't like the NRA's tactics.

When pragmatism doesn't mean shit because Muh Preshus.

Oh the irony.

Pragmatism requires the party conform to the people, not the other way around.

[Ngelmish]

Gun control has been a popular target as an explanation for Democratic losses since 1994, but what the folks arguing against it tend to forget (usually because they are ideologically committed to loose gun regulation to start with) is that there is an enormous slice of the electorate that is passionate about gun control, and they reside overwhelmingly within the Democratic party. Yes, you can dial back gun control measures and rhetoric, and yes you might be able to compensate for any bleeding of support among discontented activists with some moderates lured over, but it's the equivalent of asking generic Republican candidates not to mouth anti-abortion platitudes. There is a base there that demands to be... respected, if not represented.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Gun control has been a popular target as an explanation for Democratic losses since 1994, but what the folks arguing against it tend to forget (usually because they are ideologically committed to loose gun regulation to start with) is that there is an enormous slice of the electorate that is passionate about gun control, and they reside overwhelmingly within the Democratic party. Yes, you can dial back gun control measures and rhetoric, and yes you might be able to compensate for any bleeding of support among discontented activists with some moderates lured over, but it's the equivalent of asking generic Republican candidates not to mouth anti-abortion platitudes. There is a base there that demands to be... respected, if not represented.

I'd disagree there's an enormous slice of the electorate that is passionate about gun control. Support for things like assault weapons bans (something Democrats make a lot of noise about) is only at 30 something percent in favor compared to 60 something against and if trends continue it will only become more unpopular. Other Gallup polls have shown a very large portion of the electorate consider guns to be a very important topic, with 26% saying they'll only vote for a candidate if they share their views on the topic, with 44% of those polled saying the GOP better represents their views about guns. Likewise, most pushes for gun control don't come from grass roots movements, they come from big money sources like Bloombergs groups.

I'm sure there are some people who are passionate about gun control, but I doubt these generally very liberal people will stop voting Democrat if they become at least neutral on the topic.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is yeah, and I know Cuban has been voicing his opinion on politics more and more and has kicked around the idea of running.



If the Dems changing their position on one topic makes them Republican lite you probably have bigger problems, tbh.

Zuckerberg and Cuban could have far, far, far more influence outside elected office than in it. They absolutely should NOT run.

I think Cuban could be an interesting candidate actually. He's fairly liberal from what I know but not extremely so, unlike Trump he's actually a proven businessman who made his own wealth, he's not a complete jackass. It'd be great to see them go at it in a debate.

[Ngelmish]

Gun control has been a popular target as an explanation for Democratic losses since 1994, but what the folks arguing against it tend to forget (usually because they are ideologically committed to loose gun regulation to start with) is that there is an enormous slice of the electorate that is passionate about gun control, and they reside overwhelmingly within the Democratic party. Yes, you can dial back gun control measures and rhetoric, and yes you might be able to compensate for any bleeding of support among discontented activists with some moderates lured over, but it's the equivalent of asking generic Republican candidates not to mouth anti-abortion platitudes. There is a base there that demands to be... respected, if not represented.

I'd disagree there's an enormous slice of the electorate that is passionate about gun control. Support for things like assault weapons bans (something Democrats make a lot of noise about) is only at 30 something percent in favor compared to 60 something against and if trends continue it will only become more unpopular. Other Gallup polls have shown a very large portion of the electorate consider guns to be a very important topic, with 26% saying they'll only vote for a candidate if they share their views on the topic, with 44% of those polled saying the GOP better represents their views about guns. Likewise, most pushes for gun control don't come from grass roots movements, they come from big money sources like Bloombergs groups.

I'm sure there are some people who are passionate about gun control, but I doubt these generally very liberal people will stop voting Democrat if they become at least neutral on the topic.

I'd argue that the AWA is not actually representative of where most gun control passion is; it's a convenient hobby horse for those whose more or less open aim is an Australian style buyback law, but they don't actually care about the ban itself.

And as for which party is better representative of the majority's view on guns, I'd argue it depends on how you break those questions down. The GOP has done a good job on winning the big questions on guns, i.e. we have a 2nd Amendment and you, citizen have a right to the guns. But on small-bore policy questions from he exact nature of background checks, what level of training is legally necessary, etc. individual Democratic proposals tend to be received very well.

The other thing to keep in mind, of course, is that there's a strong generational aspect to this as well. For the most part the most passionate supporters of gun control, and the more extreme forms of it, are liberal Democrats who came of age in the 60's and developed their opinions in response to the rash of political assassinations in that decade. As is a common truism in all parties, the most consistent voters get the most leverage and it is older Democrats who tend to be most passionate on this point, which is why it won't go away anytime soon. In the interests of full disclosure I'll admit that I tilt more towards that end of the spectrum myself, but I'm perfectly aware that, unless there's a sea change, my side has lost the argument.

[Eol Sha]

The below graphic struck a chord with me. It's from a Roll Call article.

[Corrian]

The below graphic struck a chord with me. It's from a Roll Call article.

(Image)

Interesting that Republicans are suddenly hiding.

[Collatis]

The below graphic struck a chord with me. It's from a Roll Call article.

(Image)

Interesting that Republicans are suddenly hiding.

I wonder why