The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Uxupox]

Would you mind expanding on what your definition of a "bland, centrist technocrat," is?

She isn't a centrist nor a technocrat.

[Cattle Mutilators]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

[USS Monitor]

I'm sure it has to do with him still being in the senate and all, but it still feels to me like how she was more in it to be President, and now that she's not, she's gone. While Bernie was in it for the betterment of everyone.

By tradition, losing Presidential candidates go away. The feeling is that the country as rejected them, and nobody wants to hear from them anymore.

Seriously, her doing anything for the Democratic Party at the moment would be extremely counterproductive.

Especially with how nasty this election got and how badly Clinton alienated some people on the left. There are a lot of people that the Democrats should be reaching out to right now who just really don't want to hear from the Clintons.

I also think the rumors about Hillary's health might have had some basis in fact. It wasn't a good reason for anyone to dump her -- this is why people have VP candidates that they run with -- but between the pneumonia incident and the stretches where she was lying low and hoping for Trump to implode on his own, I think she might be getting kind of run-down healthwise from the stress of her long and busy career and all the public scrutiny and whatnot.

[USS Monitor]

Jeb! came in a very distant sixth place. Even without Trump he was done before he started. He never got any traction because he never had a message, or anything going for him besides money. The Bush name is now more a curse than a benefit.

At least the dynasty names are now all a curse. Maybe we won't get more Bush' and Clinton's freaking running.

Need moar Adamses and Roosevelts.

[PaNTuXIa]

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to, but no. No cheating, in any serious sense of the word, happened.

Donne Brazille leaking questions, DWS scheduling debates at late night Sunday schedules, using voter suppression in New York, etc. But I doubt that will change your mind at this point.

[USS Monitor]

Maybe Clinton just realized that she wouldn't be helping and the party needs to move on. I don't see what good it would do for anyone for her to be out there making noise. You've got to consider that there is a large right-wing smear campaign against her that is more vicious than anything they've been throwing at Bernie, and that makes it harder for her to accomplish anything good by maintaining a high public profile.

It's not as though Sanders continuing to fight has delivered any policy accomplishments either. If it keeps people politically engaged then that's probably a positive... but surely folks are going to want results eventually? It's what I've never understood about the "Bernie is fighting for us" line of thought.

That's fair, but he is still keeping a lot of people's attention, and I think it is potentially useful.

[Ngelmish]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

Not necessarily. I think there's a real argument, especially when it comes to optics, that Democrats in the last 4 years or so have been tokenistic in their approach to showcasing minority candidates at the cost of ideological, policy based arguments. And centrists and progressives have both taken advantage of this when it happens to be a convenient way to shore up one of their own particular candidates, so it's not a split in the coalition so much as it's simply a risk to be aware of.

The first example that floats to mind is the Maryland senate primary this year: Donna Edwards supporters, and the candidate herself, leaned very hard into the idea that simply the virtue of being a black woman was a good enough reason to vote for her over a white man. That sort of argument, especially when made as blatantly as that, is counterproductive.

[USS Monitor]

The Democratic primary was a pretty good indicator of what independent voters were anxious for if you factor in the fact that a disproportionate amount of Sanders' support came from voters with weak to no affiliation to the Democratic party. Maybe that translates into Sanders having a broader coalition in the general election because partisan Democrats would come home to the nominee, but there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that Sanders would have held up well as the nominee. And as far as primary performance is concerned, Trump won the Nevada caucuses too for all the good that did him in November. And that still doesn't address the underlying point that if Clinton was such a poor candidate losing, Sanders losing to her hardly inspires confidence in him.

To be clear, I increasingly think that both Clinton and Sanders would have lost to Trump this year, though for individualized reasons.

Last I checked Hilary cheated in the primary and effectively created a situation where sanders would lose regardless of how much he tried. That is personally the biggest reason why I refused to come out and vote for that women. Winning fair and square is one thing, I can respect that, but the fact that she cheated completely turned me and I suspect many others away.

I think "cheated" is too strong of a word. Gamed the system, sure, but I don't think she had her people out stuffing ballot boxes.

[Ngelmish]

You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to, but no. No cheating, in any serious sense of the word, happened.

Donne Brazille leaking questions, DWS scheduling debates at late night Sunday schedules, using voter suppression in New York, etc. But I doubt that will change your mind at this point.

The question that Brazille leaked was to say, "Something about the water crisis will come up while you're in Flint!" The Sanders campaign acknowledged that they had had some forewarning that the subject would come up too. We don't have evidence that Brazille passed anything else other than that, and if that's the caliber of what she got caught saying I don't think it's a big enough deal to have tipped the outcome.

The debate schedule was garbage, but it's difficult to prove that it had a causal effect on the outcome of the race.

The funny thing about the New York primary is that several of the counties where irregularities were reported were counties where Clinton was favored and was winning.

Prove that there's a changed outcome somewhere, and you might have a point. While you're at it, you might address the strategic shortcomings of the Sanders campaign that certainly had some effect on why he lost.

[USS Monitor]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

I don't think Dems should stop caring about those issues, but they really do need to rethink their approach. I think part of where the Democrats went wrong was by overestimating the margins by which they would win with women and minorities because they expect these groups to be monolithic voting blocs that vote solely on how hard a candidate pushes feminism or racial justice.

[Ostroeuropa]

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

I don't think Dems should stop caring about those issues, but they really do need to rethink their approach. I think part of where the Democrats went wrong was by overestimating the margins by which they would win with women and minorities because they expect these groups to be monolithic voting blocs that vote solely on how hard a candidate pushes feminism or racial justice.

I somewhat disagree, but also agree.
I agree.
I think they underestimated the amount of people interested in justice and progress. Many of the women and minorities who didn't vote for clinton probably knew she was in their best interests, but not really in the interest of males or the white working classes. The hostility toward those groups even while advancing the cause of minority and womens issues robbed it of the moral authority it could have carried, and this is true of the left wing parties in the west in general.

You can get people to turn out and support justice, progress, and fairness, and in good numbers too.
Self-interested justice doesn't really motivate people at the polls, just look at the numbers of middle class people who vote left wing. I think it's easily possible many voters didn't turn out because of this kind of thing.

You can go out and crow about middle class issues and be entirely right about all of them, but still have your voters lack enthusiasm, because people vote with their compatriots interests at heart, not their own.

To drive women and black people to the polls, address their issues, but also the issues of all other demographics. The more you leave out, the less and less moral authority the cause carries, and the more ambivalent people become, even from demographics still served by your policies.

[Sanctissima]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

There's a difference between going about such things modestly and being the other side of the same coin.

Identity politics is one of the main reasons why the Dems lost the election. I mean, I get it, things like racism and sexism are bad, but that's no reason to even tacitly support groups like BLM (which is just the KKK for Black people) or claim someone's a misogynist when they say they don't approve of Feminism.

[PaNTuXIa]

Well, the first thing the Dems should do if they want any chance in 2020 is to stop with the identity politics bullshit.

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

wew that's a nice strawman there m8

care to refute my point?

[PaNTuXIa]

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

Not necessarily. I think there's a real argument, especially when it comes to optics, that Democrats in the last 4 years or so have been tokenistic in their approach to showcasing minority candidates at the cost of ideological, policy based arguments. And centrists and progressives have both taken advantage of this when it happens to be a convenient way to shore up one of their own particular candidates, so it's not a split in the coalition so much as it's simply a risk to be aware of.

The first example that floats to mind is the Maryland senate primary this year: Donna Edwards supporters, and the candidate herself, leaned very hard into the idea that simply the virtue of being a black woman was a good enough reason to vote for her over a white man. That sort of argument, especially when made as blatantly as that, is counterproductive.

Pretty much my perspective as well.

[PaNTuXIa]

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

Not necessarily. I think there's a real argument, especially when it comes to optics, that Democrats in the last 4 years or so have been tokenistic in their approach to showcasing minority candidates at the cost of ideological, policy based arguments. And centrists and progressives have both taken advantage of this when it happens to be a convenient way to shore up one of their own particular candidates, so it's not a split in the coalition so much as it's simply a risk to be aware of.

The first example that floats to mind is the Maryland senate primary this year: Donna Edwards supporters, and the candidate herself, leaned very hard into the idea that simply the virtue of being a black woman was a good enough reason to vote for her over a white man. That sort of argument, especially when made as blatantly as that, is counterproductive.

Pretty much my perspective as well.

[Ngelmish]

It's not as though Sanders continuing to fight has delivered any policy accomplishments either. If it keeps people politically engaged then that's probably a positive... but surely folks are going to want results eventually? It's what I've never understood about the "Bernie is fighting for us" line of thought.

That's fair, but he is still keeping a lot of people's attention, and I think it is potentially useful.

I thought you knew me well enough to know that I only make fair points where internal Democratic Party politics are concerned.

[Valrifell]

Why single out Democrats though? Are we suddenly denying the fact that the Republicans engaged in a form of identity politics that was merely aimed at the white working class people?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why single out Democrats though? Are we suddenly denying the fact that the Republicans engaged in a form of identity politics that was merely aimed at the white working class people?

That's most of the country though, is the thing, so ofcourse they're do better out of it.

Made up numbers to illustrate a concept:

Pandering to group A gets you 2/5 of them voting for you.
Pandering to group B gets 2/5 of them to vote for you.

1/5 of both groups isn't interested in voting at all.
1/5 of both groups stays home, because they want both group A and group B to get some help and aren't inspired to turn out.
1/5 votes for the other side, trying to help the other group.

The democrats identity politics strategy was what sunk them the election, because it was never really going to translate in a victory to try it out on a minority of the population.
The republicans did it on the majority, and it worked, but that could have been soundly defeated by appealing to both groups.

[Collatis]

Why single out Democrats though? Are we suddenly denying the fact that the Republicans engaged in a form of identity politics that was merely aimed at the white working class people?

That's most of the country though, is the thing, so ofcourse they're do better out of it.

More like 20% of the country.

[Uiiop]

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

There's a difference between going about such things modestly and being the other side of the same coin.

Identity politics is one of the main reasons why the Dems lost the election. I mean, I get it, things like racism and sexism are bad, but that's no reason to even tacitly support groups like BLM (which is just the KKK for Black people) or claim someone's a misogynist when they say they don't approve of Feminism.

BLM really as a whole doesn't appear to be the KKK.
Sure some individual members are dicks but that's not the same thing all of them being KKK.
Also where did any major democrat said anything of the latter?

[Torkalia]

The Democratic Party has abandoned class as an identity and focused instead on race and sex (the latter of which didn't even work). They need to get class back to win elections, but lot's of the leadership is uncomfortable with that.

[Itoshiki]

Translation: "Stop bitching about racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry. From now on, discrimination should simply be accepted by both parties as perfectly OK."

Not gonna happen.

wew that's a nice strawman there m8

care to refute my point?

Trump played identity politics as well, it's just that he happened to choose the one that guaranteed him victory: appeal to the identity of blue-collar whites. It's even more pure identity politics, with a dash of populist prejudice against those belonged to the outside. And American conservatives whine about liberals being "kill all whites", the irony.

[Corrian]

Bernie doing a town hall again. Jesus.

[USS Monitor]

I don't think Dems should stop caring about those issues, but they really do need to rethink their approach. I think part of where the Democrats went wrong was by overestimating the margins by which they would win with women and minorities because they expect these groups to be monolithic voting blocs that vote solely on how hard a candidate pushes feminism or racial justice.

I somewhat disagree, but also agree.
I agree.
I think they underestimated the amount of people interested in justice and progress. Many of the women and minorities who didn't vote for clinton probably knew she was in their best interests, but not really in the interest of males or the white working classes. The hostility toward those groups even while advancing the cause of minority and womens issues robbed it of the moral authority it could have carried, and this is true of the left wing parties in the west in general.

You can get people to turn out and support justice, progress, and fairness, and in good numbers too.
Self-interested justice doesn't really motivate people at the polls, just look at the numbers of middle class people who vote left wing. I think it's easily possible many voters didn't turn out because of this kind of thing.

You can go out and crow about middle class issues and be entirely right about all of them, but still have your voters lack enthusiasm, because people vote with their compatriots interests at heart, not their own.

To drive women and black people to the polls, address their issues, but also the issues of all other demographics. The more you leave out, the less and less moral authority the cause carries, and the more ambivalent people become, even from demographics still served by your policies.

I disagree that Clinton's brand of feminism was in women's best interests. Keeping society divided along gender lines is bad for women.

[USS Monitor]

Why single out Democrats though?

Because Democrats are the topic of the thread.