The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Cattle Mutilators]

Donne Brazille leaking questions...

To both sides. And let's not forget the question: "When at the Flint forum tonight, be ready to answer questions about the Flint water crisis."

What a great tip. I bet nobody saw that coming.

... DWS scheduling debates at late night Sunday schedules...

And yet the debates got pretty good ratings for a race with such a small field, and almost everyone saw them who wanted to. Why, it's almost as if people had some kind of technology to watch the debates anytime they wanted. Fancy that!

... using voter suppression in New York, etc.

Because it's too hard to remember that to vote in a party's primary, you've got to be registered as a member of that party, and that sometimes that requires that you register several weeks in advance. Unfair!!!

But I doubt that will change your mind at this point.

No, not really. I outgrew Kool-Aid many years ago.

[USS Monitor]

... DWS scheduling debates at late night Sunday schedules...

And yet the debates got pretty good ratings for a race with such a small field, and almost everyone saw them who wanted to. Why, it's almost as if people had some kind of technology to watch the debates anytime they wanted. Fancy that!

Yah... I don't own a TV and didn't really keep track of when stuff was scheduled, but I still wound up seeing some of the debates on YouTube. It wasn't that hard to find out what was going on.

[Cattle Mutilators]

While you're at it, you might address the strategic shortcomings of the Sanders campaign that certainly had some effect on why he lost.

Like, oh, I don't know... maybe his inability to address racism as a problem without immediately going off on some riff about how it's really all a consequence of income inequality. Socialists gobble that shit up ("Capitalism is inherently racist!"), but most black voters don't believe that we'd have any less racism under socialism, unless we actually made an effort to combat racism per se.

Eventually, Bernie figured out that he had to talk about the problems of the black community as being specific to the black community, and not just trying to tell them that poor white folks have it every bit as bad. But by then, the Southern primaries had all been run, and the damage was done; there was simply no way for Bernie to catch up after that.

[Cattle Mutilators]

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 is just the KKK for black people? Really?!?

I fail to see how asking that police exercise a little more discretion before using lethal force against black citizens is "just like" dragging white folks out of their homes and stringing them up from the nearest oak tree. Or are you trying to tell me that anything other that black people suffering the death of their family and friends in silence is a moral travesty?

And yes, not approving of feminism does make you a misogynist, by definition:

Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights based on the equality of the sexes.

— Oxford Dictionary

It's agenda is basic: It asks that women not be forced to "choose" between public justice and private happiness. It asks that women be free to define themselves -- instead of having their identity defined for them, time and time again, by their culture and their men.

— Susan Faludi

It is not a matter of idle curiosity who gets put into which camp, male or female. It's not like dividing people up on the basis of whether their last name begins with a letter between A and M or one between N and Z. Whether you're designated female or male has an enormous impact on what sort of life you can lead, what opportunities will or will not be presented to you, and what people will expect of you. That realization, and the belief that this situation is unjust, is for me, a bottom line definition of feminism -- not the only definition, but a very basic one.

— Cynthia Eller

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

— Marie Shear

If you agree with any of the foregoing, you are a feminist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

If you disagree with any of the foregoing, you're a misogynist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

It's really not that hard. Are women people, or aren't they? Are they equal to men, or aren't they? Are they entitled to define their own lives the way men do, or not? Are forced to make choices men never have to make just because they're women?

There's literally no way to celebrate feminine freedom and not be a feminist; there's literally no way to deny it and not be a misogynist.

[Balkenreich]

are you done yet?

[Cattle Mutilators]

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?

Silly rabbit. It's not identity politics when you're blowing the good old dogwhistle.

Or, in the case of the Trump campaign, something louder. Shall we call it a "doghorn"?

[USS Monitor]

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 is just the KKK for black people? Really?!?

I fail to see how asking that police exercise a little more discretion before using lethal force against black citizens is "just like" dragging white folks out of their homes and stringing them up from the nearest oak tree. Or are you trying to tell me that anything other that black people suffering the death of their family and friends in silence is a moral travesty?

And yes, not approving of feminism does make you a misogynist, by definition:

Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights based on the equality of the sexes.

— Oxford Dictionary

It's agenda is basic: It asks that women not be forced to "choose" between public justice and private happiness. It asks that women be free to define themselves -- instead of having their identity defined for them, time and time again, by their culture and their men.

— Susan Faludi

It is not a matter of idle curiosity who gets put into which camp, male or female. It's not like dividing people up on the basis of whether their last name begins with a letter between A and M or one between N and Z. Whether you're designated female or male has an enormous impact on what sort of life you can lead, what opportunities will or will not be presented to you, and what people will expect of you. That realization, and the belief that this situation is unjust, is for me, a bottom line definition of feminism -- not the only definition, but a very basic one.

— Cynthia Eller

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

— Marie Shear

If you agree with any of the foregoing, you are a feminist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

If you disagree with any of the foregoing, you're a misogynist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

It's really not that hard. Are women people, or aren't they? Are they equal to men, or aren't they? Are they entitled to define their own lives the way men do, or not? Are forced to make choices men never have to make just because they're women?

There's literally no way to celebrate feminine freedom and not be a feminist; there's literally no way to deny it and not be a misogynist.

When people say they disagree with feminism, some of them mean they disagree with the whole concept (which makes them misogynists), but others just mean they disagree with the direction the feminist movement has gone (which is sometimes due to misogyny, but sometimes for other reasons).

[Arumbia67]

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.
2. Don't be afraid to make a play for working class whites. If the election of Jim Justice proves anything, It's that coal country is willing to listen. Assuming you're not telling them they should live off food stamps, and unemployment benefits because "muh environment". West Virginia was the ultimate new deal state. There's no reason why Dems shouldn't be able to make a come back, if they keep silent on the coal issue. Save that for when you win.
3. Expand your campaign beyond "if you don't vote for us you're an evil racist that hates women!" Attacking someone is not how you get them to see your side of it. Southern Democrats in 1870's and 1880's South Carolina learned this. They silenced the rhetoric, and instead went to Black voters. They promised to clean up the corruption in the state, and won.
4. Focus on bringing up minority turn out. In both 2008, and 2012, Black voters had a higher turnout rate than White ones. That played a huge role in Obama's victories. Don't rely on a rapper to do it for you either. Go to major cities, and actually campaign. Tell them what you plan to do to help them. Bruce Rauner did it, and he overran Romney by 5-6% in Chicago, and even more in the suburbs. It would work even better for A dem.
5. Don't pour all your resources into only a few states. Invest in some outliers. Remember the 2012 senate race in North Dakota? Berg would of won that by a country mile. But Heitkamp proved her self, scouring the state for votes. And the national party helped with a barrage of ads once the polls started getting close. (This also plays into number four somewhat, as higher turnout among Native Americans could have very well made the difference).

[Uiiop]

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.
2. Don't be afraid to make a play for working class whites. If the election of Jim Justice proves anything, It's that coal country is willing to listen. Assuming you're not telling them they should live off food stamps, and unemployment benefits because "muh environment". West Virginia was the ultimate new deal state. There's no reason why Dems shouldn't be able to make a come back, if they keep silent on the coal issue. Save that for when you win.
3. Expand your campaign beyond "if you don't vote for us you're an evil racist that hates women!" Attacking someone is not how you get them to see your side of it. Southern Democrats in 1870's and 1880's South Carolina learned this. They silenced the rhetoric, and instead went to Black voters. They promised to clean up the corruption in the state, and won.
4. Focus on bringing up minority turn out. In both 2008, and 2012, Black voters had a higher turnout rate than White ones. That played a huge role in Obama's victories. Don't rely on a rapper to do it for you either. Go to major cities, and actually campaign. Tell them what you plan to do to help them. Bruce Rauner did it, and he overran Romney by 5-6% in Chicago, and even more in the suburbs. It would work even better for A dem.
5. Don't pour all your resources into only a few states. Invest in some outliers. Remember the 2012 senate race in North Dakota? Berg would of won that by a country mile. But Heitkamp proved her self, scouring the state for votes. And the national party helped with a barrage of ads once the polls started getting close. (This also plays into number four somewhat, as higher turnout among Native Americans could have very well made the difference).

3 didn't happen exactly.....Is the rest of the "Deporables" speech going to be lost in the mists of time?

[USS Monitor]

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.

Jim Webb is bleah.

Not bothering to reply to your other points because I don't take issue with them.

[Arumbia67]

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.
2. Don't be afraid to make a play for working class whites. If the election of Jim Justice proves anything, It's that coal country is willing to listen. Assuming you're not telling them they should live off food stamps, and unemployment benefits because "muh environment". West Virginia was the ultimate new deal state. There's no reason why Dems shouldn't be able to make a come back, if they keep silent on the coal issue. Save that for when you win.
3. Expand your campaign beyond "if you don't vote for us you're an evil racist that hates women!" Attacking someone is not how you get them to see your side of it. Southern Democrats in 1870's and 1880's South Carolina learned this. They silenced the rhetoric, and instead went to Black voters. They promised to clean up the corruption in the state, and won.
4. Focus on bringing up minority turn out. In both 2008, and 2012, Black voters had a higher turnout rate than White ones. That played a huge role in Obama's victories. Don't rely on a rapper to do it for you either. Go to major cities, and actually campaign. Tell them what you plan to do to help them. Bruce Rauner did it, and he overran Romney by 5-6% in Chicago, and even more in the suburbs. It would work even better for A dem.
5. Don't pour all your resources into only a few states. Invest in some outliers. Remember the 2012 senate race in North Dakota? Berg would of won that by a country mile. But Heitkamp proved her self, scouring the state for votes. And the national party helped with a barrage of ads once the polls started getting close. (This also plays into number four somewhat, as higher turnout among Native Americans could have very well made the difference).

3 didn't happen exactly.....Is the rest of the "Deporables" speech going to be lost in the mists of time?

Yeah it pretty much did. That was the whole message. Donald Trump is a racist islamophobe and you are to if you're voting for him. Well that, and Clinton seemed to have a little problem with hypocrisy. It's pretty rich to hear someone who charges the average salary of an ER doctor per speech call some ELSE overpaid. Or to put that differently, someone who could give one speech a month and make as much as the average NFL player.

[Arumbia67]

Five easy steps for the Dems to win the Whitehouse, and congress in the next four years.
1.Nominate stronger, and actually competent candidates. Hillary was a terrible choice. She has an almost incredible ability to blow large leads. The only reason she was her first senate race is because A. It's New York. And B. Her opponent was even more useless at campaigning than she is. Jim Webb would of beat Trump easily.

Jim Webb is bleah.

Not bothering to reply to your other points because I don't take issue with them.

He's a lot like Kasich. Both were polling well, but could never ever win the nomination. They're not partisan enough. When was the last time we had a Republican who was more moderate on social issues than the Dem? 1904 maybe?

[Uiiop]

3 didn't happen exactly.....Is the rest of the "Deporables" speech going to be lost in the mists of time?

Yeah it pretty much did. That was the whole message. Donald Trump is a racist islamophobe and you are to if you're voting for him. Well that, and Clinton seemed to have a little problem with hypocrisy. It's pretty rich to hear someone who charges the average salary of an ER doctor per speech call some ELSE overpaid. Or to put that differently, someone who could give one speech a month and make as much as the average NFL player.

Well the other bits of the speech i mentioned showed not calling Trump supporters inherently racist and tried to look sympathetic towards them so....no that wasn't the whole message.

[Uxupox]

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 is just the KKK for black people? Really?!?

I fail to see how asking that police exercise a little more discretion before using lethal force against black citizens is "just like" dragging white folks out of their homes and stringing them up from the nearest oak tree. Or are you trying to tell me that anything other that black people suffering the death of their family and friends in silence is a moral travesty?

And yes, not approving of feminism does make you a misogynist, by definition:

Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights based on the equality of the sexes.

— Oxford Dictionary

It's agenda is basic: It asks that women not be forced to "choose" between public justice and private happiness. It asks that women be free to define themselves -- instead of having their identity defined for them, time and time again, by their culture and their men.

— Susan Faludi

It is not a matter of idle curiosity who gets put into which camp, male or female. It's not like dividing people up on the basis of whether their last name begins with a letter between A and M or one between N and Z. Whether you're designated female or male has an enormous impact on what sort of life you can lead, what opportunities will or will not be presented to you, and what people will expect of you. That realization, and the belief that this situation is unjust, is for me, a bottom line definition of feminism -- not the only definition, but a very basic one.

— Cynthia Eller

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

— Marie Shear

If you agree with any of the foregoing, you are a feminist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

If you disagree with any of the foregoing, you're a misogynist, whether you're a man or a woman. Full stop.

It's really not that hard. Are women people, or aren't they? Are they equal to men, or aren't they? Are they entitled to define their own lives the way men do, or not? Are forced to make choices men never have to make just because they're women?

There's literally no way to celebrate feminine freedom and not be a feminist; there's literally no way to deny it and not be a misogynist.

The BLM should be considered a terrorist organization because in reality that's what it is. I consider it an equal to the Black panther party.

[British Darwin IV]

Progressivism and minority-centric identity politics does not appeal to blue-collar American workers. The Democrats must find another way to appeal to them if they wish to win 2020. Why do you think so many normal, everyday Americans voted for Donald Trump? Some people on this forum, and many white urban progressives in America in general, just don't get it.

And much as I normally loath demographic politics, their is a particular reason to pick Ellison in this case: almost half the electorate just sent a message that they are fine with a viciously anti-Muslim candidate. Choosing a Muslim American would send a powerful message that Muslims are still welcome in America, and that we stand for the opposite of Trump's bigotry.

Sorry to single this guy out, but this post is a good example of the disconnect between hardcore Democrats and the American working class which traditionally formed the voterbase of the Democratic Party.

Do you think the average Joe, who's seeing job loss left and right and terrorist attacks on television, really cares about this? This talk of helping minorities and "sending messages" and all isn't a bad goal in and of itself, but it isn't going to appeal to the average person who prioritises real world concerns, and as such going down this path will continue to lose the Democratic Party elections.

Unless you can appeal to the working class more than the right-wing populist Republican Party, you WILL in all likelihood keep losing elections.

Democrats like to point out how they won the popular vote in this election, which is true, but that's just half of the story.

The white share of the electorate, especially in places like the rust belt surged, this election. This is why Trump won Michigan and PA. If we look at the counties that Clinton won, it's mostly Hispanic, Black, major cities and hyper-progressive white areas (such as the ones in California and the US Northeast). Trump has won the most counties for the Republicans since Reagan, BECAUSE of the white working class. America is, and for a good few decades to come, a white-majority country, and the majority of white people are working-class. If you do not appeal to these people you will lose elections, no matter how progressive you are. Also, if we look at the percentage of blacks, Hispanics and Asians Trump won, the percentage is actually higher than what Romney got. So even non-white working classes are voting for right-wing populism more than they did for the neocons of past electoral cycles.

I feel like this rise in the share of the minority vote can partly be blamed on low turnout in 2016 (because of Hillary Clinton being charismatic and having a top notch track record and all), but also on the fact that the Republicans are abandoning stale Protestant Evangelicalism and Neoconservatism right now.

Say you pick Ellison, an overt Muslim, to send a message to Trump in 2020. You'll get the Muslim vote, for sure, but what percentage of the population are they? And what are you going to achieve with blue-collar workers, especially white blue-collar workers, who you need to win elections?

Hell, what about blacks, who are by-and-large more fervently Christian than whites? The Amish were convinced to vote for Trump in PA this election EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE they believed their Christian religion and way of life was under threat by the Democrats- I'm not shitting you. Getting deeper and deeper into the mire of progressive idpol will lose you more and more working class votes.

Progressivism will not appeal to white people, blue-collar workers, and the so-called "silent majority" at all. It will appeal to the types of people who post on this forum, and also to the various minority groups who see progressivism as being in their interest, but it will not appeal to the amount and type of people required to consistently win elections. The Democrats need to step up their game and, one way or another, go populist.

That being said, Dean is probably your best chance, although frankly he'd be much more skilled on the DNC chair if you ask me.

[Bakery Hill]

Bernie or bust.

[Arumbia67]

Bernie or bust.

Indeed, someone who is out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, and will be almost 80 on election is the perfect choice. Clearly.

[PaNTuXIa]

Donne Brazille leaking questions...

To both sides. And let's not forget the question: "When at the Flint forum tonight, be ready to answer questions about the Flint water crisis."

What a great tip. I bet nobody saw that coming.

... DWS scheduling debates at late night Sunday schedules...

And yet the debates got pretty good ratings for a race with such a small field, and almost everyone saw them who wanted to. Why, it's almost as if people had some kind of technology to watch the debates anytime they wanted. Fancy that!

... using voter suppression in New York, etc.

Because it's too hard to remember that to vote in a party's primary, you've got to be registered as a member of that party, and that sometimes that requires that you register several weeks in advance. Unfair!!!

But I doubt that will change your mind at this point.

No, not really. I outgrew Kool-Aid many years ago.

I'm drinking the Kool-Aid? Fucking lol

Bernie or bust.

no

[Bakery Hill]

no

yeah but

[Philjia]

The Democrats are somewhat incoherent on social issues, although that's a universal problem in US politics. They're also in a bind over the economy. The way that the US operates means that a lot of people are in deep shit financially. The Democrats want the government to help them, but don't want to look like they're too far left, so their solutions are often a compromise that is not fit for purpose and is far too expensive, but often better than nothing. As long as they back inefficient policies like the ACA, the GOP can say they're weak on economic matters.

[British Darwin IV]

Indeed, someone who is out of touch with the vast majority of Americans

At least Bernie focuses on poor people and the social net instead of how progressive the Democratic Party can be.
Bernie would have won the rust belt for this exact reason. And for this reason, the Democratic Party under Sanders could have beaten Trump with relative ease.

[Bakery Hill]

The Democrats are somewhat incoherent on social issues, although that's a universal problem in US politics. They're also in a bind over the economy. The way that the US operates means that a lot of people are in deep shit financially. The Democrats want the government to help them, but don't want to look like they're too far left, so their solutions are often a compromise that is not fit for purpose and is far too expensive, but often better than nothing. As long as they back inefficient policies like the ACA, the GOP can say they're weak on economic matters.

Not really. Americans by and large want protectionism and government intervention to save industry. While Clinton was the Wall Street candidate.

[Arumbia67]

Indeed, someone who is out of touch with the vast majority of Americans

At least Bernie focuses on poor people and the social net instead of how progressive the Democratic Party can be.
Bernie would have won the rust belt for this exact reason. And for this reason, the Democratic Party under Sanders could have beaten Trump with relative ease.

Only a third of Americans have a positive view of socialism, and only a few more than that want universal healthcare. Hard to win when the two things your campaign promises are almost as unpopular as George W. Bush. He also would of done pretty poorly in Florida, considering he's defended Castro more than a few times. Cuban Americans would of turned out higher, and gone from like 65% R, to 70%-75%+. And if the GOP were smart, they would hammer him over his hypocrisy on taxes, and helping the poor. Plus the "Global warming causes terrorism" thing.

[Novus America]

The Democrats are somewhat incoherent on social issues, although that's a universal problem in US politics. They're also in a bind over the economy. The way that the US operates means that a lot of people are in deep shit financially. The Democrats want the government to help them, but don't want to look like they're too far left, so their solutions are often a compromise that is not fit for purpose and is far too expensive, but often better than nothing. As long as they back inefficient policies like the ACA, the GOP can say they're weak on economic matters.

Not really. Americans by and large want protectionism and government intervention to save industry. While Clinton was the Wall Street candidate.

Protectionism is not necessarily left wing though. The Republican Party historically was the protectionist party, and did not fully drop protectionism until the 90s. Even Reagan took protectionist action to protect the US steel and automotive industries.

While unions do support protectionism so do many large companies engaged in manufacturing here, as opposed to those in finance pushing "free trade".

With the Republican Party returning towards protectionism this leaves the Democrats an interesting choice. Do they follow, or go the opposite way? The former might not be enough to gain credibility and lose support of those who still support "free trade" like the tech industry.
The later is suicide in the Rust Belt.

"Free trade" v. protectionism and nationalism v. globalism are going to be the big issues of the future. So the Democrats will have to stake a position on these, and defend that position.

[Torkalia]

At least Bernie focuses on poor people and the social net instead of how progressive the Democratic Party can be.
Bernie would have won the rust belt for this exact reason. And for this reason, the Democratic Party under Sanders could have beaten Trump with relative ease.

Only a third of Americans have a positive view of socialism, and only a few more than that want universal healthcare. Hard to win when the two things your campaign promises are almost as unpopular as George W. Bush. He also would of done pretty poorly in Florida, considering he's defended Castro more than a few times. Cuban Americans would of turned out higher, and gone from like 65% R, to 70%-75%+. And if the GOP were smart, they would hammer him over his hypocrisy on taxes, and helping the poor. Plus the "Global warming causes terrorism" thing.

Wouldn't have mattered how the Cubans went, because Florida went R anyway.

I believe Bernie is a weak candidate, but it has nothing to do with his ideology, but how he frames it. Embracing "socialism" openly was kind of stupid.