The State of the Democratic Party Post-2016

[Uxupox]

Who knows what exactly would have happened with that terrorist group if they hadn't been disintegrated with their approval of ruthless Maoism.

More breakfast programs?

More like gang shootings.

[MERIZoC]

More breakfast programs?

More like gang shootings.

The Panthers werent a gang, and gang violence is hardly terrorism

[Uxupox]

More like gang shootings.

The Panthers werent a gang, and gang violence is hardly terrorism

I agree. It's worse since it strikes so close to home here in the United States with organizations such as Los Reyes Latinos, Crips or Bloodz and the Aryan brotherhood.

[Ngelmish]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/pete-buttigieg-dnc-chair-233233

Buttigieg would be a good choice under almost any circumstances, although I doubt he'll get that far. It's probably a visibility move.

[MERIZoC]

The Panthers werent a gang, and gang violence is hardly terrorism

I agree. It's worse since it strikes so close to home here in the United States with organizations such as Los Reyes Latinos, Crips or Bloodz and the Aryan brotherhood.

Hm, so we've moved to "groups that are not the black panthers". The goalposts came with us I guess. Good to know.

[Uxupox]

I agree. It's worse since it strikes so close to home here in the United States with organizations such as Los Reyes Latinos, Crips or Bloodz and the Aryan brotherhood.

Hm, so we've moved to "groups that are not the black panthers". The goalposts came with us I guess. Good to know.

They are not the black panthers per say but they are very similar in regards.

[MERIZoC]

Hm, so we've moved to "groups that are not the black panthers". The goalposts came with us I guess. Good to know.

They are not the black panthers per say but they are very similar in regards.

No they arent.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Hm, so we've moved to "groups that are not the black panthers". The goalposts came with us I guess. Good to know.

They are not the black panthers per say but they are very similar in regards.

No they aren't. The original Black Panthers formed to hold open carry rallies and challenge police brutality.

In what way is that at all comparable to violent gangs?

[Uxupox]

They are not the black panthers per say but they are very similar in regards.

No they arent.

Threat to the internal security of the country

Yes they are.

Don't get me wrong. Some of their ideas such as refusal for the draft and dismantling segregation? Those ideas I can get behind but using violence or intimidation both against non-combatants and policemen to achieve your goals? No.

[Collatis]

When you act in a violent manner it isn't a protest but an act of terrorism akin to the methods used by the panthers 40 years ago.

I don't think the original Panthers ever really did anything violent.

I might be wrong of course but nothing comes to mind.

Correct. People often confuse the original Black Panthers with the New Black Panthers. In reality they are completely different groups, and the founders of the Black Panthers have heavily criticized the latter.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/pete-buttigieg-dnc-chair-233233

Buttigieg would be a good choice under almost any circumstances, although I doubt he'll get that far. It's probably a visibility move.

I'm a fan of Buttigieg, and I definitely could see him being a good compromise candidate.

[Lorkhan]

Non-responsive. Tell me why blacks demonstrating against the excessive use of force by police is "terrorism". Or should blacks just shut up and bury their dead?

Because assholes who assault police like Micah Johnson were obviously members of BLM and ordered to do so by the leadership, duh.

Ordered by leadership?

1. #BLM doesn't have a leadership. There are respected members of the black community who have associations with #BLM and community organizers who plan events, but it's not a centralized movement. Anyone can throw a # in their tweets and say BLACKLIVESMATTER. Anyone can show up to a protest and shout BLACK LIVES MATTER! There is no hierarchy. There are no gateways to get in. Anyone can claim the tag, from a Harvard law student to four malicious punk in Chicago.

2. Where is the evidence to prove your claim? Members of #BLM denounced the attack. Members of the black community prayed with the police after the attack happened and called for peaceful resolutions. There were vigils everywhere that included members of #BLM. Investigators ruled out any collaboration between Johnson and black radical groups. Micah told police before he died that he had no involvement with anyone, that this was a lone wolf attack. Where is your evidence? Why do you have information that the Dallas PD and FBI do not have? Who are you?

[Gauthier]

Because assholes who assault police like Micah Johnson were obviously members of BLM and ordered to do so by the leadership, duh.

Ordered by leadership?

1. #BLM doesn't have a leadership. There are respected members of the black community who have associations with #BLM and community organizers who plan events, but it's not a centralized movement. Anyone can throw a # in their tweets and say BLACKLIVESMATTER. Anyone can show up to a protest and shout BLACK LIVES MATTER! There is no hierarchy. There are no gateways to get in. Anyone can claim the tag, from a Harvard law student to four malicious punk in Chicago.

2. Where is the evidence to prove your claim? Members of #BLM denounced the attack. Members of the black community prayed with the police after the attack happened and called for peaceful resolutions. There were vigils everywhere that included members of #BLM. Investigators ruled out any collaboration between Johnson and black radical groups. Micah told police before he died that he had no involvement with anyone, that this was a lone wolf attack. Where is your evidence? Why do you have information that the Dallas PD and FBI do not have? Who are you?

It's called sarcasm.

[Corrian]

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.

I still really go with the approach that Elizabeth Warren could have done a better job at Sanders message. I love Bernie, but he did certainly devolve to "The top 1%!" constantly and even I rolled my eyes that he did that on EVERYTHING.

[Salandriagado]

Well, identity politics and liberal economic policies don't work.

Which is why the economy's been recovering nicely, and noticeably better than countries that have gone heavy into cutting spending?

[quot]That's why Democrats have been walloped since 2010. People can't find jobs, all the while Obama is negotiating trade deals that lead to more outsourcing. Their insurance premiums are sky high and the deductibles make their plans junk. Don't have a plan? You have to pay a penalty to Your Friendly Neighborhood IRS. The working poor don't have opportunities to send their kids to better schools and are stuck in high-crime and low-job areas. 1 out of 5 dollars in your income goes to taxes at all levels of government. Private businesses that are owned by religious folks are forced to violate their conscience in the name of non-discrimination, even when gay couples can find other establishments that would serve them. Meanwhile, Social Security is set to run out of money by the 2030's but Democrats refuse to allow younger people to opt out of the system and determine their own retirement futures. Debt is soaring and people are actually pushing for more government programs.[/quote]

You mean not every single problem in the world has been fixed instantly? Shock fucking horror.

Obama and Democrats had two full years to ram through their agenda. And what they did failed. It's time to move on.

No, no they didn't.

[Collatis]

Maybe OP could add a poll about who people support for DNC chair? Now that all the major candidates have announced I think that would be a good idea.

[Corrian]

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).

With the 5th one, I think that really would have made the difference this election. People ON THE GROUND in Michigan and such said there was a problem, and Democrats kept blowing it off because they thought that they had it in the bag. And here we are, losing by less than 100,000 votes COMBINED in 3 states that, if there was a 50 state strategy and competent campaigning, they would probably be a win.

[Corrian]

Also, liberal economic policies don't work now? Yes, that's totally why we've been gaining at least 100,000 jobs a month and all.

[Novus America]

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).

With the 5th one, I think that really would have made the difference this election. People ON THE GROUND in Michigan and such said there was a problem, and Democrats kept blowing it off because they thought that they had it in the bag. And here we are, losing by less than 100,000 votes COMBINED in 3 states that, if there was a 50 state strategy and competent campaigning, they would probably be a win.

You need to run an election from the bottom up. Not the top down. The Democrats need to rebuild at a local and state level, and listen to what the people there need. Not issue uninformed diktats from some lawyers in Washington.

[Farnhamia]

With the 5th one, I think that really would have made the difference this election. People ON THE GROUND in Michigan and such said there was a problem, and Democrats kept blowing it off because they thought that they had it in the bag. And here we are, losing by less than 100,000 votes COMBINED in 3 states that, if there was a 50 state strategy and competent campaigning, they would probably be a win.

You need to run an election from the top up. Not the bottom down. The Democrats need to rebuild at a local and state level, and listen to what the people there need. Not issue uninformed diktats from some lawyers in Washington.

Imagine how many more people would have voted for Clinton! The Democrats certainly do have work to do, no denying that, but they did convince almost 3 million more people to vote for their candidate than for the other guy. Unfortunately, they didn't concentrate on what turned out to be the key states. They forgot that when your lead in the polls is within the margin of error, you do not take the end result for granted.

[Novus America]

You need to run an election from the top up. Not the bottom down. The Democrats need to rebuild at a local and state level, and listen to what the people there need. Not issue uninformed diktats from some lawyers in Washington.

Imagine how many more people would have voted for Clinton! The Democrats certainly do have work to do, no denying that, but they did convince almost 3 million more people to vote for their candidate than for the other guy. Unfortunately, they didn't concentrate on what turned out to be the key states. They forgot that when your lead in the polls is within the margin of error, you do not take the end result for granted.

Firs of all, President is not the only office on the ballot. A concept some in DNC do not seem to grasp. President is not the only election they lost this year.

Second it does not matter how many votes. They failed to listen to those on the ground in PA, WI and MI. Well actually actively refused to help them when they needed help. That is too down, and was a failure.

[Farnhamia]

Imagine how many more people would have voted for Clinton! The Democrats certainly do have work to do, no denying that, but they did convince almost 3 million more people to vote for their candidate than for the other guy. Unfortunately, they didn't concentrate on what turned out to be the key states. They forgot that when your lead in the polls is within the margin of error, you do not take the end result for granted.

Firs of all, President is not the only office on the ballot. A concept some in DNC do not seem to grasp. President is not the only election they lost this year.

Second it does not matter how many votes. They failed to listen to those on the ground in PA, WI and MI. Well actually actively refused to help them when they needed help. That is too down, and was a failure.

Yes, I know. Their campaign strategy did fail. I think I kind of said that.

I'm not sure what "top up" and "bottom down" mean, though.

[Blakk Metal]

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.

You can't choose your own definitions.

[Novus America]

Firs of all, President is not the only office on the ballot. A concept some in DNC do not seem to grasp. President is not the only election they lost this year.

Second it does not matter how many votes. They failed to listen to those on the ground in PA, WI and MI. Well actually actively refused to help them when they needed help. That is too down, and was a failure.

Yes, I know. Their campaign strategy did fail. I think I kind of said that.

I'm not sure what "top up" and "bottom down" mean, though.

See my edit. I fixed it.

[Galloism]

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.

You do realize this makes most people well known as feminist not feminist, most well known feminist organizations not feminist, and many people who are avowedly not feminist feminist?

[Farnhamia]

Yes, I know. Their campaign strategy did fail. I think I kind of said that.

I'm not sure what "top up" and "bottom down" mean, though.

See my edit. I fixed it.

I wondered if it was me or this was some new jargon.