The State of the Democratic Party II

[Collatis]

---

The Democratic Party Discussion Thread
Version 2.0
Will Happy Days Be Here Again?

---

The Democratic Party has recently enjoyed a string of victories in New Jersey, Virginia, and Alabama, along with various other special elections throughout the country. However, the future of the party remains as uncertain as ever. Reforms within the DNC are ongoing, with activists approving of the progress already made, but demanding that the effort not end there. Though dwarfed by the GOP's current civil war, tensions remain high within the Democratic Party between the former supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

2020 speculation is mounting, but before the Democrats can even think about taking on President Donald Trump, whose approval ratings are unprecedentedly negative not even a year into his presidency, they must first face an unfavorable map and widespread partisan gerrymandering in the 2018 midterms. A generic partisan ballot match up currently shows about a 10 point lead, but can the Democrats translate that enthusiasm and support into votes?

Some other questions to discuss are:

• Is there a blue wave mounting in 2018, and is Doug Jones's breathtaking victory in Alabama indicative of one?
• What message should the Democrats run on in 2018?
• Should the Democrats even consider attempting to impeach Donald Trump?
• Can the Democrats stop the Republicans' "Billionaires First" tax bill?
• How should the Democrats handle the ongoing Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller?
• Should Nancy Pelosi step down as House Minority Leader?
• Should the Democrats risk working with the Republicans on infrastructure?
• Should superdelegates be abolished entirely?
• Should anyone care about Martin O'Malley?

Poll history

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt - 29% (18)
2. Andrew Jackson - 16% (10)
3. John F. Kennedy - 16% (10)
4. Barack Obama - 16% (10)
5. Harry S. Truman - 11% (7)
6. Lyndon B. Johnson - 6% (4)
7. Jimmy Carter - 3% (2)
8. James K. Polk - 3% (2)
9. Bill Clinton - 0%
10. Woodrow Wilson - 0%

[Gyrenaica]

Is there a blue wave mounting in 2018, and is Doug Jones's breathtaking victory in Alabama indicative of one?
In the senate I believe it will stay in GOP hands but house will flip blue

What message should the Democrats run on in 2018?
Idk

Can the Democrats stop the Republicans' "Billionaires First" tax bill?
Maybe

Should Nancy Pelosi step down as House Minority Leader?
Yes

Should the Democrats risk working with the Republicans on infrastructure?
Yes

Should superdelegates be abolished entirely?
Yes

Should anyone care about Martin O'Malley?
His wife probably should.

[Astrolinium]

Governor O'Malley seems like a nice person. Even if you don't care about him, he probably cares about you (in a general sense, not individually).

[Cekoviu]

Is there a blue wave mounting in 2018, and is Doug Jones's breathtaking victory in Alabama indicative of one? Yes, no, respectively.
What message should the Democrats run on in 2018? "We're not Republicans!"
Can the Democrats stop the Republicans' "Billionaires First" tax bill? No.
Should Nancy Pelosi step down as House Minority Leader? No.
Should the Democrats risk working with the Republicans on infrastructure? Not sure.
Should superdelegates be abolished entirely? Yes.
Should anyone care about Martin O'Malley? I do. MALLEY TRAIN 2020 WHO'S WITH ME

[Genivaria]

Trump's ratings are "negative" yet he won the election fair and fucking square.
This should be re-titled to >The absolute state of the Democratic Party

Usually when people use the word 'yet' in that context thann the statement after should contradict the statement before.

[Brition]

Some thoughts from across the pond:

Is there a blue wave mounting in 2018, and is Doug Jones's breathtaking victory in Alabama indicative of one?
Doug Jones won because the Democrat's highly dangerous tactic of "everyone I don't like is a pedophile/rapist" is finally having an impact on voters; its very bad for democracy and you should let such matters be discussed in the courtroom.

How should the Democrats handle the ongoing Russia investigation led by Robert Mueller?
At this stage there shouldn't even be a Russia investigation, they've uncovered nothing that we didn't already know. The Russians supported Trump through social media accounts on a limited scale to prevent a Russia-hawk warmonger like Hilary Clinton from getting into office.

Should the Democrats even consider attempting to impeach Donald Trump?
As with the above two points, you probably shouldn't impeach him if he hasn't broken a law; even if you did successfully impeach him, he wouldn't necessarily be compelled to leave office. The rape accusations have been baseless, the narrative of Russian collusion has turned up nothing, all this is serving to do is undermining people's faith in democratic political systems. Let Trump live or die on his own popularity; focus on not letting your platforms get hijacked with corrupt practises like how a certain Mrs. Clinton got your nomination for president at the cost of a more popular candidate with better policies. If you want to do a service to the western world, stop smearing Trump and prove to the voters that you are more deserving that him and his.

Seriously, you do you; prove yourselves better; let the voters make up their own minds; lest I caution you to remember that an immensely unpopular Trump has outperformed your expectations more than once already.

I feel very strongly that narratives of "X is a rapist" and "Y is a Russian lapdog" made with no proof and spoken in a competitive democratic context is seriously undermining people's belief in democracy as a system.

[Blakk Metal]

Why do the top results belong to presidents who did relatively little?

[Astrolinium]

Why do the top results belong to presidents who did relatively little?

Kennedy will always get higher ratings than he's really earned because of nostalgia, charisma, and general good feelings associated with his brief time in office. Other than that, I don't know who you mean.

[Blakk Metal]

Why do the top results belong to presidents who did relatively little?

Kennedy will always get higher ratings than he's really earned because of nostalgia, charisma, and general good feelings associated with his brief time in office. Other than that, I don't know who you mean.

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

[Collatis]

Kennedy will always get higher ratings than he's really earned because of nostalgia, charisma, and general good feelings associated with his brief time in office. Other than that, I don't know who you mean.

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

It is funny how the two of the three most accomplished presidents up there (Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson) have no votes. However, the poll does ask about people's favorites, which may not necessarily coincide with who they think is the best.

[Astrolinium]

Kennedy will always get higher ratings than he's really earned because of nostalgia, charisma, and general good feelings associated with his brief time in office. Other than that, I don't know who you mean.

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

He actually reformed healthcare in this country, which is a lot more than a number of them managed. I think he was also excellent at a lot of the aspects of his job that don't necessarily produce policy. He's also the only Democratic president that a number of posters here likely actually remember within their own lifetimes.

[Genivaria]

The organization Justice Democrats is now claiming to have 51 congressional candidates on their Facebook page (as of2 hours ago)
Their wiki page states closer to 39 including 7 in Texas. (The date for that is Dec 7.)

[Astrolinium]

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

It is funny how the two of the three most accomplished presidents up there (Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson) have no votes. However, the poll does ask about people's favorites, which may not necessarily coincide with who they think is the best.

I mean, Roosevelt probably overreached a lot in terms of power and put people in concentration camps, Johnson was a crass bully, and, like, I don't know if you've ever tried caring about Woodrow Wilson, but it's just not possible.

[Valrifell]

It is funny how the two of the three most accomplished presidents up there (Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson) have no votes. However, the poll does ask about people's favorites, which may not necessarily coincide with who they think is the best.

I mean, Roosevelt probably overreached a lot in terms of power and put people in concentration camps, Johnson was a crass bully, and, like, I don't know if you've ever tried caring about Woodrow Wilson, but it's just not possible.

Woodrow Wilson was also extremely racist and, perhaps, too idealistic for the time. He should've let Teddy have his third go.

[Cekoviu]

It is funny how the two of the three most accomplished presidents up there (Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson) have no votes. However, the poll does ask about people's favorites, which may not necessarily coincide with who they think is the best.

I mean, Roosevelt probably overreached a lot in terms of power and put people in concentration camps, Johnson was a crass bully, and, like, I don't know if you've ever tried caring about Woodrow Wilson, but it's just not possible.

Yeah, I like Roosevelt in some aspects, but the Japanese internment camps make him not my favorite.

[Ism]

I voted for Truman, pretty solid guy all around, and most of what he did I agree with, or at least understand. I might prefer FDR (who, in fairness, had more time than any other president to get things done) but for the internment camps and attempts at court stacking.

[Lalaki]

Cast my vote for LBJ.

His failures in Vietnam are troubling, and perhaps he wasn't the kind of honest statesman we desire in a President. But more pressing to today's politics is his extraordinary domestic agenda. Medicaid, Medicare, expanding Social Security, Assistance to Families with Dependent Children, the Civil Rights Acts of '65 and '68, and other programs he pushed through did wonders for folks in need. Johnson did more to advance the cause of social democracy from a legislative perspective than Roosevelt (as many New Deal initiatives were temporary), Truman, or Obama, three other Democratic presidents I deeply admire. Had it not been for his foreign policy, I would say his administration would be one of the most revered this side of WWII.

As to your questions:

1) Is there a blue wave mounting in 2018? I believe so, but it's not something I am taking for granted. It could easily go the other way. And while I'm happy that Jones beat Moore, I think the specific circumstances of that election make it so we can't use it as an indicator for next year's midterms. I'd hasten to add that I believe a Republican will unseat Jones in 2020.

2) What message should the Democrats run on in 2018? Economic equality and electoral reform. Both of which tie into racism, gender equality, and other social issues.

3) Can Democrats stop the tax bill? No, but moderate Republicans can. It seems unlikely, but I hope they do.

4) Should Nancy Pelosi step down as House Minority Leader? Sure. I have nothing against her personally, but she is condemned by progressives and used as a poster-child for "San Francisco values" by the right. We need someone who's more unifying.

5) Should Democrats risk working with Republicans on infrastructure? Yes.

6) Should superdelegates be abolished entirely? For the sake of moving on from the ongoing 2016 primary wars, yes. I do think that this system prevents us from having a candidate like Donald Trump elected -- and it is worth noting that Hillary Clinton still would've been nominated in the absence of superdelegates (in fact, Sanders' late strategy was to convince them to turn against the popular vote and go for him at the convention). Still, I understand that some won't consider these nuances and am fine with yielding to their demands for the sake of unity.

7) Should anyone care about Martin O'Malley? He was far better than the two front-runners of the 2016 race. O'Malley didn't carry the baggage of Clinton, and he was more progressive. He also didn't alienate moderates with talk of revolution and socialism.

[Freezic Vast]

There's a definite blue wave coming from the looks of it. They could easily take the House next year, and win the Senate in 2020, and maybe even the White House. I think the net Neutrality vote should be enough for young voters to turn some red districts and states blue.

[Arlenton]

James K. Polk. Best Democrat.

[Cekoviu]

There's a definite blue wave coming from the looks of it. They could easily take the House next year, and win the Senate in 2020, and maybe even the White House. I think the net Neutrality vote should be enough for young voters to turn some red districts and states blue.

I think Dems will take the White House barring being accused of sexual harassment or if whoever is nominated is a horrible campaigner with lots of baggage like Hillary Clinton. Martin O'Malley would do well in my opinion, as a moderate guy without scandals in his past, although he's perhaps too centrist/"establishment" for the die-hard Bernie types.

[Valrifell]

There's a definite blue wave coming from the looks of it. They could easily take the House next year, and win the Senate in 2020, and maybe even the White House. I think the net Neutrality vote should be enough for young voters to turn some red districts and states blue.

I think Dems will take the White House barring being accused of sexual harassment or if whoever is nominated is a horrible campaigner with lots of baggage like Hillary Clinton. Martin O'Malley would do well in my opinion, as a moderate guy without scandals in his past, although he's perhaps too centrist/"establishment" for the die-hard Bernie types.

I think that opinion of Republicans and Trump has become so low, that anyone barring a psycho pedo like a Democratic version of Moore could win.

[Argentinstan]

Trump's ratings are "negative" yet he won the election fair and fucking square.
This should be re-titled to >The absolute state of the Democratic Party

Fair and square?
Considering he lost the popular vote, that is ironic.

[Cekoviu]

I think Dems will take the White House barring being accused of sexual harassment or if whoever is nominated is a horrible campaigner with lots of baggage like Hillary Clinton. Martin O'Malley would do well in my opinion, as a moderate guy without scandals in his past, although he's perhaps too centrist/"establishment" for the die-hard Bernie types.

I think that opinion of Republicans and Trump has become so low, that anyone barring a psycho pedo like a Democratic version of Moore could win.

It's also possible that Trump could be impeached and it'd be Pence up for reelection, who Dems might have a harder time with. Or the RNC nominates somebody else over the incumbent.

[NeoOasis]

Kennedy will always get higher ratings than he's really earned because of nostalgia, charisma, and general good feelings associated with his brief time in office. Other than that, I don't know who you mean.

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

Sometimes doing less isn't a bad thing. For example Andrew Jackson did a lot... mostly to the detriment of the US. Personally my favorite is Harry S. Truman. Had was unapologetic in what he did, and tended to seem like a solid sort.

[Bakery Hill]

The person who ties him is Obama, who didn't do that much compared to many of the other options.

He actually reformed healthcare in this country, which is a lot more than a number of them managed. I think he was also excellent at a lot of the aspects of his job that don't necessarily produce policy. He's also the only Democratic president that a number of posters here likely actually remember within their own lifetimes.

Considering he deported more people in his first year than Trump did, he should get more sympathy from the right really.