We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Future of Democratic Party?

What do Democrats need to do.

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#521 BelleLeGrand1

BelleLeGrand1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:53 PM

He's right, Hillary didn't work as hard. Much was made, especially by JakeHolman, about how much time she took off during the campaign. Over-confidence and who-know's-what medical issues (the admitted pneumonia, possibly more?) made her lazy and not nearly involved enough. And her inner circle spent more time trying to keep up with each new scandal than they did getting the candidate out and on message. 

 

And I don't discount the Trump media effect. Hillary did, in fact, talk substantive issues on occasion, but why would the media spend time on "boring" economic talk when Trump's busy "grabbing *****" and insulting Rosie O'Donnell. You know, the important stuff.

 

 

Speaking of overconfidence, Lawrence, you reminded me of something else I read recently:

 

DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Clinton the Election

 

http://www.usnews.co...rump?src=usn_fb

 

Disregarding the fact that they used an unnamed (probably out of fear of retribution) source, this piece gives a fascinating insider look at the events of election night.


  • mr6666 and LawrenceA like this

#522 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,455 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:35 PM

 

Speaking of blame, I happened to read this earlier today  Pres. Obama makes some very good points:   http://www.politico....ign-work-231370

 

He's right, Hillary didn't work as hard. Much was made, especially by JakeHolman, about how much time she took off during the campaign. Over-confidence and who-know's-what medical issues (the admitted pneumonia, possibly more?) made her lazy and not nearly involved enough. And her inner circle spent more time trying to keep up with each new scandal than they did getting the candidate out and on message. 

 

And I don't discount the Trump media effect. Hillary did, in fact, talk substantive issues on occasion, but why would the media spend time on "boring" economic talk when Trump's busy "grabbing *****" and insulting Rosie O'Donnell. You know, the important stuff.


  • BelleLeGrand1, TheCid and Bogie56 like this

#523 BelleLeGrand1

BelleLeGrand1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:10 PM

I don't know the players but did Bernie suggest Keith Ellison for the DNC?

 

Yes, he did, Bogie.  I would prefer he remain in Congress, though.  Former Ohio St. Senator Nina Turner is my preference.

 

Correction:  I should have said "I would prefer he remained focused on serving in Congress..."  As we have seen by the example of DWS, it's possible to do both, but I would say each job deserves full time attention.


Edited by BelleLeGrand1, 16 November 2016 - 11:43 AM.


#524 BelleLeGrand1

BelleLeGrand1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:07 PM

So what do you suggest? Any ideas of where they should go? What approach should be used? I know you're not a professional political strategist or anything; none of us are. But I've read a lot of blaming (I don't mean you, I mean in the general sense) and a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking, but not many real suggestions for a path forward other than "throw the bums out!"

 

Or are the Dems going the way of the Federalists and the Whigs? 

 

We're all grasping at straws right now.  I do believe if the Dems continue to ignore their traditional base they will become ever more irrelevant.  The Dems were gloating about what they predicted would be the destruction of the Republican party if Trump got the nomination, but it seems they are the ones facing extinction.

 

Throwing the bums out, as you so aptly put it, would be a good place to start.

 

Speaking of blame, I happened to read this earlier today.  Pres. Obama makes some very good points:   http://www.politico....ign-work-231370


  • mr6666 and LawrenceA like this

#525 Bogie56

Bogie56

    Prof. Knucklehead

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,136 posts
  • LocationTralfamadore

Posted 15 November 2016 - 02:07 PM

I don't know the players but did Bernie suggest Keith Ellison for the DNC?


  • mr6666 likes this

#526 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,455 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:55 PM

You're right, the Dems would seem to have lost (I would say, abandoned) their working class base.  But, is the answer to keep moving ever farther to the right?  When offered the choice of a genuine or a faux Republican, they'll vote for the real thing every time.  I don't see the Dems regaining power anytime soon if this right/centrist trend continues.

 

So what do you suggest? Any ideas of where they should go? What approach should be used? I know you're not a professional political strategist or anything; none of us are. But I've read a lot of blaming (I don't mean you, I mean in the general sense) and a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking, but not many real suggestions for a path forward other than "throw the bums out!"

 

Or are the Dems going the way of the Federalists and the Whigs? 



#527 BelleLeGrand1

BelleLeGrand1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 680 posts

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:39 PM

What is the future of the Democratic Party?  They have essentially lost the core building block that FDR fashioned - "blue collar workers" and their families.  Blue collar is inclusive of the non-college graduates.  The Dems have also lost almost all of the small business people who used to be a part of the party.

If the party turns more "progressive," it will play into the hands of the Republicans in 2018.

 

You're right, the Dems would seem to have lost (I would say, abandoned) their working class base.  But, is the answer to keep moving ever farther to the right?  When offered the choice of a genuine or a faux Republican, they'll vote for the real thing every time.  I don't see the Dems regaining power anytime soon if this right/centrist trend continues.

 

They started losing their way when they sold their soul to win the presidency in 1992, after having lost with weak candidates like Mondale and Dukakis.



#528 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,912 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 15 November 2016 - 01:17 PM

What is the future of the Democratic Party?  They have essentially lost the core building block that FDR fashioned - "blue collar workers" and their families.  Blue collar is inclusive of the non-college graduates.  The Dems have also lost almost all of the small business people who used to be a part of the party.

If the party turns more "progressive," it will play into the hands of the Republicans in 2018.

In 2018, probably moreso than 2016, "It's about the economy stupid."

As it stands I forsee at least 65 GOP senators and 250 (probably more) GOP members of House-218 controls the House.

they should go with howard dean as opposed to either donna brazile or keith elllison.


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#529 TheCid

TheCid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,313 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina

Posted 15 November 2016 - 10:37 AM

What is the future of the Democratic Party?  They have essentially lost the core building block that FDR fashioned - "blue collar workers" and their families.  Blue collar is inclusive of the non-college graduates.  The Dems have also lost almost all of the small business people who used to be a part of the party.

If the party turns more "progressive," it will play into the hands of the Republicans in 2018.

In 2018, probably moreso than 2016, "It's about the economy stupid."

As it stands I forsee at least 65 GOP senators and 250 (probably more) GOP members of House-218 controls the House.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users