TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

612 posts in this topic

fOuyjxjY_bigger.jpeg

Free Beacon‏Verified account @FreeBeacon 23h23 hours ago

 

Democratic Senator Pleads to Bernie Voters for Support: ‘I need you, I want you’ http://goo.gl/zzRPnr

C8VzvrcWsAU2WKj.jpg

Claire--always has to struggle a little bit in Missouri because there's so much

Ku Klux Klan in the state. People in Kansas never forget that Missouri was a slave state, de facto member of the Confederacy.

 

So the public officials who represent Missouri just have to deal with it's Dixie roots.

Also, that's why we had so much trouble in Ferguson, Missouri - -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I am more pessimisstic.  In the South and some other places, no matter how poorly Trump does, the Republicans will still probably win enough seats to control the House.  Thanks to gerrymandering and many who vote Republican no matter how bad the candidate.  

The Senate could be in play, but not until 2020.  In 2018, Republican senators are pretty safe, but some Dems are definitely going to be in for a fight.

Although, we have never had a president such as Trump before.

Of course it all matters how Trump does. If he's a total disaster, which I

doubt, then who knows? I know the Senate map favors the GOP in 2018,

so that may be a heavy lift, as the House may be. Another factor could be

the possible Obamacare replacement. If the Republicans come up and

pass something that people don't like, that could make it rough for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it all matters how Trump does. If he's a total disaster, which I

doubt, then who knows? I know the Senate map favors the GOP in 2018,

so that may be a heavy lift, as the House may be. Another factor could be

the possible Obamacare replacement. If the Republicans come up and

pass something that people don't like, that could make it rough for them.

I'm just thinking that the Trump base, the GOP base and the independents who tend to vote GOP won't really care in most GOP districts and states.  They just do not want to vote for a Dem.  They will also blame the Dems or somebody else no matter how poorly Trump does.  

Guess the variable is "very badly" or "total disaster."

Best hope for Dems is that Trump does in fact perform very badly or does something disasterous and the voters hold him accountable for it.  

Then, the Dems muster some really good, electable candidates, campaign very hard (and expensively) and the Trump supporters decide not to vote.

But, the real problem for Dems is those locked in GOP states and districts.

Possible-Yes; probable-No.  On the other hand, I hope you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just thinking that the Trump base, the GOP base and the independents who tend to vote GOP won't really care in most GOP districts and states.  They just do not want to vote for a Dem.  They will also blame the Dems or somebody else no matter how poorly Trump does.  

Guess the variable is "very badly" or "total disaster."

Best hope for Dems is that Trump does in fact perform very badly or does something disasterous and the voters hold him accountable for it.  

Then, the Dems muster some really good, electable candidates, campaign very hard (and expensively) and the Trump supporters decide not to vote.

But, the real problem for Dems is those locked in GOP states and districts.

Possible-Yes; probable-No.  On the other hand, I hope you are right.

Time will tell. That's the advantage of being in a strong two party system.

If the one party is seen to being really screwing up, the other party gains

by default. Whether that will happen in 2018 is up in the air. The Dems

seem to be paying more attention to local/state races or at least are

talking that way. I read an article a little while ago that the most effective 

use of money is not in ads and signs, but in canvassing and talking to people

and getting them to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just thinking that the Trump base, the GOP base and the independents who tend to vote GOP won't really care in most GOP districts and states.  They just do not want to vote for a Dem.  They will also blame the Dems or somebody else no matter how poorly Trump does.  

Guess the variable is "very badly" or "total disaster."

Best hope for Dems is that Trump does in fact perform very badly or does something disasterous and the voters hold him accountable for it.  

Then, the Dems muster some really good, electable candidates, campaign very hard (and expensively) and the Trump supporters decide not to vote.

But, the real problem for Dems is those locked in GOP states and districts.

Possible-Yes; probable-No.  On the other hand, I hope you are right.

 

People who identify as Republican have been on the decline for years.

 

The one thing the Democrats must be sure to not do is allow Hillary to get out front and center again. Or Bill, for that matter. They are the kiss of death now. There's no way that independents will come to the Democrats if they think those two are still in charge of the Party. Best thing - hide the Clintons in a closet somewhere and don't let them be seen or heard - then Trump will be beatable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who identify as Republican have been on the decline for years.

 

They don't have to identify as Republican, just vote for the Republican candidates.

I live in about as Republican an area as you can get.  Most races don't even have Democrats running and the ones that do, the GOPers win by 70% or more.

Of all the people I know, the only ones who claim to be Republican are the ones officially connected to the party, in office or running for office.  Everyone else says they are "independent," but they always vote Republican.

An interesting aspect to elections around here is that all signs, commercials, literature, etc. have one thing in common.  GOPers have REPUBLICAN in bold on theirs and Democrats don't mention a party at all.

 

I do agree that the Clintons need to move on and retire. As for Sanders, he has a role to play in ginning up the millenials, etc., but not as a candidate for president or in a leadership role.  Even moreso for Nancy Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that the Clintons need to move on and retire. As for Sanders, he has a role to play in ginning up the millenials, etc., but not as a candidate for president or in a leadership role.

 

There's not a doubt in the world that Sanders would be President right now if the Democrats had gone with him instead of Clinton.

 

If he runs in 2020, he will win. Bet the farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a doubt in the world that Sanders would be President right now if the Democrats had gone with him instead of Clinton.

 

If he runs in 2020, he will win. Bet the farm.

If Sanders had been the candidate, he would have lost bigger than Clinton did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sanders had been the candidate, he would have lost bigger than Clinton did.

 

I'm not so sure.    The 'anyone but Trump' folks would have still come out to vote and I assume many (most?) hardcore Clinton supporters (e.g. those that voted for her in the Primary),   would have become 'anyone but Trump' types.     E.g.  Women groups that supported Clinton would have supported Sanders to ensure Trump (really the GOP) didn't gain the power to appoint the next Supreme Count justices.      

 

Sanders would have been able to rally his supporters to get out and vote and since the Sanders' campaign staff wouldn't have been 1\10 as arrogant as those leading the Clinton campaign, Sanders would have really fought for the office and visited key states like Wisconsin instead of assuming it was in the bag.

 

It all comes down to trade-offs and voter turnout especially in those key battleground states:  e.g. would have more Clinton supporters came out and voted for Sanders than Sanders supporters actually came out and voted for Clinton? 

 

PS:  In addition there is the Comey and the Russians 'card'.    Now I don't feel this hurt Clinton as much as others but for those that did,  Sanders didn't have the same baggage (but of course maybe some would have been found if he was the nominee). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a doubt in the world that Sanders would be President right now if the Democrats had gone with him instead of Clinton.

 

If he runs in 2020, he will win. Bet the farm.

 

Yeah, right, who'd be crazy enough to question your political expertise? You picked Clinton to win the last election.

 

To be fair, though, most of us were wrong on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right, who'd be crazy enough to question your political expertise? You picked Clinton to win the last election.

 

To be fair, though, most of us were wrong on that one.

 

You picked Clinton to win, you hole.

 

The most I ever said was she'd probably win, given the constant Media love and fake polls.

 

Unlike you and your blinkered ilk, I knew all along that Sanders was a far superior candidate and continually said so.

 

As far as who's crazy - everyone that voted for Clinton in the primaries. Morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure.    The 'anyone but Trump' folks would have still come out to vote and I assume many (most?) hardcore Clinton supporters (e.g. those that voted for her in the Primary),   would have become 'anyone but Trump' types.     E.g.  Women groups that supported Clinton would have supported Sanders to ensure Trump (really the GOP) didn't gain the power to appoint the next Supreme Count justices.      

 

Sanders would have been able to rally his supporters to get out and vote and since the Sanders' campaign staff wouldn't have been 1\10 as arrogant as those leading the Clinton campaign, Sanders would have really fought for the office and visited key states like Wisconsin instead of assuming it was in the bag.

 

It all comes down to trade-offs and voter turnout especially in those key battleground states:  e.g. would have more Clinton supporters came out and voted for Sanders than Sanders supporters actually came out and voted for Clinton? 

 

PS:  In addition there is the Comey and the Russians 'card'.    Now I don't feel this hurt Clinton as much as others but for those that did,  Sanders didn't have the same baggage (but of course maybe some would have been found if he was the nominee). 

The lesson for the Dems. is that neither Clinton nor Sanders was the best candidate to put forth.  Of course, the whole Trump victory was a sea change in how Americans vote.

Against Sanders, Trump would have won all the states that he did win.  Then he would probably have picked up a few more.

The battle is always for the "independent" voter and in most elections, they trend centrist.  Sanders would have been offensive to that group, so they would not have voted at all or held their noses and voted for Trump.

In addition, he was not a real Democrat and made a career of rejecting the Democratic Party so a lot of the party workers would not have worked hard, if at all, for his election.

Most analysis that I have read that appear accurate indicate that the people who would have voted for Sanders did vote for Clinton. Of course, some of his supporters probably did not vote, but doubt that affected the Electoral College count at all. 

 

Michael Gerson, Washington Post, had a recent column where he mentioned David Wasserman giving an address to young Democrats in Northern Virginia.  That is the wealthy, suburban part of the state that generally pushes the state into the Democratic columns.

Wasserman referred to "Cracker Barrel voters."  Trump won about 75% of the counties that have a Cracker Barrel restaurant.  One of the attendees asked if he meant "Crate and Barrel."

Therein lies one of the problems for the Dems. (and DarkBlue).  The young liberals, millenials, etc. that Sanders appealed to must learn that to win the Dems. have to appeal to that centrist, center-right group of VOTERS.  Bill Clinton knew this and that is one reason why he won two presidential elections.

Sanders would not have appealed to these people at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TruthFeed News‏ @TruthFeedNews

 

starring foul-mouthed DNC Chair Tom Perez, who is cussing like a drunken sailor on shore leave.

 

Who writes this garbage?

 

No offence, Jake - but so much of the stuff you link to is amateur crap like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You picked Clinton to win, you hole.

 

The most I ever said was she'd probably win, given the constant Media love and fake polls.

 

 

Right. You said she'd probably win. That's picking her.

 

In fact I said the same thing, she's probably win but Trump couldn't be ruled out, especially with Comey's interference.

 

And calling me a name in your response (as you have done countless times with others posters on these boards) is only further confirmation of what a totally low class human being you are.

 

Yeh, I know, why state the obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lesson for the Dems. is that neither Clinton nor Sanders was the best candidate to put forth.  Of course, the whole Trump victory was a sea change in how Americans vote.

Against Sanders, Trump would have won all the states that he did win.  Then he would probably have picked up a few more.

The battle is always for the "independent" voter and in most elections, they trend centrist.  Sanders would have been offensive to that group, so they would not have voted at all or held their noses and voted for Trump.

In addition, he was not a real Democrat and made a career of rejecting the Democratic Party so a lot of the party workers would not have worked hard, if at all, for his election.

Most analysis that I have read that appear accurate indicate that the people who would have voted for Sanders did vote for Clinton. Of course, some of his supporters probably did not vote, but doubt that affected the Electoral College count at all. 

 

Michael Gerson, Washington Post, had a recent column where he mentioned David Wasserman giving an address to young Democrats in Northern Virginia.  That is the wealthy, suburban part of the state that generally pushes the state into the Democratic columns.

Wasserman referred to "Cracker Barrel voters."  Trump won about 75% of the counties that have a Cracker Barrel restaurant.  One of the attendees asked if he meant "Crate and Barrel."

Therein lies one of the problems for the Dems. (and DarkBlue).  The young liberals, millenials, etc. that Sanders appealed to must learn that to win the Dems. have to appeal to that centrist, center-right group of VOTERS.  Bill Clinton knew this and that is one reason why he won two presidential elections.

Sanders would not have appealed to these people at all.

 

You make many good points but again,  I'm not so sure.   Ok,  I can see independents that voted for Clinton voting for Trump over Sanders due to his self defined socialist label.   BUT like I said it relates to the trade-offs.   Clearly "too many" Sanders supporters as well as those that voted for Obama decide to NOT support Clinton by NOT voting.    It all depends on which of the various sub-group trade-offs have the most numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

calling me a name in your response (as you have done countless times with others posters on these boards) is only further confirmation of what a totally low class human being you are.

 

Yeh, I know, why state the obvious?

 

Lots of people think they can score off a low class human being like me.

 

But, of course, who'd be "crazy enough to question your" obviousness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make many good points but again,  I'm not so sure.   Ok,  I can see independents that voted for Clinton voting for Trump over Sanders due to his self defined socialist label.   BUT like I said it relates to the trade-offs.   Clearly "too many" Sanders supporters as well as those that voted for Obama decide to NOT support Clinton by NOT voting.    It all depends on which of the various sub-group trade-offs have the most numbers.

Don't disagree with possibility that if the Sanders and previous Obama supporters who didn't vote had voted, might have been a different result.  

But, still believe Sanders or Warren would have caused many undecideds to go for Trump in lieu of not voting at all.  They would have overwhelmed the Sanders and Obama supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 days of Democratic rage-

 

Trump has enabled the Democratic Party to overlook its serious problems.-

 

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role.

“I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent.

 

"We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

The brand is only part of the problem — the party's central infrastructure itself is in need of an overhaul.....

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/trump-democrats-100-days-237555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 days of Democratic rage-

 

Trump has enabled the Democratic Party to overlook its serious problems.-

 

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role.

“I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent.

 

"We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

The brand is only part of the problem — the party's central infrastructure itself is in need of an overhaul.....

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/trump-democrats-100-days-237555

I think he is correct about needing a new brand.  Disagree witht the "great candidate and great energy" statement.  Dems did not have either in the final analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have a new energy, but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November, when he unsuccessfully challenged House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role. “I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election]" last week, in which Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent. "We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”

 

Actually, it's progressives that have energy. The Democratic Party has nothing. Just Corporate money. That's it.

 

No purpose, no soul.

 

If progressives can take over the Party, it can be saved. If not, not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll shows that 80% of Democratic voters approve of Bernie - and it's driving the Establishment Democrats nuts!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doyle McManus, LA Times, has an excellent column explaining the problems confronting the Democratic Party.  Basically, the Sanders/"progressive" wing has got to realize they can control the party (maybe) or the party can control Congress.  But they cannot control Congress unless they cooperate more with the mainstream Democrats.

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-georgia-runoff-ossoff-20170423-story.html

 

Personally, I think the problem surfaced during the election. Sanders and his supporters only paid lip service to supporting Clinton, whereas the Republicans came out strong for Trump - any Republican is better than a Democrat.

Also think that Sanders is a politician and that he recognizes that any influence he might have is through the Democratic Party and therefore he is working with it - sort of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poll shows that 80% of Democratic voters approve of Bernie - and it's driving the Establishment Democrats nuts!

 

 

If that were really true, he would have won the nomination in 2016 regardless of what Clinton and the DNC and others may have done.

While they may approve of Bernie, it does not mean that Sanders and his policies would win a presidential election or very many Congressional seats outside the Northeast and West Coast, if those.  Nor would they win any governorships or state legislatures.

There are thousands of Democrats who can achieve an 80% approval rating in their party, but does not mean they could win a major election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us