TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

859 posts in this topic

They said the Republicans would never get back in due to shifting demographics. 

 

They neglected to factor in that 30 years of neoliberalism would be sure to create a backlash among regular working people - all those who have seen their lives become steadily more difficult; more precarious because they didn't happen to be a part of the well-connected professional class for whom neloliberalism was a boon.

 

You can only kick a dog so long and it'll eventually bite.

 

Combine that build up of resentment with a candidate as ugly as Hillary and Bob's your uncle. It was the perfect time to tell the establishment to go **** itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, Hillary was way ahead until Comey decided to stick his neck in.........

 

Wasn't it a member of Congress that leaked Comey's letter?

 

Comey just did what he was required to do - advise Congress that his previous testimony - that the case was closed - may no longer be correct as new e-mails had come to his attention and needed to be looked at.

 

But Comey said that in a private letter - he didn't shout it to the world.

 

Someone else in Congress did that.

 

As far as her being "way ahead", don't forget - the mainstream polls were fake. The Daybreak Poll out of L.A. had Trump edging Clinton almost the entire final 2-3 months - and it was the one that was right on the money nation-wide. The mainstream Media and other polls kept making fun of it because it insisted its data was more reliable. They'll never do that again - not with all the egg on their faces now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While from a political POV related to the Dems you and I agree with  'Best hope for Dems is that Trump and his appointees will screw things up so badly";   I assume as Americans we really don't wish for things to get really bad just so the Dems can regain political power.

 

From day one of Obama taking office the GOP made it their mission to try to ensure things went badly just to ensure Obama was a one term President.     These clowns even had the gall to call themselves the true Americans.

 

I want the Dems to take a different course and for the nation to advance and avoid disasters, and in doing so the Dems are rewarded in 2018 and 2020.   But of course that would take an informed electorate.

 

It'll take more than an "informed electorate".

 

It'll take peoples' lives getting worse under the new administration rather than better.

 

If things get worse - or even stay the same - in the economy, then the left-wing will have some ammunition to insist on lefty change to the structure of governance.

 

But if the economy improves and actual working people feel that improvement, the Democrats won't have much to recommend voting for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still though, she probably would have lost.  She was way ahead up until the votes were actually counted.  There were a lot of people out there who were for Trump who never got included in polling, historic or other data.

 

Clinton was a poor candidate who ran a poor campaign.  Any other Democrat (except Sanders) probably would have won.

 

Sanders definitely would have won. Everybody knows it - you're the only one who's pretending not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She may have been a poor candidate with a lot of baggage but she would have eked out a win if not for Comey.  Trump was in self-destruct mode until that gave him oxygen.  Clinton did not lose by much.  She was 20 points ahead before Comey - not 3 or 4.  I think a lot of people said 'the hell with it' and came in for Trump at the last minute because of all the Clinton negativity and Trump's reinvigorated campaign in the last week.

 

You just think that because the establishment brainwashed you that Hillary was way ahead. She really wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just think that because the establishment brainwashed you that Hillary was way ahead. She really wasn't.

 

The numbers prove my case.  She lost by about 100,000 votes in the three key states.  She was once way ahead until Comey weighed in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt blue collar voters have even heard the term neoliberal,

which is likely true of voters in general. They just don't realize

that economic reality has shifted away from them and Donny

Trump, despite all his hyperbole, is unlikely to change that.

Sometimes reality sucks. By the time the election came around,

and even before Comey's letter came out, Clinton had a lead of

around four or five percentage points. Looking at the popular

vote total now and the margin of error, the popular vote polls

were fairly accurate. The ECs weren't. The assumption was

that Trump would have to run almost the complete table of

battleground states and that the odds were against him. But

he managed to do it. Now the suckers are stuck in the tent

and can't get out. Sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers prove my case.  She lost by about 100,000 votes in the three key states.  She was once way ahead until Comey weighed in.

 

Getting back to the topic of the thread;  I assume your advise to the Dem party is to ensure no letters are written in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been discussed elsewhere, but it's food for thought:

 

Michigan's 2016 presidential election by the numbers

 

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/michigans_presidential_electio.html

 

Some highlights:

 

"0.3 percent: That was Donald Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, according to tentative results posted on the Michigan Secretary of State website. The website showed Trump with 2,277,914 votes, or 47.6 percent of the total, and Hillary Clinton with 2,264,807, or 47.33 percent.

 

87,810: Number of voters this election who cast a ballot but did not cast a vote for president. That compares to 49,840 undervotes for president in 2012.

 

60: Counties where Clinton got less than 40 percent of the vote. That compares to 10 counties in 2012 where Obama got less than 40 percent."

 

I wish the second stat would have been broken down by party, but if nothing else, it demonstrates dissatisfaction with the choices in both major parties.

 

It also proves the fallacy of blaming third party voters, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Hohmann of Washington Post had a very good The Daily 202 post for today.  Discusses a memo that an Ohio county Democratic chairman sent to Clinton.  Not paying enough attention to economics, jobs, trade, etc. and paying too much attention to social issues.  BINGO!  She ignored him.

This is the lesson the Democrats need to learn and learn it quick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers prove my case.  She lost by about 100,000 votes in the three key states.

 

Actually, the numbers disprove your case. She lost.

 

She was once way ahead until Comey weighed in.

 

She was not way ahead. She wasn't even a little ahead. Like I said before, you only think that because you were brainwashed into thinking that by false numbers from the establishment Media and establishment pollsters.

 

Next time make sure you watch what the Daybreak Poll is saying, then you'll not be fooled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the Daybreak poll the one that had Trump rocketing

up to five points ahead of Clinton a few days before the

election. Guess his rocket malfunctioned cause he sure

didn't end up there. Polls often are accurate, but sometimes

they blow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the numbers disprove your case. She lost.

 

 

She was not way ahead. She wasn't even a little ahead. Like I said before, you only think that because you were brainwashed into thinking that by false numbers from the establishment Media and establishment pollsters.

 

Next time make sure you watch what the Daybreak Poll is saying, then you'll not be fooled.

 

This is turning into a circle argument.  Two weeks before the election all Trump was doing was fending off sexual harassment accusations and melting down before everyone's eyes by threatening to sue 12 women and a whole bunch of newspapers.  Clinton was more than 20 points ahead in the polls.

Comey stepped in.  Trump went on message.  He then went on to win by a very slim margin in 3 crucial states.  He won within the margin of error in the polls that had closed to about 3 points!

A staggering number of people that came out to vote for Trump said they made up their minds to vote for him in the last week.  She was tanking and he was rising.  Thank you, Mr. Comey.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is turning into a circle argument.  Two weeks before the election all Trump was doing was fending off sexual harassment accusations and melting down before everyone's eyes by threatening to sue 12 women and a whole bunch of newspapers.  Clinton was more than 20 points ahead in the polls.

Comey stepped in.  Trump went on message.  He then went on to win by a very slim margin in 3 crucial states.  He won within the margin of error in the polls that had closed to about 3 points!

A staggering number of people that came out to vote for Trump said they made up their minds to vote for him in the last week.  She was tanking and he was rising.  Thank you, Mr. Comey.

 

I agree we need to agree to disagree about the impact the Comey letter had on the outcome.

 

So going in a different direction:   Why did the Comey letter have such an impact as to overshadow (or trump if you will) all of the accusations and negative things reported about Trump?   

 

As you noted Trump was melting down:  SO the Comey letter, which didn't accuse Clinton of anything (unlike all the dirt on Trump),   trumped all that the media had put out about Trump in the minds of just enough voters in the key states? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump: Lessons from the Reagan Years-

 

The differences between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan can show us the history we don't want to repeat.....

 

"Democrats have to find a populist spine. Stand up clearly for poor and working people against the corporate lobbies and billionaire class that rig the economy against them. Expose the scams and corruptions. Show how efforts to drive us apart are central to the strategy of ripping us off. They can support Trump when he does something sensible – like deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

But they have to be relentless in opposing his betrayal of the very people central to his election. This isn’t about Trump’s character, although he seems unable to play the role of president much less fulfill it. It’s about making it clear to Americans what side Trump and his administration are on. And that requires clear, constant and clarion contrasts.

For this to happen, progressives must take the lead –

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/taking-trump-lessons-reagan-years/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we need to agree to disagree about the impact the Comey letter had on the outcome.

 

So going in a different direction:   Why did the Comey letter have such an impact as to overshadow (or trump if you will) all of the accusations and negative things reported about Trump?   

 

As you noted Trump was melting down:  SO the Comey letter, which didn't accuse Clinton of anything (unlike all the dirt on Trump),   trumped all that the media had put out about Trump in the minds of just enough voters in the key states? 

The people who voted for Trump didn't care then and don't care now no matter how bad Trump is.  He is their guy.  Even after they discover the jobs aren't coming back, their taxes are actually going to go up and their cost of living will go up, they still won't care.

I have no idea what effect the Comey letter had.  Perhaps it just gave a rationale to people who wanted to vote for Trump in the first place, but really didn't want to do it.

The key to the election was that a lot of people who never got polled and supported Trump from day one showed up on election day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since the conventions we've been reading and hearing obituaries for the GOP if not before.  Now the Democrats are supposedly near RIP status.  The first wasn't true and I doubt the second is either.  If losing 49 states in1972 didn't kill it, this won't.

 

What we need is one or two more serious parties to break the logjam of these two.  Also each state needs to have a primary with them split into three groups and spread out over the Spring months.  I propose using the years they elect U.S. senators to decide the grouping and rotate them.  This way states from every region will be in each group and viable candidates will end up having to campaign in every state not just the ones they think will do them the most good.   Some will drop out along the way as now but when the conventions meet they might have a more representative candidate.  

 

I said it before, thirteen "battleground" states should not decide things for the other thirty-seven; every vote and elector must count wherever they are.  Both parties lost states they wrote off without trying for or took for granted.  Was the lesson learned?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since the conventions we've been reading and hearing obituaries for the GOP if not before.  Now the Democrats are supposedly near RIP status.  The first wasn't true and I doubt the second is either.  If losing 49 states in1972 didn't kill it, this won't.

 

What we need is one or two more serious parties to break the logjam of these two.  Also each state needs to have a primary with them split into three groups and spread out over the Spring months.  I propose using the years they elect U.S. senators to decide the grouping and rotate them.  This way states from every region will be in each group and viable candidates will end up having to campaign in every state not just the ones they think will do them the most good.   Some will drop out along the way as now but when the conventions meet they might have a more representative candidate.  

 

I said it before, thirteen "battleground" states should not decide things for the other thirty-seven; every vote and elector must count wherever they are.  Both parties lost states they wrote off without trying for or took for granted.  Was the lesson learned?    

 

That sounds good in theory, but if campaigns are run the same way they are now, then the cost of having to campaign heavily in every state, or nearly so, would be truly astronomical. Just think about how much they spend now simply concentrating on the battleground states. I agree with calls for the entire process to be shortened, with a start date for initial campaigning, have the primaries two months later, then the general election two months after that. And even that may be too long.

 

But after every election we go through this. Calls for election reform, campaign finance reform, the dissolution of the EC. And nothing is ever really changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump: Lessons from the Reagan Years-

 

Democrats have to find a populist spine. Stand up clearly for poor and working people against the corporate lobbies and billionaire class that rig the economy against them. Expose the scams and corruptions. Show how efforts to drive us apart are central to the strategy of ripping us off. They can support Trump when he does something sensible – like deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

Had it. Bernie Sanders.

 

Democratic establishment didn't like it.

 

Next time, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democrats have to find a populist spine. Stand up clearly for poor and working people against the corporate lobbies and billionaire class that rig the economy against them. Expose the scams and corruptions. Show how efforts to drive us apart are central to the strategy of ripping us off. They can support Trump when he does something sensible – like deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

 

The Democrats still have that, but the Republicans' expert use of the media and advertising convinced too many voters that the Republicans are their friends.  The problem is and has been for a long time that the working class, middle class and small business class has been fooled into believing thier future is tied to making the corporations and top 1%ers better off.  Has never worked and never will, but they fail to understand that.

 

As for Peolosi, Warren, Sanders, etc., they are the doom of the Democratic Party.  While they offer a few platitudes about benefits for workers, they tie them to far too many social and liberal programs.  This merely offends the above groups and keeps them loyal to the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats still have that, but the Republicans' expert use of the media and advertising convinced too many voters that the Republicans are their friends.  The problem is and has been for a long time that the working class, middle class and small business class has been fooled into believing thier future is tied to making the corporations and top 1%ers better off.  Has never worked and never will, but they fail to understand that.

 

As for Peolosi, Warren, Sanders, etc., they are the doom of the Democratic Party.  While they offer a few platitudes about benefits for workers, they tie them to far too many social and liberal programs.  This merely offends the above groups and keeps them loyal to the Republicans.

 

I disagree with and think that your second paragraph is utterly wrong.  In fact it flies in contradiction with the problem you recognize in the first paragraph and is much too cautious an approach.  Trump won because he had more moxy for change.  Voters do not want the status quo of the establishment.

Social programmes such as universal health care which we enjoy in Canada and Europe and dirt poor Cuba and free tuition for the middle class are all designed to unburden the less wealthy and allow for their future generations to finally get ahead.  Maybe never on par with the rich, but to get ahead.  And Sanders wants the rich to pay their fair share for this which is a message that the middle class should enjoy.  Again, the super rich corporate republicans have brainwashed the public into thinking that support of these programs will bankrupt them when in fact they will liberate them.  The problem is getting the message across not the message itself.  Warren and Sanders offer solutions to the disaffected middle class of America.  More voters erroneously thought Trump as opposed to Clinton would champion these same causes for them.  It is time for bold action or in the words of Sanders, a social revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with and think that your second paragraph is utterly wrong.  In fact it flies in contradiction with the problem you recognize in the first paragraph and is much too cautious an approach.  Trump won because he had more moxy for change.  Voters do not want the status quo of the establishment.

Social programmes such as universal health care which we enjoy in Canada and Europe and dirt poor Cuba and free tuition for the middle class are all designed to unburden the less wealthy and allow for their future generations to finally get ahead.  Maybe never on par with the rich, but to get ahead.  And Sanders wants the rich to pay their fair share for this which is a message that the middle class should enjoy.  Again, the super rich corporate republicans have brainwashed the public into thinking that support of these programs will bankrupt them when in fact they will liberate them.  The problem is getting the message across not the message itself.  Warren and Sanders offer solutions to the disaffected middle class of America.  More voters erroneously thought Trump as opposed to Clinton would champion these same causes for them.  It is time for bold action or in the words of Sanders, a social revolution.

May sell in Cuba, Canada and Europe, but will not sell in USA.  May sell in NY, CA and a few other states, but won't sell in the Heartland, South, Southwest or rest of USA.

We have too many college graduates in this country already.  We need better job related training at high school post-high school level.  And this is not same as "community college."  Most community colleges now push academic programs and pre-four year college prep programs.

Might note that the working class turned its back on the unions as well and the unions were chief providers of health care, pensions and high pay to provide for college for children.

Pelosi, Warren and Sanders are not the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May sell in Cuba, Canada and Europe, but will not sell in USA.  May sell in NY, CA and a few other states, but won't sell in the Heartland, South, Southwest or rest of USA.

We have too many college graduates in this country already.  We need better job related training at high school post-high school level.  And this is not same as "community college."  Most community colleges now push academic programs and pre-four year college prep programs.

Might note that the working class turned its back on the unions as well and the unions were chief providers of health care, pensions and high pay to provide for college for children.

Pelosi, Warren and Sanders are not the answer.

 

Brainwashing through fear by the 1% cabal has done this.  It is time undo the brainwashing.  You are capitulating if you don't think Warren and Sanders are the answer.  They are the ONLY answer to the super rich controlling everything about our lives.  

Sticking to the establishment status quo is what doomed the democratic party in the election and will keep doing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brainwashing through fear by the 1% cabal has done this.  It is time undo the brainwashing.  You are capitulating if you don't think Warren and Sanders are the answer.  They are the ONLY answer to the super rich controlling everything about our lives.  

Sticking to the establishment status quo is what doomed the democratic party in the election and will keep doing so.

I live with the white, working class males and females and have all my life.  Trust me, they do not trust Sanders, Warren and Pelosi. In fact that is why many supported Trump instead of Clinton.  Also why many voted for first time in years - so they could vote against the "liberal" Democrats.

Don't disagree that working class, middle class and small business operators have been brainwashed by the 1% and their Republican allies.  But coutering that with extreme socialism, communism or whatever someone calls it will not win them back to the Democratic Party.

Those groups above were members of and voters for the Democratic Party when it was center left or center.  Pelosi and her extremist cohorts, such as Warren and Sanders, pushed them into the arms of Trump.  They started abandoning the Democrats wholesale in 2010.  Obama's reelection in 2012 was somewhat of a fluke.  Need to note how many GOP governors, senators, representatives, county councilmembers got elected then, as well as the increased number of states controlled by the GOP.

The Democratic Party needs to be a party for the whole country, not just CA and NY.

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