TheCid

Future of Democratic Party?

859 posts in this topic

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.

 

A question is what makes a liberal, policy-wise? I'm not sure many people really understand that. Today's Republicans would vote against Social Security, Medicare, and even creating a National Parks system. Those working class whites depend on those programs (at least the first two).  They need to fully understand what voting in their best interest means, instead of falling for the rhetoric of the far right.  The important thing to recognize is that the Republican Party has moved farther to the right than it has ever been. The Democrats are pretty much where they have been since FDR's time -- actually, they are less leftist, if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Republicans would vote against Social Security, Medicare, and even creating a National Parks system. 

 

Of course. Republicans no longer believe in the common good. Everything - every service - is just something to be privatized, to make a profit from - by themselves and their cronies.

 

The main reason they get voter support that they should really never be able to get with such policies is because they've mixed in hot button social issues like abortion and "gays" and guns and school prayer and you name it so as to confuse Republican voters into not thinking about how they're being screwed in all the fiscal policy ways.

 

But that's not why they won this time. The tide - nationally, at least - had been turning toward more enlightenment on social issues, but social issues didn't play the same part in 2016. This time, what mattered was letting the Democratic Party know that they'd lost support by becoming the kind of corrupt Party that had become so insensitive to the poverty of the common people that they actually believed they could go with something as reprehensible as a Clinton again and get away with it.

 

As much as the pops of New York and California were willing to - as usual - let them, the rest of the nation has had enough of Democratic hubris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question is what makes a liberal, policy-wise? I'm not sure many people really understand that. Today's Republicans would vote against Social Security, Medicare, and even creating a National Parks system. Those working class whites depend on those programs (at least the first two).  They need to fully understand what voting in their best interest means, instead of falling for the rhetoric of the far right.  The important thing to recognize is that the Republican Party has moved farther to the right than it has ever been. The Democrats are pretty much where they have been since FDR's time -- actually, they are less leftist, if anything.

 

There used to be conservative Democrats in office in the south, and they are all gone. They were replaced by Republicans. This started happening during the Reagan era.

 

Right now Trump is doing the same as he moves up into the Rust Belt with moderates. If he pulls off what Reagan did, you can forget about liberals for 8 to 12 years.

 

If you look at the map of the last election, Democrats are on both coasts and that is about it. So there is no future for the Democrats as they only represent the coasts, which are radical leftists. Obama ran as one of them and look at how he destroyed the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What these poor suckers don't realize is that the GOP shot

down just about every Dem idea to help working and middle

class folks. Enjoy getting screwed over by Donny, dip*****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be conservative Democrats in office in the south, and they are all gone. They were replaced by Republicans. This started happening during the Reagan era.

Not exactly.  Those conservative Democrats were the foundation of the "New" Republican Party in the South.  Many of them have died out, but many are still left in office. They switched from Dem to GOP.  I personally knew some of them.

It actually started during the Goldwater era - Strom Thurmond was one of first.  Nixon's Southern Strategy was based on converting Dem. officeholders to the GOP.  Reagan did continue to build on it.

There are still some conservative Democrats left in office in the South, although the media ignores them.  Nikki Haley damn near lost to one of them in her first run for governor in a state that has voted GOP for governor for decades.  One Dem did sneak in, but only because he promised a lottery.  The people got it, so didn't need him anymore and he was voted out in next election.

There are still a lot of Democrats left in the middle of the country and Rust Belt.  But the Democratic Party needs to communicate with them, expose the GOP for the con artists they are and tone down the extreme liberal agenda of a few Democrats.

Incidentally conservative is a relative term depending upone what part of country you are in.  Also, big difference between social and fiscal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly.  Those conservative Democrats were the foundation of the "New" Republican Party in the South......

 

All that matters is they are no longer Democrats. They lost them and the party went far left, just like it is today. Try and say otherwise and you would get laughed out of any serious message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened in the 1960s was that the Democratic party took

up the cause of civil rights, not that it went far left. That caused

many southern Dems to gradually crossover to the GOP. That's

what Dicky's southern strategy was built on. There are some older

folks still registered as Dems but they vote GOP. I wouldn't worry that

much. Clinton was a very unpopular candidate, so it will be easy

for the Dems to find one more popular than her in 2020. You

win some, you lose some.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House Oversight Committee Democrats are demanding that President-elect Trump releases his tax returns and that an immediate investigation is launched into Trump's conflicts of interest-

 

"When a president refuses to be transparent and appears to have no ethical standards regarding conflicts of interest, it is up to the opposition party, journalists, reporters, and concerned citizens to do their best to hold the president accountable....

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/28/democrats-demand-trumps-tax-returns-investigation-conflicts-interest.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be conservative Democrats in office in the south, and they are all gone. They were replaced by Republicans. This started happening during the Reagan era.

 

 

It started happening in the South before the Reagan era. It happened when Democrats fought for civil rights. The South became Democratic when Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves and fought the Civil War; it began going Republican when the Democrats ushered in the period of civil rights, which many white southerners still oppose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be conservative Democrats in office in the south, and they are all gone. They were replaced by Republicans. This started happening during the Reagan era.

 

Right now Trump is doing the same as he moves up into the Rust Belt with moderates. If he pulls off what Reagan did, you can forget about liberals for 8 to 12 years.

 

If you look at the map of the last election, Democrats are on both coasts and that is about it. So there is no future for the Democrats as they only represent the coasts, which are radical leftists. Obama ran as one of them and look at how he destroyed the party.

 

 

You're old enough to remember the Dixiecrats--

 

White supremacy's Strom " segregation forever" Thurmond - you're old enough to remember the entire Civil Rights Movement.

 

In 1964 Lyndon Johnson, representing the National Democratic Party, Sponsored the Civil Rights bill and that made so many Southern white racist Democrats uncomfortable that many later left and became Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It started happening in the South before the Reagan era. It happened when Democrats fought for civil rights. The South became Democratic when Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves and fought the Civil War; it began going Republican when the Democrats ushered in the period of civil rights, which many white southerners still oppose.

South was Democratic way before the Republican Party was even created (1856).  It is actually the nation's oldest political party and goes back to Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, et. al. 

See my earlier post for more details on how/when South became Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mika Brzezinski's comments on Elizabeth Warren are correct and needed to be said.  Same for Sanders and Pelosi.

Warren's method will work in MA, NY and CA and maybe a few other states.  It will lose the majority of states again.

Warren's comment that voters voted for more Democratic senators than Republican shows a serious lack of common sense.  The lesson is that fewer Democrats won senate seats than were supposed to and many more Republican seats were up than Democratic.  If the Democrats follow her reasonig and agenda, they will lose many senate seats in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mika Brzezinski's comments on Elizabeth Warren are correct and needed to be said.  Same for Sanders and Pelosi.

Warren's method will work in MA, NY and CA and maybe a few other states.  It will lose the majority of states again.

Warren's comment that voters voted for more Democratic senators than Republican shows a serious lack of common sense.  The lesson is that fewer Democrats won senate seats than were supposed to and many more Republican seats were up than Democratic.  If the Democrats follow her reasonig and agenda, they will lose many senate seats in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.

 

Agree.   But hey if Warren ran for President in 2020 she might end up with a higher number of popular votes due to overwhelming support in NY and CA.     Dems need fresh leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mika Brzezinski's comments on Elizabeth Warren are correct and needed to be said.  Same for Sanders and Pelosi.

Warren's method will work in MA, NY and CA and maybe a few other states.  It will lose the majority of states again.

Warren's comment that voters voted for more Democratic senators than Republican shows a serious lack of common sense.  The lesson is that fewer Democrats won senate seats than were supposed to and many more Republican seats were up than Democratic.  If the Democrats follow her reasonig and agenda, they will lose many senate seats in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.

 

TheCid, did you listen to that interview (see below a few posts) with Cenk on Larry King?  Republican Lite is never going to work for the democrats.  People want REAL change not the establishment status quo.  There is no point in copying the Republicans.  So what if you end up losing in a close election.  You're still going to lose.  It is time to go all-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi got 68% of the vote to continue as minority leader in House. Vote was 134 to 63. This is worse than in 2010 when Democrats lost 63 seats and control of the House under Pelosi. Vote then was 150 to 43.

However, the continuation of the Very Old Guard in leadership positions does not bode well for the 2018 elections nor for any real hope of progress during the next two years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheCid, did you listen to that interview (see below a few posts) with Cenk on Larry King?  Republican Lite is never going to work for the democrats.  People want REAL change not the establishment status quo.  There is no point in copying the Republicans.  So what is you end up losing in a close election.  You're still going to lose.  It is time to go all-in.

 

Well the people got real change with the 2016 election.     Sorry,  but Cid is right as it relates to the Dems.  The USA is made up of 50 states and the vast majority of the states lean right.    The Dems don't need to copy the GOP but they do need to move to the right on some key issues otherwise they will end up like the Green party with 1% of the votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheCid, did you listen to that interview (see below a few posts) with Cenk on Larry King?  Republican Lite is never going to work for the democrats.  People want REAL change not the establishment status quo.  There is no point in copying the Republicans.  So what is you end up losing in a close election.  You're still going to lose.  It is time to go all-in.

I skimmed it, but didn't really hear anything earth shattering to prove that the "liberal" agenda is going to save the Democratic Party. Nor any reason why Waren, Sanders, Pelosi, et. al. are the answer.

It is not "Republican Lite;" it is a centrist policy.  The very thing that made Bill Clinton president twice.

"Go all-in" is exactly what we did with McGovern, who I actually supported financially before the nomination. Actually Hillary was perceived as being "all-in" by the majority of voters in each state, except for the too few that she won.

The Democrats also have too few people in the House and Senate because the "liberals" are not being elected in vast majority of states and districts.

People say they want "REAL change," but the majority continues to elect centrist or moderates or Republicans.  Usually the same people they have voted for for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so certain that a centrist movement from the Dems is the answer. A large portion, if not the majority, of Trump voters said that they voted for him not for centrist views or conservatives views, but that he was an "outsider" who would "upset the system". I think a leftist pol who can drive that same enthusiasm for change from the status quo would do well. Just look at how well Sanders did compared to what the pundits all said. Remember, nearly every pundit on TV and in print, and every poster on here, said that there was no chance that Trump would win. And he did. So the old rules don't necessarily apply anymore. Something like 46-48% of voters stayed home on election day. Maybe a leftist, populist message could motivate more to vote. Especially if Trump's administration doesn't show much progress in the next two years towards improving the lot of the average worker.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skimmed it, but didn't really hear anything earth shattering to prove that the "liberal" agenda is going to save the Democratic Party. Nor any reason why Waren, Sanders, Pelosi, et. al. are the answer.

It is not "Republican Lite;" it is a centrist policy.  The very thing that made Bill Clinton president twice.

"Go all-in" is exactly what we did with McGovern, who I actually supported financially before the nomination. Actually Hillary was perceived as being "all-in" by the majority of voters in each state, except for the too few that she won.

The Democrats also have too few people in the House and Senate because the "liberals" are not being elected in vast majority of states and districts.

People say they want "REAL change," but the majority continues to elect centrist or moderates or Republicans.  Usually the same people they have voted for for decades.

 

McGovern?  Clinton?  Times are a changing'  Time to get with it.  That old disaffected white vote has one foot in the grave.  Time to get ahead of the curve.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so certain that a centrist movement from the Dems is the answer. A large portion, if not the majority, of Trump voters said that they voted for him not for centrist views or conservatives views, but that he was an "outsider" who would "upset the system". I think a leftist pol who can drive that same enthusiasm for change from the status quo would do well. Just look at how well Sanders did compared to what the pundits all said. Remember, nearly every pundit on TV and in print, and every poster on here, said that there was no chance that Trump would win. And he did. So the old rules don't necessarily apply anymore. Something like 46-48% of voters stayed home on election day. Maybe a leftist, populist message could motivate more to vote. Especially if Trump's administration doesn't show much progress in the next two years towards improving the lot of the average worker.

 

Yes,  how much actual change in policy voters wanted is hard to discern.   There is a vast difference between the run for President,  the US Congress and the state level.    E.g.  Clinton just barely lost and of course got more popular votes so from that POV the Dems don't have to change much to win the Presidency in 2020 (one could say just run a better candidate).

 

But the Dems have been getting killed at the state level as well as Congress since the 2010 election.     What type of candidates the Dems should run in those elections?    I have no clue.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Dems have been getting killed at the state level as well as Congress since the 2010 election.     What type of candidates the Dems should run in those elections?    I have no clue.   

 

As far as my county/part of the state, which is the only place I feel qualified to guess at with any certainty, I can't see any way anyone with a "D" next to their name can win any state or Representative post. But my area has seen a lot of growth in business and jobs in the past decade, so there isn't a big push to change things, except in the perceived "swamp" of D.C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so certain that a centrist movement from the Dems is the answer. 

 

It's not. You're right that moving to the left is the only way for the Democrats to be a worthwhile Party going forward.

 

As Bogie said in the post after yours, it's a new day.

 

A new generation is becoming more and more powerful (in terms of voting power) than the old "hide under your bed because of the red scare" generation that is passing away.

 

We have members here who keep insisting that people will always vote the same way they've always voted during their particular lifetimes. But that's just old dogs not being able to learn anymore.

 

Socialism was a bad word for a long time.

 

But for the millennials, it isn't. It's a good word now, and the old guard can't seem to accept that - but they can grouse about it in their retirement chairs all they like, it won't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGovern?  Clinton?  Times are a changing'  Time to get with it.  That old disaffected white vote has one foot in the grave.  Time to get ahead of the curve.

Who do you think put Trump in the White House, McConnel as Majority Leader of the Senate and Ryan as Speaker of the House?  Who do you think elected over 30 GOP governors and gave control of most state legislatures to the GOP?  

The Dems, media and pollsters mistake was to think "that old disaffected white vote has one foot in the grave."  Maybe so, but it sure kicked hell out of the Democrats since 2010.

There may well be a time when the millenials or whoever is more leftist exercises more power, but not anytime soon.  They have displayed very little ability to influence elections and government in the US, except in a few states.  Even some of the most "liberal" states are becoming more conservative - the ones Trump won that he was supposed to lose and that have Republican governors.

Remember also, that people tend to become more centrist or conservative as they get older.  Not all, but a lot.

And they better get real damn active at the county and state level if they expect to do anything - and real damn fast.

  • Like 2

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