2018 Democrats thread

[Dam8610]

Victim blaming, nice.

 

Instead of s***ting on progressives for not supporting neoliberal corporatists who are essentially moderate republicans, how about you come at this from the correct angle and blame the politician for not EARNING their votes. Nobody owes anybody their vote.

 

Our voting system itself needs major reform. Voting should be mandatory as it is in many countries, and it should be a ranking system. This would allow for the proliferation of minor parties and force the major parties to consider positions they otherwise wouldn't in order to be able to govern, which would give more of the country more of a voice in politics.

[caulfield12]

At the very least, have Sanders as your VP candidate...Kaine added absolutely nothing and motivated not one single additional Democrat to vote, with the possible exception of in VA.

 

This is part of the reason the local/state Democratic parties essentially have run out of money, when there’s nobody they can enthusiastically support, and especially draw smaller donations like Dean, Obama and Sanders did.

Edited January 31, 2018 by caulfield12

[Real]

Victim blaming? How are they "victims?"

 

I am trying to speak rationally to people who theoretically hold a similar view to me. What is the point of "earning" votes, if you lose 2 votes for every 1 you gain? What is the point of forcing politicians to take positions that will result in losses at the national stage?

Nobody has to do anything. Which is why in the example, you can sit out and give me $10. That is their choice. They want to sit out, they dont want to vote, then dont complain when the outcome isnt what you like. Dont complain about immigrants, dont complain about SC nominees, dont complain about health care. They chose to sit out, they chose to be silent, so now dont whine about the outcome.

 

Thats not victim blaming, that is trying to explain the realities of life. Most of the time winning requires some amount of sacrifice or compromise. I dont know how better to explain this to people. Right now there are 2 choices to run the US govt. You either align with one of them, or you leave it to the whim of other people. So if 1 party has more align with you, vote that party. Dont think that sitting on the sidelines will somehow get that party to move with you. It wont. It will do the opposite, because that party will see you as unreliable and will go after the reliable votes.

 

Republicans are in control of House, Senate and President. Sanders (the more progressive candidate) lost to Clinton. Clinton crushed Sanders in Florida, Ohio and Penn, yet she still lost to Trump. There is a severe disconnect if you think being more progressive is going to win the necessary states to take back anything. Change takes time and a lot of people fear it.

 

Really? Progressive policies would lose on the national stage? You obviously don't read any polls. Medicare is insanely popular for those who have it, saying Medicare for all would be unpopular is flat out incorrect. People overwhelmingly support it. People also overwhelmingly support a minimum wage tied to inflation, tuition free public college, and legalizing marijuana.

 

The reason people stayed home, or voted for Trump was because they knew the difference between Trump and Hillary is negligible when you're talking about POLICY.

 

Also, please don't try pretending as if Hillary won fair and square. The entire mainstream media showed superdelegate tallies before they even cast a vote. Unaware voters saw this as her having a lead that she didn't already have. SANDERS closed a 60 point lead in less than 10 months. He didn't have the name recognition nor had the corporate media behind him. We also know that Clinton literally funded the DNC herself and had all of the strings of power.

 

[caulfield12]

And that's exactly the same reason why Sanders still hasn't released his donor list to the DNC.

 

Lack of trust...

[Dam8610]

Really? Progressive policies would lose on the national stage? You obviously don't read any polls. Medicare is insanely popular for those who have it, saying Medicare for all would be unpopular is flat out incorrect. People overwhelmingly support it. People also overwhelmingly support a minimum wage tied to inflation, tuition free public college, and legalizing marijuana.

 

The reason people stayed home, or voted for Trump was because they knew the difference between Trump and Hillary is negligible when you're talking about POLICY.

 

Also, please don't try pretending as if Hillary won fair and square. The entire mainstream media showed superdelegate tallies before they even cast a vote. Unaware voters saw this as her having a lead that she didn't already have. SANDERS closed a 60 point lead in less than 10 months. He didn't have the name recognition nor had the corporate media behind him. We also know that Clinton literally funded the DNC herself and had all of the strings of power.

 

Yeah, the idea that progressive policies would lose on the national stage is pretty absurd when you consider that almost every progressive policy position polls at over 60% nationally.

[caulfield12]

CNN)A senior adviser who worked for disgraced Trump appointee Carl Higbie was banned from using Uber after an incident early last year in which he allegedly made racially charged and anti-Muslim comments to a driver.

 

Daniel Pollack is the senior adviser for public affairs at the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the federal agency that oversees national volunteering organizations like AmeriCorps. Pollack works in the office of external affairs, which was formerly headed by Carl Higbie, who resigned earlier this month over a slew of racist and of other inflammatory comments unearthed by CNN's KFile.

 

 

It's a travesty that an agency that started with JFK/Sargent Shriver (Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, VISTA) and represents the heart of the American spirit of volunteering and community service has fallen under the "leadership" of such despicable characters.

Edited January 31, 2018 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

Really? Progressive policies would lose on the national stage? You obviously don't read any polls. Medicare is insanely popular for those who have it, saying Medicare for all would be unpopular is flat out incorrect. People overwhelmingly support it. People also overwhelmingly support a minimum wage tied to inflation, tuition free public college, and legalizing marijuana.

 

The reason people stayed home, or voted for Trump was because they knew the difference between Trump and Hillary is negligible when you're talking about POLICY.

 

Also, please don't try pretending as if Hillary won fair and square. The entire mainstream media showed superdelegate tallies before they even cast a vote. Unaware voters saw this as her having a lead that she didn't already have. SANDERS closed a 60 point lead in less than 10 months. He didn't have the name recognition nor had the corporate media behind him. We also know that Clinton literally funded the DNC herself and had all of the strings of power.

 

 

Yeah, the idea that progressive policies would lose on the national stage is pretty absurd when you consider that almost every progressive policy position polls at over 60% nationally.

 

Polls had Hillary decimating Trump.

 

Last I checked Republicans control the House, the Senate and President. You can keep relying on polls, but those polls dont matter. Polls dont take into account how electoral college votes are split, polls dont take into account states for the senate and polls dont take into account districts for the House.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, just like those polls,its meaningless.

 

And you can make excuses for Sanders, just like people make excuses for Clinton. But Id rather win elections and be able to implement progressive policies than believe that somehow what people in all of those red states want is a MORE progressive candidate. It defies all facts and evidence. You have to play and win the game in the confines of the rule. Until the popular vote means something, you have to play to the electoral college. The numbers from the last election do not show some sort of path for Sanders to victory.

 

I just dont get the angle here. But Id be glad to be proven wrong, unfortunately history and evidence dont suggest I am.

[GoSox05]

The Dead Enders Candidates Who Signed Up to Battle Donald Trump Must Get Past the Democratic Party First

 

Later, he said, he was phone banking and asked a supervisor what message he should tailor to the rural part of the district, since the script seemed aimed at city dwellers. “Just tell them the trailer-court story, they’re not big thinkers out there,” he said he was told, referring to Craig’s childhood in a trailer home.

 

 

This is a lot that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Always running to the center to chase people who aren't going to vote for you anyway absolutely destroys base enthusiasm, and without that, you don't have the thousands upon thousands of volunteers across the country who will work hard to find, run and support good candidates who can actually win (contra soxbadger's contention, the data isn't exactly on the side of "run centrists and win!")

 

It turned out the Democratic Party had other ideas — or, at least, it had an old idea. As is happening in races across the country, party leaders in Washington and in the Pennsylvania district rallied, instead, around a candidate who, in 2016, had raised more money than a Democrat ever had in the district and suffered a humiliating loss anyway.

 

Christina Hartman, by the Democratic Party’s lights, did everything right during the last election cycle. She worked hard, racking up endorsements from one end of the district to the other. She followed the strategic advice of some of the most sagacious political hands in Pennsylvania, targeting suburban Republicans and independents who’d previously voted for candidates like Mitt Romney, but were now presumed gettable.

 

“For every one of those blue-collar Democrats [Donald Trump] picks up, he will lose to Hillary [Clinton] two socially moderate Republicans and independents in suburban Cleveland, suburban Columbus, suburban Cincinnati, suburban Philadelphia, suburban Pittsburgh, places like that,” Ed Rendell, the state’s former governor and titular leader of the state party, had predicted to the New York Times.

 

 

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

After spending $1.15 million in 2016, she had finished with 42.9 percent of the vote. In 2014, a terrible year for Democrats, a little-known Democrat spent just $152,000 to win almost the same share, 42.2 percent of the vote.

 

 

Keep running these useless clowns who lose anyway and watch all of the passion and outrage currently aimed at Republicans fade away into nothingness.

 

[GoSox05]

Christina Hartman under preformed Hillary Clinton in 2016. Now you are backing her again! That's not even a progressive vs centrist thing, that's just being awful at politics.

[Soxbadger]

Do you have any evidence of what you suggest? Can you even point to 1 election where your ideas were successful?

 

When you look at electoral maps, you see a lot of patterns. Its not about getting more votes, its about getting more votes in the right states. If Democratic party gets every vote in Oregon, its still the same amount of electoral votes as if the person won by 1 vote. So when you look at a map, what makes you think that a more progressive candidate would likely win Ohio, Florida etc. What in their history of voting, state or at the federal level, suggests that?

 

I get your arguments. If people are more excited, more people will vote. But at the same token, it doesnt matter what YOU are excited about, it matters what the voters in a select few states are excited about. So the question is really about a handful of states and why by a very small margin they broke for Trump. Of those states, only 1 of them went for Sanders. What is interesting is that the argument for being more "progressive" actually hurts the argument that "If only Sanders had more money/establishment support" hed have beaten Clinton. If "excitement" about "progressive" policies is going to win the day, then why didnt Sanders win? Shouldnt have all of the excitement overcome the money?

 

Even worse for the anti-Clinton argument, is that Clinton has 2 of the top 3 slots for most primary votes in history. She received more than Obama in 2008, and her 2016 candidacy she gained more votes than anyone outside of Obama in 2008. So if you look at the raw data, there is just no way to conclude that more progressive candidates are somehow going to get these magical votes that are not found in either the primary or the general election. The only evidence that supported Clinton may have had trouble was the fact that in 2016 she received less votes than in 2008.

 

Another point that doesnt seem to be brought up, is that if being more progressive is truly the best way to win, why dont more progressive candidates do better in primaries, general elections etc? I dont believe the green party has ever won a seat at the federal level. And after Obama's implementation of Obamacare (less progressive than universal healthcare) it brought in a bunch of much more conservative congressmen. Youd think that it would be the opposite, if the theory of being more progressive will win is true.

 

I ultimately think that there were a few failures in strategy that cost Clinton, but at the same time she had history going against her. Its rare for the same party to hold the Presidency 3 terms in a row. I expressed that worry multiple times on this board prior to the election. But those concerns were met with "The polls show".

 

Who knows what will happen, but I personally think doubling down on ideas that have consistently rejected at the voting booth (the only poll that matters) isnt a good way to win.

[GoSox05]

Do you have any evidence of what you suggest? Can you even point to 1 election where your ideas were successful?

 

When you look at electoral maps, you see a lot of patterns. Its not about getting more votes, its about getting more votes in the right states. If Democratic party gets every vote in Oregon, its still the same amount of electoral votes as if the person won by 1 vote. So when you look at a map, what makes you think that a more progressive candidate would likely win Ohio, Florida etc. What in their history of voting, state or at the federal level, suggests that?

 

I get your arguments. If people are more excited, more people will vote. But at the same token, it doesnt matter what YOU are excited about, it matters what the voters in a select few states are excited about. So the question is really about a handful of states and why by a very small margin they broke for Trump. Of those states, only 1 of them went for Sanders. What is interesting is that the argument for being more "progressive" actually hurts the argument that "If only Sanders had more money/establishment support" hed have beaten Clinton. If "excitement" about "progressive" policies is going to win the day, then why didnt Sanders win? Shouldnt have all of the excitement overcome the money?

 

Even worse for the anti-Clinton argument, is that Clinton has 2 of the top 3 slots for most primary votes in history. She received more than Obama in 2008, and her 2016 candidacy she gained more votes than anyone outside of Obama in 2008. So if you look at the raw data, there is just no way to conclude that more progressive candidates are somehow going to get these magical votes that are not found in either the primary or the general election. The only evidence that supported Clinton may have had trouble was the fact that in 2016 she received less votes than in 2008.

 

Another point that doesnt seem to be brought up, is that if being more progressive is truly the best way to win, why dont more progressive candidates do better in primaries, general elections etc? I dont believe the green party has ever won a seat at the federal level. And after Obama's implementation of Obamacare (less progressive than universal healthcare) it brought in a bunch of much more conservative congressmen. Youd think that it would be the opposite, if the theory of being more progressive will win is true.

 

I ultimately think that there were a few failures in strategy that cost Clinton, but at the same time she had history going against her. Its rare for the same party to hold the Presidency 3 terms in a row. I expressed that worry multiple times on this board prior to the election. But those concerns were met with "The polls show".

 

Who knows what will happen, but I personally think doubling down on ideas that have consistently rejected at the voting booth (the only poll that matters) isnt a good way to win.

 

 

Have you not seen what has happened to the Democratic Party in the past 10 years? At federal and state levels.

 

Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president?

 

Our analysis shows Democrats have lost 910 seats since Obama took office.

 

 

Is that the way you want to keep on going?

 

Progressive or more left wing candidates may not have done well in the past, but the party is changing and it seems like the people at the top are the last ones to know.

Edited January 31, 2018 by GoSox05

[Soxbadger]

Have you not seen what has happened to the Democratic Party in the past 10 years? At federal and state levels.

 

Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president?

 

 

 

 

Is that the way you want to keep on going?

 

Progressive or more left wing candidates may not have done well in the past, but the party is changing and it seems like the people at the top are the last ones to know.

 

...

 

I dont know how to respond to this because I think many would argue that things like Obamacare (a progressive policy) lead to a lot of those problems.

 

I guess here is the question: Do you think the Democratic party has become more or less progressive in the last 10 years?

 

Because I dont think there is any way to legitimately argue that it has become less progressive. And if its gotten more progressive, those seat losses are further proof that your idea isnt supported by any evidence.

 

Now again, thats not to say a great winning idea cant be new and thus have no historical evidence to support it. I just dont think going way outside the box is a great idea for this specific election, because historically speaking the party who has the house, senate and Presidency doesnt usually hold onto all 3 very long. So basically as long as they dont completely screw it up, they should see gains.

[GoSox05]

Also, I get that in some places you are stuck with the Joe Manchins and Doug Jones. There are other places were they can run more left wing candidates and win. PA, OH and VA. Look what happened in the last Virginia election.

 

If you are stuck with the Joe Manchins and Doug Jones in those states at least have something better then Dianne Feinstein in California. You could pretty much run anyone you want in that state and win.

 

[StrangeSox]

You could read the Intercept article that details numerous cases of centrist candidates failing hard and "hopeless" progressive candidates winning upset victories which includes several of the races I mentioned in a previous post. The article also highlights why progressive and more activist candidates may struggle to catch on--the party apparatuses favor establishment candidates who can bring in big money, and the outside funding can flood a race and make other candidates non-viable. The article, along with many others written over the past decade, addresses some of the reasons why the Democrats completely fell apart after their wave elections in 2006 and 2008--there was a lot of disappointment from the left that the ACA didn't go nearly far enough, that not nearly enough was being done to hold Bush and the banks accountable for their destruction, and that the party was abandoning any progressive principles including defending the ACA in order to run as status quo centrists. And, for what it's worth, the conservative Blue Dog democrats took some of the biggest losses in 2010 and 2014.

 

Running a socialist in every race isn't the One Neat Trick To Break Democracy---Republicans Hate It!!! but neither is running boring centrist blah everywhere. When has an aggressive progressive message been "consistently rejected at the voting booth," though? Obama's campaign in 2008 was very progressive, especially for the time, even if a lot of the promises and hope didn't end up going anywhere. Clinton's heavily calculated technocratic centrist campaign lost to Donald Trump. Centrist, wishy-washy Democrats lost nearly a thousand seats from 2008 to 2016. The bit of a blue wave we've seen in the backlash to 2017 has been a wide mix of center-left, like Northam, to out-and-out socialists.

 

You analysis seems to be focused exclusively on Presidential politics, too. I think Obama's terms shows the serious short-comings in that regard--losses in many statehouses throughout the country, decimating the lower ranks of the party and draining the upcoming talent pool in addition to losing all control within the federal government. If the DCCC swoops in to back some money-raising centrist candidate with business connections but no real grassroots backing over a local candidate who has dozens or hundreds of enthusiastic volunteers but doesn't have deep pockets, why is that a good thing? Where's the evidence for that being the path to success? Why should the volunteers turn their efforts to the centrist candidate who might not really support any of the more progressive policies that has them enthusiastic beyond "well they're not a Republican!"?

[StrangeSox]

...

 

I dont know how to respond to this because I think many would argue that things like Obamacare (a progressive policy) lead to a lot of those problems.

 

I'm pretty sure a big chunk if not a majority of the "disapproval" numbers for the ACA was from people who didn't think it went far enough. A lot of the progressive base got disillusioned when the Democratic Party let the Nelsons and Liebermans dictate the terms of the debate and gave us a half-measure plan, and then in the years after that Democrats spent their campaigns running away from the ACA rather than supporting it.

[StrangeSox]

Soxbadger, you might find this portion of the article gosox posted relevant:

 

If Democratic leaders are getting the sense that 2018 could be a wave election much like 2006, it’s worth looking at the last time the party swept into the House. The DCCC that year was run by Rahm Emanuel, who institutionalized the practice of only endorsing candidates with a demonstrable ability to either fundraise or pay for their own campaigns. Democrats that year beat 22 Republican incumbents and picked up eight open seats that had previously been held by Republicans. Because winners write history, the strategy has become conventionally accepted as wisdom worth following. But taking a closer look at the races themselves suggests the DCCC was flying blind.

 

In New Hampshire, for instance, the DCCC backed state House minority leader Jim Craig over local activist Carol Shea-Porter, in a classic establishment-versus-grassroots campaign. The conventional wisdom suggested that Craig’s endorsements, his moderation, and his ability to fundraise were what was needed in the district. Instead, Shea-Porter took a firm stand against the war in Iraq and organized an army of foot soldiers on the ground. Vastly outspent, she smoked Craig by 19 points in the primary.

 

The DCCC, in its wisdom, wrote her off, declining to spend a dime on what they saw as a lost cause. She spent less than $300,000 and, on the back of progressive enthusiasm, won the general election. She is retiring in 2018.

 

In California, the DCCC backed Steve Filson, a conservative pilot, against Jerry McNerney, who Emanuel believed was hopelessly liberal. After McNerney beat him in the primary, a peeved Emanuel said the DCCC wouldn’t be helping him in the general. A coalition of environmental groups got behind him instead, and McNerney won anyway.

 

In upstate New York, Emanuel went with Judy Aydelott, a former Republican who was a tremendous fundraiser. She was crushed by environmentalist and musician John Hall, after which the DCCC shunned the race as unwinnable. Hall won.

 

Emanuel completely ignored Larry Kissell, running in North Carolina; with the help of netroots activists, he ended up losing after a recount by just 329 votes. In 2008, this time with DCCC support, he won by 10 points. Emanuel did the same with Dan Maffei, who lost in a recount by roughly 1,000 votes. With DCCC support the next cycle, he won in 2008.

 

It can be difficult for challengers to go up against the party because it is often hard to tell how or if the party is taking sides. Short of a public statement, candidates are left to quiz donors, consultants, or other operatives who might be in the know.

 

Steve Cohen, a Democratic representative from Tennessee, learned that lesson in a roundabout way. Much to Emanuel’s displeasure, Cohen ran a far-to-the-left campaign in 2006 and won a Memphis district. A white man in a minority-majority district, he was presumed to be a one-termer and drew a well-funded challenger in 2008, Nikki Tinker. (She won the endorsement of EMILY’s List, which tends not to endorse candidates against incumbents, even anti-choice ones like Dan Lipinski in Illinois.)

 

Cohen suspected that Emanuel was working against him but had no firm evidence, until one day he was having breakfast at the bar in Bistro Bis, a Washington restaurant, after Tinker had announced her bid. He saw Tinker in the restaurant — and then he saw Emanuel. “Rahm came in and walked around and saw me and danced around, like doing a pirouette, like he had to pee or something, dancing on his toes,” said Cohen, describing the jittery reaction of the Chicago pol who had famously studied ballet as a young man.

 

Cohen left the restaurant for about five minutes and then returned to find Emanuel and his opponent dining together. “I caught Rahm,” Cohen said.

 

Tinker wound up running a campaign widely condemned as anti-Semitic. Cohen is now in his sixth term; Emanuel is the mayor of Chicago.

 

But the party’s inability to rethink conventional tactics creates an opening for progressive challengers. The party, like the media covering House campaigns, is relentlessly focused on 23 particular House districts where Clinton won, but the seat is still held by a Republican. Those seats, the party believes, belong to Democrats and are theirs for the taking. That was the strategy in 2006, too, as Emanuel dug in on the 18 seats in districts Kerry had won in 2004 but still were represented by Republicans.

 

Those seats were toss-ups, and despite Emanuel’s vaunted tactical genius, he did barely better than flipping a coin, winning 10. Democrats won 10 more seats in districts George W. Bush had carried with between 50 and 55 percent of the vote. They won seven in races where Bush pulled in 55 to 60 and won three upsets where Bush had won 60 percent or more of the vote just two years earlier. In other words, a third of all the Democratic pick-ups came in races where the party had been crushed two years prior and was paying little attention this time around. “Back in 2006, a strong argument can be made that Rahm was in the right place at the right time with the wrong strategy,” said Podhorzer, the AFL-CIO’s strategist who worked on the ’06 campaign.

 

The same pattern held in the Virginia House races in November, in which the party focused on a handful of swing districts, only to see stunning upsets across the state — epitomized by a Democratic Socialists of America-backed nobody unseating the House majority whip, and transgender journalist Danica Roem knocking off a legendary bigot.

 

Those types of candidates in 2006 were boosted not by the DCCC, but by outside groups like the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, which was at the height of its power. This time around, there’s no shortage — well, there’s always a shortage — of outside groups that can come into a race and lift a candidate up. The explosion of grassroots energy post-Trump didn’t just create new candidates, it made new groups, too. That means candidates who get shunned by the DCCC still have the possibility of connecting to an organized faction of Democrats who can make their race viable.

 

The good news is that the DCCC (and DSCC and DNC) are not all-powerful, and outside groups can still end up getting more progressive candidates on the ballot over money-raising establishment preferences. Running centrists everywhere and beating back progressives within your own party doesn't have it's own great track record, and it's hard to say how well "run progressives everywhere" would really work because it's never been tried. Could someone more strongly advocating for progressive economic policies have won in Alabama, or is Doug Jones the best we can hope for? Is it worth taking a shot on something different in races where you're "doomed" anyway?

[bmags]

I'm kinda tired of the progressives consistently reaching for things being rigged when people don't fall over themselves to make sure their candidates win every time. They seem consistently surprised that other people have other preferences and would try to push those to the forefront to the point that I have to ask "when do you think that will stop being the case?"

 

They aren't the incumbent power. They get benefits from that and they get penalties from that, but part of becoming the incumbent power means beating them and not constantly just whining.

 

They are as annoying as libertarians were 10 years ago, saying "80% of people agree with this narrow issue we talk about!" "If people just got out of the two party mold, man, everyone would be a LIBERTARIAN".

 

Just keep winning and winning in face of opposition because the same thing is going to happen when they are in power and then say "oh sheesh, everyone agrees with us but these people keep rigging it so we can't enact our policies!" and then they get routed for being ineffectual.

[StrangeSox]

It's not so much "rigged" as "god damn Democrats are f***ing awful at politics" because they keep prioritizing "how much money can you raise to pay our consultants?" over "do you have good ideas and can you actually win?" though. When the preference you're pushing to the forefront is "raise money so we can enrich our garbage consultant class," I think it's fair to expect some criticism over that. We're not talking about competing grassroots efforts here.

 

eta: the end of that big chunk I just quoted to SB kinda directly contradicts your "they're just whining" angle, too.

 

Those types of candidates in 2006 were boosted not by the DCCC, but by outside groups like the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, which was at the height of its power. This time around, there’s no shortage — well, there’s always a shortage — of outside groups that can come into a race and lift a candidate up. The explosion of grassroots energy post-Trump didn’t just create new candidates, it made new groups, too. That means candidates who get shunned by the DCCC still have the possibility of connecting to an organized faction of Democrats who can make their race viable.

Edited January 31, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Weve completely gotten away from the original idea, so Ill bring it back.

 

I think its great that grass roots organization and other groups are promoting more progressive policies in primaries etc. But when those candidates LOSE in the primary, the people who supported that more progressive candidate should consider voting for the person who is more aligned with their ideas, even if they arent as progressive thyed like.

 

That is where this all came from. that certain progressives wouldnt vote for Clinton and so they sat out. Or that if the Democratic party doesnt get more progressive they will sit out. Again, I fully support running more progressive candidates. But when they lose at the primary level, it hurts the cause if their supporters sit out the general election. And I dont really see any good arguments for how sitting out, helps the progressive cause.

 

(edit)

 

Or vice versa. Had Sanders beaten Clinton, I would have supported Sanders because anything else would have helped Trump win.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

I think you’re overlooking how much the party assumed that African-American voters would turn out in non-Obama elections...and how many of them sat out due to disappointment over the way Bill Clinton treated Obama in 2008, over the term super predators and how the “mend it, don’t end it” revision of government policy in the 90s was coded to be targeted at blacks.

 

She suppressed those voters, or took them for granted...which seems strange to say, because the campaign was largely targeting women and minorities at the expense of the white/working middle class they lost in all those Heartland and Rust Belt states. Hillary never learned how to feel comfortable speaking to them, and made them feel she was really going to be in the trenches fighting for the improvement of their lives.

 

Between young people being turned off (Sanders being pushed aside) and the lack of any excitement about Clinton from blacks...and assuming those middle class whites in Wisconsin would never turn against the Dems, that’s where the election was really lost. It took a perfect storm of bad strategy, wishy washy messaging and not having a strong rationale for why you were even running, other than that it was time for a woman finally.

Edited January 31, 2018 by caulfield12

[bmags]

Bernie Sanders lost because he couldn't win over black Democrats specifically.

[bmags]

It's not so much "rigged" as "god damn Democrats are f***ing awful at politics" because they keep prioritizing "how much money can you raise to pay our consultants?" over "do you have good ideas and can you actually win?" though. When the preference you're pushing to the forefront is "raise money so we can enrich our garbage consultant class," I think it's fair to expect some criticism over that. We're not talking about competing grassroots efforts here.

 

eta: the end of that big chunk I just quoted to SB kinda directly contradicts your "they're just whining" angle, too.

 

You are right, it may be an annoying group of progressive media. But I'll stand by it. Just keep running. Nobody is actually stopping you. Is the Illinois Democratic Party and Daniel Biss going to have stopped Ramirez-Rosa from becoming a prominent politician, or the fact that Ramirez-Rosa keeps not running for promotions? Why the hell is he not just running for Gov himself, or Congress himself, or Mayor himself?

 

The DNC and DCCC are just fundraising organizations. They've made terrible decisions all my life, they've also been beaten consistently all my life. There's a reason Obama relied outside it. So if you actually lose because the DCCC supported a s***ty candidate you...probably just aren't good.

[Soxbadger]

(IMO) The election was lost because the "polls" made them so confident that instead of focusing on the 4-5 states they needed to get to 270, they instead started trying to make states like NC and Texas competitive. Its not that Clinton didnt feel comfortable speaking to the midwest (shes from the midwest), its that she didnt even step foot in the midwest. I dont think she ever actually stepped foot into Wisconsin or Michigan (not 100% sure on Michigan).

 

This is from Clinton herself:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-cli...happened-2017-9

 

"but if our data (or anyone else's) had shown we were in danger, of course we would have invested even more."

 

"I would have torn up my schedule, which was designed based on the best information we had, and camped out there,"

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Polls had Hillary decimating Trump.

Last I checked Republicans control the House, the Senate and President. You can keep relying on polls, but those polls dont matter. Polls dont take into account how electoral college votes are split, polls dont take into account states for the senate and polls dont take into account districts for the House.

 

Hillary won the popular vote, just like those polls,its meaningless.

 

And you can make excuses for Sanders, just like people make excuses for Clinton. But Id rather win elections and be able to implement progressive policies than believe that somehow what people in all of those red states want is a MORE progressive candidate. It defies all facts and evidence. You have to play and win the game in the confines of the rule. Until the popular vote means something, you have to play to the electoral college. The numbers from the last election do not show some sort of path for Sanders to victory.

 

I just dont get the angle here. But Id be glad to be proven wrong, unfortunately history and evidence dont suggest I am.

 

Polls are often crap on those major policy questions. When you're asked a question on the phone - would you like to see every young person get an education for free? - it's generally THOUGHT OF as a good idea, but when people actual vote, and actually think about HOW we can achieve something like that, the position changes because the question then becomes, well wait, who is paying for it? It's coming out of my pocket? Oh, then never mind.