The Democratic Party of the USA

[Silver Raven]

Who is the early likely Democratic nominee in 2020? I don't see anybody who is young enough who has much of a national following.  Biden and Bernie are too old (though I did see something about Bernie running again).

My first choice is Elizabeth Warren.

[Danny Franks]

Elizabeth Warren, with Cory Booker as her running mate.

She's a true liberal with unimpeachable personal qualities and a magnetic personality, the GOP will not be able to demonise her like they did Clinton. And Booker is a charismatic young politician who will inspire the base in ways that Kaine obviously didn't. 

[Silver Raven]

Tho Trump will call her Pocahontas through the whole election.

[ruby24]

I want Gavin Newsom. If he wins the governor's race in California in 2018, he'll be the perfect choice. He's young, cool and likable (this authenticity thing is now more important to me than anything else- clearly Democrats won't show up unless they're in LOVE with their candidate personally), he's also very progressive, so that'll fire up the base.

Yeah, he's a return to the white man candidate, but I think he's a good one, lol. I don't think him being governor for two years is an issue in the slightest, after this shitshow we just saw. Basically, qualifications don't matter anymore at all, but he'll be fine anyway, since he's been in government a while.

Kamala Harris is another option as well.

[Danny Franks]

9 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

Tho Drumpf will call her Pocahontas through the whole election.

If he does, she'll have a whole assortment of wittier names to call him. He turned his GOP opponents into jokes because they were jokes. Not an ounce of substance between them, except for Kasich, who came out of the whole thing unscathed.

But honestly, I think her challenging him would upset him too much to keep throwing out glib insults. He'd end up treating her like he did Hillary. That would have failed badly if she hadn't been so disliked anyway.

Another woman who would be interesting would be Tulsi Gabbard. She's a firm leftist progressive, has called for the restoration of Glass-Steagal and for campaign finance reform. She's also a military veteran who served in Iraq. And it would be entertaining to see again how Trump would react to an intelligent woman that he's attracted to. She'd make mincemeat out of him.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Danny Franks

[MulletorHater]

To tell you the truth, I can't even think that far ahead right now.  That was the mistake the Democrats and Progressives made in 2012--thinking ahead to 2016 and the inevitability of Secretary Clinton's bid for the White House.  For months, that's all I heard about--even before the president was sworn in for his second term.

Meanwhile, poor Bernie Sanders was on the Tom Hartmann show reminding folks that we still had the MIDTERMS to worry about but no one was listening.  You know, those very consequential elections that occur halfway into a president's term.  I didn't even start getting emails from the DGA or the DNC until six months before the midterms.  It was as if party leadership woke up one day and said, "Oh, shit!  We've got 2014 to worry about!"

I would prefer that the Democrats focus on getting GOOD candidates for governors, senators, etc.  You know--people that the party can actually put its money and support behind.  It's shameful that a lazy grifter like Marco-fucking Rubio is returning to a job that he didn't even bother to show up for most of the time.  And, why?  His opponent had little name recognition and the party did much of nothing to provide him the resources he needed until the very last minute.  Boneheaded decisions to pull out of Florida and not do much in Wisconsin (because they thought they had it in the bag) were costly.  They constantly did this back in 2014 with disastrous results.  The most glaring example I can think of was the governor's race in New Jersey.  I had heard that Christie's opponent was terrible; yet, Debbie Wasserman Shultz made the decision not to throw any resources her way.  None.  And, look what Jersey got.  

The party drifted away from former DNC Chair Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy.  The strategy entailed putting resources into all 50 states rather than conceding that the party can't win certain states.  It's imperative that Democrats build a presence in all 50 states, including the deep South.  By the party abandoning those states, all it did was increase Republican presence.  Now, Koch-funded politicians sit on local school boards, in state houses, and governors' mansions.  They say all politics are local; it's time that the party remembered that.  That's how you build your grass roots and get the party's message out there.  Joe Biden said something very important that was missed by most media with the exception of Chris Matthews.  The Democratic Party abandoned the working class years ago, and it's time that it figures out a strategy to get those voters back.  

And, another thing--STOP rewarding failure!  Debbie Wasserman Schultz' ass should have been ousted immediately after the humiliating losses of the 2014 midterm elections.  And, stop bringing back retreads like Donna Brazille as band-aid solutions to much bigger problems.  Hillary was a very qualified candidate, but the DNC did her no favors in the end.  And, STOP putting all the eggs in one basket!  That's why the bench is so weak statewide and at the national level.

Oh, and I believe that even President Obama built his own team and structure and didn't rely on the DNC to win which should tell them something.  Whatever David Alexrod did, he needs to bottle it and sell it to the next DNC chair.

[stormy]

How about Deval Patrick?  Or Claire MacCaskill?  Amy Klobuchar?

And I agree, dems get off our asses and work to make 2018 count!

There were a lot of failures between 2014 and this election for the dems including the republican governors and legislatures that now rule a major of states.

Edited November 11, 2016 by stormy

[Jordan27]

It seems the Democrat Party is reeling.  Don't control the Governorships, the Senate, the House and now the White House.

And the bench for the next election is laughable. 

Warren?  Oh my.  Sanders?  Will he even be alive? 

Two terms of Trump is soundly like a reality. 

Liberals out of power.  Sounds like fun.

[b2H]

I am not convinced that Ellison, who is proposed to be the new DNC chairman, is the best choice.  We need a full time person in this role - Ellison is a Congressman.  Howard Dean has thrown his hat in the ring for the role.  Find myself hoping he takes it.

I like some of the previous proposals, but getting them groomed for 2020 needed to start with this year's Dem convention - remember, Obama got his first exposure with a widely publicized and well-received speech in 2004.  I don't know if Warren is quite right.

Edited November 11, 2016 by b2H

[Queena]

While I agree, we need to focus on the mid-terms, we also need to multi-task and think of 2020. We can do both. I think that we need to let Howard Dean take the reigns again. It was his strategy, along with Alexerod, and other's that got Obama in office. I wouldn't credit the DNC alone. Everyone knew that Hillary would run in 2020 back in 08. Was it right? No, but the democrats felt that the Clinton's were owed, and now we've repaid them. Michael Moore has been posting a to-do list of what the democrats need to do, and I mostly agree with him. One of the main things that needs to be done is to bottle up that anger that the young people are expressing in the streets. We need to make sure that they're prepared to vote. Not just in 2020, but also in 2018. I was watching Chris Matthews last night, and someone was saying how some in North Carolina don't even know that there are mid-term elections. The only time that the democrats reach out is during the presidential election. We have to change that. Come to think of it, Howard Dean is a good choice as the head of the DNC but he needs to pair up with someone young. We need fresh ideas on how to reach the young people. 

 

We also need to talk about the electorl college. Maybe it's time to get rid of it. I know that there would be consequenses, but someone pointed out to me that often times the president is choosen before California votes are counted. I know that California's electoral votes are sometimes needed, but that does mean that ofen times, the rest of the country picks the president without the input of California, or without caring what Califronia thinks. 

[ruby24]

I don't think we need to bottle up this anger at all. I think it will drive millions of people into politics, into participating and fighting back.

Yes, absolutely on the electoral college. When the person who loses the vote wins the election, that is a fucked up, and I'm sorry but yes, RIGGED system. A true one. It's certainly not democracy.

And I wrote this in another thread, but here's a fun fact about the electoral college- it was only kept around at the Philadelphia convention as a compromise to the slave holding states in the South. It was proposed that we just have a direct national election of the President but James Madison said the South would never go for it. So there you go. The reason this stupid thing exists was wrong in the first place and has absolutely no bearing on today's society. It needs to be thrown out. People feel that their voices are not being heard when something like this happens.

And it's only ever happened a literal handful of times! Trump is the fifth time this has ever happened. The others were John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and W himself. The first three were all one-termers (which I will always believe Bush would have been if not for the national unity/fear that occurred after 9/11- the 2000 election left deep and long-lasting scars, and now the Democrat has been cheated again). And they were all disastrous and/or forgotten presidents.

Gee, you think it's because the person who didn't win the votes of the people can't actually govern as a duly elected president? This system is completely archaic.

[Lillybee]

There is a Latino congressman, Raoul Castro,  who I think would be a great choice for VP with Elizabeth Warren.

[Silver Raven]

Bernie would be a great DNC chair.

[Ceindreadh]

I've heard that to remove the Electoral College requires a 2/3 majority or something. Is there any way though to change the way the states themselves allocate their electors? That is, I understand that most states do a 'winner takes all' rule whereby the winner of the popular vote gets all the electors, but wouldn't it be slightly fairer if they had to split in the same proportion as the popular vote?

[Danny Franks]

13 hours ago, Queena said:

While I agree, we need to focus on the mid-terms, we also need to multi-task and think of 2020. We can do both. I think that we need to let Howard Dean take the reigns again. It was his strategy, along with Alexerod, and other's that got Obama in office.

The Democrats need to multi-multi-task, because there are elections in 2017. The gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, which have to be seen as 'must wins' for the Democrats. And state legislature elections in both states too.

And the state level is where the Democrats really need to change what they're doing. I've been reading up on this today, and it seems like they have neglected these lower level elections. State houses, school boards, mayoral elections. The Republicans have focused their energies the length and breadth of the political scale, while the Democrats have looked only at those elections that put people in Washington. It's a great way to rot your foundations away to nothing.

So... win those races next year, put a lot of time into those two states. Build momentum for 2018, at all levels. Find idealistic young people who want to run for their local school board, or their municipal government. Anything. Get them prepared and engaged. Build from the ground up.

As for Howard Dean, I hear he's been a lobbyist for the last few years, so I'm not sure how well his return would be taken by the anti-corporate sentiment that is taking over America, never mind the progressives in his own party. If he can prove that he still has the heart of a reformer, then maybe he's the guy.

[Moose135]

7 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

I've heard that to remove the Electoral College requires a 2/3 majority or something. Is there any way though to change the way the states themselves allocate their electors? That is, I understand that most states do a 'winner takes all' rule whereby the winner of the popular vote gets all the electors, but wouldn't it be slightly fairer if they had to split in the same proportion as the popular vote?

The Electoral College is specified in the US Constitution, so to eliminate it would take a constitutional amendment - both the Senate and House would need to pass a proposed amendment with a 2/3 majority vote, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to vote to accept it for it to become part of the Constitution.

States do have the right to decide on how electors are allocated - Maine and Nebraska allocate them based on the results of their respective Congressional districts.

[DkNNy79]

Any chance we can get Obama or Michelle to become DNC chair?

[Danny Franks]

Obama has already has his post-White House project, I believe. He plans to work with state level activists on trying to redraw congressional district lines fairly. To undo the Republican gerrymandering and strengthen the Democrats at a local level. It's something that is desperately needed, and while it's going to be tougher with the Republicans in full control of the country, I think he can make a success of it. 

[BuckeyeLou]

19 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Elizabeth Warren, with Cory Booker as her running mate.

She's a true liberal with unimpeachable personal qualities and a magnetic personality, the GOP will not be able to demonise her like they did Clinton. And Booker is a charismatic young politician who will inspire the base in ways that Kaine obviously didn't. 

I think Cory Booker could be good as VP or even heading the ticket...he's young but has experience, ...I think he is one to watch

[Hanahope]

I agree that state races really need the DNC's focus.  For the past two elections, being stuck in a gerrymandered republican district, I only found out who the democratic candidate was by actively searching for that info.  I never got a single piece of mail, a single phone call, a single flyer, nothing, about the candidate.  That has to change.  My county, and the two near it (which is 3/5 of the counties my district worms its way through) voted for Hillary, so it can go democrat, it just needs some focus and attention.

I think that the potential Dem presidential candidates do need to make that decision early and get plenty of name recognition to counter the Trump media monster.  Al Franken would be fun.

I'd certainly like to think that after Bridgegate, Jersey will be more than ready to kick the Reps out of the governor seat.

[ruby24]

The Dems need a huge personality and someone who connects with people on a personal level to get them out (in the "right" states). That's what we have to look for in a candidate from now on.

We can't forget it, because I think that is clearly what this proved. People just won't feel threatened enough by the other side, they have to feel some sort of connection to the person, that the person speaks to them. At least for Democrats this is the case.

[potatoradio]

We definitely had our bubble burst and were way wrong about many aspects of this election. Once we've gotten over the bulk of our grief and pain, we're going to be wide awake and the TeaParty rethugs were kind enough to provide a sample play book. Or maybe we can come up with one of our own. I agree, we need to multitask and address all levels - local, state, federal - in 2018 and 2020. Should be easier now that we have a common enemy/rallying point and we know we can't let another lackadaisical midterm go by. 

By popular vote count, we're still in the majority. We just have to figure out whatever scraps we have left and build. 

I've signed up to go to my next local Dem party meeting and one of our members of Congress has monthly meetings for her constituents. I'm going to those, too. I want to be a tiny part, or at least a fly on the wall, in developing whatever plan we need to. We need to align our center and our far left so that the party is really inclusive and the majority of in fighting can stop. 

Politics wasn't much a part of my life before, but I think it's my civic duty and responsibility as a human being now to change that. 

[ruby24]

I agree, I want to get involved and I'm not sure where to start exactly. I don't even know if my Congressman has meetings. Any suggestions as to what the first step would be?

[Silver Raven]

Try looking through here for your local Party and see if it tells you how to get involved:

 

http://asdc.democrats.org/state-parties/

[magdalene]

First things first:  Democrats focus on getting control of the Senate.  And I wish there was a way to get rid of the Electoral College.

Thinking further ahead I was quite impressed with Cory Booker at the convention.  Very charismatic and really draws you in when he speaks.

[stormy]

I live in Minneapolis although not in Keith Ellison's district.  As much as I love and admire him I really think the chair of the DNC is a full time job. The whole thing went down the crapper when Debbie Wasserman Schultz took over.

There is former mayor R.T. Rybak (who is currently the vice chair of the DNC) or former governor Deval Patrick or soon to be former congressman Steve Isreal or former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or soon to be former Secretary of Housing Julian Castro.

Edited November 13, 2016 by stormy

[zxy556575]

Moved over from the Trump thread:

2 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

This is why the Democratic party has to find its integrity, it's transparency and to rediscover its links to a broader swathe of the people than the Republicans can ever hope to win. All those people who did vote for Trump because they felt their lives were shit? A lot of them will vote for a Democrat who convinces them he can help them.

The Dems also have to get non-voters and millennials off their asses for real. Overall voter turnout is always abysmally and embarrassingly low, but there must be some vestigial bit of caring and concern that can be ignited. I hope it comes from positive outreach and not as a result of authoritarian policies and human rights being stripped away.

[Danny Franks]

Just now, lordonia said:

Moved over from the Drumpf thread:

The Dems also have to get non-voters and millennials off their asses for real. Overall voter turnout is always abysmally and embarrassingly low, but there must be some vestigial bit of caring and concern that can be ignited. I hope it comes from positive outreach and not as a result of authoritarian policies and human rights being stripped away.

They do. Voter apathy is killing this generation, in terms of being able to effect changes in govt. Yes, there are engaged, active, passionate people under the age of 25, who will vote in every election. But not enough of them.

I read a quote somewhere, which I've seen plenty of times over the years, that sums up the difference in the voter base: "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." In other words, the Republican vote will always be stable (and it was perhaps naive of Clinton to think that even Trump would push enough of them away to make a difference in the red states), but the Democrat vote will vary significantly, depending on the candidate.

Obama? Oh boy, didn't they all fall hard? Kerry? Not so much. And Clinton? Some love her, but she's not nearly as well loved as Obama, and not nearly as inspirational, as these results confirmed.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

They do. Voter apathy is killing this generation, in terms of being able to effect changes in govt. Yes, there are engaged, active, passionate people under the age of 25, who will vote in every election. But not enough of them.

I wonder if they can do a serious research into why this is and how to fix it because I'm so endlessly baffled by it. There are young people who are passionate and engaged and still don't vote even. They get into this nonsense idea that they're too cool for vote because it's too establishment or something and I don't get it. There's so much clear evidence of how Republican's voting works. Yet people couldn't be bothered to come out and cast a vote against Trump? It's such an easy way to support their values. Of course here I'm talking about just a certain type of Dem voter--but there's a lot of them. Everybody was showing that map that was supposed to make use feel better because it showed how Millennials voted. Even one young person said it proved nobody could ever say Millennials were ruining things. But no, it proved the opposite because they didn't turn out. By the time they're middle aged they might have more money and vote Republican.

[Kemper]

I read something yesterday about protesting.  Someone had the idea of boycotting Christmas shopping.  Replies were that it would hurt working people in the service and retail environment the most and wouldn't do any good.  Nothing like blackmailing us and leaving a huge guilt.  But surely something similar could be done...on a smaller but maybe more effective scale.

Why not pick one business/corporation a week (or biweekly) and boycott them?  Maybe start with Apple..Facebook...Instagram...Sears...Lowe's...Home Depot...fast food places...Best Buy...PAPA JOHN'S- but maybe boycott him every week and add Peyton Manning to that list until he stops endorsing them...WalMart (that goes without saying but I don't know how effective that one would be)...Macy's... tons more that I can't think of right now.  Start a real economic boycott and hit some of these places where they hurt...in their stock options.  There must be a way to start a national  movement.  I am a retired senior citizen, a woman, who is mad as hell and we do not have to take this sitting down.  They haven't seen Nasty yet....and I hope to get my husband (staunch Dem) and men like him involved.  It is not like "them" to go out and march, protest, etc.  But they DO eat and shop.  

I see the marches in New York and other large cities and I clap my hands.  But the protesters are being denigrated as being "entitled, spoiled" white kids living off their parents..yada yada yada.  I plan on attending the march on January 21st.  But to me, going after fat cats (usually, but not always Republicans) in their pocketbooks may make them (and the shills in the media) take some notice.  

[Danny Franks]

^If you're going to look into that, I'd suggest starting by trying to identify any companies that have dealings with Peter Thiel, through Clarium Capital or any other businesses he has stakes in.

I think Apple's Tim Cook is fairly liberal, isn't he? And so is Zuckerberg, even if his Facebook news aggregator system is helping spread right wing disinformation.

[sistermagpie]

16 minutes ago, Kemper said:

I see the marches in New York and other large cities and I clap my hands.  But the protesters are being denigrated as being "entitled, spoiled" white kids living off their parents..yada yada yada.  

Yup, and people shouldn't allow that narrative to take hold. The leaders of the protest I was in were POC. White liberals are always going to do stupid things, but we too easily get drawn into bickering over whether everyone is pure enough in their ally-ness instead of focusing on the bigger issue.

[Blergh]

The  most important thing for the party establishment as well as rank-and-file needs to do is acknowledge the missteps and bungling that handed the other side ammo- the same way   football teams go over what errors the coaches and players do after a loss. Yes, one can rail against what the other side did but unless one acknowledges one's mistakes, one can't learn from them much less strategize against the opposition.

[NewDigs]

55 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

^If you're going to look into that, I'd suggest starting by trying to identify any companies that have dealings with Peter Thiel, through Clarium Capital or any other businesses he has stakes in.

I think Apple's Tim Cook is fairly liberal, isn't he? And so is Zuckerberg, even if his Facebook news aggregator system is helping spread right wing disinformation.

NYTimes is reporting on Facebook questioning its election influence.

'Throughout, Mr. Zuckerberg has defended Facebook as a place where people can share all opinions. When employees objected in October to the stance of Peter Thiela Facebook board member, in supporting Mr. Trump, Mr. Zuckerberg said, “We care deeply about diversity” and reiterated that the social network gave everyone the power to share their experiences.

 

[Danny Franks]

1 minute ago, NewDigs said:

NYTimes is reporting on Facebook questioning its election influence.

'Throughout, Mr. Zuckerberg has defended Facebook as a place where people can share all opinions. When employees objected in October to the stance of Peter Thiela Facebook board member, in supporting Mr. Drumpf, Mr. Zuckerberg said, “We care deeply about diversity” and reiterated that the social network gave everyone the power to share their experiences.

 

Huh. I didn't know Thiel was still involved with Facebook. Well, in that case, they're fair game.

But honestly, I think Facebook has contributed very negatively to this election, and to a whole raft of other important events over the last couple of years. People can share anything that they see online, whether it's true or not. Then their friends can share it, and their friends, until thousands and millions of people might have seen that same article, without having a clue whether it's true or not.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Danny Franks

[NewDigs]

15 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Huh. I didn't know Thiel was still involved with Facebook. Well, in that case, they're fair game.

But honestly, I think Facebook has contributed very negatively to this election, and to a whole raft of other important events over the last couple of years. People can share anything that they see online, whether it's true or not. Then their friends can share it, and their friends, until thousands and millions of people might have seen that same article, without having a clue whether it's true or not.

My husband had a FB post this morning stating that "Trump won the popular vote!"

At least he was there to swiftly refute. Others probably just passed it along as fact.

And Zuckerberg's response to the possibility that FB might have influenced the election? "That's crazy!" But at least the question was asked. 

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, NewDigs said:

My husband had a FB post this morning stating that "Drumpf won the popular vote!"

At least he was there to swiftly refute. Others probably just passed it along as fact.

And Zuckerberg's response to the possibility that FB might have influenced the election? "That's crazy!" But at least the question was asked. 

Exactly. All it takes is some simpleton to share a Breitbart or Infowars or Britain First article, which is likely to be partially or totally fabricated or twisted out of all context, and it can spread like a virus. And Facebook have said they have no interest in stopping this. Their entire business model is actually about enabling it as much as they can.

I know that I get an endless stream of articles posted to my newsfeed, only mine are from Huffington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, Wired, io9, Nerdist etc. They post some good stuff, and a whole load of crap. I can only imagine what someone who 'likes' Breitbart gets offered up to them.

[Nysha]

I don't want to boycott Facebook or Trump-supporting businesses because they're not the problem or the solution. The problem is that voters in rural areas aren't seeing themselves or their values in the Democrat party. The solution is to go back to the 50 state strategy, become more invested in local races that help groom politicians for national races, and be louder about what the Democrats do to help working class America.

If we can't get rid of the Electoral College, can we change it from a "winner takes all" to a more equitable system? In Idaho, Trump won 59.2% of the vote, while Clinton won 27.6%. I know a lot of people who didn't vote b/c, while they hated Trump, they didn't figure it would matter since Idaho always goes Republican. Most of they would have voted if they knew they had a chance to give at least one vote to Clinton.

I also think we need term limits, an end to the life-time salary, and an end to the revolving Congress/Lobbyist door, but that may be going to far.

[HumblePi]

Okay so, this isn't going to help anyone's anxiety or depression, so don't read it if you're afraid of more. But I'm going to be honest here. 

The one thing I haven't seen here is some introspection about our Democratic Party and their failures that ultimately resulted in this fiasco of an election. To start with, Hillary Clinton was almost the worst possible candidate not only to go up against Trump but she would have possibly fared just as horribly against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz. She's always had the ambition and goal to be the first woman President, but she's a deeply flawed candidate and high risk for the Democrats to put in that position. If it was a well-functioning Democratic party, why would the Democratic party offer the nation a candidate with the highest disapproval ratings in modern history. Hillary Clinton marched to the nomination without any credible establishment opposition, and without much enthusiasm even among her own voters and that does not reflect a healthy party, it reflects an enfeebled party, lacking in presidential-level talent and firmly in the grips of a dubious political machine.

Secondly, I'll let Bernie Sanders say this, he had it all right. ""You cannot be a party which on one hand says we're in favor of working people, we're in favor of the needs of young people but we don't quite have the courage to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class," he continued. "People do not believe that. You've got to decide which side you're on." Although we all believed that the Republican party was imploding upon itself it was in fact the Democratic party that failed us, the average citizen. The election of Donald Trump can only happen in a country that is deeply, deeply broken.

[FuriousStyles]

By that token...perhaps the DNC shouldnt clearly tip the scales in favor of one Democratic nominee over the other.  It was so clear that the top brass at the DNC were going to get Hillary the nomination come hell or high water.  2008 was supposed to be her turn but that young, inspirational senator from Illinois got in the way.  No way were they going to let someone else swoop in again. So Bernie (and millions of his supporters..admittedly I was one) were crushed.

The DNC assumed we were just going to come out and vote for Hillary because they said so.  Because she'd been there for 30 years always fighting for women and children.  The problem is when you have to reach back to 1990-something to find footage of you actually doing something tangible for women and children then you message rings a little hallow. Hillary has been a career politician....not a crusader for the working class like she touted.

The problem is, if she were a man it wouldnt have been an issue to be a "career politician"...well I take that back...because clearly there was pushback on both sides when it comes to "Washington insiders".  Thats one of the things that made Obama so great. He really connected with us "common folk"/wasnt an insider....and just by virtue of his race, name, background, you name it  was very different.  Hillary represented much of the same and the DNC failed to realize that isnt going to fly anymore.  Bernie could have been the party's outsider to combat DT's supposed outsider.

Edited November 14, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[ruby24]

Maybe our next nominee will be Tammy Duckworth. Wouldn't that be awesome?

I agree with what you say about the insider/outsider thing. Democratic insiders who've been nominated have lost (Gore, Kerry, Hillary). Although I am NOT going to let people forget that Hillary won the actual vote by bigger than any of the few others who lost the electoral college, and will win more votes than any other candidate in history besides Obama.

But yes, a perceived outsider clearly has enormous appeal. That and a charisma and ability to connect with people.

Edited November 14, 2016 by ruby24

[sistermagpie]

50 minutes ago, HumblePi said:

Secondly, I'll let Bernie Sanders say this, he had it all right. ""You cannot be a party which on one hand says we're in favor of working people, we're in favor of the needs of young people but we don't quite have the courage to take on Wall Street and the billionaire class," he continued. "People do not believe that. You've got to decide which side you're on." Although we all believed that the Republican party was imploding upon itself it was in fact the Democratic party that failed us, the average citizen. The election of Donald Trump can only happen in a country that is deeply, deeply broken.

I liked Michael Moore’s call to remember the Democrats still actually are the party for the working class even if they currently never vote for it. Get out there and show that you care about their problems—real problems regarding jobs, not problems that are the passage of time. I think HRC’s ideas for them were much better and less condescending, but somehow it didn’t come across that way. She doesn’t have the common touch. But worse, she didn’t get out there to them enough, apparently even though Bill said she should. But I do have to say that the whole “common touch” is part of the problem, imo. We need to get over this tribalism where it’s all about the candidate seeming like the people you hang out with.

 

The thing with Bernie, though, is it seems like now it’s becoming the narrative that he would have won, that he lost just because the DNC was working for HRC from the beginning. But Bernie didn’t connect with everyone, especially black voters iirc. You can’t just assume that because a lot of white voters were more enthusiastic about him that it was all the DNC.

[zxy556575]

29 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

But yes, a perceived outsider clearly has enormous appeal. That and a charisma and ability to connect with people.

As much as I think he's a bombastic egomaniac, I would have seriously considered voting for Marc Cuban if he had been running instead of Trump. I've departed party lines twice since 1972 to vote for one Republican and one Independent, so there is precedent. ;)

I wonder what would happen if George Wallace and David Duke had been running now. Hey, the latter might be able to resurrect his political career in the current climate.

I'd also be interesting in hearing arguments for or against raising the voting age to 21 again.

Edited November 14, 2016 by lordonia

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

The thing with Bernie, though, is it seems like now it’s becoming the narrative that he would have won, that he lost just because the DNC was working for HRC from the beginning. But Bernie didn’t connect with everyone, especially black voters iirc. You can’t just assume that because a lot of white voters were more enthusiastic about him that it was all the DNC.

 

Exactly, he didn't connect with me. I wasn't inspired by him.  But then I'm a small doses, practical Hillary voter, so I would have dragged my ass to the polls early just like I did for my girl Hillary and voted for Bernie, to keep Trump the fuck out of office. You can be damn sure of that. Because there is no equivalency of evil in my world when Trump is in the mix. Unless you count Pence, and Ted Cruz because THEY are equally as evil.  I also don't need to be excited to want to come out and vote to keep a racist, klansman from winning the oval office. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[shok]

On 11/10/2016 at 8:58 AM, Danny Franks said:

Embrace Sanders, make him and Elizabeth Warren the figureheads of the party.

Sanders is 75 yrs old and Warren is 67. They are hardly the future of the party and Sanders couldn't even muster up enough votes to win the primary - he wasn't going to win the general. Plus they have no support from the various minority groups in the country that are the heart of the Democratic party. Sanders' campaign rallies were as white as Trump's.

[crayon78]

4 hours ago, lordonia said:

I wonder what would happen if George Wallace and David Duke had been running now. Hey, the latter might be able to resurrect his political career in the current climate.

David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana last week and got 3% of the vote. That's about 58,000 votes, and he was beaten by 5 other Republicans. I was glad to see that he didn't do well.

Probably a good reminder that the Democrats still have a chance for one more Senate seat in the December 10th runoff in Louisiana: https://medium.com/@jackson_cantrell/the-2016-election-isnt-over-yet-f1ea6fc395fe#.iru1vizf4

6 hours ago, HumblePi said:

The one thing I haven't seen here is some introspection about our Democratic Party and their failures that ultimately resulted in this fiasco of an election. To start with, Hillary Clinton was almost the worst possible candidate not only to go up against Trump but she would have possibly fared just as horribly against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

Regardless of whether or not she was qualified, Hillary Clinton was always going to be running with a lot of baggage and held to a different standard than anyone else. I told my husband back before the primaries were decided that the worst match-up would probably be Hillary vs Trump, because she has so many things he could harp on, whether or not true, relevant, or important, and he would never let it go. It would just be so-called scandal after so-called scandal. I wish I had been wrong. It turned out to be far more hateful and angry and ugly than I even imagined.

I don't know if she would have fared the same way against other Republican candidates. If they went on incessantly about emails and other "scandals," then I think it could have been just as bad. If they had gone head-to-head on policy, and not focused so much on the theater, who knows. I don't know if I've seen any data on just how many Trump voters were anti-Clinton voters that were never going to be convinced no matter what. I do see where you're coming from though, as a bunch of people I know on Facebook (who all voted for Hillary because Trump was the alternative) liked to say during the past few months that if Kasich had been on the Republican ticket, he'd probably lead all the polls by 10+. I wouldn't be this terrified if it had been Kasich or Bush or someone "normal."

All that said, I'm still not sure America is ready for a female president, and I hate saying that. I just think there are too many people who don't think a woman's place is in leadership on any level, including other women. There are some really amazing Democratic women coming up in the party, but I just don't know if we'll be there in 4 years.

I do think that the fiasco with the DNC did not help at all, especially given that it was all tied up with the actual candidate. It was just more fuel for the fire about getting rid of the corrupt establishment and needing an outsider. I hope they realize their part in all of this when it comes to overhauling the leadership.

[ruby24]

Everyone should donate something to that Dem in Louisiana. A 51-49 Senate is the first action we can take.

[zxy556575]

Bernie tried to game the system by becoming a Democrat for two seconds, then immediately ran back to his bunker of petulance when he lost. People got behind him because they saw him as "genuine" just like people got behind Trump for the same reason.

1 hour ago, crayon78 said:

David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana last week and got 3% of the vote. That's about 58,000 votes, and he was beaten by 5 other Republicans. I was glad to see that he didn't do well.

Thanks, I guess that's somewhat encouraging. People aren't willing to vote for an outright racist, just for someone he endorses.

My point was muddled anyway. Wallace was elected in his time, but I believed we had seen the last of his and Strom Thurmond's ilk, and it's that conviction that's been shaken.

[Chicken Wing]

Quote

To start with, Hillary Clinton was almost the worst possible candidate not only to go up against Trump but she would have possibly fared just as horribly against Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz.

 

Quote

I don't know if she would have fared the same way against other Republican candidates.

 

I've always said that if either one of these two had run against almost anyone else on Earth, they would have lost to that person in a landslide and it would have been obvious for months. The only reason this election was ever close was because Trump and Hillary are both historically unpopular by near-equal proportions and they canceled each other out.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[HumblePi]

6 hours ago, crayon78 said:

All that said, I'm still not sure America is ready for a female president, and I hate saying that. I just think there are too many people who don't think a woman's place is in leadership on any level, including other women. There are some really amazing Democratic women coming up in the party, but I just don't know if we'll be there in 4 years.

Well dammit, women should go on strike and stop birthing their babies for one whole generation, then they'll have no choice but to elect a woman president! Just kidding of course, but if you look at all the world leaders currently sitting at the very top today, only one-in-ten of today’s leaders of United Nations member states are women. The only way I can imagine a woman president in the US is if there was a 'Designated Survivor' situation like the television series. A massive explosion in the Capitol building kills every single Senator, Congressmen and the President all in one big blast. The only one not present in the Capital was the designated survivor, a female lower-level representative. I almost wish the TV series had made that survivor a woman in the series, it would have been a little more interesting.

The US is still controlled by men so I don't think we'll see a woman president in my lifetime anyway. I don't even see anyone that could be a 'possible' on the horizon, even Warren doesn't have the charisma that people like. But I could envision Michelle Obama possibly running for office one day, maybe not 2020 but 2014.