The Democratic Party of the USA

[Hanahope]

Apparently yes.  They loved Trump saying those lies.  They loved Trump being all politically incorrect.  Now they can do so too!

Also, Trump may be a billionaire, but he speaks like a hick with is "I got great words" and "bigly".  He doesn't speak educated elite.

[peacheslatour]

10 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Apparently yes.  They loved Trump saying those lies.  They loved Trump being all politically incorrect.  Now they can do so too!

Also, Trump may be a billionaire, but he speaks like a hick with is "I got great words" and "bigly".  He doesn't speak educated elite.

So that's all it takes? Heck, next time the Dems should just run one of the Duck Dynasty guys.

[Hanahope]

Its the whole dumbing down of our government, at least by Republicans.  They say GWB won because people would rather have a beer with him than Al Gore or John Kerry.  Republicans like undereducated people, give them simple answers to their questions, even if its wrong.  Opiate of the masses and all that.

[peacheslatour]

7 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Its the whole dumbing down of our government, at least by Republicans.  They say GWB won because people would rather have a beer with him than Al Gore or John Kerry.  Republicans like undereducated people, give them simple answers to their questions, even if its wrong.  Opiate of the masses and all that.

Maybe if they weren't so hot to cut education funding. But I guess that makes sense. An under educated electorate is a Republican electorate. Of course their response to that is that Dems. support illegal immigrants for the same reason. We're doomed.

Edited December 1, 2016 by peacheslatour

[slf]

2 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

What I don't get is people saying Hillary didn't connect with rural voters, so that's why Trump won. O.k. I can see that, but how in the holy hell did a billionaire from New York City (get a rope) weasel his way into their good graces? He doesn't have the slightest notion about what their lives are like. I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings here, but do they really like being lied to? I mean the rust belt is not ever going to see those manufacturing jobs come back nor is coal mining ever going to be the main industry in West Virginia. Should Hillary have lied like Trump did? Is that what people really want in a president?

Yes.  They want to believe those jobs are coming back and they reject everyone who has the decency to give them honesty and a more pragmatic alternative. 

There's a part of me, though, that wonders if some people voted for him because after hearing about his extremely shady business practices they thought he might use that to their benefit. Like it doesn't bother them that he gamed the system because they want him to game the system for them.

[sistermagpie]

15 minutes ago, slf said:

There's a part of me, though, that wonders if some people voted for him because after hearing about his extremely shady business practices they thought he might use that to their benefit. Like it doesn't bother them that he gamed the system because they want him to game the system for them.

Reading articles about the rise of fascists somewhere it said that was exactly it. They already believe that everyone is doing that--they just now think people like HRC are corrupt and giving the money to themselves and I guess illegal immigrants and black people. So Trump is absolutely supposed to do the same for them. And probably feel like they're being really smart and sophisticated for seeing how that works.

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Yes.  They want to believe those jobs are coming back and they reject everyone who has the decency to give them honesty and a more pragmatic alternative. 

There's a part of me, though, that wonders if some people voted for him because after hearing about his extremely shady business practices they thought he might use that to their benefit. Like it doesn't bother them that he gamed the system because they want him to game the system for them.

Cop: Well, Billy you've been caught stealing. What do you have to say for yourself?

Billy: President Trump said it was smart to steal.

Cop: Yes Billy, but he's rich.

Billy: So if I'm rich, it's o.k. to steal?

Cop: Well, Billy this is America, so yes.

Billy: I want to be rich. How did he do it?

Cop: His father loaned him a million dollars and he borrowed another 9 million against his inheritance.

Billy: My father doesn't have a million dollars.

Cop: Well, Billy, you're screwed.

[maraleia]

We have to be as brash as they are but do it from a truthful lens. The media likes this and it's the only way to get on TV for example.

[Nysha]

6 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

...but how in the holy hell did a billionaire from New York City (get a rope) weasel his way into their good graces?

By saying Mexicans were rapist, Blacks are criminals, and Muslims are terrorists. He was/is the rich guy, beholden to no one, who "told it like it is". AND, he promised to make their lives better by making America great, again. Hopefully by locking up or kicking out everyone who isn't white, Christian, and Republican.

[sistermagpie]

16 minutes ago, Nysha said:

...but how in the holy hell did a billionaire from New York City (get a rope) weasel his way into their good graces?

There was one guy who used his dad as an example--he hated people who were accomplished (anyone with a degree was an idiot) but he totally respected rich people. His money makes him better than them, imo. Plus, as someone explained on this board, he genuinely hates a lot of the same people they do--the people who are accomplished and sophisticated.

[Blergh]

So after the crushing blow of November 8th, why on Earth did the party re-elect Representative Pelosi as the Minority Leader? Sorry,  but business as usual has done nothing but set the party back IMO and the party is past due making a fresh start with new blood.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Blergh

[ruby24]

Did anyone see or read the speech from this new incoming congressman from Maryland, Jamie Raskin? Now THAT'S the kind of fighting talk I want to hear!

None of this kumbaya stuff. Fight 'em from day one!

[Bastet]

I couldn't find a transcript of Raskin's speech, but this article seems to go into the most detail about it (and it's the one linked to from his website).

[peacheslatour]

You know this election cycle has had rural people complaining about how they represented in the "liberal media". So out of curiosity, I looked up what tv shows were tops in the 1965, the year the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, with bi-partisan support. You guessed it, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, The Andy Griffith Show and Petticoat Junction, along with a whole slew of westerns. Conclusion: If we want to re-unite this country we need entertainment rural people can relate to and that shows us urban and suburban folk that our country cousins are nice, funny and just humans like the rest of us.

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, The Andy Griffith Show and Petticoat Junction, along with a whole slew of westerns. Conclusion: If we want to re-unite this country we need entertainment rural people can relate to and that shows us urban and suburban folk that our country cousins are nice, funny and just humans like the rest of us.

I think this actually was a  big deal at the time. Because all those shows—Andy Griffith, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres and Petticoat Junction all appealed to rural people. Then the networks made a conscious decision to appeal to city people instead because they were better consumers. And rural voters absolutely resented it. They definitely considered it a bad time for the country when they dumped shows about funny hillbillies and cowboys for people who lived in the city.

[stormy]

Oh oh does that mean they have to bring Honey Boo Boo back?

[windsprints]

peacheslatour, you may be onto something:

ABC Head Channing Dungey Says Donald Trump Made Her Rethink Programming Strategy

[Ohwell]

5 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, The Andy Griffith Show and Petticoat Junction, along with a whole slew of westerns. Conclusion: If we want to re-unite this country we need entertainment rural people can relate to and that shows us urban and suburban folk that our country cousins are nice, funny and just humans like the rest of us.

That's funny, because as a kid I watched all of those shows and I lived in DC.  So did my friends.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Ohwell said:

That's funny, because as a kid I watched all of those shows and I lived in DC.  So did my friends.

I suspect they were popular all over the country, but not everyone resented the shift. They were, I think, still really popular when they went off. Like they were top ten shows I think.

I also always laugh when I watch reruns of Andy Griffith because wow, Mayberry has a dark side. You do not want to be an outsider in that place.

[stormy]

I live in Minneapolis, though not in Keith Ellison's district.

In today's paper, Keith says he may be willing to give up his congressional seat to be DNC chair full time.

Good.  Because I don't want someone doing this part time.  Maybe that's why after Howard Dean was replaced with Debbie Wasserman Schultz the republicans were able to take over everything culminating with the presidency this year.

[bittersweet4149]

About time you spoke up, Pelosi. Now, say it loud for the folks in the back.

[Advance35]

It is not the Democratic Party's Finest Hour and that's an understatement but the North Carolina race has finally come to a close and I finally have a little renewed hope that Democracy isn't dead.

North Carolina

Absolutely disgusting, that it took him this long to conceded.   Even State Republican's in Power refused to help this man.   I guess even THEY have a threshold of evil that they can't stomach (on the state level that is).

[Duke Silver]

Dems lack the balls to do something like this, but it's still fun to think about.

https://twitter.com/YeaYouRite/status/805921366763597824

 

Senate Democrats Have One Shot At Saving SCOTUS - Will They?

[slf]

10 hours ago, Duke Silver said:

Dems lack the balls to do something like this, but it's still fun to think about.

https://twitter.com/YeaYouRite/status/805921366763597824

 

Senate Democrats Have One Shot At Saving SCOTUS - Will They?

Is that truly a viable option? If so: do it. This is the kind of slick legal move Dems are going to have to make to protect citizens. They need to stop being so nice all the damn time.

[navelgazer]

I just hope that sitting Democrats realize and understand what is required of them if/when der drumphenfuhrur takes office.  They must Garland every single cabinet nominee.  They must level charges of Tubby's violation of the emoluments clause, an impeachable offense.  And they must never, ever, ever compromise.  Ever.  

They have the opportunity now to go where Bernie would have led them as the leader of he party.   They had better be smart enough to take it.  

[Blergh]

I also hope the sitting Democrats think OUTSIDE THE BOX and actually be ready to hit the ground running instead of just sitting on their hands and whining about being powerless and outnumbered.

[Padma]

Rachel mentioned the Louisiana senate race that no one else is talking about.  Democrats make me so mad!!!!  Tubby is heading to Louisiana on Friday, but no Democrat with a national profile is doing anything for the candidate for senate, Foster Campbell. http://www.fostercampbell2016.com/

Rachel had him on her show. He seems fine. And he's a Democrat. Big difference between 48:52 and 49:51.  But Democrats don't seem to care! It's disgraceful, the apathy about this opportunity--even if it IS a longshot--when Trump and the Republican Party are poised to takeover everything.

[Keepitmoving]

15 minutes ago, Padma said:

Rachel mentioned the Louisiana senate race that no one else is talking about.  Democrats make me so mad!!!!  Tubby is heading to Louisiana on Friday, but no Democrat with a national profile is doing anything for the candidate for senate, Foster Campbell. http://www.fostercampbell2016.com/

Rachel had him on her show. He seems fine. And he's a Democrat. Big difference between 48:52 and 49:51.  But Democrats don't seem to care! It's disgraceful, the apathy about this opportunity--even if it IS a longshot--when Trump and the Republican Party are poised to takeover everything.

This just proves that the criticism of the party is correct because this is how elites act, fucking comfortable. They don't have real fight in them because they don't have to fight for shit, they don't have to grovel, and they damn well don't know anyone who is truly close to them that does if they ever did. This is how the democratic party has acted. Day by day, they really do look like they just pay lip service, bunch of suckers.

Although, a week or two ago when she had Foster Campbell on her show, because he was on a few weeks ago, she asked him if the democratic party was providing him with enough support and he said they were. He said that the party was doing its part in Louisiana to help his candidacy.

But yeah, where is Pelosi/Reid? Or I don't know, do we have a high profile southerner type democrat that could go down there, show their face and hold hands with this Foster guy?

What a suck ass complacent party the democratic party turned out to be, unreal.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[Duke Silver]

^^^ I'm far from an apologist for the Democratic Party, so keep that in mind....  I know I read/heard somewhere that Campbell's people did not want explicit, outside support.  Supposedly, the thought was, peeps in LA are already anti-Dem, and the "stench" of "Outside" influence would hurt him more than it would help.  They basically only wanted $$$ and maybe some logistical support.

[Padma]

10 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

^^^ I'm far from an apologist for the Democratic Party, so keep that in mind....  I know I read/heard somewhere that Campbell's people did not want explicit, outside support.  Supposedly, the thought was, peeps in LA are already anti-Dem, and the "stench" of "Outside" influence would hurt him more than it would help.  They basically only wanted $$$ and maybe some logistical support.

That's not what I remember him saying on Rachel's show.  He was very grateful for getting support (including actual donations) from grassroots Democrats around the country.  I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure when Rachel asked if he received any support outside La. he said he hadn't and seemed disappointed.  That's why she keeps urging national leaders to get involved (even did it again on Monday or Tuesday).

Visibility would help in national news coverage shown to voters in La.  Pence was there last week. And Tubby, to his credit (blech), is going tomorrow, specifically to promote Campbell's opponent, John Kennedy.  You just know that will get major television coverage--aka free advertising--for Kennedy.  Trump did very little to help Repub. candidates during the general election so I'm pretty sure Priebus has worked on getting him to see how in HIS interest it will be now to have a 52 vote majority in the senate.

[Keepitmoving]

1 hour ago, Duke Silver said:

^^^ I'm far from an apologist for the Democratic Party, so keep that in mind....  I know I read/heard somewhere that Campbell's people did not want explicit, outside support.  Supposedly, the thought was, peeps in LA are already anti-Dem, and the "stench" of "Outside" influence would hurt him more than it would help.  They basically only wanted $$$ and maybe some logistical support.

Yeah, that's why I was also  wondering in my post if the dems. even had a high profile enough southern congressman and/or woman who was down there somewhere in the southern region and could join Foster, be seen with him. But I don't think we do, we're east and west coast as far as high profile and that's the problem.   Hence why he's now playing to the center I guess you'd call it and saying that there are some things that he and Trump could work on. Well, whatever gets him elected, cause that sure as hell is what all those republican senators did to hold their seat, it was where ever the wind blew. Hell, a couple of them were using Obama in ads. saying they voted/worked with him on.... when they thought Trump was sinking the ship.

[stormy]

Joe Manchin (D WV) will be the latest democratic senator to meet with trump.  Heidi Heitkamp (D ND) has already been to the fortress of solitude and Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D Hawaii) was there a couple of weeks ago.

Their names have been mentioned for posts in trumps circus of clowns.

Go.  Get out of the democratic party.  I, for one, don't want you in the party.  I want elected officials that share my values and you do not.

Goodbye.  Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[NewDigs]

I would have a hard time voting for Foster Campbell.

'In other ways, Campbell is an odd fit for national Democrats. He generally opposes abortion rights. He hemmed and hawed on whether he supported Hillary Clinton during his campaign. And he is also a strong opponent of gun control. In his latest TV spot he blasts one of his many shotguns to prove the point, copying a move from Joe Manchin’s famous 2010 Senate ad.'

This is how how he felt about tying himself to Hillary back in September.

'Six of the seven major candidates for Louisiana's open U.S. Senate seat are backing their party’s presidential nominee, with only Foster Campbell declining to say whether he’ll support Hillary Clinton, the Democratic standard-bearer.

“This is a race about Louisiana,” Campbell, a Democrat from Bossier Parish who is a member of the Public Service Commission, said in an interview. “Talking about Hillary Clinton distracts people.”'

Edited December 9, 2016 by NewDigs

[choclatechip45]

Interesting that Joe Manchin might be the reason why the government shutdowns. I thought he would be the first democrat to flip over to the Republicans side.

I donated $50 to Foster Campbell's campaign. I understand that a democrat in Louisiana isn't going to have the same views that I do as a New England democrat. However he hates Bobby Jindal who I can't stand so that helps me feel better about donating my money to him.

[fireice13]

57 minutes ago, choclatechip45 said:

However he hates Bobby Jindal who I can't stand so that helps me feel better about donating my money to him.

I hope in the the next four years we're going to see a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" I want the anti-Trump Republicans to team up with Democrats. I know a lot of them ended up rolling over after the election, but some are still speaking up and some may just be quiet because they're not sure what to do. It may mean getting in bed with people we don't like, agree with, think are unsavory but if it defeats Trump and the Republicans in Congress then I'm all for it.

[choclatechip45]

1 minute ago, fireice13 said:

I hope in the the next four years we're going to see a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" I want the anti-Trump Republicans to team up with Democrats. I know a lot of them ended up rolling over after the election, but some are still speaking up and some may just be quiet because they're not sure what to do. It may mean getting in bed with people we don't like, agree with, think are unsavory but if it defeats Trump and the Republicans in Congress then I'm all for it.

That is pretty much my attitude towards it as well. Someone like Susan Collins will hopefully be a great ally for the democrats. I think we will find out which republicans put our country before their party.

[Duke Silver]

[kokapetl]

On 28/11/2016 at 0:10 AM, Rapunzel said:

Nearly every other country in the world goes by popular vote. Who wins is not "controlled" by the most populous areas per se. The popular vote ensures everyone's vote counts equally, regardless of whether or not they are Dems or Republicans or where they live. The entire country elects the President, not just a few key states, which can happen with the EC. Once the President is in power, how is it exactly that these larger states would "control" the government? If the election is based on the popular vote, the American people as a whole elected the President with all of their votes counting, regardless of where they live, and those in CA have no more power than those in NE, for example. The President would govern as usual, the House and the Senate would operate as usual. The big difference is that everyone's vote will have counted if we go to a popular vote system. To say that everyone's vote counts now, under the EC, is a lie.

The EC is antiquated and archaic and was put in place when white males who owned land were the only people allowed to vote. In case people haven't noticed, a lot has changed since then. Every vote should count and if we keep moving ahead with the EC, it means it doesn't and it's a slap in the face to those who stand in line for hours to vote and those who fought so everyone eligible could vote, knowing that everything is up to some bullshit antiquated system anyway. In addition, if the EC votes by state are set by population, in many states those counts are no longer correct. CA, for example, should technically have more than 55 EC votes based on its population today. The people made it clear who they wanted President with the popular vote. We were robbed, in large part, due to the EC, which means many people were essentially robbed of having a voice and say in who becomes President all because they live in a certain state.  

Popular voting works pretty much everywhere else - there is no reason it can't work here as well. That's really the only fair way to elect a President. That way it doesn't favor red states vs. blue states, it's just based on the entire country as a whole and no state is given more weight over another. It doesn't matter where you live if you go on popular vote - the population of the US is what it is.  

Whatever errors the Dems made in this election, the EC contributed to this because, without it, Hillary would be our President Elect. Instead, we get some monster with no moral compass and who has no interest other than lining his own pockets. The man is not even a true Republican and that party knows it. I'm glad this recount is happening and that Hillary and many of the Dems are supporting it (I'm trying not to get my hopes up too high, but at least the Dems are fighting back thanks to help from Jill Stein). To think that we could have had Russia select our President for us is just way too scary. Even if the recount doesn't change anything, Russia still played a huge role by hacking the e-mails and the DNC. Why did they only do this to the Dems and not hack Trump and the Republicans as well? I don't want a President who likely owes piles of money to Putin and Russian banks and who has business interests with foreign governments and refuses to separate the two. It's just dangerous all the way around.

Most other developed nations have parliaments with a prime minister, with a cabinet selected from the legislature, and a shadow cabinet. Executive and legislative are fused. Most of the former eastern bloc went with a variant of this system. 

[Duke Silver]

Yay!!!  Lattes for all of us!!  Sorry, as much fun as I've been making of the Trump transition, the Democratic Party is probably the most effed-up clown car of an endeavor in the U.S. right now.

[Padma]

10 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

Yay!!!  Lattes for all of us!!  Sorry, as much fun as I've been making of the Trump transition, the Democratic Party is probably the most effed-up clown car of an endeavor in the U.S. right now.

At least the wording "well financed resistance" was the reporter's, not a Democrat's. The Dem they quoted was better, "“In terms of needing to fight Trump and get back on track in the states, the left is unified,” said Gara LaMarche, the president of the Democracy Alliance. “The harder question is how you fight intelligently and strategically when every house is burning down.”

[Duke Silver]

[potatoradio]

^^^^^^ great points in that article (from USA Today? Who da thunk it?). I'm especially taken with:

 

"Absolute resistance seemed risky at the time but has resulted in one of the most consequential victories in the party’s history...the GOP’s [resistence] was backed up by tens of millions of dollars of support from outside groups and free advertising from Fox News, which promoted the Tea Party movement like it was gold, a mesothelioma class action lawsuit or a new book from Bill O’Reilly.

Republicans were also blessed with an opponent who was a constitutional law scholar with an almost religious devotion for working within the system, not a guy who just had to settle a $25 million fraud lawsuit and shows little to no respect for the norms that will make him the most powerful man on earth. Most important, their congressional leaders weren’t weighed down by the delusion that voters would reward them for trying to make Congress functional.

Republicans have proved that treating your opponents as entirely illegitimate is a path to success — even when they lose."

So...this may belong on the media thread, but I'm afraid corporate greed will soon leave us with a few people on MSNBC as crumbs for progressives, and those few people will still likely need to talk more about Tubby than any resistance the Dems are doing.  There's no cable network left that's the left equivalent of Fox, and Tubby's Legion of Doom knows it needs to stay that way. Progressives are very good at ferreting out what's left of the independent, leftist outlets, but we need, I think, to focus on developing an easily accessible unifying source that can get the message out. More time building our own "spin," if you will, instead of fighting that well-oiled (and oily) machine of the fascists/hard right or trying to battle MSM that clearly wants to adopt the right's narrative of liberalism. 

I do not have the foggiest idea how to do that. The gap between the power of grassroots and the power of media corporations is immeasurable to me. But, I think we have to focus on building something new and innovative and bold. 

And clearly, they'll be blamed for any prophylactic they try to apply to the Rethugs' pillaging of our safety nets or Tubby's insanity and therefore, denying those poor, poor Tubby supporters their wet dream of opening coal factories and reviving KKK rallies and turning the Grand Canyon into Trump Water Park. So, they have to change the narrative and promote their own bills and resolutions on jobs, climate change, civil liberties, privacy, decency - every issue that has popular support? Especially (and I hate to say this) the support of the younger generation? Get on that and shout your ideas from the rooftops and let everyone see how a fascist regime kills good ideas and hurts the majority of people with its own greed and power mongering. 

I was pissed beyond belief when I had a conversation with a Stein supporter who smugly said, 'well, the Greens are just going to sit back and watch people get what they wanted." I said, "well, that's your choice, but I can't do that. In a few weeks, I have found over fifty different ways to do one small thing in my corner of the world that might make a difference in resistance to Tubby and growing a new progressive party. It's trench work. It's discouraging. I will be likely ridiculed from all sides. And I admit, my optimism is at a low and I admit that we're foundering as a movement and we're not going to evoke a sea change overnight, but sure, you sit back and watch. Enjoy your latte. I'll enjoy my sweat equity in my little part of history, thanks."

OK, I didn't actually say all of that...

But I do have a Dem meeting in January that I'm going to and I'm actually looking forward to it. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by potatoradio
possessive apostrophes are important

[Duke Silver]

[Duke Silver]

The Dem economic message going forward is not as simple as some are framing it.  I was actually against Tim Ryan displacing Pelosi as House Minority Leader (and I am mindful of losses Dems have suffered in the House since 2008) because I just think his old-economy focus is a long term loser.   ***I live in places where new economy rules, so I am admittedly biased.***  However, that doesn't mean screaming about trade in general & TPP in particular is necessarily helpful (from a Dems POV).  Gaining the so-called economically anxious white working class voter could mean losing a voter from high-output counties mentioned in this article.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride for Dems.

 

Quote

The basic fact is that a huge portion of the nation’s globally competitive economic activity occurs in those blue places. Dominated by highly productive, export-oriented advanced industries, high-tech enterprises, and professional services including the management of companies, this Democratic base is already biased toward globalism — with trade something of a core tenet. Moreover, these places are winning at trade.

[Padma]

10 minutes ago, Duke Silver said:

The Dem economic message going forward is not as simple as some are framing it.  I was actually against Tim Ryan displacing Pelosi as House Minority Leader (and I am mindful of losses Dems have suffered in the House since 2008) because I just think his old-economy focus is a long term loser.   ***I live in places where new economy rules, so I am admittedly biased.***  However, that doesn't mean screaming about trade in general & TPP in particular is necessarily helpful (from a Dems POV).  Gaining the so-called economically anxious white working class voter could mean losing a voter from high-output counties mentioned in this article.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride for Dems.

 

 

Didn't you post those exit polls showing that more white voters chose Hillary when the economy was their main concern?  Democrats are the natural advocates for working class/middle class and poor Americans against the Republican policies which are always for the rich. It's the ultimate irony that a self-centered "billionaire" like Trump was able to brand himself as the champion of working class (white) America, but somehow he did.

It's a false narrative though. I don't see why Dems are freaking out.  They don't need to change much in terms of policies--just improve the messaging.  The next four years of plutocracy should give them many excellent opportunities for it.

[Duke Silver]

4 minutes ago, Padma said:

Didn't you post those exit polls showing that more white voters chose Hillary when the economy was their main concern?  Democrats are the natural advocates for working class/middle class and poor Americans against the Republican policies which are always for the rich. It's the ultimate irony that a self-centered "billionaire" like Trump was able to brand himself as the champion of working class (white) America, but somehow he did.

It's a false narrative though. I don't see why Dems are freaking out.  They don't need to change much in terms of policies--just improve the messaging.  The next four years of plutocracy should give them many excellent opportunities for it.

I did.  I'm only saying Dems do need to be careful with their economic message.  It's not as simple as Tim Ryan was making it out to be; naked appeals to Rust Belt working class is tough to reconcile with parts of the Dem base that benefit from trade deals.  The gist of it is that economically-speaking (not politically), the so-called new economy is evolving, and more & more people are benefitting from it, just not the Rust Belt.  I know, my balls cannot be un-kicked (e.g. the election undone); but I'm kinda tired of re-litigating that.  I'm more interested in what the counter-balance to Trump will look like, because something can actually be done about that as opposed to the election.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Duke Silver

[Padma]

I agree it's important to look ahead--and plan and prepare for what is to come.  But some of the problems with the election would be easy to fix in the future so I hope they also really -do- learn from the mistakes (not that they caused the loss, just that it could help to understand how to come across better, especially on bread and butter issues, going forward).

[Duke Silver]

 

This distills some of the arguments I and others have made WRT focusing on Rust Belt voters (I continue to think that's a waste of time/resources/"ideological capital."

Memo to Democrats: Look to the Southwest and Southeast, Not Midwest

Quote

Lost in much of the analyses this year is just how significantly the Trump-Pence ticket underperformed among many traditionally Republican-leaning groups and in some GOP-dominant areas — and of what this possibly portends in future elections. Voting trends suggest a possible realigning of the electorate at work that can bring back the big prize to the Democrats despite their increasingly difficult Electoral College status

.

[navelgazer]

The Democratic -- not "Democrat" -- Party needs to listen to Democrats like this one.  I am so soothed by the justified rage that pours from every word.  

Quote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512668866#post36

WE Are NOT the Problem

As is normal after an election, the losing party engages in a lot of introspection and asks the looming question: Where did we go wrong? 

But this was by no means a “normal” election – nor is it a “normal” loss when the loser is the one with the backing of the majority of voters, and the winner has clearly demonstrated that he is not fit for office. 

I think what we need to focus on is the fact that Democrats are not the problem, nor are our policies, nor is our message. The problem is gerrymandering, voter suppression, a complicit media, unverifiable vote counts – and now we have the added components of Russian interference, and James Comey clearly having used his office for partisan purposes. 

In other words, while we’re busily distracted looking under the hood searching for a mechanical failure, the GOP goes about stealing the car – one hubcap, one tire, one fender, one taillight at a time. 

This election wasn’t about Democrats having the “wrong message”, or having forgotten its core values, or having ignored certain portions of the populace. The Democrats have always been on the side of the working-class; we have always fought to maintain and strengthen the safety-nets that get our fellow citizens by during the worst of times. WE have always been on the side of The People. 

We didn’t lose this election because we didn’t “connect” with people – we lost because many of the people we connect with weren’t allowed to vote. We didn’t lose because we had a failed strategy – we lost because the GOP, via James Comey and the Russians, had a “strategy” all their own. 

We didn’t lose because our candidate had too much “scandal-ridden baggage” – we lost because the MSM never even mentioned the hundreds of scandals the Republican candidate was, and continues to be, involved in. Despite thirty years of unrelenting attacks by the GOP, Hillary’s “baggage” was two carry-on suitcases when compared to Drumpf’s cargo-hold full of steamer trunks bulging with lies, deceit, and outright theft. 

We didn’t lose because we don’t say the right things – we lost because what we have to say is continually drowned-out by FOX-News et al. We didn’t lose because we chose the wrong candidate – we lost because their candidate was backed by a well-oiled machine that pursues the dismantling of fair elections. 

We didn’t lose because our candidate failed to exemplify Christian values – we lost because so-called “Christian” leaders told their flocks that a self-proclaimed “pussy-grabber” was chosen by God. 

I try to be patient with the “but we have to figure out what HRC/Dems did wrong, so we can correct our course in future”comments – most of which seem to be centered on “I told you so – you shoulda picked my guy” rather than any real concern about future political endeavours. But the truth is that as long as we are not focusing on how to fight GOP tactics, the integrity and honesty of our candidates will always be a fatal flaw rather than a vote-getter. 

This is not to say that our Party and it’s members should never be criticized, or that election strategies shouldn’t be continually scrutinized, discussed, and altered when and where warranted. However, given our present circumstances, endlessly blaming ourselves and our Party for “what went wrong” is to ignore the fact that what’s wrong is not who we are, but who our opponents are, and what depths they will sink to in order to undermine us. 

We lost to an ignorant, lying bigot whose entire life has been spent enriching himself by cheating and stealing from hard-working Americans, with a complete disregard for anyone’s welfare but his own. We lost to a self-aggrandizing, mentally unstable idiot who outsources the very jobs he claimed he would now protect. We lost to a bloviating, immoral bully who has deliberately encouraged xenophobia, misogyny, intolerance, and racism – and has promoted violence as a means to an end. 

This was not a loss to a candidate with a superior strategy, a better “image”, a more worthy message. It was a loss to a man who – despite his obvious failings as a candidate and as a human being – had the support of a party that consistently undermines fair voting practices, controls the airwaves through the likes of Limbaugh and Alex Jones, and has learned to rely on the mainstream media to NOT do its job, all while looking the other way as our sworn enemy, Putin, promoted a puppet who will do his bidding as opposed to the bidding of the American people. 

That said, it seems rather pointless to be arguing amongst ourselves about how an ad buy here, or a rally there, or a speech delivered in a different tone would have changed the outcome of this election. We were never up against a “better candidate”; we were up against a party that is without scruples. We were up against a party that will lie, cheat, steal in order to “win”, with absolutely no regard for the welfare of the country, or the well-being of its citizens. 

Declaring that we shoulda-coulda won this election if only we’d done this, said that, chosen a different candidate, campaigned here rather than there, spent more time on this topic as opposed to that topic, is meaningless. The damage has been done, and we are now facing a pResident who stands for everything we as Democrats abhor, and that we as citizens will suffer the consequences of. 

If you want to continue tinkering under the hood, so be it. Just remember that while you’re trying to figure out why the car stalled-out in the middle of the highway, the Republicans are busy constructing road-blocks, shutting down on-ramps, draining the gas tank, and devising ways to ensure we ain’t going nowhere, no how, no way. 

Playing the Blame the Democrats Game is always fun for some. But it doesn’t move us forward an inch; it doesn’t solve the problems we face. And I, for one, am sick and tired of those who think that playing that game is going to get us anywhere. We have a clear and recognizable enemy that needs to be fought - and guess what? That enemy ISN'T us. 

[shok]

1 hour ago, navelgazer said:

The Democratic -- not "Democrat" -- Party needs to listen to Democrats like this one.  I am so soothed by the justified rage that pours from every word.  

What a great article navelgazer. Thanks for posting it and thanks to NanceGreggs for writing it. It completely articulates my feelings except I might have gone a little harder on the media.