What's the future of the Democratic Party?

[JA]

   Considering this stunning defeat suffered by Sec. Clinton and the Democratic Party at virtually every level of government, despite the success of many liberal favored ballot initiatives, the question must now become this – what is the future of the Democratic Party? The Clinton coalition was essentially intended to be that of college educated Whites, women, minorities, and millennial voters. This resulted in an unprecedented chasm between rural and urban America, cost her and the Democratic politicians their elections, yet still yielded a victory in the popular vote. With the Democratic bench for 2020 looking incredibly weak (Warren will be 71 by then, making her an unlikely prospect), there must be a transformation in the party – including its core philosophy.

   There are two futures, as I see it. One is that of the more Progressive, class based politics of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Bernie was capable of endearing working class people to his message without compromising his progressive social views, which demonstrates the possibility of wedding class-based, worker oriented and socially progressive politics. This would reorient the party to a focus on economic populism of a more Social Democratic variety, including a greater emphasis on including members of the White Working Class and non-college educated Whites. The other path is to double-down on the Clinton coalition, which emphasizes a global community, social inclusion, and a general affiliation with more upper-middle class values, along with a moderate left, pro-globalization, business tolerant economic platform. Either of these options will ultimately leave many disappointed, but only one can really win.

[Person Man]

   Considering this stunning defeat suffered by Sec. Clinton and the Democratic Party at virtually every level of government, despite the success of many liberal favored ballot initiatives, the question must now become this – what is the future of the Democratic Party? The Clinton coalition was essentially intended to be that of college educated Whites, women, minorities, and millennial voters. This resulted in an unprecedented chasm between rural and urban America, cost her and the Democratic politicians their elections, yet still yielded a victory in the popular vote. With the Democratic bench for 2020 looking incredibly weak (Warren will be 71 by then, making her an unlikely prospect), there must be a transformation in the party – including its core philosophy.

   There are two futures, as I see it. One is that of the more Progressive, class based politics of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Bernie was capable of endearing working class people to his message without compromising his progressive social views, which demonstrates the possibility of wedding class-based, worker oriented and socially progressive politics. This would reorient the party to a focus on economic populism of a more Social Democratic variety, including a greater emphasis on including members of the White Working Class and non-college educated Whites. The other path is to double-down on the Clinton coalition, which emphasizes a global community, social inclusion, and a general affiliation with more upper-middle class values, along with a moderate left, pro-globalization, business tolerant economic platform. Either of these options will ultimately leave many disappointed, but only one can really win.

What would be the con of each one of those things?  There are limited problems with both paths. We are never going to do well again in MO,IN and may not in OH and IA. I still think we must win MI AND PA and WI. These places are losing votes and we need to keep focusing on AZ,GA,NC and FL and on keeping NV and CO. We need to go where the votes are.

[Blue3]

You need both, and something more.

[Intell]

This election clearly showed that appeal to the working class is needed, and the democrats need to do away with the perception that they're anti-rural and have a different culture to blue-collar Americans.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The second path is simply not viable: college-educated white Republicans will never vote for tax raises, and this is why Trump won.

Also, I don't think you can win back blue-collar rustbelt whites with just economic populism because their alienation expresses itself in cultural terms. Democrats will have to moderate on some social issues as well.

[Blair]

She did win the popular vote in all fairness

[Statilius the Epicurean]

She did win the popular vote in all fairness

Which doesn't mean much when there's an inbuilt bias in the American electoral system against cities and in favour of rural areas. With their current coalition Democrats have to do more than just win the popular vote.

[The Free North]

She did win the popular vote in all fairness

Which doesn't mean much when there's an inbuilt bias in the American electoral system against cities and in favour of rural areas. With their current coalition Democrats have to do more than just win the popular vote.

Which is odd because we heard so much before the election how the Dems had an inbuilt bias in the electoral college that made it so hard for Republicans to win.

[Person Man]

She did win the popular vote in all fairness

Which doesn't mean much when there's an inbuilt bias in the American electoral system against cities and in favour of rural areas. With their current coalition Democrats have to do more than just win the popular vote.

We have to find different positions. Stop being democrats never works. That why we have only 1 or 2 prolife Democrat in the senate left.

[Bigby]

Considering how liberals are further demonizing whites, I don't see anything but the last option continuing.

[Person Man]

Considering how liberals are further demonizing whites, I don't see anything but the last option continuing.

What did Obama do that Gore or Kerry didn't?

[RINO Tom]

Considering how liberals are further demonizing whites, I don't see anything but the last option continuing.

What did Obama do that Gore or Kerry didn't?

That won't be getting an answer, haha.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If it's 1 and/or 4... it will be a party without me in it.  We cant continue with the polarization we have now.  Options 1 and 4 only exacerbate that.  Whether it should or not is beside the question.  It does.

And don't misconstrue what I said as being anti social progress or anti globalization or anti minority or anti women.  We cant win with only that right now.

[Goldwater]

4 would most likely get me to become a Democrat, 3 would not. So you probably want to choose 3.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

4 would most likely get me to become a Democrat, 3 would not. So you probably want to choose 3.

If that's the case, why weren't you already a Democrat?

[Goldwater]

4 would most likely get me to become a Democrat, 3 would not. So you probably want to choose 3.

If that's the case, why weren't you already a Democrat?

Well, basically, I consider myself overall more right-wing than left-wing. However, on the nationalist vs. globalist scale, I am very much a globalist, so if that becomes the primary divide between the parties down the road, I will align myself with the Democrats.

[Seneca]

I expect the Democratic Party will be banned in the next four years.

[JA]

4 would most likely get me to become a Democrat, 3 would not. So you probably want to choose 3.

If that's the case, why weren't you already a Democrat?

Well, basically, I consider myself overall more right-wing than left-wing. However, on the nationalist vs. globalist scale, I am very much a globalist, so if that becomes the primary divide between the parties down the road, I will align myself with the Democrats.

That's my greatest fear of the Sanders/Warren left - a rejection of globalization. Our world must become more interconnected and interdependent. Reverting back to days of trade barriers and such is ridiculous and counterproductive. Instead, we should be focusing on demanding better worker and environmental rights from our trade partners, no more currency manipulation, and not let our trade deals be run by multinational corporations. We need to expand trade and immigration, not cut back on it.

[Higgs]

The answer is very clearly number 3, and to an extent number 2. If Democrats don't realize this and nominate someone like Cuomo in 2020, then they'll have learned nothing.

[TDAS04]

Lean options 1 and 3, and they're not mutually exclusive.  Democrats can further embrace Sanders/Warren social democratic populism, but that's no guarantee they'll do much better among working class whites, many of whom will still vote on cultural issues.  Maybe it will help the Democrats a little, and it shouldn't hurt much among minorities or well-educated whites.

[JGibson]

Options 1 and 3.

[DC Al Fine]

She did win the popular vote in all fairness

Which doesn't mean much when there's an inbuilt bias in the American electoral system against cities and in favour of rural areas. With their current coalition Democrats have to do more than just win the popular vote.

And Trump is Trump. He was a definite drag on GOP enthusiasm in some areas. The GOP needs to worry about changing demographics, but the Democrats need to worry about more 'professional' populists.

A right-populist with a better family life and toned down rhetoric could be quite powerful.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

1 and 3. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and someone needs to be doing 1 because these people need a voice.

[Person Man]

1 and 3. 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, and someone needs to be doing 1 because these people need a voice.

Basically acknowledge that elites suck and that fascism is not the answer.

[RINO Tom]

Why do people keep talking about college educated Whites like they're in any way a Democratic group?  Lol