The Stark Contrast Between the GOP's self-criticism after 2012 and Dems Today

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

[ApatheticAustrian]

seems like massive cherry-picking for me - but ofc greenwald has his own agenda to follow too.

in fact, i am pretty sure, the democrats are actually going to change their approach, while the GOP never walked their autopsy walk..and got rewarded for it plentiful.

[Beet]

The point is, Dems are at 100+ year lows in shares of the rural vote, share of state control, etc. We've become an over-urbanized party in a country whose political system prioritizes land. It's time to make nice with the gentry

[ApatheticAustrian]

The point is, Dems are at 100+ year lows in shares of the rural vote, share of state control, etc. We've become an over-urbanized party in a country whose political system prioritizes land. It's time to make nice with the gentry

you are absolutely and totally correct and even while it needs an unbelievable rural blowout to make a difference on federal level (unlikely to happen every 2 years or even 4 years), it still is a death wish down-ticket.

i agree with your assessment, i just don't think greenwald's logic is very honest or helpful.

in fact, i guess, atm it is going to be necessary to use mister trumps pro-dem leanings in some areas to finally get shoot done for everyone and maybe even use some popular projects as a weapon against republicans.

[elcorazon]

the country is more and more urban. These rural voters need to make an effort to understand it isn't all about them. Most people are in or near cities.

[Virginiá]

Probably one of the most annoying things for the next 2 years, besides the endless, valid reminder that my party is a "smoking pile of rubble," is the people constantly predicting a long-term demise of the Democratic Party, or how 2018 will be awful for Democrats. All this while forgetting that power can and often does wildly swing back in forth depending on who controls the White House, what they have done and how popular the incumbent is. When is the last a president will awful mid-high 30s average approval ratings didn't cost their party big downballot in a midterm? A question pointed even more so at the same time people who claimed an unpopular Pres. Hillary would cost Democrats big in her first midterm.

My point is, after 2018, I'm betting people will be singing a significantly different tune about Democrats in regards to state level/US House power. The thing about having so much power in the states, like Republicans do now (and dems did prior to Nov 2010) is that a decent-sized wave can take so much more away from you.

[Mr. Morden]

The point is, Dems are at 100+ year lows in shares of the rural vote, share of state control, etc.

Regarding "share of state control"...how is that measured?  If you're just counting up the number of governorships and state legislators, then it might be a somewhat deceptive statistic, since the Dems are (on average) stronger in more populous states at the moment.  E.g., they have both the governorship and both houses of the legislature in California, which surely should count for more than the Republicans controlling the government of Wyoming.

[Orser67]

Greenwald himself makes the point that nothing that the RNC did actually helped with their 2016 win; the party nominated the anti-thesis of their recommendations. So his article is less about recommendations and more about gloating over the state of the Democratic Party.