Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2017, 12:55:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter, Justice TJ)
| | |-+  Sooooo. What lessons did Democrats learn from 2016 that they can apply in 2020?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Sooooo. What lessons did Democrats learn from 2016 that they can apply in 2020?  (Read 1534 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14322
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2017, 05:06:08 am »
Ignore

Nothing. The Democratic Party will collapse into obscurity as Trump leads a new dark age.

Fixed.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
izixs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 574
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.31, S: -6.51

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: January 12, 2017, 07:06:25 pm »
Ignore

Nothing. The Democratic Party will collapse into obscurity as Trump leads a new dark age.

Fixed.

I don't know about the fix there. I mean, I've been making gold related puns all day and its not getting old. :-p

But on to the actual topic...

To a certain degree the primary problem of the Clinton campaign was taking things for granted. They took the nomination for granted until Sanders showed up and starting winning states. They took Trump for granted as well of course, figuring people would reject him from the get go. (They forgot Rule 1 of being a Republican, its ok to be a terrible human being if you have an R by your name.) They took the rust belt portion of their firewall for granted, letting three must win states slip through their fingers. They took for granted the media doing their damn job. They took their campaign security for granted. They took for granted that the stupid e-mail stuff wouldn't be a problem come fall. They took for granted their media communication strategy, thinking simple and rare explanations for the unflattering stuff would be enough to smooth it over, not understanding they need to hit back multiple times against allegations. And they took for granted their internet communication strategy, letting the rise of fake news and its pushers dominate discourse in many online forums.

So in short, don't assume you'll just sort of win. A lot of the headache in all of this could have been easily avoided and appropriate steps taken to find a better course. To become immune to Trumps tantrums, the media's spastics, and even Comey's sudden intervention into the campaign.

And another thing, its not necessarily about who we nominate I've noticed. Its about the field of potential nominees. There are a number of parallels between 2016 and 2000 besides the EV/popular vote split. The most glaring is the tiny field of candidates. Clinton and Gore both only had one serious contender facing off against them. And given Gore's overwhelming support and Clinton's demographic advantages, despite themselves, they were able to pretty much walk to the nomination. They didn't have to really work for it. Yes the primaries were contentious. But most the strain of it was on the Sanders side as they fought the uphill battle against overwhelming odds. The Clinton campaign was challenged, but not to the point of needing to really improve to the level needed to win the general election. The Democratic party -needs- a competitive primary where no one starts off with overwhelming support. Preferably where the early front runner doesn't make it. Kerry started ahead in 2004, lost ground to Dean, came back and rolled most the rest of the season... and lost in the general. 2008 Obama was highly considered, but Clinton started off ahead and lost the primary, with Obama taking the nomination and the general. Heck, go back to 92 and that come back kid guy who didn't win anything till Georgia, his first win in 11 contests. And he became president despite that challenge, or perhaps because of it.

And before anyone demands a comparison to Trumps improbable rise in the primaries, remember that the parties and their coalitions are very different in terms of motivations and voting habits. Making a proper comparison here doesn't make sense and thus is no excuse to ignore this advice.

So yeah, gotta keep our candidates on their toes and can't take anything for granted. We live in insane world now after all. Anything can, and probably will happen.
Logged

I'll come up with one later.
Virginia
Virginia C
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4224
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: January 12, 2017, 08:31:23 pm »
Ignore

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.


I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15863
United States


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2017, 11:17:27 pm »
Ignore

We have to find a candidate who appeals to both the white working class (as long as they still have the numbers to decide elections) as well as the 'emerging Democratic majority' that Ruy Texeira and John Judis talk about in their book.  Preferably someone reasonably young (Generation X for now), attractive, charismatic, inspiring, and hip.  None of the names mentioned so far seem to fit. 
Logged

Fuzzy Bear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4014


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2017, 09:40:32 am »
Ignore

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.


I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.
Logged

"The family cannot be constituted like the liberal state, nor can it be governed entirely by that state's principles. Yet the family serves as the seedbed for the virtues required by a liberal state. The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility, and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized."-Barbara Dafoe Whitehead
SCNCmod
Full Member
***
Posts: 190


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2017, 10:25:57 am »
Ignore

1) Top messaging points... should lead from an economic standpoint (vs relying on attacking Trump's personality to get votes)

2) The candidate must spend time ("show up") in rural areas also.

3) .... (not sure if there is a bigger lesson to extract from this.... But... I thought Hillary may be in trouble- when she chose Kaine as VP, rather than Castro or maybe even Booker.. or possibly Heinrich.  I think Hillary would've won Florida & Arizona with Castro as VP.  Hillary only needed a small bump in Latino votes in AZ and FL... which Castro would've provided IMO.  .... Or... I think Booker would've made the difference in PA & Mich.... Plus Wisc or maybe FL... where Hillary underperformed in big cities like Detroit, Philly, & Milwaukee). ***I think Castro or Booker would've also helped increase the Under 30 vote for Hillary... which could've helped make a difference given how close many states were.


10 Closest states in 2016


1.  Michigan, 0.22%
2.  New Hampshire, 0.37%
3.  Pennsylvania, 0.72%
4.  Wisconsin, 0.76%
5.  Florida, 1.20%


6.  Minnesota, 1.52%
7.  Nebraska 2nd Dist, 2.24%
8.  Nevada, 2.42%
9.  Maine, 2.96%
10. Arizona, 3.55%
 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 10:46:42 am by SCNCmod »Logged
JoshPA
Rookie
*
Posts: 46
United States


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2017, 06:15:36 pm »
Ignore

none they are making huge mistakes.
Logged

I try my best to make prediction not base on bias.
Northwest Goff
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3092
United States


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2017, 06:35:00 pm »
Ignore

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.


I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.

There are no Javits or Case figures left in the GOP and haven't been since the 1970s. There are conservatives who are okay with Roe and gay rights, but no real "liberals." As for the Blue Dogs, what's the point of electing members who never support any progressive legislation whatsoever except when it's in extreme small-scale and restively inoffensive? Sure, they block the most conservative legislation but they don't support anything.

The real problem with Democrats in the 90s is that the Republicans held several districts that voted for Clinton as president, but shielded this fact by hanging onto enough pro-Reagan/Bush Southern districts that had long ago abandoned the party in general. The DNC never really tried expanding into districts that were a much better fit for the party until they were wiped out of the South.
Logged

ProspectiveNavyMan
Mizzouian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 301


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2017, 07:57:50 pm »
Ignore

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.


I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.

There are no Javits or Case figures left in the GOP and haven't been since the 1970s. There are conservatives who are okay with Roe and gay rights, but no real "liberals." As for the Blue Dogs, what's the point of electing members who never support any progressive legislation whatsoever except when it's in extreme small-scale and restively inoffensive? Sure, they block the most conservative legislation but they don't support anything.

The real problem with Democrats in the 90s is that the Republicans held several districts that voted for Clinton as president, but shielded this fact by hanging onto enough pro-Reagan/Bush Southern districts that had long ago abandoned the party in general. The DNC never really tried expanding into districts that were a much better fit for the party until they were wiped out of the South.

Yeah, but now we're at the point in time where the DNC can basically tell southern rural whites to go F- themselves (though they've basically been doing this anyway for decades, and southern whites really only started getting the message once Obama took office). Now they can focus on the types of districts that actually would allow them to hold the House for a decently long amount of time, like flipping seats in the blue-ening suburbs in Orange County, SEPA (though they need to fix gerrymandering there first by winning the Governorship back and making sure the Brady machine doesn't kowtow to legislative Republicans for a protection-mander), CO-6, VA-10, NJ-5, and others. That's a much more sustainable House majority in the long-term than the 2009-2010 House Democratic caucus was.
Logged

Ithaca via O'Fallon
Special Boy
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15770
United States


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2017, 05:36:28 pm »
Ignore

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.


I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.

There are no Javits or Case figures left in the GOP and haven't been since the 1970s. There are conservatives who are okay with Roe and gay rights, but no real "liberals." As for the Blue Dogs, what's the point of electing members who never support any progressive legislation whatsoever except when it's in extreme small-scale and restively inoffensive? Sure, they block the most conservative legislation but they don't support anything.

The real problem with Democrats in the 90s is that the Republicans held several districts that voted for Clinton as president, but shielded this fact by hanging onto enough pro-Reagan/Bush Southern districts that had long ago abandoned the party in general. The DNC never really tried expanding into districts that were a much better fit for the party until they were wiped out of the South.

Yeah, but now we're at the point in time where the DNC can basically tell southern rural whites to go F- themselves (though they've basically been doing this anyway for decades, and southern whites really only started getting the message once Obama took office). Now they can focus on the types of districts that actually would allow them to hold the House for a decently long amount of time, like flipping seats in the blue-ening suburbs in Orange County, SEPA (though they need to fix gerrymandering there first by winning the Governorship back and making sure the Brady machine doesn't kowtow to legislative Republicans for a protection-mander), CO-6, VA-10, NJ-5, and others. That's a much more sustainable House majority in the long-term than the 2009-2010 House Democratic caucus was.
I know about CO-6. The guy keeps out performing the top of the ticket by 10ish....definitely have to do better or wait until these guys retire. 2018 might be a year where throwing these guys out would make sense to put a check on an accidental presidency.
Logged

Hammy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1002
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2017, 10:09:02 pm »
Ignore

I don't see where they've learned anything. 

They SHOULD have learned that since there are more conservatives than liberals in America, they need to be a "big tent" party.  That means tolerating centrists, giving them real roles in the party, and recognizing that, at times, a moderate compromise is better than no advancement at all. 



While I agree they likely haven't learned anything, you say there are more conservatives despite a-Clinton winning the PV nationally and b-this despite many Sanders supporters not turning out which makes no sense.
Logged



click to read my comics.
Young Texan
TexasConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 430


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2017, 01:54:07 pm »
Ignore

Democrats should learn to never nominate ambitious former First Ladies who are under investigation from the FBI. They should nominate someone that has a platform that isn't all herself. By that I mean the only thing she had going for her was her last name and her gender. Democrats need someone with ideas.
Logged

"The great issues facing us today are not Republican issues or Democratic issues. The political parties can debate the means, but both parties must embrace the end objective, which is to make America great again."
-Lee Iacocca
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12633
United States


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2017, 03:01:30 pm »
Ignore

- We lost because of Putin.
- Trump is a fascist.
- All Republicans are deplorables.
- Trump will be a one-termer, no questions asked.
- 2018 will be a D landslide because Trump sucks!

Now, what could possibly go wrong with this "autopsy"? (And no, I'm not implying that all Democrats think like that, but a great many of them do.)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 03:03:04 pm by MT Treasurer »Logged




WI is definitely more winnable than NH. Why are they going to waste money in NH when Climbing Maggie is ridiculously safe?


STEFANY SHAHEEN FOR GOVERNOR IN 2018!

How Atlas views the states and DC
Chickenhawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 731


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2017, 03:06:14 pm »
Ignore

If there's anything I've learned in my several years of sustained involvement with the Democratic party, it's that Democrats don't learn lessons. Empowered decision making Democrats least of all.
Logged

Shameless Bernie hack since 2015.
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines