Democrats finally starting to realize why they lost in 2016: Hillary Clinton

[Pericles]

A majority of Americans hold Democrat positions on abortion, immigration, gay marriage, transgender rights, civil rights, drug laws, gun control. On almost every single issue, the public is to the left of Trump and the GOP. The Democrats just need to communicate their agenda clearly and unite working people behind a forward-looking, aspirational, uniting vision. Tie all Americans together with a common vision and put 100 good policies for 100 constituencies into a clear and concise message for everyone.

[uti2]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

They showed up for Bush in 2002, and even if turnout during mid-terms is generally muted, you still need some resilience to prevent disasters like 2014 from occurring.

The midterm after 9/11? You're seriously using that?

Dems lost 9 senate seats in 2014, which is insane.

Compare that to dems losing 3 seats in 1978 or gaining 1 seat in 1982 and 1990. You can absolutely do damage control on the issue. 2002 was closer performance wise to 78/82/90 than the bloodbath that happened in 2014.

[Skill and Chance]

The root of the problem is that Democrats didn't internalize how structurally weak they were because of the financial crisis.  They assumed they were handed a generational mandate in 2008 and got way out ahead of their skis on most social issues when the fact that Obama only beat McCain by 53/46 and not by 58/41 after the financial crisis should have been read as a warning sign that their coalition was still weak.  Paradoxically, had there been no financial crisis and 2008 looked like this, the Democrats would surely be a lot better off right now:

[Skill and Chance]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

They showed up for Bush in 2002, and even if turnout during mid-terms is generally muted, you still need some resilience to prevent disasters like 2014 from occurring.

The midterm after 9/11? You're seriously using that?

Dems lost 9 senate seats in 2014, which is insane.

Compare that to dems losing 3 seats in 1978 or gaining 1 seat in 1982 and 1990. You can absolutely do damage control on the issue. 2002 was closer performance wise to 78/82/90 than the bloodbath that happened in 2014.

I mostly agree with you.  One bad midterm is pretty much a given even with a popular president, but getting blown out twice in a row in the Obama midterms was historically anomalous and suggests that the Democrats were doing something fundamentally wrong.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Polls have shown abortion to be in favor by the majority of the public. Giving up on that issue is ridiculous, because pro-lifers are not logical, they will always vote for the politician that gives them more bait on that issue, and Dems will never be able to compete with that. On the other hand, a substantial number of upscale dems would turn away if the Dems gave up on those core social issues.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

Gun control is another story.

What about JBE in Louisiana with his pro life stance? I don't think he would've won if he had been pro choice.

Also the bolded part, are you sure they would turn to the Republican Party though? Because when democrats drive away socially conservative blue collar workers they begin to vote for republicans like Trump. I don't think these upscale Dems would flip parties, worst case scenario they just vote third party or not at all which would be worth it if we can win back more of the rural parts of the country.

[uti2]

These elections were held after 2016 and show the Democratic base is enthused and perhaps 'Trump fatigue'. It shows that the midterm effect is not that Democrats don't turn out in midterms but incumbent party voters don't turn out in midterms.

But Clinton was still a terrible candidate, you didn't need to wait till now to figure that out.

They showed up for Bush in 2002, and even if turnout during mid-terms is generally muted, you still need some resilience to prevent disasters like 2014 from occurring.

The midterm after 9/11? You're seriously using that?

Dems lost 9 senate seats in 2014, which is insane.

Compare that to dems losing 3 seats in 1978 or gaining 1 seat in 1982 and 1990. You can absolutely do damage control on the issue. 2002 was closer performance wise to 78/82/90 than the bloodbath that happened in 2014.

I mostly agree with you.  One bad midterm is pretty much a given even with a popular president, but getting blown out twice in a row in the Obama midterms was historically anomalous and suggests that the Democrats were doing something fundamentally wrong.

The GOP lost 8 seats in 1986 as a result of a real scandal, iran-contra, what scandals happened in 2014? No one cared about benghazi in 2012, obviously. What happened in 2014 was pretty much incomparable. Iran-Contra hit the GOP so hard to the extent that Dukakis was originally easily leading Bush until Atwater came along and started using Willie Horton.

[uti2]

Polls have shown abortion to be in favor by the majority of the public. Giving up on that issue is ridiculous, because pro-lifers are not logical, they will always vote for the politician that gives them more bait on that issue, and Dems will never be able to compete with that. On the other hand, a substantial number of upscale dems would turn away if the Dems gave up on those core social issues.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/17/when-southern-baptists-were-pro-choice/

Gun control is another story.

What about JBE in Louisiana with his pro life stance? I don't think he would've won if he had been pro choice.

Also the bolded part, are you sure they would turn to the Republican Party though? Because when democrats drive away socially conservative blue collar workers they begin to vote for republicans like Trump. I don't think these upscale Dems would flip parties, worst case scenario they just vote third party or not at all which would be worth it if we can win back more of the rural parts of the country.

JBE probably would've lost if he had faced anyone else other than Vitter. The Kander model is probably more along the lines of something the Dems should go for, imagine if Kander was the FL dem candidate, instead of worthless murphy. When you consider how many blue-collar workers voted for Gore, it's clear that there are more systemic issues on that front.

[Pericles]

2014 had Obama's approval rating at 37%. He botched the Obamacare rollout and the rise of ISIS and Ebola hurt the Democrats, and most people didn't feel the economic recovery. Besides the map was unfavorable to the Democrats.

[uti2]

2014 had Obama's approval rating at 37%. He botched the Obamacare rollout and the rise of ISIS and Ebola hurt the Democrats, and most people didn't feel the economic recovery. Besides the map was unfavorable to the Democrats.

Obama had a positive approval rating in 2010, yet Dems still did poorly in that mid-term.

[Deblano]

Perhaps the Democrats could start making abortion, guns, etc. to be matters for folks to decide for themselves, and not litmus tests for whether or not you're a Democrat or not.  Then, horror of horrors, you'd have a Democratic Party that would be speaking to Americans as Americans and not as special folks with special needs.  Then, you'd not be insulting the intelligence of Americans.  Hillary Clinton insulted the intelligence of the voters that she needed, and should have won over, in MI, WI, and PA, and she still doesn't get that.

I fully agree with this. Social issues are too regional and sectional to be used to form a national far reaching coalition. Democrats have always done better when they focus on kitchen table issues. Emphasizing these issues to bring working class whites back into the fold is a far better strategy than using social issues to reach upper income college educated whites.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with also focusing on social issues, such as criminal justice reform or equality for LGBTQ peoples (especially transgender people).

There just needs to be a balance.

[Skill and Chance]

I do think that 2014 had a lot to do with Ebola as an October surprise and there wasn't a whole lot that could be done at that point, but not being better prepared for 2010 when redistricting was at stake was inexcusable.  Obama did benefit from an October surprise in 2012, after all.

[Virginiá]

2014 had Obama's approval rating at 37%. He botched the Obamacare rollout and the rise of ISIS and Ebola hurt the Democrats, and most people didn't feel the economic recovery. Besides the map was unfavorable to the Democrats.

Obama had a positive approval rating in 2010, yet Dems still did poorly in that mid-term.

Gallup had Obama slightly under water on a consistent basis in 2010. I'm sure he was up in some polls, but I think the overall theme would be that he was slightly unpopular. Approval ratings <> election performance is not a strictly linear measure. Being only slightly unpopular doesn't guarantee only slight losses, particularly in an election where Democrats were fresh off 2 large waves in a row and significantly overextended at the state and federal level.

[uti2]

I do think that 2014 had a lot to do with Ebola as an October surprise and there wasn't a whole lot that could be done at that point, but not being better prepared for 2010 when redistricting was at stake was inexcusable.  Obama did benefit from an October surprise in 2012, after all.

Zika should've hurt the GOP in 2016, if Ebola was supposedly such a big deal in 2014.

Also, it's not as if Obamacare was ever viewed positively.

The only aspect about this that is shocking is that it took Obama 8 years to admit this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-blames-bernie-sanders-damaging-obamacare-popularity-article-1.2939100

[Shadows]

I don't think there was anything wrong on social issues, the current GOP is out of the main steam & the Dem party is 100% right in making a key issue but that can't be your key strategy to win elections. Surely you are delusional if you believe people care more about social issues than their jobs, healthcare. You wouldn't win an election without having a strong economic message. Most voters know where Dems, GOP stand on Abortion, Gay marriage & when you govern you would anyways put a liberal SC judge. But you need to talk about Social Security, Healthcare, Infra, College affordability, Trade as well as to create an economy where the wealth is not distributed lopsidedly.

The Dem party has moved massively right from the days of FDR, LBJ. FDR once tried to install a maximum wage (which the congress vetoed) by introducing a top income tax of 100% beyond X income. From four decades, the top marginal tax was 90% odd & then 70% for the next two decades till Reagan came & undid everything leading to know NO major upshot to growth but massive decline in income distribution & the middle class. Today, a Dem candidate is afraid of the "Tax increase" label, you have Pelosi saying to Sanders' agenda that while it is good, Dems are not running on increasing taxes. Why did Dems not go hard on these billionaire tax cuts? They just don't care. What has they done in the last 40 years? Historically good programs ? - They are scared off fighting for single payer, scared of fighting for any significant legislation. LBJ was blasted for Medicare (socialized medicine in a much worse way than with Obamacare). Do you think it was easy to get through Minimum Wage or Social Security for FDR or Medicare,Medicaid,Civil Rights for LBJ? FDR was called a Marxist, LBJ in many times was called a Socialist. But you have to bring path breaking legislation which people will remember even after decades & you have to fight for that. When Dems go & repeal Glass-steagal, sign NAFTA & Cut entitlements, you have sold out your base!

There is no major economic difference between a moderate Republican & a Democrat or atleast to the voters (atleast that is the impression of many voters). Why do Dems not fight hard for paid leave (only 2-3 countries in the world not to provide it) or for Medicare negotiating prices. Does a Booker, Harris or Casey give a damn about these issues? Most people look @ these politicians as empty suits who are concerned more about winning elections, etc than for the people. That was one of the reasons why Sanders was popular, he cared about people & was everywhere from Prop 61 in Cali to Coloradocare to this n that, some lost some won but he fought for his beliefs with all his energy & connected with people on a very personal level (He gets more pro-life, conservative vote in VT than any of these moderate Dems do in their seats).

Labor is one group totally left out - Minimum wage, support for unions, healthcare, infra, trade - These are core Dem issues & labor totally identifies with them. It tells you a lot when a huge chunk of the working class goes with GOP. Free vs Fair Trade is one of the very basic divisions of the Left vs Right debate historically, the right supported unfettered free trade while the left supported fair/balanced trade which protected labor & unions. It is a matter of deep shame when Trump went to the left of Hillary & hit her hard for wars & talked big about infra & using that war money to big infra (For the casual viewer, Trump spoke more about Infra in the Debates than Hillary). Look @ how Trump spoke about Carried interest loophole when asked about his tax returns.

Truth is Dems have sat & seen major corporations enjoy the fruits. The DNC treasurer just told that they have to tell the uber wealthy donors that they can earn more much in an economy with a Dem incharge (with policies to benefit them). If ever there was a medicare for all passed, it would win Dems elections up & down the ballot & it would never be repealed. Look @ SS & Medicare. Medicare was the ultimate evil socialized medicine selling the lives of senior citizens etc. Entitlements & good entitlements (or govt programs) are notoriously hard to repeal (especially if people are politically conscious).

Dem Presidential candidates have to fight to be remember as a legendary candidate like FDR or LBJ were. No1 will remember Obama or Clinton with fondness after 50-60 years but FDR will always remain the most iconic President in global history who transformed government politics, economics, relationship of the state vs people as we know it.

[Phony Moderate]

That's why Hillary outperformed nearly every other Democrat downballot?

It's not difficult to do when the alternative at the top is Donald Trump. Even if Bernie had been nominated and gone down in a landslide, he'd have still probably outperformed the downballot Democrats (who were up against the likes of Rubio, Paul, McCain, Ayotte, etc).

[Beet]

I don't think there was anything wrong on social issues, the current GOP is out of the main steam & the Dem party is 100% right in making a key issue but that can't be your key strategy to win elections. Surely you are delusional if you believe people care more about social issues than their jobs, healthcare. You wouldn't win an election without having a strong economic message. Most voters know where Dems, GOP stand on Abortion, Gay marriage & when you govern you would anyways put a liberal SC judge. But you need to talk about Social Security, Healthcare, Infra, College affordability, Trade as well as to create an economy where the wealth is not distributed lopsidedly.

The Dem party has moved massively right from the days of FDR, LBJ. FDR once tried to install a maximum wage (which the congress vetoed) by introducing a top income tax of 100% beyond X income. From four decades, the top marginal tax was 90% odd & then 70% for the next two decades till Reagan came & undid everything leading to know major upshot to growth but massive decline in income distribution & the middle class. Today, a Dem candidate is afraid of the "Tax increase" label, you have Pelosi saying to Sanders' agenda that while it is good, Dems are not running on increasing taxes. Why did Dems not go hard on these billionaire tax cuts? They just don't care. What has they done in the last 40 years? Historically good programs ? - They are scared off fighting for single payer, scared of fighting for any significant legislation. LBJ was blasted for Medicare (socialized medicine in a much worse way than with Obamacare). Do you think it was easy to get through Minimum Wage or Social Security for FDR or Medicare,Medicaid,Civil Rights for LBJ? FDR was called a Marxist, LBJ in many times was called a Socialist. But you have to bring path breaking legislation which people will remember even after decades & you have to fight for that. When Dems go & repeal Glass-steagal, sign NAFTA & Cut entitlements, you have sold out your base!

There is no major economic difference between a moderate Republican & a Democrat or atleast to the voters (atleast that is the impression of many voters). Why do Dems not fight hard for paid leave (only 2-3 countries in the world not to provide it) or for Medicare negotiating prices. Does a Booker, Harris or Casey give a damn about these issues? Most people look @ these politicians as empty suits who are concerned more about winning elections, etc than for the people. That was one of the reasons why Sanders was popular, he cared about people & was everywhere from Prop 61 in Cali to Coloradocare to this n that, some lost some won but he fought for his beliefs with all his energy & connected with people on a very personal level (He gets more pro-life, conservative vote in VT than any of these moderate Dems do in their seats).

Labor is one group totally left out - Minimum wage, support for unions, healthcare, infra, trade - These are core Dem issues & labor totally identifies with them. It tells you a lot when a huge chunk of the working class goes with GOP. Free vs Fair Trade is one of the very basic divisions of the Left vs Right debate historically, the right supported unfettered free trade while the left supported fair/balanced trade which protected labor & unions. It is a matter of deep shame when Trump went to the left of Hillary & hit her hard for wars & talked big about infra & using that war money to big infra (For the casual viewer, Trump spoke more about Infra in the Debates than Hillary). Look @ how Trump spoke about Carried interest loophole when asked about his tax returns.

Truth is Dems have sat & seen major corporations enjoy the fruits. The DNC treasurer just told that they have to tell the uber wealthy donors that they can earn more much in an economy with a Dem incharge (with policies to benefit them). If ever there was a medicare for all passed, it would win Dems elections up & down the ballot & it would never be repealed. Look @ SS & Medicare. Medicare was the ultimate evil socialized medicine selling the lives of senior citizens etc. Entitlements & good entitlements (or govt programs) are notoriously hard to repeal (especially if people are politically conscious).

Dem Presidential candidates have to fight to be remember as a legendary candidate like FDR or LBJ were. No1 will remember Obama or Clinton with fondness after 50-60 years but FDR will always remain the most iconic President in global history who transformed government politics, economics, relationship of the state vs people as we know it.

This is all very true, I just don't get why Clinton didn't get it. She is a very experienced politician. All of the explanations I've seen so far are unsatisfactory. I wish I could get insider her head or Joel Benenson's head. 2016 makes Benenson, Messina seem like idiots who don't even know why they won in 2012. I just don't get it.

[Frodo]

Shouldn't this thread be on the 2016 presidential elections board?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

That's funny.  Please explain why Hillary ran ahead of the vast majority of Democrats sharing the ballot with her? 

Because there were lots of people who voted for Hillary because they hated Trump, but wanted a republican senate/house to serve as a check on her. These people were found across the country, from the Clinton/Toomey voters in the Philly suburbs, to the Clinton/Hurd voters in TX-23. Had Hillary retained my endorsement through election day, it wouldn't have changed my Senate vote, which was to reelect Grassley (I vote at my college residence).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A majority of Americans hold Democrat positions on abortion, immigration, gay marriage, transgender rights, civil rights, drug laws, gun control. On almost every single issue, the public is to the left of Trump and the GOP. The Democrats just need to communicate their agenda clearly and unite working people behind a forward-looking, aspirational, uniting vision. Tie all Americans together with a common vision and put 100 good policies for 100 constituencies into a clear and concise message for everyone.

"Civil Rights" has lost all meaning, it's just used as a buzzword for what people think the most important "rights" are, it's not objective, so not addressing that. You're correct on Drug Laws and SSM. As for the rest: People MAY hold "lean liberal" positions on all of those issues, but they don't necessarily hold the views of the Democratic Base, which are as follows:


Abortion: Safe and Legal; Rarity DOES NOT MATTER, we should not aim to make abortions rare, no new regulations on providers regardless of reasoning, repeal Hyde Amendment, nothing wrong with Late-Term/Partial Birth.

Gun Control: Reverse Heller Decision, Renew Assault Weapons Ban, Impose limits on Magazines, universal background checks, no purchases for those on no fly or terrorist watch lists, with no opportunity for people to try to get themselves off either of those lists.

Transgender Rights: People can change their gender dozens of times if they want to, don't even question bathroom/locker room access, no one who is not actually transgender ever says they are, not even a five or six year old.

Immigration: Open Borders, easy path to citizenship for the undocumented.

It would probably help democrats among the people at large to officially disavow some of their base's views here. I mean, seriously, who else is their base going for, the greens?

[Confused Democrat]

I don't think there was anything wrong on social issues, the current GOP is out of the main steam & the Dem party is 100% right in making a key issue but that can't be your key strategy to win elections. Surely you are delusional if you believe people care more about social issues than their jobs, healthcare. You wouldn't win an election without having a strong economic message. Most voters know where Dems, GOP stand on Abortion, Gay marriage & when you govern you would anyways put a liberal SC judge. But you need to talk about Social Security, Healthcare, Infra, College affordability, Trade as well as to create an economy where the wealth is not distributed lopsidedly.

The Dem party has moved massively right from the days of FDR, LBJ. FDR once tried to install a maximum wage (which the congress vetoed) by introducing a top income tax of 100% beyond X income. From four decades, the top marginal tax was 90% odd & then 70% for the next two decades till Reagan came & undid everything leading to know major upshot to growth but massive decline in income distribution & the middle class. Today, a Dem candidate is afraid of the "Tax increase" label, you have Pelosi saying to Sanders' agenda that while it is good, Dems are not running on increasing taxes. Why did Dems not go hard on these billionaire tax cuts? They just don't care. What has they done in the last 40 years? Historically good programs ? - They are scared off fighting for single payer, scared of fighting for any significant legislation. LBJ was blasted for Medicare (socialized medicine in a much worse way than with Obamacare). Do you think it was easy to get through Minimum Wage or Social Security for FDR or Medicare,Medicaid,Civil Rights for LBJ? FDR was called a Marxist, LBJ in many times was called a Socialist. But you have to bring path breaking legislation which people will remember even after decades & you have to fight for that. When Dems go & repeal Glass-steagal, sign NAFTA & Cut entitlements, you have sold out your base!

There is no major economic difference between a moderate Republican & a Democrat or atleast to the voters (atleast that is the impression of many voters). Why do Dems not fight hard for paid leave (only 2-3 countries in the world not to provide it) or for Medicare negotiating prices. Does a Booker, Harris or Casey give a damn about these issues? Most people look @ these politicians as empty suits who are concerned more about winning elections, etc than for the people. That was one of the reasons why Sanders was popular, he cared about people & was everywhere from Prop 61 in Cali to Coloradocare to this n that, some lost some won but he fought for his beliefs with all his energy & connected with people on a very personal level (He gets more pro-life, conservative vote in VT than any of these moderate Dems do in their seats).

Labor is one group totally left out - Minimum wage, support for unions, healthcare, infra, trade - These are core Dem issues & labor totally identifies with them. It tells you a lot when a huge chunk of the working class goes with GOP. Free vs Fair Trade is one of the very basic divisions of the Left vs Right debate historically, the right supported unfettered free trade while the left supported fair/balanced trade which protected labor & unions. It is a matter of deep shame when Trump went to the left of Hillary & hit her hard for wars & talked big about infra & using that war money to big infra (For the casual viewer, Trump spoke more about Infra in the Debates than Hillary). Look @ how Trump spoke about Carried interest loophole when asked about his tax returns.

Truth is Dems have sat & seen major corporations enjoy the fruits. The DNC treasurer just told that they have to tell the uber wealthy donors that they can earn more much in an economy with a Dem incharge (with policies to benefit them). If ever there was a medicare for all passed, it would win Dems elections up & down the ballot & it would never be repealed. Look @ SS & Medicare. Medicare was the ultimate evil socialized medicine selling the lives of senior citizens etc. Entitlements & good entitlements (or govt programs) are notoriously hard to repeal (especially if people are politically conscious).

Dem Presidential candidates have to fight to be remember as a legendary candidate like FDR or LBJ were. No1 will remember Obama or Clinton with fondness after 50-60 years but FDR will always remain the most iconic President in global history who transformed government politics, economics, relationship of the state vs people as we know it.

I agree with all of this.

[Blackacre]

A majority of Americans hold Democrat positions on abortion, immigration, gay marriage, transgender rights, civil rights, drug laws, gun control. On almost every single issue, the public is to the left of Trump and the GOP. The Democrats just need to communicate their agenda clearly and unite working people behind a forward-looking, aspirational, uniting vision. Tie all Americans together with a common vision and put 100 good policies for 100 constituencies into a clear and concise message for everyone.

"Civil Rights" has lost all meaning, it's just used as a buzzword for what people think the most important "rights" are, it's not objective, so not addressing that. You're correct on Drug Laws and SSM. As for the rest: People MAY hold "lean liberal" positions on all of those issues, but they don't necessarily hold the views of the Democratic Base, which are as follows:


Abortion: Safe and Legal; Rarity DOES NOT MATTER, we should not aim to make abortions rare, no new regulations on providers regardless of reasoning, repeal Hyde Amendment, nothing wrong with Late-Term/Partial Birth.

Gun Control: Reverse Heller Decision, Renew Assault Weapons Ban, Impose limits on Magazines, universal background checks, no purchases for those on no fly or terrorist watch lists, with no opportunity for people to try to get themselves off either of those lists.

Transgender Rights: People can change their gender dozens of times if they want to, don't even question bathroom/locker room access, no one who is not actually transgender ever says they are, not even a five or six year old.

Immigration: Open Borders, easy path to citizenship for the undocumented.

It would probably help democrats among the people at large to officially disavow some of their base's views here. I mean, seriously, who else is their base going for, the greens?

All of those positions except the abortion one are exaggerated strawmen. They all also have fixes to change the warped perception that those are the Dem party's positions:

Abortion: stress the extreme rarity of late-term abortions. If that's happening, something has gone very, VERY wrong and the procedure is needed to save the life of the mother. Perhaps support policy banning late-term except in the "saving mother's life" cases, because it would placate some otherwise-Dem pro-lifers and maybe help bring the perception and reality closer together.

Guns: Drop everything but the background checks. Background checks have near-universal support, can be made very strong if needed, and have data backing their effectiveness in reducing gun deaths. Assault weapons bans don't have such data. Don't talk about Heller, (probably stop talking about Citizens United too) and every time a conservative talks about the issue, bring it back to background checks.

Transgender issues: This is a tough one because it's very difficult to advocate for trans rights without coming off as Wulfric is describing. Trans issues aren't that well-understood yet. Maybe shift the issue and talk about violence that trans women face, and project the "you care more about bathrooms than about jobs" thing onto the Republicans pushing those bills in the first place.

Immigration: Nobody wants "open borders," but a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living here is essential. But I think Dems have the winning argument on this issue, especially if they fix the above three.

[Shadows]

I'd like to post some stuff I posted in the Economics thread. How everything changed since Reagan & why Dems need to project the anti-Reagan to do another political & economic re-alignment.







During FDR, the growth was much higher, sometimes even 16-17-18% but mostly high single or low double digits, something rarely replicated in world history. Unemployment was @ a historic low & the taxes rates at a historic high & remain high till Reagan reversed it.

Did economic growth increase since Reagan? Your answers will range from No to barely depending on who you compare it with.

But the distribution of income became completely lopsided with most to all of the games going to uber rich with the middle class collapsing.

Let's look @ key metrices like CEO to median pay, Share of income to Top 1% & real wage increases of different sections of the population.










Democrats have failed to do anything to this 40 year collapse of middle class with all benefits going to the uber rich.

This is an old graph about the minimum wage. It would be 18$ or more if only it has kept pace with productivity. People are not even demanding 15 now, they are saying give us 15 through staggered increased in 5-6-7 years odd. What has Obama done in 7 years for Minimum Wage? Nothing.

He should have campaigned hard, not messed up the DNC & should have won mid-terms & got it passed. I feel most of the stuff Dems do - Reversing Bush tax cuts (which Obama did after many years), some Min Wage increase @ the beginning, Dodd Frank are more to placate their base with some crumbs as well not having a more rapid fall/crash. They just don't believe in significant overhaul to benefit the middle class, it's all talking points before the election.

Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on every issue & she carried Bill (NAFTA repealing, welfare gutting, glass steagal abolishing) Clinton's legacy. Aside from her many issues, she was simply not believable as the candidate who will be able to significant alter anything. She was a status quo candidate @ a time when people were no longer happy with status quo.




I truly the believe the time is set for the Anti-Reagan & the conservative Dem like Manchin, Booker, Warner should support them & not try to sabotage this. Democrats like Clinton had done more to advance Reagan's disastrous policies than Bush did. This is a golden moment in history where a re-alignment is possible.

Personally I think the DNC chair race is pretty meaningless but looking @ what all the Obama-Biden-Clinton wing did to stop a life long Dem in Ellison when Ellison was almost guaranteed to win with support from both wings, I think the Dem establishment will fight this tooth & nail & may kill the this movement - They kill the hunger & demand for real change.

There's a desire for real change which Bernie tapped into (especially among a new generation who will determine the future for many decades). In many ways the economic policies of the last 40 years have set the stage for a candidate like Bernie Sanders !

[Virginiá]

Democrats have failed to do anything to this 40 year collapse of middle class with all benefits going to the uber rich.

I agree with a lot of points you've made in this thread, but I feel obligated to point out that since at least the 80s, or basically ~37 years, America has been ruled under a conservative way of thinking from the politicians on down to the voters, and for the past 20+ years, mostly under direct Republican rule at the federal level and in many states, or at least in such a way that Republicans can block what they don't want. That hasn't left Democrats with much ability to combat income inequality. They had a brief chance from 2009 - 2011, and that is their failure, but if you consider how political parties evolve and sustain themselves, it makes more sense.

You can say this is wrong and we need new ideas (we do), but you still have to deal with generations of people & lawmakers that grew up with and still hold on to ineffective and even troublesome political views. This has only truly begun to change with the ascent of the Millennial generation.

[uti2]

I'd like to post some stuff I posted in the Economics thread. How everything changed since Reagan & why Dems need to project the anti-Reagan to do another political & economic re-alignment.







During FDR, the growth was much higher, sometimes even 16-17-18% but mostly high single or low double digits, something rarely replicated in world history. Unemployment was @ a historic low & the taxes rates at a historic high & remain high till Reagan reversed it.

Did economic growth increase since Reagan? Your answers will range from No to barely depending on who you compare it with.

But the distribution of income became completely lopsided with most to all of the games going to uber rich with the middle class collapsing.

Let's look @ key metrices like CEO to median pay, Share of income to Top 1% & real wage increases of different sections of the population.










Democrats have failed to do anything to this 40 year collapse of middle class with all benefits going to the uber rich.

This is an old graph about the minimum wage. It would be 18$ or more if only it has kept pace with productivity. People are not even demanding 15 now, they are saying give us 15 through staggered increased in 5-6-7 years odd. What has Obama done in 7 years for Minimum Wage? Nothing.

He should have campaigned hard, not messed up the DNC & should have won mid-terms & got it passed. I feel most of the stuff Dems do - Reversing Bush tax cuts (which Obama did after many years), some Min Wage increase @ the beginning, Dodd Frank are more to placate their base with some crumbs as well not having a more rapid fall/crash. They just don't believe in significant overhaul to benefit the middle class, it's all talking points before the election.

Hillary Clinton flip-flopped on every issue & she carried Bill (NAFTA repealing, welfare gutting, glass steagal abolishing) Clinton's legacy. Aside from her many issues, she was simply not believable as the candidate who will be able to significant alter anything. She was a status quo candidate @ a time when people were no longer happy with status quo.




I truly the believe the time is set for the Anti-Reagan & the conservative Dem like Manchin, Booker, Warner should support them & not try to sabotage this. Democrats like Clinton had done more to advance Reagan's disastrous policies than Bush did. This is a golden moment in history where a re-alignment is possible.

Personally I think the DNC chair race is pretty meaningless but looking @ what all the Obama-Biden-Clinton wing did to stop a life long Dem in Ellison when Ellison was almost guaranteed to win with support from both wings, I think the Dem establishment will fight this tooth & nail & may kill the this movement - They kill the hunger & demand for real change.

There's a desire for real change which Bernie tapped into (especially among a new generation who will determine the future for many decades). In many ways the economic policies of the last 40 years have set the stage for a candidate like Bernie Sanders !

Third-Way Dems rehabilitating Reagan is one of the worst things they ever did strategically, it only works if you believe that they intentionally wanted to undermine progressives because they're really not economically left at all. Bill Clinton didn't blow a hole in the reagan coalition, Ross Perot did.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ Yes, Perot was a factor, but Clinton got some Reagan/Bush dems too.