How will the democrats get back working class voters in the 2020 elections?

[GoTfan]

I'm for shunning them, not winning.

And there is the establishment viewpoint in a nutshell. But those who crashed the world economy and support endless wars in the middle east should be embraced, right?

Embracing voters who hate the rest of the democrats is not a way to win.

Neither is relying on the "rest of the Democrats," as there aren't enough of them.  You need to win a group you're not winning now, and most people think the logical choice is to win people who recently voted for you.  How crazy!

Anyway, let's first point out that this past Democratic nominee DID win "working class voters."  She lost WHITE "working class voters," but she won the group overall, and within minority voters she did better with working class ones than more affluent and educated ones.  As mentioned by TML, they just need Obama margins.

Appealing to people who want to stay in the past is not the way to the future.

That's a great tagline and all, but appealing to people who might not want to stay in the past (say, educated and wealthy Whites living in suburban districts) but literally don't agree with your party's platform and have showed multiple times now that they'll bite the bullet even in the age of Trump if it means conservative economic policies isn't exactly one either.

The vast majority of Clinton Republicans voted for Ossoff.

And that means absolutely nothing, because both of them lost. Democrats need to shift decisively to the left on economics, or say goodbye to the industrial states for good.

There's a path to victory that isn't pandering to Iowa.

Then do the Democrats really need Michigan? What about Wisconsin? If we follow your argument, then Dems need to go right of Republicans on economics.

[GoTfan]

Working class people in particular, or working class whites?

Because to win back working class whites, the Democrats would need to nominate someone like Joe Manchin or Steve Bullock.

Only Blue Dogs can appeal to the WWC? Bernie polled pretty well with them. Democrats need to start thinking utside the box instead of going further to the right, because soon, the Republicans will simply jump off the edge to neo-fascism, and the current party's thinking is that we need to go further right with them. People want a left wing alternative.

The last Democrat to do  very well with the WWC at the Presidential level was a certain Centrist from Arkansas.

Newsflash: we do not live in the 1990s anymore. Hillary ran as a centrist this year. What happened? She lost. She lost states like Michigan, which never should've been on the cards for Trump. Third Way politics do not work anymore.  People want a left wing alternative, but you Third Wayers refuse to acknowledge that.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Working class people in particular, or working class whites?

Because to win back working class whites, the Democrats would need to nominate someone like Joe Manchin or Steve Bullock.

Only Blue Dogs can appeal to the WWC? Bernie polled pretty well with them. Democrats need to start thinking utside the box instead of going further to the right, because soon, the Republicans will simply jump off the edge to neo-fascism, and the current party's thinking is that we need to go further right with them. People want a left wing alternative.

The last Democrat to do  very well with the WWC at the Presidential level was a certain Centrist from Arkansas.

Newsflash: we do not live in the 1990s anymore. Hillary ran as a centrist this year. What happened? She lost. She lost states like Michigan, which never should've been on the cards for Trump. Third Way politics do not work anymore.  People want a left wing alternative, but you Third Wayers refuse to acknowledge that.

She was more liberal than any major party candidate who ever won. Right of Stalin does not a centrist make.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I'm for shunning them, not winning.

And there is the establishment viewpoint in a nutshell. But those who crashed the world economy and support endless wars in the middle east should be embraced, right?

Embracing voters who hate the rest of the democrats is not a way to win.

Neither is relying on the "rest of the Democrats," as there aren't enough of them.  You need to win a group you're not winning now, and most people think the logical choice is to win people who recently voted for you.  How crazy!

Anyway, let's first point out that this past Democratic nominee DID win "working class voters."  She lost WHITE "working class voters," but she won the group overall, and within minority voters she did better with working class ones than more affluent and educated ones.  As mentioned by TML, they just need Obama margins.

Appealing to people who want to stay in the past is not the way to the future.

That's a great tagline and all, but appealing to people who might not want to stay in the past (say, educated and wealthy Whites living in suburban districts) but literally don't agree with your party's platform and have showed multiple times now that they'll bite the bullet even in the age of Trump if it means conservative economic policies isn't exactly one either.

The vast majority of Clinton Republicans voted for Ossoff.

And that means absolutely nothing, because both of them lost. Democrats need to shift decisively to the left on economics, or say goodbye to the industrial states for good.

There's a path to victory that isn't pandering to Iowa.

Then do the Democrats really need Michigan? What about Wisconsin? If we follow your argument, then Dems need to go right of Republicans on economics.

Democrats should court voters who don't hate their coalition, don't demand everyone bend over backwards for them, and actually acknowledge that free trade is good.

[GoTfan]

I'm for shunning them, not winning.

And there is the establishment viewpoint in a nutshell. But those who crashed the world economy and support endless wars in the middle east should be embraced, right?

Embracing voters who hate the rest of the democrats is not a way to win.

Neither is relying on the "rest of the Democrats," as there aren't enough of them.  You need to win a group you're not winning now, and most people think the logical choice is to win people who recently voted for you.  How crazy!

Anyway, let's first point out that this past Democratic nominee DID win "working class voters."  She lost WHITE "working class voters," but she won the group overall, and within minority voters she did better with working class ones than more affluent and educated ones.  As mentioned by TML, they just need Obama margins.

Appealing to people who want to stay in the past is not the way to the future.

That's a great tagline and all, but appealing to people who might not want to stay in the past (say, educated and wealthy Whites living in suburban districts) but literally don't agree with your party's platform and have showed multiple times now that they'll bite the bullet even in the age of Trump if it means conservative economic policies isn't exactly one either.

The vast majority of Clinton Republicans voted for Ossoff.

And that means absolutely nothing, because both of them lost. Democrats need to shift decisively to the left on economics, or say goodbye to the industrial states for good.

There's a path to victory that isn't pandering to Iowa.

Then do the Democrats really need Michigan? What about Wisconsin? If we follow your argument, then Dems need to go right of Republicans on economics.

Democrats should court voters who don't hate their coalition, don't demand everyone bend over backwards for them, and actually acknowledge that free trade is good.

Free trade good? Tell that to factory workers who lost their jobs to NAFTA.

And no, Hillary was a centrist, as she stated herself.

[Beet]

We Democrats should campaign on increasing the trade deficit and shipping more jobs to Bangladesh. Those people are poorer, so we have a moral imperative to give them our jobs. You aren't a R-r-r-RAAAAAAAcist, are you? ? ? ?

[GoTfan]

We Democrats should campaign on increasing the trade deficit and shipping more jobs to Bangladesh. Those people are poorer, so we have a moral imperative to give them our jobs. You aren't a R-r-r-RAAAAAAAcist, are you? ? ? ?

This time (and I cannot believe the words coming out of my mouth) , you and I are on the same page, Beet. The US snould pursue fair trade, not free trade.  For starters, stop goving corporations oversight of trade.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Working class people in particular, or working class whites?

Because to win back working class whites, the Democrats would need to nominate someone like Joe Manchin or Steve Bullock.

Only Blue Dogs can appeal to the WWC? Bernie polled pretty well with them. Democrats need to start thinking utside the box instead of going further to the right, because soon, the Republicans will simply jump off the edge to neo-fascism, and the current party's thinking is that we need to go further right with them. People want a left wing alternative.

The last Democrat to do  very well with the WWC at the Presidential level was a certain Centrist from Arkansas.

Newsflash: we do not live in the 1990s anymore. Hillary ran as a centrist this year. What happened? She lost. She lost states like Michigan, which never should've been on the cards for Trump. Third Way politics do not work anymore.  People want a left wing alternative, but you Third Wayers refuse to acknowledge that.

She was more liberal than any major party candidate who ever won. Right of Stalin does not a centrist make.

LOL, she was more conservative than Eisenhower for sure.

[Beet]

I mean, let's face it, Hillary never saw a war she didn't like. She was basically a SJW with John McCain's foreign policy bolted on, and that's why she lost.

[The Self]

She was basically a SJW

Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton an SJW?

Clinton's problem is that she was incoherent on every level. At no point in her campaign did she have anything remotely approaching a unified vision of the future or a policy base.

[Beet]

She was basically a SJW

Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton an SJW?

Clinton's problem is that she was incoherent on every level. At no point in her campaign did she have anything remotely approaching a unified vision of the future or a policy base.

She tried to be a SJW, but of course she's been in the spotlight too long not to have comments that don't meet SJW's standards. Her positions on unpopular positions like the assault weapons ban, partial birth abortion, and war were very coherent.

[GoTfan]

She was basically a SJW

Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton an SJW?

Clinton's problem is that she was incoherent on every level. At no point in her campaign did she have anything remotely approaching a unified vision of the future or a policy base.

She tried to be a SJW, but of course she's been in the spotlight too long not to have comments that don't meet SJW's standards. Her positions on unpopular positions like the assault weapons ban, partial birth abortion, and war were very coherent.

Not to mention the fact that she was disturbingly close to major banks

[The Self]

She was basically a SJW

Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton an SJW?

Clinton's problem is that she was incoherent on every level. At no point in her campaign did she have anything remotely approaching a unified vision of the future or a policy base.

She tried to be a SJW, but of course she's been in the spotlight too long not to have comments that don't meet SJW's standards. Her positions on unpopular positions like the assault weapons ban, partial birth abortion, and war were very coherent.

It's not a matter of the SJWs being too stringent, though I'm not otherwise much of a fan. Clintonism itself is incoherent, a cobbled-together package of ideas with no core to them. It always was; it's just that this election season exposed those contradictions beyond the point they could be masked any longer.

That's not to dismiss the need for centrism in the Democratic Party, or, above all, a business-friendly DNC. But Clintonism is the wrong approach for it. A soft libertarianism, verging in places on left-libertarianism, would have all the benefits of Clintonism and none of its drawbacks, in addition to being more intelligible as a guiding philosophy.

I liked, for instance, that several local communities openly defied Trump's rescinding of the Paris Accords, and think that would be a good place to begin developing policy from.

There's nothing wrong with quoting Hayek in defense of a Universal Basic Income, for example.  

[Beet]

She was basically a SJW

Hillary "Superpredators" Clinton an SJW?

Clinton's problem is that she was incoherent on every level. At no point in her campaign did she have anything remotely approaching a unified vision of the future or a policy base.

She tried to be a SJW, but of course she's been in the spotlight too long not to have comments that don't meet SJW's standards. Her positions on unpopular positions like the assault weapons ban, partial birth abortion, and war were very coherent.

Not to mention the fact that she was disturbingly close to major banks

Indeed.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

She ran a bland campaign with empty talking points that failed to win the hearts and minds of those who wanted someone to bring tangible change and improvement to their lives. She allowed Trump to make this a personality driven election and lost.

[SCNCmod]

The 36% that are now considered Trumps Based... will be impossible to win back in 2020, regardless of what either side does or says.  In 2020 it will be extremely important to turn out minority working class voters (especially since the popular-vote-to-electoral-college gap for Dems will continue to exist until 2024 or 2028).

Regarding what to say... this is a great speech to win back Working Class Voters (even if you would prefer a different messenger):
DNC Speech to win Working Class:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rinn3cJN1qo&t=67s   

[RINO Tom]

I'm for shunning them, not winning.

And there is the establishment viewpoint in a nutshell. But those who crashed the world economy and support endless wars in the middle east should be embraced, right?

Embracing voters who hate the rest of the democrats is not a way to win.

Neither is relying on the "rest of the Democrats," as there aren't enough of them.  You need to win a group you're not winning now, and most people think the logical choice is to win people who recently voted for you.  How crazy!

Anyway, let's first point out that this past Democratic nominee DID win "working class voters."  She lost WHITE "working class voters," but she won the group overall, and within minority voters she did better with working class ones than more affluent and educated ones.  As mentioned by TML, they just need Obama margins.

Appealing to people who want to stay in the past is not the way to the future.

That's a great tagline and all, but appealing to people who might not want to stay in the past (say, educated and wealthy Whites living in suburban districts) but literally don't agree with your party's platform and have showed multiple times now that they'll bite the bullet even in the age of Trump if it means conservative economic policies isn't exactly one either.

The vast majority of Clinton Republicans voted for Ossoff.

And that means absolutely nothing, because both of them lost. Democrats need to shift decisively to the left on economics, or say goodbye to the industrial states for good.

There's a path to victory that isn't pandering to Iowa.

Then do the Democrats really need Michigan? What about Wisconsin? If we follow your argument, then Dems need to go right of Republicans on economics.

Democrats should court voters who don't hate their coalition, don't demand everyone bend over backwards for them, and actually acknowledge that free trade is good.

A lot of Democrats DON'T think free trade is good; that's why their nominee had absolutely no choice but to go full-blown protectionist.

[Technocracy Timmy]

A lot of Democrats DON'T think free trade is good; that's why their nominee had absolutely no choice but to go full-blown protectionist.

And also why the top ranking Democrat in D.C. opposed the TPP (at least before Trump came along and killed it lol), called China a currency manipulator, and accused China of dumping their products into the US.

Don't worry though. Any day now the Democrats will become the equivalent of the U.K. Liberal Democrats (but much more pro fiscal discipline of course) while the GOP will become the National Front. It's all happening aaaannnyyy day now.

[Medal506]

Become more moderate

[All Along The Watchtower]

Anyway, let's first point out that this past Democratic nominee DID win "working class voters."  She lost WHITE "working class voters," but she won the group overall, and within minority voters she did better with working class ones than more affluent and educated ones.  As mentioned by TML, they just need Obama margins.

She not only lost white working class voters by an appalling margin even by 21st century Democratic Party standards, she also lost a large number of working class voters (but especially working class voters "of color") who simply stayed home. And as has been stated before, her gains were disproportionately among affluent, college/graduate-school educated Republicans (e.g. you ) living in the large metropolitan areas of states that were safely Democratic already (but not enough to offset those of the Never-Trump crowd who voted for Johnson).

And circling back to Clinton's losses among racial/ethnic minority voters, I strongly suspect that much of the small but notable defection to Trump among this demographic was among working class minority voters. Think about it; the more upscale minorities disproportionately have university degrees (and quite often graduate degrees, at that) compared to whites of the same class (particularly white men) since this population skews younger and more importantly, haven't had the multiple generations of family wealth/assets (even if only modest amounts, as is certainly true of the bulk of the white American population) that white Americans can leverage. Thus, a college degree tends to be, on average, a more important investment or "meal ticket" to a middle class life for minority populations than it is for white Americans.

All of this is to say that wealthier, college-educated minorities are either strongly liberal Democrats already or if they vote Republican, have been doing so all along (that is, before Trump) and if anything, would have been more likely to defect to Clinton or Johnson in 2016 than other minority voters (who were either already staunch Democrats and/or only voted in presidential elections (if they voted at all), particularly when Obama was the Democratic nominee, or in a minority of cases, voted for Trump). If you haven't already noticed, these demographic patterns are very much the same or similar to the patterns among white voters in 2016.

tl;dr Clinton's losses relative to previous nominees (including Obama both in 2008 and 2012) for both white voters and (I strongly suspect) minority voters were disproportionately among the less affluent and especially less (formally) educated, while conversely, her (and Johnson's!) gains among - again - both whites and minorities were disproportionately among the more affluent and educated. These trends should worry any Democrat who wants their party to both represent and be strongly supported by the Masses i.e the poor, the working and lower middle classes, and yes, the (vast majority of) racial and ethnic minority communities who very much overlap with the aforementioned social classes.

[DeSantis4Prez]

I really don't think they can until Trump is in-eligible to run. His platform reached out to working class voters well.

[RINO Tom]

I really don't think they can until Trump is in-eligible to run. His platform reached out to working class voters well.

Did it, really?  It certainly did better than most Republicans, but Trump was still campaigning on largely conservative economic policies more traditionally associated with a GOP that past "WWC  voters" rejected like tax cuts, deregulation and simplifying the tax code.  Clinton was utterly inept at capitalizing on that, though, and decided (very falsely) that there was a better opening to try to nab up disaffected Republicans.