Schumer - Can't blame others for your own loss, need a new bold economic message

[Shadows]

“Here’s the No1 lesson from Georgia 6,” “Democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged, and common-sense economic agenda. Policy, platform, message that appeal to the middle class. That resonate with the middle class … and unite Democrats. That’s what I’ve been working on for months.”  Schumer said, he had been “talking to Trump voters”. During a recent visit to Yankee Stadium in New York City, he said, he watched baseball from a seat next to a “truck driver” wearing clothing that bore a Trump campaign message: “I’m proud to be a deplorable voter.”

“This economic message platform is going to resonate. It’s what we were missing and it’s not going to be baby steps: it’s going to bold. We’re coming out with it this summer, within a month. You will see it and Democrats will try to pass it legislatively for a year and campaign on it in 2018. “But you lose an election, you don’t blame other people, you blame yourself.” Asked about calls for the California congresswoman to step down, Schumer said: “Yes, look, you always blame … they always blame the leader. I think if we come up with this strong, bold economic package … it will change things around.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/25/schumer-agenda-middle-class-democrats-congress-voters

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

But Schumer said Dems should target moderate Republicans last year, and just let working class voters go. I doubt this will be a new message, just a re-framing of the same corporatist garbage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What happened to this inspiring message "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Maybe...just maybe the results of the 2016 election and GA-06 have finally knocked some sense into the Democratic Party apparatus that wealthy Romney voters are not gonna start flocking to the Party in large enough numbers (if at all) to supplement for the WWC that's fleeing the Party and progressives who are becoming increasingly agitated with the Party itself.

Until they learn that lesson, they will keep losing (barring outside factors that may benefit the Democrats).

[TJ in Oregon]

What happened to this inspiring message "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”?

He's going to run out of moderate Republicans in the suburbs to pick up long before he runs out of blue-collar Democrats to lose. That's the main problem with this strategy.

In any case, GA-6 was probably not the most relevant district to cite as an example for this bold new economic message.

[Virginiá]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

[Hindsight was 2020]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

Best route in that case is fight him on economics but when the cultural issues come up be vague like "Trump wants to divide us I want to unite us" shtick

[Technocracy Timmy]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

Good points. If we're in a recession then economics will be the bread and butter of the Democratic Party message and will be emphasized much more than cultural issues. And they will likely win with that message alone. If however the economy is not in a recession but is either expanding from this current recovery (unlikely but plausible) or is recovering from a recession that happens between now and 2020, well...I'd say Trump or Pence eeks out a victory in that case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

Bernie voters were more socially liberal.

[Hindsight was 2020]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

Bernie voters were more socially liberal.

Virgina wasn't talking about "Bernie supporters"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What I am wondering is if Trump runs for reelection, exactly how much the Democratic nominee will make social issues a part of their campaign. Going by a recent study, it seems like Trump's break from conservatives on some economic/safety net policies allowed cultural issues to become dominant, and that drove a wedge between those blue collar voters and Democrats. Trump won't have a clean slate in 2020, and his flip-flopping could be weaponized, but still, it's something to think about.

Democrats can't have it all. The policies they choose to emphasize will have varying effects, and the data seems to suggest that the voters the progressive wing wants to court are more economically liberal but culturally conservative.

Bernie voters were more socially liberal.

Virgina wasn't talking about "Bernie supporters"

Well, Bernie made it clear when he visited Liberty U that he supports SSM and abortion, but that there are other issues where Liberty U students and he agree quite a bit. The Democratic party is rather hawkish, pro NSA blanket spying and so on, so I really don't think a progressive led Democratic party would be more socially conservative. That's nonsense.

[JA]

Maybe...just maybe the results of the 2016 election and GA-06 have finally knocked some sense into the Democratic Party apparatus that wealthy Romney voters are not gonna start flocking to the Party in large enough numbers (if at all) to supplement for the WWC that's fleeing the Party and progressives who are becoming increasingly agitated with the Party itself.

Until they learn that lesson, they will keep losing (barring outside factors that may benefit the Democrats).

The only viable path forward or Democrats  is weaving together a diverse working class coalition. That'll be difficult, but not impossible. It doesn't require winning Whites without a college degree, but it does require making notable inroads into that demographic while increasing turnout among minorities. The working class of all backgrounds will show up for the Democrats if they give them sufficient reason.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Schumer is an establishment hack, of course, but contrary to many Democratic establishment hacks he seems to have seen the writing on the wall and understood that doubling down on the "nice suburban moderates " strategy is suicidal. If only other Dem leaders had as much sense...