^^ if Democrats can't beat Trump, and have already lost union towns, then they are already damaged beyond repair.

I'm not gonna sit here and try to prop the green party. The hippy stigma you just pointed out is a fair criticism. But there has to be some form of labor party, or socialist party, or some other classically liberal party that focuses on economic equality more than identity politics. Economic equality is the only issue that can unite people across race and gender and religious lines. A radical left alternative is necessary to pull the Dems back to the left. I mean, there needs to be a severe sense of urgency, otherwise we're fucked.


[Edited on November 11, 2016 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2016 2:02:44 PM

Lets say the green party had gotten a lot of the people who didn't vote in this election and ended up with 15% of the popular vote, it would have been a game changer. The democratic party would have immediately went into reform to try and appease the far left to gain that 15%. Their current strategy of appealing to the middle to be closest to all voters only enrages the right and the left.

Lets say the debate was stein, trump, hillary. Stein would have been poised to poke holes in everything clinton said that was intended to reach out to the working class and income inequality, but didn't. Clinton is pretty smart and would have seen this coming and guess what she would have done? She would have moved to the left to overshadow stein and contrast with trump instead of getting caught in the middle.

That would have gotten her the win because then progressives would have had their main positions represented by hillary.

Thats the best we can hope for. Using our presidential candidate to influence the other candidates and call them out on their bullshit to prevent their bullshit from happening in the first place. This cycle was a joke because instead of talking policy, they both had the option to contrast scandals.

11/11/2016 2:08:38 PM

I think even a simple re-branding of the Green Party led by an angry former Democrat would do way better. I don't think 15% better but more than 1% or whatever Stein got. Their platform is fine.

11/11/2016 2:16:54 PM

Quote :

"Because they don't have the same financial backing to get their message out. C'mon, man, you knew that already."

Conveniently enough, they seem to get their message out during national elections every four years, which I'm pretty sure costs more than congressional, or even state legislature elections.

Everyone who considers themselves to be progressive, or against the status quo needs to wake up and be more directly responsible in their own communities. I'm super proud of CA for passing all of those ballot initiatives, but it's merely just a step in the right direction.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but the electoral college absolutely needs to go. Even if Hillary had lost the popular and won the EC I'd still want it gone. It would just be a bandaid until something like this happens again. It's absolutely the main reason we have a fucked up two party system. For those of you defending it, you might want to read this:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

[Edited on November 11, 2016 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2016 2:56:03 PM

All of you are taking the same approach, that the Dems need to note run relatively pro-business, elite, relatively moderate candidates like HRC. You're [rightfully saying] that the GOP has beaten the Dems at their own game, and that the Dems need to make a pretty hard left turn to differentiate themselves from the broader GOP and compete for working class white people.


I think that's a total misread of the situation, especially in the long-term.

Blue-collar white people, old people, religious people, people without at least some half-assed college education, etc are all shrinking demographics. They all also kinda go together, too--in other words, it's not like you're gonna round up all of them in to Dem-land just by going harder populist. Some will remain with the ever more populist GOP, due to other issues.

Why chase a fraction of a dissipating opportunity?


Why not go for the educated, the wealthy, the elite, the successful, who want nothing to do with the GOP except for someone to stay out of their fucking bank accounts? Add to that racial, ethnic, and religious minorities who are nearly persona non grata in the GOP and are an ever-increasing slice of the pie. Yes, some of what is the best policy to woo the black or hispanic vote isn't the best to woo the educated professional and business vote--there is far from 100% overlap there, but the same thing once existed on the right, where they gave lip-service to the religious right and offered a few token items for them.

Add in a few interests (civil liberties, etc) that at least partially fit in this group, and at any rate have zero place in the unfolding GOP, and I think you'd have yourself a party.

Yeah, the Dems just got schwacked, but how bad would it have been if it'd been, say, Biden, instead of one of the most fucked-up and disgusting candidates in modern history (albeit the 2nd worst this election)? Obama was very successfully elected and holds killer approval ratings. I think that going full-Kucinich is just being reactionary and short-sighted.


I think that more Bloomberg-ish policies without silly shit like soda bans, and with being more moderate on guns, and--unlike traditional Rockefeller Republicans, not just being largely indifferent to social issues--actively embrace racial/ethnic/religious minorities.

Now, a traditional liberal/leftist would have a quandary, so I know you guys will be naturally resistant to what I'm describing, but the GOP has sharply shifted. That is, I believe, going to cause more than just a need for a little nip and tuck on the Dem side. If it unfolds as something similar to this, what's more important to you--populism and protectionism...or stuff like LGBT rights, immigration, climate change and evolution? What about the traditional Republican--fiscal conservatism, pro trade & business policies...or religious politics and preserving a bygone/nostalgic social fabric?

11/13/2016 8:23:54 PM

Quote :

"Why not go for the educated, the wealthy, the elite, the successful, who want nothing to do with the GOP except for someone to stay out of their fucking bank accounts? "

You just described the modern-day Labour Party in the UK. Their voters in northern England and Scotland have left the party en masse as Labour became a party only concerned with the affairs of Londoners and they have a completely unelectable loon running the party, although in light of Trump perhaps he has a greater chance than people think.

11/13/2016 9:09:29 PM

Well, I'm also describing something broader than just courting a bunch of "Rockefeller Republican" types.

11/13/2016 9:23:13 PM

Quote :

"Why not go for the educated, the wealthy, the elite, the successful, who want nothing to do with the GOP except for someone to stay out of their fucking bank accounts? Add to that racial, ethnic, and religious minorities who are nearly persona non grata in the GOP and are an ever-increasing slice of the pie"

You literally just described Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy.

11/14/2016 8:57:30 AM

Bernie's too old.

Warren?
Castro?
Booker?

Why don't they just pick someone who just got elected to the Senate? That'll give them plenty of experience before they start campaigning (18 months or so).

Yeah....that'll be great.

11/14/2016 8:33:13 PM

Oprah Winfrey

11/14/2016 8:39:48 PM

you come up with that all by yourself?

11/14/2016 8:40:57 PM

Why not? She would have beaten Trump.

11/14/2016 8:43:14 PM

Michael Moore said that three days ago

how so?

someone made the claim that Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012 (apples and oranges).

[Edited on November 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM. Reason : mmmmmm]

11/14/2016 8:50:04 PM

Yeah and he's absolutely right. America is clearly not interested in any kind of establishment politician. 50% of people didn't vote. If it was Oprah vs Trump, literally everyone would have voted.

11/14/2016 8:54:03 PM

There are a million reasons why Clinton lost and Obama won, but this is the main one, and easiest to correct in 2020,

Quote :

"The September calendars: Obama - 5 fundraisers, visits to Detroit, MI, Monroe, MI, Milwaukee, WI, New Philadelphia, OH, Dillonvale, OH, York, PA, Columbia, PA, Lancaster, PA, Duryea, PA, Wyoming, PA, Terre Haute, IN, Flint, MI, Farmington Hills, MI, Riverside, OH, Green Bay, WI, Detroit, MI. Clinton - 14 fundraisers, 1 visit to Philadelphia, 1 visit to Cleveland -- that's it for the Rust Belt in September!"

Basically, don't take a single vote for granted.

11/14/2016 8:58:50 PM

Do you think it's because she didn't have anything to offer them (compared to Trump)?

Why would she not go to WI, other than she thought it was in the bag?

This is a much more substantive post-mortem than just to blame people for being "deplorable."

11/14/2016 9:11:43 PM

I agree, Clinton's loss was in large part due to the fact she was picking out to the drapes of the Oval Office rather than campaigning.

11/14/2016 9:15:43 PM

Quote :

"It's NOT THE MESSENGER. It's the message. INCOME INEQUALITY. INCOME INEQUALITY. INCOME INEQUALITY. "

No, that's wrong.

These entitled, half-educated rust belt morons don't give a fuck about income inequality. "Income inequality" is a big societal concept. They don't care about that shit. They want their old puffed-up, outdated jobs back. They damn sure don't care if poor minority families get more equal incomes. They don't. By and large they favor poor minority families being in jail or Mexico.

If they actually cared about "income inequality," they would have voted for Clinton, who at least pretended to care about it. Donald Trump didn't even do that. He vaguely promised them their jobs back, which is the only thing they want and the one thing they sure as fuck ain't gonna get.

Even so, any Democratic candidate without seven decades of political baggage would have won. Ditto one with even a little bit of ability to relate to voters. Replace Hillary with just about anybody, they beat Donald Trump.

Look, electoral college totals aside, this was a near run thing. You can change almost anything about Hillary Clinton and get that 1 point edge that puts her over the top. And very possibly changing one part of the narrative (e-mails) is what got her the loss.

You don't need to come up with a wild new Democratic party platform to win national elections right now. Certainly you will need one in the future. And I'd definitely like one right away. But I don't think the message lost this election, because most people didn't even HEAR the goddamn message. Hillary's message and Trump's lack of ideas were both thoroughly drowned out by the clash of personalities.

---

I don't think there needs to be any hand-wringing over statements like "The Democrats have a shallow bench!" Obviously the bench doesn't matter as much as people thought, given the current president-elect. The Republicans had a deep bench this cycle and it basically got brushed aside by someone whose only previous connection to politics was occasionally referencing it to get a ratings bump.

Here are some things that I think most of us take to be self evident:

1) Trump won't even try to enact many of his policies
2) He will fail to enact many of those he does try
3) Those he actually implements will fail
4) None of the problems facing America right now are going to get any better
5) Some of them are going to get much, much worse
6) There is a much higher-than-usual chance of a scandal or fuckup that will render the president politically impotent

I've said before that this election was a lose-lose for the GOP. Either Trump lost and the party endured 12 years minimum out of power, or Trump won and set them up for massacres in the midterms and 2020. I would have preferred the former but can retain some sliver of hope for the latter, if the Republic survives that long. The Democrats do not need to nominate FDR next year. They don't even need Carter, God forbid. Unless something totally unexpected happens, they could get away with Mondale.


---

Can someone explain the Cory Booker hate to me? As far as I can tell he's a fairly standard Democrat politically, but with much more desirable candidate traits.

11/14/2016 9:18:20 PM

Basically, New Jersey. If you're looking for a candidate without any baggage, find one from a different state.

11/14/2016 9:48:39 PM

Quote :

"standard Democrat"

11/14/2016 9:54:57 PM

Quote :

"fairly standard Democrat politically."

That's why. No one wants that anymore. Clinton was a fairly standard democrat politically. Booker may have eeked out a win vs Trump because he had less baggage. Or maybe not.

The play should be for the 50% of people who didn't vote, including the 90,000 people in Michigan who left president BLANK. Not 3rd party, not write-in, blank. You need to give people something to vote FOR. Not the same old touchy feely empathy bullshit Dems are so fond of

11/14/2016 9:57:41 PM

Quote :

"...and that the Dems need to make a pretty hard left turn to differentiate themselves from the broader GOP and compete for working class white people I think that's a total misread of the situation, especially in the long-term. Blue-collar white people, old people, religious people, people without at least some half-assed college education, etc are all shrinking demographics. They all also kinda go together, too--in other words, it's not like you're gonna round up all of them in to Dem-land just by going harder populist. Some will remain with the ever more populist GOP, due to other issues. Why chase a fraction of a dissipating opportunity?"

What are you talking about? Wealth has been stratifying in this country with more and more people falling into poverty. The poverty rate in this country is around 15%, with almost half of the country living near poverty or paycheck to paycheck. Corporate profits are at all time highs and median household incomes are dipping. The American middle class is rapidly diminishing and has been for about 30 years now. Nobody is saying that they have to target blue-collar white people specifically. We're just saying that they need to target laborers, generally. The more and more wealth stratifies and turns our society into the have's and have nots, the more appealing populist messages become.

Democrats will keep refusing to do this, though, because they are heavily financed by Wall Street and major financial institutions. In fact, I hazard a guess that the next Democratic candidate's top donors will be a combination of Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/Citi/BofA/Morgan Stanley/Chase/etc. And yet, somehow, someway, they'll still convince themselves that they are the champions of the middle class without acknowledging this glaring conflict of interests.

Quote :

"Now, a traditional liberal/leftist would have a quandary, so I know you guys will be naturally resistant to what I'm describing, but the GOP has sharply shifted. "

Both parties have shifted. And they've shifted to the right. Traditional liberals/leftist's have nowhere to go as we've watched the Democratic Party slowly morph into the old Republican Party. Don't you think it's curious that your political positions have stayed relatively firm, and the Democrats have essentially landed in your lap?

Quote :

"These entitled, half-educated rust belt morons don't give a fuck about income inequality. "Income inequality" is a big societal concept. They don't care about that shit."

Those "entitled, half-educated rust belt morons" have strong ties and traditions to labor unions. And many of those unions had strong ties to socialists and socialist ideology during their histories. And traditionally those union members (before this election, anyway) voted Democratic. In 2011 (during the height of the Occupy protests), those same union members basically shut down the Wisconsin statehouse in protests against Scott Walker.

Those people would be more open to the ideas of income inequality than you're giving them credit for, regardless of your ideological opposition to socialism. And those are votes that the Democratic Party just left on the table during this election.


This is a MAJOR problem.

11/15/2016 2:20:20 AM

Not to split hairs but wisconsin is not in the rust belt.

11/15/2016 6:21:56 AM

Quote :

"Both parties have shifted. And they've shifted to the right."

I'm not sure where I was reading about this but is this a result of the grassroots conservative movement that has led to relative dominance at the local and state levels? When you have conservative leadership at that level it's a lot easier to control more policy and will push the country in that direction.

Is the better solution for the Democratic Party to really concentrate on creating a grassroots progressive movement while taking its lumps at the national level?

11/15/2016 8:01:21 AM

Quote :

"Not to split hairs but wisconsin is not in the rust belt."

You're right. I've been focusing on the rust belt, but the "broader midwest" may be a more appropriate description.


^I think it's a combination of things. I think the biggest influence is Big Money (Citizens United, etc). In the example I used above, Scott Walker's biggest campaign donors were from OUTSIDE the state of Wisconsin. That's inheritly counter to the idea of self democratic rule and local and state politics. So instead of listening to his constituency, he listened to outside forces who's main goal was to transform WI into a "right to work state" aka, union busting.

As to your question about needing grassroots movements on the left, I think you're correct. Liberals can't rely on fighting Big Money with Big Money. The Democratic Party deluded itself into trying this method. It doesn't work.

So, yes, grassroots movements could work. I know everyone loved to shit on the occupy movement, but it DID have an impact on how people discuss class and income. I don't know if it'll make a comeback (perhaps it will, but under a different name). But there has to be a form of resistance, and I think at this point it has to come from outside electoral politics. And more hauntingly, I think it has to weather the storm when the state tries to crush it.

11/15/2016 10:01:41 AM

If the Dems can pick the right person, I very well may change my R to a D and start voting Democrat...selectively at least.

11/15/2016 10:28:11 AM

Terry Mcauliffe

7/19/2017 11:42:15 PM

Quote :

"Basically, New Jersey. If you're looking for a candidate without any baggage, find one from a different state. "

that, and former mayor of Newark to top it all off. shady city politician from a state notorious for grimy politicians. I like Booker better than Martin O'Malley, but that's not saying much. All Booker had to do for that one was not pass a rain tax aimed at fucking over homeowners.

7/20/2017 12:04:20 AM

It'll probably be Kamala Harris or Corey Booker....or Mark goddamn Zuckerberg

7/20/2017 12:51:09 AM

Will Bernie run again? If not, not making him the Democratic candidate in the past election was the biggest blunder you people ever committed.

*****************************

I have said this forever, and I will say it again:

Let America (or any other country) be governed by a collective of technocrats (Zuckerberg, Gates, etc), educators (top professors and teachers), accomplished human rights activists/NGO workers and environmentalists, and it will become the best and most humane country in the world ever, in every measure.

Sadly, that will never ever happen as honest/clean people don't enter the dirty world of politics.

7/20/2017 1:11:58 AM

This is the 2020 electoral map if the Democrats nominate someone even remotely likable.

7/17/2018 3:28:30 AM

zuckerberg wont be old enough, right?



They better run someone halfway decent to get this clown out of office

7/17/2018 12:08:37 PM

you think zuckerberg would be a decent candidate? jfc please no.

7/17/2018 12:26:13 PM

Maine and Iowa are also possible blues if we get someone very likable. Maybe even Ohio, based on Trump's current numbers.

7/17/2018 1:06:44 PM

Dancing L

7/17/2018 3:44:44 PM

Id rather Roger Clinton run than Zuckerberg

[Edited on July 17, 2018 at 4:10 PM. Reason : berg]

7/17/2018 4:10:13 PM

I'd rather Democrats run on the platform of abolishing the presidency than Mark Zuckerberg.

7/18/2018 2:44:30 AM

We all know the Avenatti/Trump debates will be epic.

7/18/2018 7:58:47 AM

I would rather Democrats run with the crying meme girl than Mark Zuckerberg.

8/6/2018 12:16:59 PM

Warren will likely officially announce after midterms. If all her previous actions wasn't evidence enough, her releasing the DNA test certainly is

10/15/2018 8:50:42 AM

it will probably end up being biden because democrats are awful at politics

10/15/2018 9:02:11 AM

booker/harris or harris/booker?

10/15/2018 9:21:52 AM

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1051479886873985029

Quote :

"Biden 33% Sanders 13% Harris 9% Warren 8% Booker 5% Kerry 5% Bloomberg 4% O’Rourke 4% Holder 3% Garcetti 2% Avenatti 1% Gillibrand 1% Klobuchar 1% Patrick 1% Bullock <1% Delaney <1%"

10/15/2018 9:28:17 AM

I hope we don't see the same mistake that the Republican party did with the 2016 primaries. The field was way too crowded.

10/15/2018 9:39:14 AM

As much as I hate the idea, I think some smokey backroom style deals to whittle down the field to 3 or 4 before the primaries would help drastically

10/15/2018 9:53:11 AM

People can really expand on their policies and issues and overall platforms when there are only 3-4. When there are 16, of course the loudest, most belligerent candidate is going to come out on top.

10/15/2018 9:55:54 AM

The right was willing to ignore affairs, pussy-grabbing, racism, xenophobia, bankruptcy, unethical business dealings, refusal to show tax returns, making fun of the disabled, calling military heroes weak, and much more to vote for Trump.

So I'm willing to forgive Elizabeth Warren for mishandling her Native American identification process. While I'm upset she gave in and got the genetic test without consulting with tribal leaders, she's still my top choice. I want the next four presidents in a row to be Warren/Booker/Harris/Kennedy.

10/16/2018 9:18:58 PM

That's fine to want, but anyone who can voluntarily make such a basic fuck up has no chance winning a general election

10/16/2018 10:34:12 PM

^ yes and no

2020 is a long time away, and while some people have really great memories, a lot of people don't. It was dumb to do it in the first place, especially given the timing of Kavanaugh, but in some ways it's better that she got it over with early, so now she can at least try to apologize to the Native Americans, or at least act like she wants to learn and work with them. Her biggest mistake, although she's made bunch, was thinking that a curated campaign-style TV ad would earn her brownie points. She could've just posted it on her website or something more low key.

And I'd still vote for her.

10/16/2018 11:00:19 PM

Quote :

" I want the next four presidents in a row to be Warren/Booker/Harris/Kennedy"

wtf ew dude

10/17/2018 12:10:21 AM