Smiles and Cries
Member
no lies detected
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT: Democrats: Our Brand Is Worse Than Trump
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Reading that entire article, I'm not seeing what's wrong. They want a unified issue and a focus on jobs, economy, and health care.
excelsiorlef
Member
SerAardvark
Member
It could be correlated with a lot of things, so I still see no reason to tie Pelosi in at all.
Okay, so who do you think should be leading the Democrats in the House? Who has shown they're as capable as Pelosi of getting votes/keeping Democrats in line (or at least close)? What happens when they become the next target of the Republican/right-wing slime machine?
It's easy to say "Pelosi is an easy target, she might or might not be used in advertising that might or might not actually meaningfully affect voting, so she should be replaced." What's the solution?
I'm not wholly opposed to making a change due to her age/needing someone new to move forward in a general sense but I think it's really foolish to making leadership decisions based on a Republican strategy that will be used to target up-and-coming and capable Democrats over and over.
That's not "free healthcare." The very existence of the words "lower cost" means you're still paying for it. Obviously what he promised was bullshit, but it can still pass the smell test if voters think they're actually paying into the system. If you tell them free healthcare, free college, etc. they immediately know something is up. Trite sayings like "there's no such thing as a free lunch" stick with people for life.
Why would any Bernie supporters think they were being promised free healthcare? I don't recall Bernie ever saying that.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
That's the Democratic strategy if you don't pay any attention or listen to anything Democrats say or follow how they vote or bills they try to introduce.
I thought that's what people wanted! To be more angry!
No one person is to blame, that's the point.
The old guard is failing and has failed for years now. Just because Obama won the presidency we've been ignoring the fact that Democrats have ceded ground for a decade.
If it remains this way before redistricting in 2020, the party is basically fucked. While we're all focusing on the presidency, they're quietly winning elections and rigging the game.
Find me an issue that would galvanize more young people to the polls during a mid term?
I've voted in every primary and every election that I've been able to and when I ask or remind people of my age that their is an election they either don't know or don't care.
Democrats lost the nation in 2010 and we are still feeling the after effects of that election on our gerrymandered districts.
excelsiorlef
Member
Anger is for men.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
That's the entire problem. You shouldn't be asking a GAFer this question. The answer should be obvious, and democrats have done a terrible job of it.
Fox Mulder
Member
.
Last edited:
Pelosi's the house minority leader. Her job is to control the house democrats. She's not god emperor of the party.
mightynine
Member
Pelosi is used as a Democrat boogeyman (woman?) in any race by the GOP's outside groups.
The next person will as used as well. Or they'll focus on another prominent Democrat.
I'm not saying getting some new blood in the mix isn't needed, but acting like swapping her out will change anything is absurd.
The Democrat Party needs to learn how to be a party in opposition if they want to win. They can do that and not be what the GOP was for 8 years of Obama.
The next person will as used as well. Or they'll focus on another prominent Democrat.
I'm not saying getting some new blood in the mix isn't needed, but acting like swapping her out will change anything is absurd.
The Democrat Party needs to learn how to be a party in opposition if they want to win. They can do that and not be what the GOP was for 8 years of Obama.
I think the real required strategy shift is something a lot of the younger Dems don't want to hear. You have to become more moderate to win in this electorate.
John Rabbit
Banned
Are you suggesting that continuing to wish Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination will somehow change the outcome of history?
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous it is to draw an equivalence between "I think we should stop being upset about Bernie" and "I support Donald Trump and his administration"? Is this is the kind of line in the sand you want to draw in 2017?
Semantics. Would you prefer if I took out healthcare for college tuition? You know what I meant: Promise the impossible, win elections, fail to pass any meaningful legislation to further that promise, blame the opposition.
It's a winning playbook. How many times do we have to see it?
Maybe I'm just illiterate, but I also don't see a single thing in that article about abandoning social issues, as so many on the first page were complaining about.
GoldenEye 007
Member
It basically happened to Clinton. She had good approvals up until she decided to run for president. Then basically overnight she was portrayed as the devil herself. Then the GOP apparatus kicked in, started investigations, acquitted her of the murder of Ben Ghazi, etc. less than a year later, her favorables were underwater. And it worked brilliantly to help depress Dem votes and energize the GOP.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
That's because nobody does. We're talking about branding, not policy wonking.
To your point, that's not how politics and movements work. You vote for the best option and drag their ass with you and your friends by staying active.
Waiting for the Messiah only means you get the Devil.
She doesn't represent her base anymore. She's clueless. Watch her town halls. She had NO MESSAGE. She can't communicate with Bernie supporters. She's a dolt.
TurnipFritters
Member
Let me tell you about the time John Kerry didn't actually win a purple heart.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Nah the gloating after the AHCA passed was a bad look, I'm pissed at her and them for that.
BrutishMrFish
Member
Are you fine with pushing candidates with policies that have done markedly worse than their less-left counterparts every single time?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL what? Clinton was demonized for decades--even back when Bill was president. The woman was HATED by the right for years and years. By the way, most people have positive approval ratings UNTIL they run for president, at which point they are under greater scrutiny.
But not everyone actually reads the article, hell some don't even read the OP.
I'm inclined to agree with most of what is said in the article.
Dems need to get rid of the old guard and focus on the following:
- Universal Health Care
- Well paying Jobs for (rural) America
- Infrastructure
- Climate/Energy
- Re-assert America's role on the world stage
The need clear messaging on the following:
- Immigration
- Taxes
- Military/Interventionism
Tone down:
- Social issues/Civil rights
- Free College
Dems need to get rid of the old guard and focus on the following:
- Universal Health Care
- Well paying Jobs for (rural) America
- Infrastructure
- Climate/Energy
- Re-assert America's role on the world stage
The need clear messaging on the following:
- Immigration
- Taxes
- Military/Interventionism
Tone down:
- Social issues/Civil rights
- Free College
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Why do we care what conservative voters think?
I'm all in favor of getting some younger Democrats into positions of power and influence in the party. But I'd rather not thrust them into situations that they may not be ready for. Pelosi IS ready for these situations and has shown it.
That's the real problem. Republicans are willing to vote against their own interests to get their candidates elected. Many liberals won't vote for someone who doesn't align completely with their expectations.
I have a feeling a lot of people here weren't old enough to see what she went through in the 90's.
That, or they have selective memory.
Mahadev
Member
Wow, jobs? How original and smart! That's totally change the perception the public has of the DNC.
They will do anything, and I mean anything but give in to Berniecrats that have the support of the public. Hell, I'm quite sure some of them even prefer Trump to Bernie because that way they won't have to make some tough decision, you know, like abandoning their corporate sponsors.
They will do anything, and I mean anything but give in to Berniecrats that have the support of the public. Hell, I'm quite sure some of them even prefer Trump to Bernie because that way they won't have to make some tough decision, you know, like abandoning their corporate sponsors.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Yeah, no.
"Free" vs. "lower cost" is not a matter of semantics...
My only point in responding to your initial post is that you can't promise free college or free healthcare or free whatever, not because it's morally wrong, but because people won't believe it. Trump promised a bullshit solution to healthcare, but he certainly never said it was free. People believe Trump can deliver them something more while paying less, but they wouldn't believe he can deliver something more in exchange for paying nothing.
It didn't happen overnight, there was a 25-year-old built-in distrust and antipathy for Hillary Clinton created by the GOP media machine that only activates whenever she's campaigning for something. When she's actually on the job, her approvals were high (except for first lady).
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Yeah, the reason the GOP is destroying the Democrats in election is because the party isn't liberal enough. The Democrats have gotten worse with purity testing than even the Republicans used to be when they'd blame election loses on RINOs.
VendettaRed07
Member
No.
Doug Heffernan
Member
Wait til the Senate races...
"A vote for this guy is a vote for Cryin Chuck Shumer!!!"
TurnipFritters
Member
Accusing democrats of spending too much time talking about social issues and civil rights is wild.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Every powerful Dem is hated by the right. Who the fuck cares what the right wants. The claim was that there is no way someone could be hated so quickly. Hillary had great approvals into 2015. Despite the smear campaigns over the years.
Those were blown up overnight.
Does nothing for them. Minority turnout was depressed (black) or stable (latino) at best in 2016.
Because unless you ever want to be competitive in red or pink districts, it matters?
And this is ready?? What has she done? Besides refusing to work with Republicans (which is all a minority leader can hope to do), she talks a lot at town halls. And looks completely disconnected to the movements of her own party.
And by the way, even the rank and file are beginning to question her fitness for the role:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/21/nancy-pelosi-fallout-georgia-special-election-239804
You realize you can't cut these people out like it's some sports team right?
fredrancour
Member
Democrats can't win by downplaying demographics that break in their favor to try to convert people with a religious hatred of the left.
excelsiorlef
Member
Lol... so pander to the rural areas and ignore their base... brilliant
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'll pretend for one post only that I can actually reason with the Hillary Faction.
Logically, by telling Bernie supporters to "let it go", you are telling them to accept the outcome of the primary and forever move on knowing that Hillary became the Presidential candidate in the general election.
If you follow YOUR OWN LOGIC, you must also "let it go" because you are also telling yourselves to accept the outcome of the general election and forever move on knowing that Trump became the President.
Logically, if you people cannot "let it go" that Trump is President, then following the same exact logic Bernie supporters also have the right to not "let it go". Do you understand?
ThLunarian
Member
This article (and this thread) are way off base here. These special elections are happening because appointees were chosen from districts that were thought to be safe red.
NONE of those districts are safe anymore. The Republican still won, but with much slimmer margins than expected. It was always a longshot to upend a 20 point advantage overnight. If you don't quite get there but you get close, that's a GOOD sign, not a bad one.
And when you translate that to the rest of the races in the country - the ones that were already more competitive to begin with - , you get a blue wave in 2018.
People need to take a minute to think things through. I know it hurts to lose, but don't go flying off the handle about it. The Democrats' messaging is working. It's resonating with people, even in places like Georgia, Montana, and South Carolina.
NONE of those districts are safe anymore. The Republican still won, but with much slimmer margins than expected. It was always a longshot to upend a 20 point advantage overnight. If you don't quite get there but you get close, that's a GOOD sign, not a bad one.
And when you translate that to the rest of the races in the country - the ones that were already more competitive to begin with - , you get a blue wave in 2018.
People need to take a minute to think things through. I know it hurts to lose, but don't go flying off the handle about it. The Democrats' messaging is working. It's resonating with people, even in places like Georgia, Montana, and South Carolina.
Oh there's definitely blame to be tossed around.
Hilary had bad optics, and some of them were definitely self inflicted.
Here's my issue with my home state democrats. NJ is a blue state that Chris Christie won because our last two democratic governors were corrupt. The second one being a former Goldman Sachs Ceo. We all know how bad the reputation of Wall Street is right now, specifically with Goldman Sachs and former members in Trump's cabinet.
Of course now that Christe is on his way out, who happens to win the NJ Democratic primary? Another former Goldman Sachs executive.
There is political fatigue there and it is entirely self inflicted.