Carpe Libertatem
Member
Sure, and Tim Ryan lost his bid for speakership when he tried earlier this year.
"Very special" totally means "not a woman" by the way :lol
-
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
Sure, and Tim Ryan lost his bid for speakership when he tried earlier this year.
"Very special" totally means "not a woman" by the way :lol
The Democrats are being slowly wiped out in every branch of government, and yet delusional people continue to insist "just wait, just wait, the future is ours."
Just when, pray tell, will that future arrive?
He's been useless for years, I don't know what the point is here.
Hatch has been around for what seems like a millennia as well. Just because you can get re-elected in Congress (Hint- They all fucking do) doesn't make you special. At all.
Great... Point? But it could mean a black man, and does actually.
Abinash117
Member
Which is one of the reasons Hillary lost, she shifted strategies on trying to get unreliable voters, moderate Republicans. If you want your base to vote then you give a reason to vote because you will have to gain voters from your opposition which can be an unreliable strategy because those voters are firmly in their camp already.
Ask yourself this way do Republicans target minorities to depress their vote and barely attempt to gain their vote, while at the same time energizing their own base?
GA-6 is a wealthy district. Voters there aren't concerned about whether or not they'll be able to make a livable wage, it's already baked into their lives.
eh, I used to think this way too, but we've seen this kind of messaging on the Paris deal and it hasn't really pushed the needle much either.
TumblingHippo
Member
"Let's give up things that democrats like in order to make democrats more palatable to republicans, like civil rights and open support for minorities and women." ~the thread
I think dropping support of abortion would do far more damage to the Democrats base than good. It, along with many other woman's rights issues, have been a cornerstone of the Democratic party for a long time now.
teruterubozu
Member
Excellent. So we can actually set off the fireworks this time?
Frozenprince
Banned
I mean, the democratic policy of being pro choice (not pro abortion whatever weird shit you're trying to peddle) has been a staple of the party for a fucking while now, including the last time they won the house and senate.
It's not pro abortion, it's pro women's health.
Do you not think women should have access to affordable health care?
Autodidact
Banned
Eight years of a president typically results in losses for that president's party.
The racist right-wing machine kicked into overdrive with Obama, exacerbating the Democrats' losses, but the trend held true.
You act as though 2006, 2008, and 2012, when Democrats kept the Senate and would have regained the House under old district lines, never happened.
Frozenprince
Banned
Cutting health care (read: for the poor and disenfranchised) is the time honored political culling tool on both sides.
You know this.
Is this in reference to the article in the OP? Serious question: can you highlight for me the parts where it mentions Dems are looking to abandon civil rights and abortion rights? Because I see that prospect floated in GAF threads exponentially more than do I in a news article about Democratic party thinking.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
If the Dems throw civil rights under the bus, I will do everything in my power to bring it back to the forefront.
Bernie wing, regular dems, doesn't matter.
Fuck over the real base and lose.
And don't act coy, the code is all over the place.
Bernie wing, regular dems, doesn't matter.
Fuck over the real base and lose.
And don't act coy, the code is all over the place.
People have really short memories when they want to.
timetokill
Banned
I think Democrats should be airing ads that say a Handmaid's Tale is the GOP's dream of the future
So what I'm hearing from all of you debating me on this is that Hillary was a shitty candidate.
Boy, wait till they get to American History in high school and take a look at what happened in 1976->1980!
teruterubozu
Member
Well you weren't very specific about what you meant by "shelf life" so....
Not surprising at all.
After finally breaking away from all the right wing shit I was raised on, to see Democrats eat up this garbage makes me depressed.
John Rabbit
Banned
Pretty sure that would only shore up the GOP base.
God Dayumm
Banned
Is it something democrats campaign hard for? They could just shut up about it and implement progressive policies when they are in office.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Good to see you actually admit that you think women shouldn't be elevated to positions of power in the Democratic Party I guess.
Autodidact
Banned
It's a two party system. The joke used to be that one of the parties could nominate a cabbage and still have a good shot. Last year we learned that's true even if the cabbage is a white supremacist. That doesn't mean we need to change our platform to be more pro-cabbage.
This election was a bit hyped, disappointing that they dropped a lot of funds just to lose but it's still impressive that it was a nail biter in a safe R district. Not going to make this an indicator of what's to come as the Dems still have opportunities to recuperate
Dems seriously have to scrap that New Democrat brand they're trying to sell, not saying they should swing too far left and be Berniecrats but their message should be a center-left/progressive platform. Going to be a challenge trying to articulate that message but as long as remnants of the Clintoncrats (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille) keep their traps shut, they should be fine moving forward
Dems seriously have to scrap that New Democrat brand they're trying to sell, not saying they should swing too far left and be Berniecrats but their message should be a center-left/progressive platform. Going to be a challenge trying to articulate that message but as long as remnants of the Clintoncrats (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille) keep their traps shut, they should be fine moving forward
Haha good lord.
Okay. That's exactly what I was saying?
How about this for a novel concept: Pelosi is failing at her job, and members of the party are questioning her fitness for the position. It may *gasp* have nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.
Frozenprince
Banned
They aren't "abandoning it", per say. But this is a cycle that always happens. There's bluster and bravado, maybe a key piece of the party platform is based on civil rights and womens rights, but then losses start coming so those issues get back burnered. Yes they are still technically "there", but it's more "we'll get to this later, right now we need to work on our messaging about the economy! (to the majority white populated areas)".
It's a fairly consistent shift in party priorities and messaging, shit we even saw it under the Obama administration.
These aren't bad losses. Well, they certainly feel bad, but they're close losses in deep-red areas of the country that just seven months ago elected Republicans by significantly higher margins.
I would've preferred Ossoff, et al. to win their races than lose. Obviously. But there's a clear trend forming here. And if we can run candidates that only lose by 3-4 points in areas like GA-6 and SC-5, or 6 points in Kansas and Montana, then what does that mean for the 70+ districts where the margins are already thinner?
but can you actually show me the parts in the article where this is happening
Autodidact
Banned
So you call narrowing the margins in red, Republican-held-for-thirty-years districts "not even trying"?
Republican opinion about Democratic leadership have no say in the matter. The problem lies in the results. Democrats have been losing seats overall, local and national. It shouldn't matter where you are in the blue spectrum to see that we're bleeding. Things are not fine and Pelosi has been leading for over six years since Republicans pushed back in 2010 and it has only become worse. Other leadership changes should be considered.
Frozenprince
Banned
How has she failed at her job as house rep? Serious question, on what issue has she failed to bring the house together against policy the party doesn't agree on? Because that's her job, not helping every single rep win an election.
RPGCrazied
Member
It is? Almost turning a red district that has been red like for decades blue is because we have a worse message then Trump?
Okay then. /s
Okay then. /s
What do you think Nancy Pelosi's job is?
(It's corralling votes in the House and fundraising. It's not recruiting candidates and organizing campaigns. That falls on the DNC/DCCC/DSCC.)
Why not change the guys whose job is to deal with elections though?
Platinumstorm
Member
The idea is integrating minority benefits into massive social programs that recover the non-corporate class. Poor white family X doesn't have time to care about social equalization when their health insurance premiums are going up every year for every person in their family, and their deductible is being raised for every person in the family too, and then they seemingly have to switch around insurance companies because companies aren't interested in insuring independent families on the same basis as those involved in large corporate institutions.
Without some sort of pendulum swing back towards re empowering individuals vs corporate entities, we won't have any political capital to go back and improve upon social injustices.
Topic Switch:
No one should care about the special election loss. However, it's a loss to Democrats and Republicans alike for how much money was wasted in Georgia.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/nancy-pelosi-favorable-rating
At least he'd be more popular.
The current movements are a tide.
The fact that so many do not understand that red districts are hard to win/entrenched but that coming within sub-4 points means a lot, means to many of you are looking for Trump's brand of "winning" and not the actual undercurrents.
These special elections were for districts that should not have been competitive. That's why the people were selected. That is the major take away. They are now competitive. This is a terrifying sign for the GOP come 2018. They cannot afford to spent 4x the capital per district for every region that should never have been competitive to begin with.
These are not good signs for the GOP. Voters are being galvanized into action and showing turn out that is not anticipated or voting against party affiliations.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I mean, you're the one who said you have to be a special politician to not have a shelf life.
Is there a reason why old men like Biden, Bernie, etc aren't seen the same way as old women like Pelosi and Hillary? Other than their gender.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Pelosi doesn't really have any direct control over Democrat candidates. She's just a fundraiser and organizer of votes. She's very good at both.
But at this point they have to question whether all of that is worth having every Democrat in the country tied to her (which may cost elections)
To be pure of course
We gained House seats in 2016. Doesn't comport well with your "slow wipe out" narrative.
If you think my take is delusional a good place to start would be identifying where it's wrong.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Literally everyone in the entire country except millionaires. Literally.
I'm sure this will get skipped over, but a helpful explanation for who is in charge of what when it comes to elections, so people don't get confused being angry at the wrong organization.
DNC, DCCC, DSCC: How to decipher the alphabet soup of Democratic Party organizations
I hope that guys won't be running around complaining about the DNC or Tom Perez for this election, or generically just "Democrats" instead of "Republicans". A little information can go a long way.
DNC, DCCC, DSCC: How to decipher the alphabet soup of Democratic Party organizations
I hope that guys won't be running around complaining about the DNC or Tom Perez for this election, or generically just "Democrats" instead of "Republicans". A little information can go a long way.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
This is some fucking truth right here.
Pelosi became leader of the House Democrats in 2002. You apparently forgot about the 8 years before 2010.
Also, why are you even talking about Pelosi in relation to local elections?