Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

Since everyone is riled up in factional battles, I'll make a general argument:

Historically bad string of defeats and no leadership changes afterwards means a party is out of touch and content to merely exist.

I'm going to re-up my hot take from the last, literally identical thread:

The Democrats won a popular vote victory in 2016. They lost the White House by a tiny margin of votes*. In a two-party system, no election is guaranteed; both parties always have a chance to win. They also won seats in both the House and Senate.

The Democrats have a much more popular platform than the opposing party pretty much across the board.

Maybe the Democrats are doing fine and shouldn't change anything.

You might think this argument is dumb. Sure, maybe! I don't actually think the Democrats shouldn't change ANYTHING. But you should probably have a better rebuttal to it than "that doesn't fit my narrative about the universe," because the points above are largely factual. If you want to assert we need huge, unprecedented change or the party will collapse, you should probably be able to overcome the pretty low bar of explaining why everything is not fine.


* Because of an undemocratic system that was designed to privilege the views of rural white people and racists, but that's not key to the argument here.

 

[Ogodei]

telling people to shut up and vote for democrats without criticizing them is what we did last year

having a serious debate about what the party needs to change is the only way we can learn the right lessons from our historic loss

The problem was that we didn't convince enough Dem leaners to actually vote. The likelihood of low-propensity Dem voters is what screwed everything more than the Obama->Trump unicorns.

GOP wins because their voters know what's at stake. The Democratic party needs to better-communicate this.

 

[The Technomancer]

My question is not about changing our party's values, or whether we need those states. It's about how Democrats should run in those states.
Is there no way to win without pandering to racism?

There is probably a way to win without pandering to racism depending on what the opposition looks like, but it is nearly impossible to hold onto those people if an openly racist candidate who "shares their values" does run. We could probably scrape together the people we need for a win, but I do not believe they will ever be a stable part of the coalition.

 

[SomTervo]

In the UK, moving further left seemed to work for the opposition

???

 

[pigeon]

My question is not about changing our party's values, or whether we need those states. It's about how Democrats should run in those states.
Is there no way to win without pandering to racism?

It's a two-party system. We should just run Democrats and accept that in a district that's full of racists we'll probably lose most of the time. In a wave, or occasionally because of a fluke, we'll win. And in the meantime, people who live in red states but want to actually vote for social justice and economic justice will have somebody to turn out and vote for, and the party will actually stand for something.

 

[The Technomancer]

Maybe referring to this:

This is evidence of an enormous right wing backlash against Democrats, liberals, and progressives yeah. Wait is that contentious now?

 

[BasicMath]

So your solution is to create permanent Republican rule.

Don't be scared. The country can move. In fact, the country already did move which is why the corporate Dems and corrupt establishment Dems are on Damage Control since election day.

 

[water_wendi]

The Supreme Court? How about you throw the super bowl and the World Series in there too?

It's not historic.

Yeah keep telling yourself that.

 

[jakonovski]

What historically bad defeats are you referencing?

The ones where Republicans gained control of every branch of government, the last of which was taken by Donald fucking Trump.

 

[pigeon]

The ones where Republicans gained control of every branch of government, the last of which was taken by Donald fucking Trump.

When we did that in 2008 was that a historically enormous victory?

 

[jakonovski]

When we did that in 2008 was that a historically enormous victory?

You've made your point that you want politics to continue as normal despite current circumstance. I obviously disagree. If you want to call the Republican pillage of America non-historic, go ahead.

 

[AstroNut325]

The American 'left' really doesn't offer any solutions to the concerns of vast members of the population.

Just more Neoliberalism and being somewhat less shit than the republicans.

I don't think this is factually true. The Democrats have emphasized policy and equality. The Republicans are driven more by emotion and feelings.

 

[pigeon]

You've made your point that you want politics to continue as normal despite current circumstance. I obviously disagree.

I wouldn't say "normal" exactly. I think things should change drastically. I just don't think your arguments or prescriptions are sound, and I've been pretty explicit that the "GAF left's" unwillingness to grapple with the anti-social justice advocates in their own ranks will continue to disqualify them from my perspective.

But I also said pretty clearly that if you disagree, maybe you should make an effort to justify and explain that disagreement. It's disappointing that you would rather avoid discussion entirely than actually prove how correct your arguments are.

If you want to call the Republican pillage of America non-historic, go ahead.

I would like us to be consistent in using the word "historic" to describe things, and I would like you to consider the possibility that if "historic" things happen every eight years maybe your conception of history is tiny.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

The rub is that yes, we have two overarching options: Compromise, or stick to our guns.

Democrats didn't exactly stick to their guns last election, they instead spent most of the time infighting and trying to compromise internally. There was a message, the convention was great, but it didn't carry. And as hyperbolic and completely outlandish as it seemed at the time, we now can't discount the Russian interference.

Compromising is not a bad option. We have to stop pretending that democracy is about anything else. If you can't tolerate compromising with people who literally don't care if you die and who think you are subhuman, you need to stop pretending democracy will ever work for you. It is a system that has proven time and time that it is too slow to help those affected by injustice today. It's not about agreeing or understanding or respecting your opposition, it's about finding common ground. That may be more difficult than ever, but there are fundamental things that every human being needs. A disastrous crisis that affects everyone will likely be the only way this will happen, and so the current plan of fucking over the middle class and poor will continue to be the country's MO until Trump voters are literally dying on the street en masse or protestors begin to be fired on with live ammo by Federal forces.

One problem with compromise in our current condition is that the entire country is still fighting over November 8th, 2016. Trump's entire presidency is still based on doing whatever the opposite of Obama is. The left is still fighting over Hillary vs Bernie.

Another problem with compromise is that the people who Democrats have to compromise with are the most programmed and indoctrinated people we've had in this country since the mid-1800s, if not ever. Rupert Murdoch's empire has managed a propaganda campaign over the last 2 decades that would have made Joe Goebbels cum in his pants. Small government isolationists ironically have enabled through an erosion of Federal programs in favor of privatization a corporate welfare state which they seemingly lack the perspective to even distinguish from competitive capitalism.

No small byproduct of this is we have the largest group of people we've ever had in this country who have been failed by the education system in both overall access, the capacity for critical thought, and empowerment. At the same time people argue we should be fighting to end bullying in school we face a ubiquitous online bullying culture which glorifies calling people out as the only seemingly relevant end goal or method of creating change.

Fundamentally, we face either compromising with or attempting to overcome by sheer numbers people who exhibit all the calling cards of irreversible dogmatic indoctrination and who will go to their death beds cursing whoever their overlords tell them is the enemy regardless of the realities of their own existence. This is as near to a complete pathology to functional democracy as we can get.

The path forward involves a few choices:

• Become like the enemy to drown their voices out. This risks compromising any pretense of a moral high ground even if your stance is still in the right, but yet we see the end result of merely appealing to the better angels of everyone's nature. This is the strongest current vibe on social media because of the raw anger caused by this administration. This is fighting fire with fire. This can only work if the base can be energized through pure anger to want vengeance and to drag literally every registered voter out on the street kicking and screaming to crush the Midwest by sheer numbers.
• Aim center for votes. This didn't work for Hillary, but many people said her message was flaccid and her brand irredeemable, especially to the middle class.
• Go left. Go socialist. Go populist. Focus on the threat of automation and the crushing wage inequality and downplay minority issues except insofar as the disenfranchised feel these inequalities even more. Be Bernie. Be radical. Be tonedeaf, but focused.
• Stay the course. Reestablish confidence. Reaffirm a focus on base values. Find an exciting new leader. This was a close election lost for a variety of technical factors, one of which being active interference by a foreign power. Trump lost the popular vote. The shock of losing an election everyone thought was in the bag to the worst person possible should be a wake-up call not a death knell. Persevering through the intolerable means simply that. The party is self destructing largely because it has no stirring leadership, not because it doesn't stand for anything.

I personally think all of these are on the table, none are anywhere near ideal, and we are looking at, best-case, yet another lost 21st century decade for progress in the US.

 

[pigeon]

Compromising is not a bad option. We have to stop pretending that democracy is about anything else. If you can't tolerate compromising with people who literally don't care if you die and who think you are subhuman, you need to stop pretending democracy will ever work for you.

This is maybe the worst pitch for democratic values I've ever seen in my life.

It is not possible to compromise with somebody who believes I should be forced to leave the country I was born in because it belongs to them.

I don't think it is a good idea for you to assert that if I can't accept that compromise than I can't accept democracy.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The American 'left' really doesn't offer any solutions to the concerns of vast members of the population.

Just more Neoliberalism and being somewhat less shit than the republicans.

This, dare I say, "edgy" cynacism of some people on here is embarrassing. If you honestly think there's little difference between the left/right, Dems and Republicans then you need to reassess your knowledge of politics, because statements like those are the quickest way to lose credibility.

You can simultaneously acknowledge the left isn't doing as much as it can without making dumb assertions of them not being significantly different from the right.

 

[DietRob]

I'm not one of these people who think the sky is falling on the Democratic party. All of these special elections have been held in DEEP RED districts. I'm actually impressed that Dems have been able to make the big gains that they have in those districts.

If you take the average percentages Dems have gained in this districts and apply them Nationwide something like 80 seats in the house are now in play.

I don't get the doomsday rhetoric that is floating around about the Dems. Sure we need to come up with a more cohesive platform but that's about it.

 

[Skyball Paint]

It's a two-party system. We should just run Democrats and accept that in a district that's full of racists we'll probably lose most of the time. In a wave, or occasionally because of a fluke, we'll win. And in the meantime, people who live in red states but want to actually vote for social justice and economic justice will have somebody to turn out and vote for, and the party will actually stand for something.

I'm cool with that if the candidates loudly campaign and stand for for social justice. Unfortunately, what I see in red state races are milquetoast Dems afraid to publicly stand for anything...that may not be the case, but that is my perception.

 

[BajiBoxer]

So many American leftists have shown themselves to be idiots and frauds. There seems to be a collection of Russophiles, burnt out hippies, and privileged white kid edgelords who want to roleplay as revolutionaries, all muddying the waters. A very loud 0.5% or so who can't win elections lashing out trying to take down the "establishment". They have practically no relation anymore to the leftist groups responsible for unions and important civil rights groups.

The fact is that in these special elections Democrats outperformed the projections in solidly red districts. Districts in which these so called leftists wouldn't even sniff double digits. The calling of this as some kind of disaster is just idiocy on a monumental level.

The only thing making it a disaster are these phony leftists going out of the way to make it a disaster. They're fools going out of their way ensure Repiblican dominance. They helped spread right wing conspiracy theories during the elections last year, and continue to do so this year. They welcomed Clinton's defeat at the hands of a white supremicist. Many allied themselves with a Russian regime that is involved in a genocidal campaign against lgbtq people. It's disgusting.

I support virtualy every American left policy out there such as human rights, single payer healthcare, strong labor unions, workers having ownership stake in the companies they work at, legalized pot, publically funded elections, breaking up the "too big to fail" corporations, public education, etc. Yet the so called leftists undermined any progress towards any of that this past year. It's a betrayal and caused me to lose respect for most of you. Now y'all are spreading a false narritive about these special elections and calling for a split of the Democratic party? God damn it's stupid.

 

[pigeon]

I'm cool with that if the candidates loudly campaign and stand for for social justice. Unfortunately, what I see in red state races are milquetoast Dems afraid to publicly stand for anything...that may not be the case, but that is my perception.

That's because people just like the ones in these threads say we need to downplay the Democratic platform in order to win white working-class votes.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

So many American leftists have shown themselves to be idiots and frauds. There seems to be a collection of Russophiles, burnt out hippies, and privileged white kid edgelords who want to roleplay as revolutionaries, all muddying the waters. A very loud 0.5% or so who can't win elections lashing out trying to take down the "establishment". They have practically no relation anymore to the leftist groups responsible for unions and important civil rights groups.

The fact is that in these special elections Democrats outperformed the projections in solidly red districts. Districts in which these so called leftists wouldn't even sniff double digits. The calling of this as some kind of disaster is just idiocy on a monumental level.

The only thing making it a disaster are these phony leftists going out of the way to make it a disaster. They're fools going out of their way ensure Repiblican dominance. They helped spread right wing conspiracy theories during the elections last year, and continue to do so this year. They welcomed Clinton's defeat at the hands of a white supremicist. Many allied themselves with a Russian regime that is involved in a genocidal campaign against lgbtq people. It's disgusting.

I support virtualy every American left policy out there such as human rights, single payer healthcare, strong labor unions, workers having ownership stake in the companies they work at, legalized pot, publically funded elections, breaking up the "too big to fail" corporations, public education, etc. Yet the so called leftists undermined any progress towards any of that this past year. It's a betrayal and caused me to lose respect for most of you. Now y'all are spreading a false narritive about these special elections and calling for a split of the Democratic party? God damn it's stupid.

Yup, pretty much agree with all of this

 

[Amibguous Cad]

The bolded part doesn't seem true from where I'm sitting.

If you don't think those of us who supported Clinton over Sanders aren't still hearing it from Sanders supporters about supporting Clinton despite being part of the oligarchy, etc etc, then you should talk to some of us.

Yes, if Sanders had won the Primary and then lost to Trump, his supporters would be hearing it from angry Clinton supporters.

You're not hearing the shit Clinton supporters are getting right now, presumably because you didn't favor her over Sanders, but it's absolutely happening.

And it's not remotely useful.

I mean, I don't doubt that you're getting your fair share of rhetorical attacks. But you're still, roughly speaking, in power in the Democratic Party. Most gallingly, you're likely to retain the support of establishment power brokers who claim their primary goal is to find electable candidates, after you managed to lose to the second worst presidential candidate in living memory. A Bernie loss would have tarnished the far left for a generation or more, been a rhetorical cudgel for beating them down, and caused much soul searching about how the party had managed to enter such an echo chamber. For the greatest failure in modern electoral politics, establishment democrats don't even get a mild shakeup of leadership roles.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

This is maybe the worst pitch for democratic values I've ever seen in my life.

It is not possible to compromise with somebody who believes I should be forced to leave the country I was born in because it belongs to them.

I don't think it is a good idea for you to assert that if I can't accept that compromise than I can't accept democracy.

I'm not trying to pitch, I'm deeply disturbed that democracy right now feels like it is as close to being incapable of functioning in the current political climate but is still the only viable option we have right now. I'm not comfortable with that reality, are you? Do you disagree that's the case? I'm not trying to energize people here or even suggest I'm correct, I'm just disgusted and discussing.

I thought the rest of my post addressed why I would agree that compromise is a nightmare at best right now. Maybe I blew it.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

We just turned an R+20 district into an R+4 district. TIME TO PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moral victories don't mean shit.

 

[Condom]

rant

Nice rant. Who are you even talking about? Those droves of pro-Putin, pro rightwing conspiracy groups, do they even exist outside of little factions on the web? People with no grass root support etc. Where are these people that destroyed progressive America?

Seems to me like you are just searching someone to blame that is not those having an actual say over things.

 

[water_wendi]

So many American leftists have shown themselves to be idiots and frauds. There seems to be a collection of Russophiles, burnt out hippies, and privileged white kid edgelords who want to roleplay as revolutionaries, all muddying the waters. A very loud 0.5% or so who can't win elections lashing out trying to take down the "establishment". They have practically no relation anymore to the leftist groups responsible for unions and important civil rights groups.

The fact is that in these special elections Democrats outperformed the projections in solidly red districts. Districts in which these so called leftists wouldn't even sniff double digits. The calling of this as some kind of disaster is just idiocy on a monumental level.

The only thing making it a disaster are these phony leftists going out of the way to make it a disaster. They're fools going out of their way ensure Repiblican dominance. They helped spread right wing conspiracy theories during the elections last year, and continue to do so this year. They welcomed Clinton's defeat at the hands of a white supremicist. Many allied themselves with a Russian regime that is involved in a genocidal campaign against lgbtq people. It's disgusting.

I support virtualy every American left policy out there such as human rights, single payer healthcare, strong labor unions, workers having ownership stake in the companies they work at, legalized pot, publically funded elections, breaking up the "too big to fail" corporations, public education, etc. Yet the so called leftists undermined any progress towards any of that this past year. It's a betrayal and caused me to lose respect for most of you. Now y'all are spreading a false narritive about these special elections and calling for a split of the Democratic party? God damn it's stupid.

This is the biggest pile of shit ive seen in a while.

 

[pigeon]

I'm not trying to pitch, I'm deeply disturbed that democracy right now feels like it is as close to being incapable of functioning in the current political climate but is still the only viable option we have right now. I'm not comfortable with that reality, are you? Do you disagree that's the case? I'm not trying to energize people here or even suggest I'm correct, I'm just disgusted and discussing.

I thought the rest of my post addressed why I would agree that compromise is a nightmare at best right now. Maybe I blew it.

No, I probably overreacted, sorry. I think your post is generally quite sound. I just think that one particular line is quite seriously wrong.

I believe democracy works, and can work. It works in lots of other countries. Part of the problem is that our implementation is so bad it actively encourages slightly fiscally conservative people to vote for a white supremacist if their party nominates him. That's not a problem other countries tend to have, because they have more parties to sort people into.

I just disagree that democracy means compromising with people who have fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian values. Those people should be shut out of political power and their views should be understood as outside the political discourse. If they gain rule that rule is fundamentally illegitimate. I have no responsibility to consent to a government that doesn't believe in protecting my rights or adhering to our social contract.

 

[SomTervo]

This, dare I say, "edgy" cynacism of some people on here is embarrassing. If you honestly think there's little difference between the left/right, Dems and Republicans then you need to reassess your knowledge of politics, because statements like those are the quickest way to lose credibility.

You can simultaneously acknowledge the left isn't doing as much as it can without making dumb assertions of them not being significantly different from the right.

From the UK's perspective, the difference between the Democrat and Republican party is hilarious. It's like 90% 'right wing' and 95% 'right wing' respectively.

Granted things aren't much better over here, but at least parties like the Greens and Lib Dems have some sort of meaning. And our Labour are substantially less 'right' than the Democrats.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Moral victories don't mean shit.

It's a tangible result and not just a moral victory. I mean, the last GA-06 Democratic congressman was from the era when Dems were the party of segregation.

If that trend holds nationally say goodbye to Paul Ryan and many other Rs in 2018.

 

[BajiBoxer]

Anyway, I just wanted to vent in my post above. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but there's ALWAYS going to be someone like Jill Stein causing touble, attracting 0.5% of voters. Maybe 1% if they're having an amazing year. Can't spend too much energy on these people. Just be more confident in the national platform, get back to the 50 state strategy, strengthen state parties, and work to overcome manufactured obstacles like gerrymandering and voter suppression.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I mean sure in a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" sort of way that logic makes some sense, but I'm seeing a lot of claims about how the people are clearly behind the progressive revolution that the centrists just don't see because they're bought by the banks

We should run on more progressive politics, because its the right thing to do and will probably win, especially in the current political climate. But, again, I am skeptical of the popular mandate that the current Dems are apparently just so blind for ignoring

Well, my take on it isn't that there's a ton of people behind the progressive agenda held back by banks or whatever. I think that the key to all of this is Obama-Trump voters, and Sanders-Trump voters. I think that establishment-outsider is becoming nearly as important as left-right for some voters, so much so that the country elected a reality show idiot outsider over a highly competent establishment candidate. I think that Obama/Sanders-Trump voters are discounted in the electoral math because their politics aren't legible to the map we have of politics today. To be fair, their politics are often contradictory and incoherent, but their votes count as much as anyone else's. And I think they make sense in the context of a low information voter who really only knows things are getting worse and wants to hold accountable a political class that is clearly failing them.

The more establishment candidate hasn't won a de novo presidential election since 1988. Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump all ran as outsiders on their first try, and won.

So honestly, I don't care whether the next nominee is a Clintonite or a Sandernista. I do care that it's someone the electorate can trust isn't part of a political class they loathe. If you can get me a mostly centrist that can sell that like Obama did, great. But right now Bernie and co is the only game in town for that on the left.

 

[Vyer]

So many American leftists have shown themselves to be idiots and frauds. There seems to be a collection of Russophiles, burnt out hippies, and privileged white kid edgelords who want to roleplay as revolutionaries, all muddying the waters. A very loud 0.5% or so who can't win elections lashing out trying to take down the "establishment". They have practically no relation anymore to the leftist groups responsible for unions and important civil rights groups.

The fact is that in these special elections Democrats outperformed the projections in solidly red districts. Districts in which these so called leftists wouldn't even sniff double digits. The calling of this as some kind of disaster is just idiocy on a monumental level.

The only thing making it a disaster are these phony leftists going out of the way to make it a disaster. They're fools going out of their way ensure Repiblican dominance. They helped spread right wing conspiracy theories during the elections last year, and continue to do so this year. They welcomed Clinton's defeat at the hands of a white supremicist. Many allied themselves with a Russian regime that is involved in a genocidal campaign against lgbtq people. It's disgusting.

I support virtualy every American left policy out there such as human rights, single payer healthcare, strong labor unions, workers having ownership stake in the companies they work at, legalized pot, publically funded elections, breaking up the "too big to fail" corporations, public education, etc. Yet the so called leftists undermined any progress towards any of that this past year. It's a betrayal and caused me to lose respect for most of you. Now y'all are spreading a false narritive about these special elections and calling for a split of the Democratic party? God damn it's stupid.

Why would you let this - by your estimate - .5% shape such a broad view of the group as a whole? The description you gave doesn't seem like most of progressives and left I read and hear from on a daily basis. There seem to be a lot of contradictions here.

I agree with you that the 'disaster' rhetoric is too extreme. But I don't think you can simply dismiss, nor is it hard to empathize, with the concerns that it's possible too be a little too extreme the other way. 'Good signs' followed by impending 'disaster' have made some appearances of late.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

IMO, the only way this is going to end sanely is if Cali and a few other states split off and become a new country

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

No, I probably overreacted, sorry. I think your post is generally quite sound. I just think that one particular line is quite seriously wrong.

I believe democracy works, and can work. It works in lots of other countries. Part of the problem is that our implementation is so bad it actively encourages slightly fiscally conservative people to vote for a white supremacist if their party nominates him. That's not a problem other countries tend to have, because they have more parties to sort people into.

I just disagree that democracy means compromising with people who have fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian values. Those people should be shut out of political power and their views should be understood as outside the political discourse. If they gain rule that rule is fundamentally illegitimate. I have no responsibility to consent to a government that doesn't believe in protecting my rights or adhering to our social contract.

That's certainly the part of my reasoning I'm most uncomfortable with and was most uncomfortable writing. I feel like moving forward is going to be bashing my head against the wall and I'm trying to force myself to accept that's the right path. I feel like more than 2 parties will never work in this country, and maybe that's the larger part of the failing of my reasoning.

 

[jakonovski]

I wouldn't say "normal" exactly. I think things should change drastically. I just don't think your arguments or prescriptions are sound, and I've been pretty explicit that the "GAF left's" unwillingness to grapple with the anti-social justice advocates in their own ranks will continue to disqualify them from my perspective.

But I also said pretty clearly that if you disagree, maybe you should make an effort to justify and explain that disagreement. It's disappointing that you would rather avoid discussion entirely than actually prove how correct your arguments are.

Ok, ok.

I can't prove anything, this is politics. I'm simply of the opinion that accountability is a major part of competence and modern politicians are increasingly shielded from the consequences of their choices, even on the level of prestige they have.

The current Democrat leadership's recipe has been already tried and found extremely wanting in terms of results. I don't think they'll be able to reinvent themselves. I find it likely that even if there is a victory next time, it will be a smaller one with the old leadership still intact. There are plenty of other people (like left-wingers but also others I'm sure) with fresh ideas that should be given a chance. And this is an important point IMO. By staying with the old you're being conservative and saying let's not change.

The 2016 election showed that there's a whole lot of people who do want change. That doesn't mean that policy x needs to become policy y. That means charisma, new and interesting faces that say things are going get better.

And yes, do purge the anti-social justice people from positions of power in the party. Just don't purge any potential racist voters, lie to them instead.

I would like us to be consistent in using the word "historic" to describe things, and I would like you to consider the possibility that if "historic" things happen every eight years maybe your conception of history is tiny.

Historic means historically important and the Trump fiasco certainly counts. Then again so does Dubya, so I reckon America is actually experiencing a longer term decline. Giant terror attack and the degeneration of a major party into complete monsters does that I guess.

 

[chadtwo]

I don't think panic is coming by Dems in the slightest. Each of the special elections has only been framed as a devastating loss because they were hyped up as winnable when in actuality they took place in highly conservative districts that would be difficult to win under normal circumstances.

 

[plagiarize]

This is evidence of an enormous right wing backlash against Democrats, liberals, and progressives yeah. Wait is that contentious now?

Fun how it leaves off 2016 too. Because we know what the lines would do there.

 

[BajiBoxer]

It's a tangible result and not just a moral victory. I mean, the last GA-06 Democratic congressman was from the era when Dems were the party of segregation.

If that trend holds nationally say goodbye to Paul Ryan and many other Rs in 2018.

I don't know about Paul Ryan, but yeah, it should be good results, though 2018 is still too far away for my tatstes. Can't be overconfident like last time, and need to be prepared for lots and lots of shady bullshit. In a world in which tens of millions of Americans and the majority of our current government are unwilling to confront an administration likely involved in espionage on behalf of a foreign government, you have to expect the worst from the Republicans.

 

[Delusibeta]

...in what universe is a 16 percentage point swing to the left-wing party cause for panic in the left?

 

[plagiarize]

There has been no accountability. The leadership is held to a different standard.

I didn't say anything about accountability or disagree with his points about accountability. I specifically quoted part of his post and explained why I disagreed with that specific part.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I don't think panic is coming by Dems in the slightest. Each of the special elections has only been framed as a devastating loss because they were hyped up as winnable when in actuality they took place in highly conservative districts that would be difficult to win under normal circumstances.

Also, there's a small group in the party really intent on pushing the narritive to support a power grab. The push to blame this on Pelosi by people led by the guy who failed to unseat her last time has a lot to do with this, I think. It also happens to contribute to Republican and Russian interests, so they're going all in on division too.

 

[jakonovski]

All but calling other Democrats Russian stooges is maybe the worst idea I've heard yet, BajiBoxer.

 

[Torokil]

Its not a fucking R+20 district. Trump won it by less than 2 and Price beat a guy who raised 0 dollars.

Midterms are gonna be a bad wakeup call for some of you.

 

[dynamitejim]

I don't think panic is coming by Dems in the slightest. Each of the special elections has only been framed as a devastating loss because they were hyped up as winnable when in actuality they took place in highly conservative districts that would be difficult to win under normal circumstances.

The panic mostly seems like political opportunism from the left-wing and Junior Dems to bolster their own standing in the party.

They cried when we weren't competing in areas everyone knew we'd lose in and are now crying when we predictably lost in those areas, even though a trend of closing the huge gap in these areas should be a morale boost for future races in more competitive areas. They cry when money doesn't get sent to these races and then cry about how much money was spent when there's a loss. It's nothing but idiotic cynicism to make themselves look better.

 

[plagiarize]

I mean, I don't doubt that you're getting your fair share of rhetorical attacks. But you're still, roughly speaking, in power in the Democratic Party. Most gallingly, you're likely to retain the support of establishment power brokers who claim their primary goal is to find electable candidates, after you managed to lose to the second worst presidential candidate in living memory. A Bernie loss would have tarnished the far left for a generation or more, been a rhetorical cudgel for beating them down, and caused much soul searching about how the party had managed to enter such an echo chamber. For the greatest failure in modern electoral politics, establishment democrats don't even get a mild shakeup of leadership roles.

Certainly I see the justification for this position, given what the Labour party have been going through in the UK after Coybyn took over, but the most recent election seems to have steered more people to looking favorably on Corbyn even though he lost.

But I really choke on lines like 'greatest failure'. It was a close election where the DNC picked up seats, despite losing the executive branch. What I, and I think a lot of other people, underestimated was just how deeply people hated Clinton, to the point where her policies and her opponent didn't matter one jot to more than enough people.

In retrospect that was one of the factors that cost the dems the election. Fair or not, after decades of negative stories, that stuff was in deep and many on the left bought into it wholesale too.

Give me a time machine and of course I'd let Sanders have a shot, even if I'm not convinced the outcome would have been any better. I'd still love to roll that dice again.

What I don't see it as, however, is a repudiation of Clinton's policies or way of doing politics. Everything I heard people say as to why they didn't vote for her was about her character.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

We just turned an R+20 district into an R+4 district. TIME TO PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, we must win in places where Republicans have dominated since political realignment in the 70's! If we don't, PANIC!

 

[plagiarize]

Its not a fucking R+20 district. Trump won it by less than 2 and Price beat a guy who raised 0 dollars.

Midterms are gonna be a bad wakeup call for some of you.

They're a long way away and much could change between now and then, but right now if anyone is getting nervous about the midterms, it isn't the democrats.

And there's good reason for that.

 

[Angry Grimace]

With regard to Presidential elections, the Democrats need flashier candidates. Those elections almost always just go to whoever runs the flashier candidate. It's true, just look at every election since Nixon, and even he beat the original HHH, Hubert Horatio Humphrey.

As for the overall strategy, I still think the Democrats' problem is both an image problem and a problem with messaging. Democrats constantly come off as completely tone-deaf all of the time. Perception is reality to many voters; telling voters you know what's best with them while sipping a $6 latte isn't getting you votes.

There has to be a coherent, uniform message when you oppose building a giant wall around the Mexican border. That message can't be "that's racist." That's not addressing the concerns of people that believe (true or not) that Mexican immigrants are "stealing their jobs." When coal miners and other blue collar workers talk about their jobs disappearing, you don't say, "well that job pollutes the environment anyways." That's not addressing the concerns of people who are being put out of work. That's not a policy message that wins votes. When you oppose blocking immigration from specific Muslim countries, you can't just say "that's racist." That's not addressing the concerns of people that believe (true or not) that Muslim immigrants are endangering their safety. This is because people who support the ban largely don't consider it racist or religious suppression - they consider it a pragmatic security strategy. That may not actually be true, and it IS religious suppression. That doesn't mean it's a good primary policy message to win votes.

The Democrats are all over the map and their loud, whiny media outlets and constant demands for progressive ideological purity don't help at all.

 

[Roarak]

If dems would just drop their stance on gun control they could really start making headway into the Midwest and a lot of southern states. Anecdotally, I know a ton of Trump voters that would have voted differently if it wasn't for the lefts view on gun control. Single issue voters that feel like gun ownership is the only concrete thing that the government can change.

It may sound crappy to lot of you guys, but there are a lot of ppl around here (Midwest) that feel that way.

 

[Skyball Paint]

What I don't see it as, however, is a repudiation of Clinton's policies or way of doing politics. Everything I heard people say as to why they didn't vote for her was about her character.

If the Dems ran a candidate last year that had the same platform as Clinton, but had Michelle Obama's charisma, I think we would have won, not accounting for Russian interference.