Identity vs Economy, a false dichotomy.

[DonCoquixote]

There are a lot people saying we lost because we focus too much on identity. Not surprising, a lot of these folks are White Males. There are people who thought that too much was made of Working class voters.

The truth is, we need to have answers and emphasis for BOTH. The worst thing we can do is cut our poll into smaller pieces, because rest assured, Trump and the GOP will try to accelerate that It is also the fact that, as much as the GOP tries to sell the idea, you cannot have one without the other. A person with a good paying job whose civil rights are neglected is one step away from disposal, especially if someone from the majority thinks they have a right to that good job. A person with civil right but no job is easily mowed down, especially in a culture like America where one's wallet is one's value. We can walk and chew gum, especially as the same folks do not have any nicer plans for the angry white man than anyone else, despite all the BS>

In short, as we go into 2018 and 2020, we can should and must address both flanks, equally.

[elleng]

1. Right. Its the Economy, Stupid

'While the country has moved steadily to the left on such social issues as same-sex marriage and gender equity, it is increasingly apparent that Democrats cannot win in much of the country without a more coherent and overriding economic message.

The debate over what that message should be comes not only against the backdrop of Hillary Clinton’s astonishing loss to Donald J. Trump — a race decided by a handful of Rust Belt states that for decades had favored Democratic nominees — but also after the third campaign in the past four election cycles in which the party was routed across vast sections of the nation, leaving Democrats out of power in both chambers of Congress and in most governors’ mansions.'>>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/democrats-economy.html?&_r=0

[DonCoquixote]

4. here is where that article falls flat

Disclaimer..this is not a slam on you, but where that article leads to, and a mindset that some share.

"But the growing nationalization of politics and the Democrats’ drift to the left doomed a number of candidates running in more conservative states during the 2014 midterm elections when turnout fell.

Yet despite Democrats’ near extinction in much of the South and in parts of the Great Plains — two regions that had for decades elected Democrats to statewide office — the party had little in the way of a debate about Mr. Obama’s approach."

First off Mr Obama did try to offer a lot of economic measures, such as saving GM, or projects like the railroad in Florida that GOP governors rejected. This feeds the myth that Obama just did not try to offer economic measures because he did not understand what Americas was.

which can easily be spun into "we should not have elected that black man president." That is dangerous and ugly, especially as Obama handed Hillary his machine and the support of black voters, and she still failed. Again, there are so many trying to say we need to abandon fighting for civil rights in order to appease those "Reagan Democrats" still angry at 1968. No, what we do is support both civil rights and economics, and drive home that they are really the same damned fight.

I can find fault with many things Obama did, but I know that he achieved things no one else had to guts to do, with sabotaged tools. Let they who wish to blame Clinton's loss on Obama take note, the facts do not back you, and those who are still glad they voted for Obama will call you out on that.

[Lithos]

2. I'll bite

I've an issue with Identity politics and have always thought it a wrong way to address things directly. It's a good way to test the effectivity of your message, but that also involves testing against multiple groups rather than focusing on single groups.

Ok, I've taken a hit here on DU think I am only limiting myself to the traditional groups such as Women, Hispanics, LGTBQ, etc. And to be honest, I'm not. What I keep trying to say is there are many ways people identify as, or rather, it's not 1 or 0. One of the identities people had this election were "Urban vs. Exurban" (City vs Country). Others identified in ways which resembled Blue collar vs White Collar.

So, IMHO, we focused too much on Identity as we did it the wrong way. We sound-bited things in ways which appealed to people without also checking to make sure we had spoken to the right set of people. Women without college degrees did not think in terms of women's politics, but rather in terms of blue collar jobs and feeling left behind by the last 8 years. Yes, we had a great message to deliver to them; we just spent time talking to other people.

Identity politics is similar to the idea of market segmentation. We were so confident we had the right market segmentation we abandoned other segments we could have spent time on. Unfortunately, no one did the electoral math and confirmed we were talking to the right groups which would have guaranteed election. We live in a country where the process is rigged to a specific minority of people (the smaller states) and we failed to have a good strategy.

And yes, we need to fight the election results.. I do not think they will change, yet we must fight as it's a defining moment in the Democratic Party as an opposition group. To paraphrase Churchill:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,

Never surrender...

[kentuck]

3. Well said!