Dear Democrats: Nobody Cares About Your Feelings

[Fla Dem]

Dear Democrats: Nobody Cares About Your Feelings
Conservatives are much more clear-eyed—and that’s why they win so often
By Cliston Brown • 01/16/17 8:00am

Democrats have lost three of the last four federal elections—2010, 2014 and 2016—in large part because they are still clinging to the comforting but false notion that voters punish bad behavior.

The Democrats’ 2016 presidential campaign essentially focused on proving Donald Trump was too boorish to be an acceptable occupant of the highest office in the land. And in the lead-up to the 2010 and 2014 midterms, Democrats railed against Congressional Republicans’ obstruction of President Obama, decrying the GOP’s refusal to give the administration any cooperation, even on issues where pollsters showed high levels of support from the public. Their complaints failed, and Republicans won.

More than two months after the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, there seems to be no evidence that Democrats have learned anything. They continue to harp on whatever makes Trump look “unpresidential,” and while there is unquestionably plenty of material there, it is also clear that there aren’t enough voters who care about such things to swing an election. If there were, Trump would not have prevailed.

Clinton won the popular vote, and she won it decisively, by nearly three million ballots. That brings us to another thing Democrats haven’t learned, but need to soon: the necessity of focusing on what’s important. In terms of winning and losing, it’s irrelevant that Clinton won the popular vote. Whether you like our unfair, undemocratic electoral college system or not (for the record, this columnist doesn’t), we’re stuck with it unless we change the Constitution or enough states band together to create a work-around. It’s fine that Clinton won by eight million votes in California, but strategically speaking, it would have been far more important for Democrats to turn out another 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If you can’t change the rules, you have to figure out how to win by the current ones.

Snip>>>>>>>>>

The Tea Party movement that started early in Obama’s first term has been decried by the left for its positions and tactics, but the Tea Party undisputedly understood power. It organized, took down hundreds of incumbents at all levels of government, and it became a powerful force that establishment Republicans were afraid to cross for fear of being challenged at the primary level.

Progressives need to take a lesson from the Tea Party if they want to advance their own agenda. Merely being loud and visible isn’t going to cut it. They have to organize, and they have to vote in every election: presidential, midterm, primary, and special. Only when they demonstrate a credible threat to politicians’ jobs will they get what they want. Winning, not whining, is what creates change.


http://observer.com/2017/01/democrats-need-to-learn-how-to-win-elections/

Cliston Brown is a communications executive and political analyst in the San Francisco Bay Area who previously served as director of communications to a longtime Democratic Representative in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter (@ClistonBrown) and visit his website at ClistonBrown.com.


I thought this was a good article although I don't think we are whining if we call out Trump and his minions for their hypocrisy. Yes we went through a period of disbelief and major disappointment, but all I hear now is how do we turn this around instead of in-fighting.

Republicans band together for their greater good. The Tea Party was disruptive to the Republican Party, but in the end they joined forces and presented a somewhat unified front. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz may have been the exception, but on the larger issues they acted as one, to oppose Obama every inch of the way and they worked together to build up their grass roots and dominate in local and state elections. Liberals/Progressives continue to fight for their individual pet issues, instead of uniting to beat back the RW hoard.

[KittyWampus]

1. Will read whole thing later, but I must add that FOX News and Breitbart make a reality

for a great many Americans now. To have any discussion about our elections, we have to factor in the fact that about 30% of us are living in a reality unattached from empirical reality and will react according the stimuli given them by their media.

"Voters don't punish bad behavior"?

Then what about the voters who couldn't/wouldn't vote for Hillary because of BENGHAZI or EMAILS?

[Ohioblue22]

13. agreed the author is pretty much full of it but is correct

about a few things
1 if you want to advance your agenda youre not going to get to by voting for stein or gary jackass
2 fall in line during the general
3 stop saying he lost the popular vote like it matters
4 vote in every election
5 know what kind of id you need and get it
6 learn where to find the location of your polling place and check it on voting day

[RBInMaine]

19. Have a CLEAR, STRONG, COMPELLING message on JOBS JOBS JOBS that people want to vote for.

[Ohioblue22]

22. trump didnt have any clear strong or compelling message

he said only that he was gonna being them back

[crazycatlady]

44. Make America Great Again

That's a pretty strong message if you ask me. It is open for interpretation but most would agree it means bringing this country back to a happier time.

(Of course the 50s was a time of economic prosperity, but for his base, white Christian men, it was a great time).

[Ohioblue22]

23. people will either vote for dems or live under republicon rule

isnt that enough to vote for .

[Crunchy Frog]

37. It's clearly not enough to win elections on.

[Ohioblue22]

38. then people should quit complaining since they got what

they wanted. dont complain when minimum wage goes and social security , medicare . i know ive heard the replies about scaring people into voting . eventually people will tire of standing in bread lines and at that point it will be enough just like back in the 40's

[Crunchy Frog]

39. If that's the Dem party's official strategy, then this country is finished.

"You'll come crawling back to me when you hurt badly enough" is hardly a winning message.

Before that happens, other forces will step in to fill the gap.

[Ohioblue22]

41. it's not a message it's a fact

[EL34x4]

33. "Then what about the voters who couldn't/wouldn't vote for Hillary because of..."

They weren't ever going to vote for Hillary to begin with. That's what.

[RKP5637]

2. Exactly!!! "Liberals/Progressives continue to fight for their individual pet issues, instead of

uniting to beat back the RW hoard." So tired of it. And many are still fighting the primaries! Like, WTF!

[Dream Girl]

31. Exactly

[HassleCat]

3. Might want to read that again.

If the Tea Party is our example, we should push populist and progressive issues, and take down weak Democrats in primaries. Not sure we're ready for that.

[ranger2]

15. Not the best solution.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs is its own Tea Party movement. During the primaries in 2010, Republicans had their own Night of the Long Knives in taking out any Republican who was deemed not conservative enough. That turned the GOP into the far-right hate-spewing entity that produced Donald Trump.

"take down weak Democrats" is exactly the same solution as the Tea Party did. The Democratic Party needs to reach out to the center in addition to the left, and we need to push the message that can appeal to all sides of the spectrum: the Democratic Party believes that government has a responsibility to help the people.

All Democrats need to come together during the general, but that is not the same as demanding that all Democrats think with one hive mind, which is what you're advocating.

That message kept people voting Democratic from Montana to New York to Georgia from the 1800s until 2004. We need to be a national party, not a party for the liberal elite.

[whathehell]

52. What "liberal elite"?

That's Repuke terminology....I think you'e actually referring to educated people who can think, although 54℅ of college educated white males did vote for the moron.

[cwydro]

4. Good article

Recced.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. "Here's the thing about politics. . ."

". . .It's not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.

The GOP has developed a genius for falling into lockstep. . .They line up behind their candidate, grit their teeth, and help him win, no matter who he is. . ."

- Playwright Tony Kushner

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2003/11/tony-kushner-radical-pragmatist

[gulliver]

6. Good article

The first thing every single liberal or progressive needs to do is commit to the Democratic Party. We don't expect perfection from our friends if we want to have friends.

[FarCenter]

7. Feelings do matter in politics

"If you cannot be both loved and feared, then it is better to be feared than loved."

[kimbutgar]

8. Plus he does not talk about voter suppression or unverifiable voting machines that can be

Programmed to get the desired result. I think there was an organized effort by rethug sos to make the votes in rethugs favor.

No it was not a legitimate election it was hacked, suppressed and they cheated.

[Dream Girl]

28. Yes, but it took years for them to get the power to cheat and part of this was about participation

Voting in mid terms, local elections gave them the power base to get where they are now. Standing behind the party at the end of the day. It didn't happen overnight.

[Ohioblue22]

9. what this article seems to ignore was crosscheck etc all

those tools the cons use to deny people (usually dems )their right to vote. like saying you need a specific form of id to vote college id not good but a nra id is good shit like that.

how many votes were declared invalid in michigan how many not counted etc.

but the author is correct dems need to fall in line in the general . the cons did and the dems didnt so here we sit on the outside again

[uponit7771]

27. +1, I'm super sick of these articles leaving out the overt cheating of the GOP in the form of voter

.... suppression etc.

The overt gerrymandering doesn't help either

[Dream Girl]

32. See above, it was the culmination of a process

[Me.]

10. Sigh...Another Article Full Of Advice For Dems

Much of it self evident...in Jared Kushner's newspaper no less

[Stellar]

11. The GOPee..Loves to cheat and that's how they win.

Dems need to remember that.

[uponit7771]

29. +1, and more of this shit that leaves all of this out as a factor

[MFM008]

35. yes

lie, cheat, steal, disenfranchise.
While we watch and wring our hands.

[randr]

12. It is not that they don't care

They do not have the capacity for empathy. Their hatred of others has poisoned their hearts.

[Drahthaardogs]

14. They win because they cheat. Like the Patriots.

Think of the GOP like Bellichek.

[RBInMaine]

17. They win because they speak CLEARLY, they ORGANIZE, and they SHOW UP! Enough WHINING!!!

[Drahthaardogs]

20. Bullshit

They fund enormous amounts of money from questionable sources, they gerrymander districts, and find ways to suppress the vote. THAT is not democratic. Ensuring people CANNOT vote is the most undemocratic thing you can do in an election. They cheat.

[treestar]

26. Then how to fight their cheating

and stop them from doing it?

One might be show up in midterms and vote for Democrats to dominate state houses so this doesn't happen.

[Dream Girl]

36. How did they get into the position to cheat?

They had to amass the power to implement those policies. Yes, they cheat but it was the culmination of a long process. Our ambivalence, perfectionism, purity tests and narrow self interest have prevented us from coming together. They have been far more unified and ultimately they participate and stand together. They are satisfied to get 70% of what they want if it means they win.

[alarimer]

16. Unity by suppressing dissenting views is not unity I can be part of.

There has been a lot of talk about that since the election. Some say that you should never criticize any sitting Democrat, no matter what they do, though I think that is an extreme view even here.

So, to that end, Democrats have to adhere, most of the time, to what they allegedly stand for. Part of the reason they lose is because they (not all but too many) do not do that. You cannot be "for the people" and then vote in favor of things that your corporate donors favor, when that is in direct opposition to what voters actually need.

It's this kind of thing that breeds cynicism of voters. And the Tea Party is not what you think it is. It is not grassroots or spontaneous. I don't think we need it. I mean, perhaps progressives can form something cohesive instead of each group working on its pet issue, but not a fake grassroots organization bankrolled by corporations. I would not favor that at all.

Here's an article on the origins of the Tea Party:

http://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/

What didn’t become public until nearly 20 years later was that these themes of a Tea Party anti-tax, anti-regulation, and antigovernment revolt were then developed almost simultaneously by two of the largest tobacco companies—Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds—under the guise of political and business coalitions to fight excise taxes of all sorts, including cigarette taxes. In successive phases in the 1990s, with the Kochs’ CSE as its core mobilization network partner, Philip Morris and RJR helped create state-based anti-tax and anti-regulation propaganda campaigns such as Get Government Off Our Back, Enough is Enough, and Citizens Against Regressive Taxation.

Clearly there are other issues progressives need to work on, especially gerrymandering and voter suppression. It seems like it would be enough to solve those two issues to give the Democratic Party at least a fighting chance. Right now, something like 90% of incumbents win, almost no matter what they do so change is incredibly difficult.

[RBInMaine]

18. Democrats need a compelling affirmative message, need to get CLEAR, and get STRONG. Period!

[treestar]

25. they do it because they don't have confidence

that the voters have their backs. They do not hear enough from voters, and if they hear vote for this or against that or we'll primary you, that does not encourage them to think you are part of their supportive base. Democrats are not rabid enough. The Tea Party does not get its way by sitting on the sidelines complaining that Republicans are not conservative enough.

[Jacob Boehme]

21. Yup...When you're dealing with a populace that thinks in terms of....

World Wrestling Federation,
Rush Limp Paw,
Fox News,
Jerry Springer,
and The National Enquirer......
There's no "nice" to be had.

They've had the voices noted above programing them to respond to single syllable commands like:
Hate,
Fear,
Free,
Bad,
Buy,
Beer,
Drugs....
The Deplorables truly are deplorable.

[treestar]

24. Kick and rec

We have to start getting involved, not judging from the sidelines. This Canadian drug thing is already distracting people. If the people there are not liberal enough, you will get people even less liberal if you can't forgive this or that vote.

[SticksnStones]

30. It comes across as a very flat assessment of what's going on in today's politics

IMO, It summarizes as though writing Politics for Dummies.

Not very deep dig, or nuanced understanding of all the players roles (repubs stalling tactics, old media and multiplying new digital media sites run amok, conservative talk radio dominance, Russian and other dirty tricks politics, I could go on) and why we are where we are.

I mean really, how many dots are you not connecting or considering to write a line like "Conservatives are much more clear eyed-and that's why they win so often."

But I bet it got a lot of clicks. And that's the goal line now, isn't it?

Dear Cliston Brown: This Democrat doesn't care about your assessment.

[EL34x4]

34. Very good article. On point.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

40. Anything published by Kushner's rag is not meant to help Dems.

He is now aligned with the RW. Beware the propaganda.

[DinahMoeHum]

43. The "Observer" is NOT Kushner's rag. His is the "New York Observer"

On the websites, Kushner's outfit ends with "dot-NYC" NOT "dot-com"

Kushner's NY Observer and the Observer are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
See for yourself:

Jared Kushner's outfit:
http://www.observer.nyc/

The Observer that Cliston Brown regularly contributes to:
http://observer.com/

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. Mea culpa. Thanks for the correction.

I see now the Observer is a British outfit.

An observation about the two observers: They both seem to be appealing to an elite audience.

About the Observer

Observer offers a sophisticated readership of metropolitan professionals an original take on the latest in news, culture, politics and luxury, bringing its irreverent sensibility to a national audience.

The New York Observer

Observer's New York print edition. Everything that matters to everyone who matters.

[milestogo]

42. Bill Maher said that the Democrats should have nominated a real bastard

so maybe we should nominate him.

[brooklynite]

45. A followup: Democrats Are Lying About How Screwed They Are

http://observer.com/2017/01/democratic-party-losses-congress-state-legislatures/

[Initech]

46. I've been saying this since the election: the republicans win because they own the media.

And they have the power to dismiss any opposing opinion as being part of the "liberal media" - which - news flash - no longer exists! They spent the last 6 years convincing people that Obamacare was the devil, and you know what? It worked! Once again They managed to get people to vote against their best interests. And now that it's about to be taken away and "replaced with something better" (not), they're suddenly in favor of it! The destruction and consolidation of the media began under Bush I and they finished the job under Obama. They won. We no longer have a voice. Literally every single book on every single bookshelf is written by a conservative. Fox News is played in more places than CNN. AM radio is dominated by conservatives. Churches are dominated by conservatives. That's how they're able to destroy us. Until we take back the media, we're going to keep losing our representation at every level. This has got to change.

[NewJeffCT]

47. Be wary of anything in the NY Observer

it's run by Jared Kushner, son-in-law to Donald Trump

[DinahMoeHum]

49. Brown's piece is in The Observer, NOT the "NY Observer"

On the websites, Kushner's outfit ends with "dot-NYC" NOT "dot-com"

Kushner's NY Observer and the Observer are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
See for yourself:

Jared Kushner's outfit:
http://www.observer.nyc/

The Observer that Cliston Brown regularly contributes to:
http://observer.com/

[HughBeaumont]

48. Well, that and having a Horatio Alger-addicted American population doesn't hurt.

I don't buy any of these arguments that America ISN'T a predominantly conservative nation. If it wasn't, this election wouldn't have been close enough to be won by an unqualified shit like Trump on a technicality. The fact that a fuck like Trump got 60 million votes . . . the fact that even FIFTY million people thought "President Donald Trump" was a great idea in the first place . . . Sorry, we're a country straight up filled with dumbasses. I'm not even going to apologize for calling someone who thinks a billionaire's going to solve the problems billionaires created by hiring more billionaires a dumbass.

I still think it's because too many Americans think they're one lucky break away from BEING Donald Trump instead of one lost job away from homelessness.

That doesn't mean the Democratic Party's absolved from looking in a mirror. We ignore and marginalize progressive voices, we don't hire the right people to run the ground game, we're horrible at messaging, we think the Clinton blueprint is going to perform like it did in '92 and '96 forever and, sad as it is to say . . . all of the issues we're better performers at, all of the diversity . . . it hurts us.

Republicans threw out their moderates and became the lockstep, racist pro-wealth xenophobe party. It works so well, we cede 135 votes right off the bat. We're all things to all people . . . some moderates aren't on board with that. In the big tent, there's going to be wars between the actual left and the cast-off moderate Republicans. It leads to votes for third parties that are either more right leaning economically than Republicans or parties with people like Jill Stein ruining them.

We're not a party with a solid economic blueprint, which is what everyone's caring about. I don't think either party is going to help the coming job dearth (which moderates cheer and makes reasonable people see disaster) and that needs to be addressed, but relying on a party that thinks giving more money to wealthy people is a feasible solution . . . it tells me our work is becoming more than we can handle.

[yurbud]

51. I would add that no one cares about process or bipartisanship for its own sake

They care about results.

George W. Bush understood this even though he used for the benefit of solely the GOP and not the American people.

Obama did this in fewer areas, mostly in the same direction as Bush, with drones and overthrowing foreign governments.

If he had gone to the limits of his constitutional powers or even slightly past for the sake of the American people, and had dared Republicans (and right wing Democrats) to overturn him, I doubt that they would have.

Trump is probably going to take a dump on all the niceties of process, but solely for his own aggrandizement and that of the wealthy core of the GOP.