General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes the party need to move right culturally to win more elections?
Swing voters in this country are not fiscal conservatives/social liberals. They're the opposite--social conservatives (especially on race and immigration) who are open to more liberal economic efforts.
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
People assumed that we had won the culture wars going into the 2016 elections. It's pretty clear that we didn't.
Tr*mpism thrives in cultural polarization and political tribalism defined by identity.
How do we defuse that? The fashionable answer in some parts is to embrace economic populism, but how many Tr*mp voters would a socially liberal win over with single payer and free college(which would get demonized as a --you can guess it--free stuff for disfavored minorities and immigrants, and for snooty urban elites, respectively).
Seems pretty clear that some stuff--the call-out culture, privilege-shaming etc are going to have to be repudiated, since we'll need to be at pains to show that the party 'respects' those voters. But, will that be enough? I guess it was for Obama.
MFM008
(19,820 posts)Was a "moderate".
Notice how they all lose.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JHB
(37,162 posts)This is a district that sent Newt Gingrich to Washington to protect them from The People's Republic of Escape From New York (or at least that's how his campaigns sounded). Heavily Republican, conservative, affluent.
There are limits to what can be extrapolated from a Democrat not being able to scale this particular cliff.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Perriello went down...all endorsed by Sen. Sanders. If you think a progressive could win that district, they can't . I lived there... it will never happen.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leftstreet
(36,116 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I wish the country were as liberal as California.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)How could Dems ever go far enough to the right socially to please Rs anyway? It would split the party.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)We don't need to win the cultural battle, just defuse culture as a weapon
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)civil rights...you would lose more than you would gain.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Could you elaborate on that statement?
moose65
(3,168 posts)It wouldn't matter how far to the right a Democrat moved. If they still had the D after their name, they would get creamed. If you're going to vote for someone like that, there's already a Republican on the ticket. One of my favorite Alan Grayson quotes: "You can't beat a Republican by trying to BE one!"
Sgent
(5,857 posts)Governor John Bel Edwards of Louisiana -- a state that went for Trump by 20 points.
He's how we win in red states -- but he would never be accepted on DU because he's too conservative since he's anti-choice and pro gun. That said, he did expand Medicaid to 400,000 people, and has refused to renew a regressive sales tax fighting instead for progressive corporate and individual taxation.
He's also been against LGBT discrimination in hiring / firing, for civil rights laws, etc.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)Because every region has its cultural differences. I just worry that in most cases all Rs have to do is scream PELOSI, CLINTON, OBAMA in the direction of any Dem running for office and people will just not listen to anything that candidate has to say after that.
Personally, all I care about is getting Dems elected, Rs are going to destroy us. Primaries should be where the party hashes it out amongst themselves (wish it were that way though).
ck4829
(35,091 posts)It's time to start questioning their legitimacy.
hatrack
(59,593 posts).
ananda
(28,877 posts)We need to follow the Sanders revolution.
Sanders is what Dems used to be ... good liberals!
Jacquette
(152 posts)Is that even allowed anymore? Many of us feel as if it isn't.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)if a democrat is, among other things, anti-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-civil and equal rights for Women and LBGTQ then I have no desire to associate with them.
If that's what the Democratic party wants to be in order to win then I will no longer be a Democrat.
Jacquette
(152 posts)Pro civil rights, women's rights, environment. Pro abortion rights but not after 2nd trimester. Pro Lgb but not T. Pro free trade but not globalism. Pro term limits. Pro LEGAL immigration only. Not get here, start a family and apply for citizenship like it's your right. Pro death penalty for crimes against children ONLY.
I am 60 yrs old, female AA. Am I still considered a Democrat?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)opposition to transgender rights makes you "Not a Democrat" by definition since it was in the party platform: http://www.transequality.org/blog/democratic-party-platform-takes-strong-stands-on-transgender-equality
you also don't get to say "I'm pro civil rights...except for transgender people".
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Voltaire2
(13,194 posts)lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)Dems like to dunk right in there. Pro choice means pro choice, not "only if I agree with the terms." You sound pretty conservative to me. I wouldn't consider you a Democrat.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)work for the party...it is the ladies that run the elections...few guys...and we vote...I missed one election...I was in delivery.
Jacquette
(152 posts)if you are socially conservative.
I can live with being an Independent involved with local and state politics.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)I have no problem with a big tent...but what you call socially conservative, I call civil rights. While we have our Manchins and others...glad they are here...it can not be who we are. What do you mean that you are socially conservative...anti-choice? or anti-Gay? You don't see that as moral issue? One could say anti-civil rights Democrats in the 60's were socially conservative, but they were still wrong.
Jacquette
(152 posts)I mean I am pro choice. But there should be a limit. I do not believe a woman 6 mo pregnant with a belly out to there should get an abortion on demand. In my mind that's a formed baby, a human being. And at that point they have rights.
As for gay rights my son is gay. After raising a gay child NO ONE can tell me I don't support the lgb community. But I don't support the trans narrative of being women of being female, I don't. And apparently nowadays that translates into being anti the entire lgb.
Voltaire2
(13,194 posts)Why just trans people? I don't think that will be enough bigotry to pull in enough bigots to turn things around in districts like GA6.
If getting the bigot vote is the objective we need to open the floodgates.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You're ignorant of the trans rights movement and the lived experiences of trans people.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Pretty it up all you want, but you're a transphobe. And please show me cases of women who are 6 months pregnant who are getting abortions on demand for convenience.
I'll wait.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)If your son wasn't gay you probably wouldn't support lgbtq rights at all, and if SHE were trans you would probably support the T but not the LGBQ.
The same bigotry that killed Matthew Shepard kills trans women every year. By supporting the LGB but not the T, you are undermining the cause that is standing up for your child. You support is 100% conditional and therefore artificial.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.
Nobody's aborting a 6 month fetus because 'ho hum it's going to ruin my tennis game', or whatever other 'on demand' idea you had in mind.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/09/film-review-after-tiller-third-trimester-abortion/
You're tilting at windmills. Or you've been led to tilt at a windmill, whatever.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I certainly won't throw undocumented immigrants, members of the trans community, and victims of a racist justice system under the bus to get your vote.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)anyone who is willing to deny transgender men and women full and equal rights is a bigot. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or butts.
You can call yourself a Democrat, but if you're not willing to allow me and my doctor to come to a decision regarding abortion (per you, no abortion after the 2nd trimester), don't support the "T" In LGBT, and anti-immigration, then I think you're more aligned with the Republican party. They're full of people who, like you, don't believe in full and equal rights for all people, and who think they know better about the status of my uterus than I do.
My party would not be one bit weaker if you weren't a member of it. We'd probably be stronger, to be honest.
For the jury: this is the post I"m responding to:
Jacquette
48. I can only speak for myself
View profile
Pro civil rights, women's rights, environment. Pro abortion rights but not after 2nd trimester. Pro Lgb but not T. Pro free trade but not globalism. Pro term limits. Pro LEGAL immigration only. Not get here, start a family and apply for citizenship like it's your right. Pro death penalty for crimes against children ONLY.
I am 60 yrs old, female AA. Am I still considered a Democrat?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)come with a wide range of values. Notably, many of our "identity" groups contain large numbers of conservatives, like black people, who voted for Hillary in extremely high percentages, far above white. Hispanics in lesser numbers, but still high and critically important. Want to shove them all back to the Republican Party too?
Please note, political bigotry is every bit as real as race and gender, as is merely extreme political intolerance. And hands meaning to toss criticism at others may swing too sloppily and come back on one's own face.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)Not wanting my party to be infiltrated with people who don't believe Trans folks deserve full rights, who don't believe in abortion, and who are pro-death penalty is "political bigotry?"
You better call the ACLU on Skinner--this whole site must be like Stormfront to you, with the constant "political bigotry" we show towards conservatives of all stripes on this site, all day, every day. Heck, there's even a Top 10 Conservative Idiots...that's practically, like, eugenics!!!!11!!!
No, Someone who openly advocates their transphobic positions isn't welcome in my party. You can get all snuggly with them if you want, but I prefer people who call themselves democrats to be actual democrats, you know, not hold positions that align to the right of Newt Gingrich.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)But...they should not be endorsed by Party leaders...you cannot make it OK to take away a woman's right to choose, take away the the right to marry for Gays or turn your back on Black lives matter.
Jacquette
(152 posts)then it's clear I've failed abysmally. These are the exact same feelings I've had since I cast my very 1st vote for President 40 yrs ago. Carter, Mondale, Clinton x2, Gore, Kerry, Obama x2. I've never voted R, never. Straight D, right down the line. And now I don't belong.
I will never become a Republican but by changing to Independent, I can concentrate on local and state politics.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That might be part of the problem, don't you think?
Jacquette
(152 posts)I wasn't a Reagan democrat or one who flip flopped btw R and D every election cycle. Back then I was considered a liberal.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)Hell, I voted for Reagan my first time voting - as a fundamentalist baptist not long out of 4 years of christian high school when I was still a brainwashed white, male Texan.
But no R's since then except for one protest vote against a local D sheriff who doesn't believe in medical marijuana for anyone.
When I was 18 I didn't even know there was such a thing transgender. I knew there were gay people but my church told me they were sinners going to hell. Thankfully I'm an atheist now - and probably always was but didn't know it until I was faced with the real world outside my religious indoctrination bubble. It's not my place to tell anyone who they are allowed to be or allowed to love. All I can do is always vote for inclusion and equality whenever I can and be a friend to anyone who needs me.
Abortion decisions are not mine to make. It's between the woman and her doctor no matter when it happens. I am and always will be for full, unfettered access to abortion no matter what. Privacy laws SHOULD mean I would never know about it anyway as I'm not the one getting the abortion. I always think of "on demand" as a bit of a code phrase for "I'm against it really..." I'm not against it. At all. I'm personally convinced that anti-choice is a religious position even for my atheist friend who is against all of them.
Death penalty is way too permanent to take a chance. We know 100% positive there have been people executed who were not guilty of the crime. Doesn't matter how heinous the crime - and yes there are surely some who I would selfishly want to exact some terrible revenge for in a moment of weakness but I usually come to my senses and I will always vote against DP.
I probably wouldn't pass a purity test either as I have a valid concealed carry permit. I'm 100% against the state executing someone however I would defend my family or neighbors or innocent strangers if forced to. I have never actually carried anything anywhere but I do have a handgun and a couple hunting rifles inherited from my FIL.
So I don't know if it's you or me or neither who needs to leave the Dem party. All I know is the Dem I want to be takes the above positions and whatever party is doing that is what I'll be.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You're not going to get sympathy from me because you are being ostracized for your transphobia.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Allow me to answer with a quote I can't source:
"The learners will inherit the earth, while the learned will find themselves beautifully prepared for a world that no longer exists."
Voltaire2
(13,194 posts)and repression of civil rights. On which issues should we woo these bigots?
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)When were they ever more liberal than they are now?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)While canvassing, I find an almost predominant attitude that neither party is worth dealing with. They have become irrelevant, especially amongst the young. Kinda like churches.
One major problem is that Republicans generally campaign on "What we can do for you." Democrats campaign on "What we can do for the community." Republicans then have the edge on self-interest and I have no interest in becoming more like them that way.
Locally, party affiliation seems to be a habit more than anything else, and whoever is in power-- as long as they keep filling the potholes they will stay in power.
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)We could use some Christian Democrats with integrity to run in elections down there. Republican voters aren't just indoctrinated by Faux News, but in their pulpits every Sunday. If we can make religion a non-issue, more voters will be willing to listen to our perspective on health care, the economy and other important topics.
Saviolo
(3,283 posts)We get to hold on to "more liberal economic efforts" but show a more socially conservative face. What are you willing to give up to attract those voters?
LGBTQ rights?
Roe v. Wade?
Immigration/refugee policies?
Food stamp/welfare programs?
The socially liberal ideas that the right hates tend to be those that help women, visible minorities, LGBTQ, and the poor. Are you willing to dump any of those groups under the bus to attract a new demographic that doesn't support them?
The economic debate between conservative economic and liberal economic policy is one that I can understand. I can see how the right -expects- their economic policy to work, but I don't agree that it does. But I can see no common ground on the right with their regressive social policies and ideals. Denying women health care, denying gay and trans people work and housing, oppressing POC, making immigrants a sub-class. That's where they're expecting you to go.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I don't have the answers, but it seems unacceptable to betray core princples, but it's also unacceptable to let Tr*mpism govern this country.
Maybe we defuse the cultural stuff. That was the Obama idea, we're all Americans etc. Can we still pull it off?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I think the answer is finding underserved groups and building the coalition, but the idea takes a lot of development. It is the Wellstone method.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Moostache
(9,897 posts)The bottom line is Truman was right some 70+ years ago....given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, the voters will always choose the Republican. Faking it or selling out core principles to chase votes is a losing idea.
1) Start saying this with me right now...SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE.
It needs to be a mantra and a common ground principle for the party. The price of admission to the Democratic Party is you are full-throated supporting the RIGHT of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN to basic healthcare and emergency services to save their life when possible.
The Democrats need an issue and an identity that they are willing to "go to the mattresses" for...if not healthcare, then what? The "we're not as bad as the GOP / we're NOT Trump" message has been found wanting...we need a banner, a rallying cry, a mantra.
As the polling shows, the public's appetite for taking away health care instead of making it better is about as popular as rancid meat. The way forward has ALWAYS been a push to remove the profit motive from health care and life or death decisions. I have a friend who nearly died from an imminently treatable affliction that became a crisis because he lacked health insurance, ended up in an ER for a life threatening situation and was subsequently ruined by a $65,000 bill that he has no chance of ever paying - ruining his credit, his ability to move or find new housing and essentially sapping him of the will to live in general. What's the point of trying to build a future when your present is a shit show and the bill for that shit show is going to ruin you for decades to come?
This is the best we can do? Allowing citizens to have their lives destroyed by illness, by fate, by bad luck? Allowing greed to put up barriers of profit siphoning between patients and doctors in the form of the insurance company middle man, hand out for a cut of the money? The imagery should NOT be one of "government inefficiency" but rather one of "private profiteering". The argument should not be based around anything but the lack of material impact the insurance provides versus the amount of healthcare it deprives as a result of the need to feed the overhead instead of attend to patient's needs.
2) Get Joe Kennedy into campaign mode NOW!
The hope of the Democratic Party lies in his hands in my opinion. I have seen him deliver some passionate speeches in Congress and while some may say he needs more seasoning and time to grow, I say there is no possible greater contrast to offer the nation than a Kennedy taking on 75 year old pasty ass Trump in 2020...or Pence if events take Donnie 2 Scoops out prior to the voting...
We need a fresh face, one with passion and vigor and yes, name recognition. We need a standard bearer with the fire of Sanders, the smarts of Clinton and the passion of their bases rolled into one...in my eyes, that man is Joseph Kennedy.
3) Expunge any and all "Blue Dogs" from the party
If you are not a full Democrat that can be counted on to toe the party line and stay with the party just like these GOP bastards, then go join the other team or go it alone. We have to stop allowing the party to be riven by the craven opportunists that are really nothing more than spineless GOP wannabes and enablers anyway. I won't name names here, but there are too many still around that need to go and go quickly, as in the next 90 days...the campaign mindset of just pointing out how mean the GOP is also has to go...
4) FIGHT the perception that "Government IS the problem" already!!!
Goddamn that Reagan era bullshit...it is STILL an effective sound bite and accepted mantra for the right and it is and always has been total BULLSHIT!!! Our government is of, by and for THE PEOPLE....we have allowed the corporations and business interests to cynically buy seats in congress, buy chairman's gavels and sell out the PEOPLE, but the GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE FUCKING PROBLEM....the piece of shit PEOPLE WE ALLOW IN THE GOVERNMENT ARE THE PROBLEM!!!
There has never been an adequate rebuttal of this horse shit proposition from the Democratic Party...the closest we have is the little montage from "The West Wing" that Lawrence O'Donnell wrote:
What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
Ill tell you what they did.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.
Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Liberals created Medicare.
Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.
What did conservatives do?
They opposed them on every one of those things, every one.
So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, Liberal, as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it wont work, Senator.
Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people is the fundamental IDEA of America...it is what we should be fighting to maintain. We have allowed the discussion to devolve from WHO is in charge to whether or not the government should be there at all (which is a disingenuous dodge by the fascists and plutocrats of the Right....they want government alright, just one that services ONLY their needs and not the needs of the nation as a whole).
Its time to stop that nonsensical "role of government" canard and start fighting a more visceral campaign to redefine not the role of government but the COMPOSITION of the government. We allow the GOP a free pass to use the government and its power to strip away rights and freedoms and to define morality and right/wrong in their own religious-tinged light....NO MORE DAMMIT!!!
What is the role of government in the lives of the people? It is everything and everywhere and that is NOT changing...only the way it is used has been changed in the last 40 years. The New Deal and Great Society programs sought to establish the government as a force for good in the lives and rights of the citizens. That message, that hope, that vision has been clouded by a beach bully kicking sand in our faces, stealing our towel and telling us we have no right to expect any assistance from our government at all.
I do not buy that.
I do not believe that.
I do not accept that.
Times are always a changin'...that much is certain...but universal truths do not change as readily. Our government is the PEOPLE in theory...its time to take that back in reality.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)can not win...like it or not, we are more of a centrist country.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)We must maintain our fight for civil liberties for all.
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)We call them republicans.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)This line of "thinking" assumes that if we package ourselves with a finger in the wind we will start to win more elections.....wrong!
People want genuineness, not phoniness. They are tired of whom they call typical politicians. That is part of how Trump got to be president, by attacking politicians, the establishment, etc
I voted for Bernie in the primary, but I am not saying we need to go further to the left either.
What we need to do is figure out the values we stand for as a party, the issues that we fight for. We need to articulate who we are better....as it is the Rs are defining us.
Maybe we have to get together and write up some sort of manifesto, with the issues that unite us and find some way of getting this out to the voters. How voting for Ds will help voters' lives better than voting R. Get a list of winning issues we hammer home and present a vision for America in the process. We don't have to go conservative, or go liberal....we need to articulate ourselves better. We have the winning side of the issues on the environment, global warming, education, health care, the economy, jobs, infrastructure, etc etc etc.....
The Rs are good for marketing their ideas into catchy phrases....like MAGA or America First. Why let them be the only ones to effectively market their pathetic ideas? We can come up with something truly inspirational if we tried.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)Image matters more than most of us are willing to believe. And looking more "conservative" while simultaneously proposing liberal policies could influence enough low-information voters to make a difference.
And I know that sounds bad - in so many ways.
Skittles
(153,199 posts)just say it like it is
dawg
(10,624 posts)Just stuffy-looking. (And maybe a little "churchy" or "gun-ish", depending on the district.)
Skittles
(153,199 posts)they're either bigots, or they vote for a party that openly supports bigotry....THEY SUCK
Solly Mack
(90,787 posts)In fact, let's make Trump our new poster boy for how to think and behave! Let's write Paul Ryan and tell him how much we admire him!
I know! I know! I know! Let's take up donations and send Mitch McConnell roses!!!
Yeah!! That's the ticket!!!
Translation: Fuck that shit.
leftstreet
(36,116 posts)Solly Mack
(90,787 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)The problem is that we have been inching to the right for years and it's not working for us. We are afraid to stand up for what we are and we keep losing.
Solly Mack
(90,787 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,721 posts)Not working out so well. We need to fight that, not embrace it.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)elections. You have to deal with reality.
WoonTars
(694 posts)If anything the country has moved more to the left, but we keep losing elections because of gerrymandering. Democrats got collectively well over a million more votes than the Republicans in the House, but they maintained a majority of seats. That is purely down to gerrymandering.
We need to stop letting the Corporate Media and their Stenographers from framing the message and stand up for Liberal/Democratic principles and offer substantive alternatives rather than just saying "hey, at least we're not as bad as THOSE guys"....
David__77
(23,520 posts)For instance, I do not think that upholding the ideology behind "whiteness studies" will be popular among many people who favor policies traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. On the other hand, many of those same voters might have no problem with abortion being legal and same sex marriage being legal.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)millions of Democrats.
David__77
(23,520 posts)I think that one could disagree with the ideology underlying "whiteness studies" (as developed, for instance, by the Maoist or former Maoist Noel Ignatiev), and still uphold civil rights.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)for more conservatism/liberalism. Moving center isn't radical in any way. I think that going more left has at least a chance to stimulate some typically-non-voters, but moving center in some ways validates the claim of "both parties support the classist status quo."
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Now the Dem. Governor was a moderate. Those who don't vote don't care;they share values with the GOP and simply are not interested in politics...the GOP is good enough for them...what makes you think they don't share Republican values?
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)and then drawing your own conclusions about the single data point in terms of the hypothesis? I don't know if that is an effective way to think about this.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)We need to do two things, IMO. Get dirty money out of politics and outlaw gerrymandering.
If you rig your voting districts so that not all people are represented, it doesn't matter how many people turn out if that district is rigged for one side.
Ossof did a damn fine job in a district he should have lost by large margins. As did the candidate in SC and all the other special elections we lost.
Think about how close the Dems came to winning in areas that should have never been that close.
Also, another issue is that the Dem Party needs a clear message that doesn't consist of only anti-Trump/GOP.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)The party needs to re-learn Tip O'Neill's maxim:
All politics is local.
In some areas... yes, that means moving to the right. In other areas, it means moving to the left.
In ALL areas... this means being well to the left of the Republican running for (or currently in) that seat.
underpants
(182,904 posts)The state races get almost no attention but they weigh heavily on the national picture.
Put me down as a No.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)At least there's no Wasserman-Schultz to kick around this time!
LeftinOH
(5,358 posts)Appeals to patriotism and religious faith always work, because that shit sells. Superficial platitudes go a loooooong way with conservatives.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)If we want to win with 70% margins adopt a progressive stance on the 2A.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)With the gun issue being a not-at-all insignificant part of that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Yet many of them are becoming increasingly uncomfortable in the party, and racism is not the reason (or at the very least, not the MAIN reason).
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But they do.
So quit bellyaching and make due.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't think they will be voting for Democrats, but dream on.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You are obviously paying very close attention to what people are saying.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Coventina
(27,172 posts)End of story.
brush
(53,876 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)We need to work on gerrymandering and vote suppression as well as marketing the party.
We need to commit at the local level. I don't mean for House of Representatives, but at the state and city government levels. Not only does that give us a bench of candidates, but it energizes the local support and builds the party. The party didn't get here overnight. The fix will take time.
Saviolo
(3,283 posts)All of those super energetic youths that are being crapped upon because the boomers think millenials are useless need to take the energy and engagement they had in the last election (whether from Bernie or Hillary), and drive it to local politics. School trustees, city council, etc... and move up. Fill up the grass roots with liberals and progressives and they'll filter up. You won't even recognize national politics in 15 years if we can get that kind of engagement.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)Some crapped on themselves by not supporting the Democratic candidate. They won't have time to be political because Hillary would have helped with student debt but now existing agreements are being torn up by Devos. Also, while they showed up for rallies...not so good about voting...look at Virginia, Perriello was counting on younger voters to turn out, and they didn't.
Saviolo
(3,283 posts)The hot takes about how Milennials are destroying every industry ever since forever? According to articles from places like NBC, Business Insider, Fortune, Fox, Bloomberg, etc... Milennials have ruined everything:
Link to tweet
Regardless, I'm talking about the engaged ones. The young, enthusiastic, idealistic wonks who are progressive and excited. They need to get involved in lower levels of government and filter up through the ranks.
Those young progressives need to be encouraged and guided. New blood, new life for progressive causes everywhere.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The far left Bernie got crap by most of the moderate left leaning Democrats for backing a pro-life Democratic candidate and now those Democrats want to embrace even more right wing Democrats? Am I missing something here or is there a bit of Bernie induced hypocrisy?
I am not insulting any DUers or any Democrats, I am seriously just confused?
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)a mayor's race until I found out Jane Kleeb who worked for Sen. Sanders was the Party chairperson. And if Sen.Sanders is willing to throw social issues under the bus like pro-choice, he is not a leftist perhaps a populist;I am not sure ... He is after all independent.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)You are doing exactly what Sanders did.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)the majority. We can have a big tent...but the platform remains the same and no party leader endorsements either.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)If we allow pro-life, anti-lgbt, and racist right wing Democrats so long as no one from the party endorses them?
How could our platform remain the same if we permit such candidates to run? I would rather go down fighting then have right wing, Christian crazies in my party.
Also, just to let you know, by not fighting such candidates means you actually do endorse such vile candidates. If that is the future of the Democratic party count me out.
Voltaire2
(13,194 posts)since the 90s. We've lost the house the senate the vast majority of the stat es and as a consequence the courts and as another consequence the congressional districts have been gerrymandered to make regaining the house very difficult as have state legislative districts as yet another consequence voter suppression is a fact of life. By all means let's pursue this fabulous strategy to its bitter end, which is about where we are now.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)largely for the same reason Hillary lost in 16...the alt-left (for want of a better term...greens and who knows who) didn't turn out ...Obama couldn't give them single payer so they turned on him...and we all paid the price for it. I remember threads where Obama was called horrible things on this website. Now what happened in 2000 that made United possible...why the alt-left turned their back on Gore...and elected Bush via Nader who ran as a third party candidate...fun times. Now Democrats have to raise big bucks to stay competitive...So what you blame on the moderates and Democrats like me (liberal and loyal) really was because of the alt-left (Greens)actions in not supporting Democrats in every election. They couldn't get it all now( damn it)...so they took their ball and went home....and now you want more losing ...because that is what will happen if we do as you say. You learned the wrong lesson...the lesson is be loyal to your party and vote Democratic in every election...including mid-terms and state elections. Work within the party to improve it and put your stamp on it...don't criticize the Democratic Party unless you want to drive voters away because you will do exactly that.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)qanda
(10,422 posts)I already want little to do with this watered-down version of progressivism. If the Democrats have to sell their souls to win then I'd rather lose.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Also, some on our side must learn to respect that every district is different, a candidate that plays well in one gets crushed in another.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,438 posts)And who(m) would that include throwing under the proverbial bus to win elections? Women/Reproductive rights? LGBTQs? The poor? The sick? Not to mention that being a Democrat is akin to Satan to some people in rural Republican areas of country where, short of totally hiding your party label, no amount of backwards pandering will ever get wingnuts to vote for you. Sorry, but if the Democratic Party moves backwards like that and decides that it HAS to throw a bunch of people under the bus and move backwards on issues (where we are in the overall MAJORITY) to win elections , I would HAVE to reconsider my support of the party. No ifs, ands, or buts!
Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)killed our party. No more of that triangulation crap.
Orrex
(63,225 posts)Not to mention people of color. They had their brief flirtation with actual personhood. Let's kick 'em all under the bus and start winning elections!
WoonTars
(694 posts)Republican lite is NOT the answer.
LisaM
(27,839 posts)That's supposed to be one of the tenets of the Dems - be a big tent. But it seems as if a lot of people want to crowd into a smaller and smaller tent.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Not if they want to lose by even more through suppressing voter turnout by the BASE. But I also think that sometimes you do have to vote for the lesser of the evils, even if you disagree with them on some things. But for the party as a whole, no, they should not move right on social issues like abortion or gay rights. I
What we are seeing are the final death throes of the bigot vote. Right now they are more numerous, but it won't last.
The problem with Ossoff was not his principles or lack thereof. The problem is (and his is not alone here) is the political consultants that force a bland, middle-of-the-road-ness on these candidates. When I heard him interviewed on NPR, what came across was something so inoffensive, so bland, as to be meaningless. Now, this kind of thing is not restricted to Democrats, but Democrats do it so as to appeal to the middle. It almost never works. Suburban Republicans are never going to vote Democrat, no matter what the message is.
Ossoff is young and inexperienced and I think that also played a role. While that lack of record can also be a positive (no skeletons), here it may have been a negative.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)If a voter has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, hell vote for the Republican every time.
samnsara
(17,640 posts)Bettie
(16,129 posts)would be leaving pretty much everyone who isn't white, straight, male, and wealthy behind.
It would mean no longer struggling toward racial equality, no more working toward LGBT+ rights, no more caring about women's rights.
Call-out culture and various types of shaming are not particularly helpful...but we can't just concede to people who are still stuck in another century.
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)It's hard to do.
gordianot
(15,245 posts)Skittles
(153,199 posts)NO PANDERING TO FUCKING BIGOTS
vi5
(13,305 posts)The number of "reachable" moderates or GOP leaners is so minimal that we will never win the war, only tiny battles along the way that will get us nowhere and win us nothing except fleeting, easily dismantle victories.
We need to start energizing people that don't vote or that have given up on politics.
I'm in my late 40's and have been highly politically engaged and involved, and a hardcore Democratic partisan since I was in my teens and I find myself increasingly just throwing up my hands in disgust or just wanting to stop giving a fuck because our leadership just continues to be so tone deaf and inept with regard to what is going to motivate people to get to the polls. I continue to vote and donate and volunteer but I feel like I'm not being heard and that nobody is willing to try any sort of new strategies or tactics or anything else. So if I feel that way I don't know how anyone expects to be inspiring to new voters or not as highly partisan or informed voters.
But hey, apparently I just want a pony or something.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)We should stand for what we believe in.
onecaliberal
(32,902 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Fait Accompli
(40 posts)Kick the bankers, lawyers, insurers and lobbyists OUT.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)What can help isn't moving to the right but trimming the left fringe who don't really do much other than have public tantrums that alienate the public at large and then go vote for the Green Party.
Total public disavowal, there is no confusion in Europe about where the center-left ends and red diaper fringe begins.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)But I will just about guarantee they're going to see to it 2020 makes 2008 look like a post-Thanksgiving drunk uncle politics or football argument.
At least Bernie sort of gathered them up in one place, we're going to have our very own Marxist clown car.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)The people who came of voting age during the Reagan years are voting dependably and will still be around for a long time. We are dominating the newcomer voters but they aren't reliable and too often go off on tangents like third party. Some of our key demographics like single females don't show up in midterms. The white working class shift is very real and has been evident for several years, long before 2016. Fear sells. It is moving white men now just like 9-11 shifted a critical percentage of the so-called security moms. Many states are trending our way but several simply aren't ready, like Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia.
It's hard to panic when our party has carried the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 general elections. Imagine how different the dialog and country would be without those flawed Florida ballot designs or Hillary sensing she should campaign in different states, that barely squeaking over the electoral line was plenty.
Bill Clinton used to speak of the impact of strong and wrong. That explains Donald Trump. Realistically we need to handicap the electorate and cater to what they respect. White males are allowed to bullshit and get away with it. Note that commercial with a disc jockey who seamlessly pretends to be a financial analyst. Trump pretended to be everything to everybody. IMO, every time we nominate a woman or a black man we are taking an admirable risk that probably isn't worth it in this era. Every race, not merely president. Obama may have won two terms but he also forfeited a huge chunk of white males along the way, and now every one of our candidates is paying for it for the foreseeable.
I'd prefer to win narrowly than to explain and strategize. It's perfectly fine for the background photo to resemble America as a block even if our candidate himself front and center resembles the prototype CEO.
As always, I don't care about issue breakdown compared to bottom line self-identify numbers. As long as the country has a 3/2 split of conservatives over liberals we have little margin for error.
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,053 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)iamateacher
(1,089 posts)No.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I agree with you that the professional tumblr class bullshit has been counter-productive, to say the least:
I have a gaggle of nieces and nephews in their early 20s who think "liberals" stand for things like censorship and finger-wagging and telling people what they can watch on tv or how many swear words they're allowed to hear in a video game
but since we have the 1st Amendment we are going to continue to have people promoting head-banging dumbfuckery under the banner of "progressive" ideological gatekeeping (I've been convinced for some time that some of it is a Koch Bros. funded long game, but I digress) ....
so back here in the real world, yeah, we need to find earthy candidates who can speak to local concerns. But that shouldn't mean abandoning values like reproductive freedom.
Instead, we need to make "liberal" and "progressive" synonymous with personal choice and freedom, again. Anti-censorship/PRO FIRST AMENDMENT. Pro-cannabis legalization (an issue that- hello!- is popular all over the place and across the political spectrum)... and maybe it's time to realize that gun control is a loser at the federal level.
bresue
(1,007 posts)kacekwl
(7,022 posts)Social Security, Medicare, gay rights, healthcare for all, pro choice, real tax reforms, anti war, clean air, alternative energy etc. So why won't the majority come out to vote ?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Is making it swing faster
Calculating
(2,957 posts)I fully believe her strong gun control viewpoints cost Hillary the election. I also believe it cost gore the 2000 election. Gun control is simply a losing issue politically speaking. It's similar to the Republican opposition to gay marriage or their opposition to marijuana legalization.
NYResister
(164 posts)and lost.
Advocating the abandonment of Civil Rights is Republican lite.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,368 posts)It's not a question of where swing voters are compared to base voters; it's a question of where the swing voters are compared to party policies.