Can't most all of us agree that the Democratic Party needs to make some major changes?

[Garrett78]

A lot of folks seem to get quite upset when Democrats - or the party as a whole - are criticized. While there can be honest debate about what changes need to be made, I would expect most of us to agree that changes need to be made.

Given Republican majorities in so many state legislative bodies and governorships, as well as Republican control at the federal level, why would anyone conclude that the modus operandi of the Democratic Party doesn't need to change--and pretty drastically?

[ProudLib72]

1. Nope

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, hacked voter tabulation machines, and fake news need to be changed drastically.

[Ken Burch]

8. Those aren't the only issues.

And none of the suggestions anyone has made(other than the pointless DNC proposal to recruit anti-choice candidates, which is indefensible)would harm any of our core supporters.

[ProudLib72]

15. That's not my point

My point is that approaching this situation as if our party is wholly responsible for losing is, itself, a losing battle. The OP said change needs to be drastic. I see no cogent reason for that. If the problems I mentioned were taken care of, we would start winning again. If we change the party to suit the wants of every voter we can possibly get, then we are selling out. This only applies to our platform. Changes to the way the DNC and DCCC operate are welcome. If that was what the OP meant, then I withdraw my comments.

[Garrett78]

19. They couldn't have been so successful in those efforts if they didn't already have so much control.

[Ken Burch]

92. He didn't say the result was EXCLUSIVELY our party's fault.

All of us recognize the effects of the things you listed.

But too often, the point of listing those things has been to argue that we don't need to change much of anything, that we as a party have no serious internal problems.

And there's far too much fear being expressed about the idea of change.

For example, nobody has actually argued that we should make changes that would betray the Democratic base.

The most important changes proposed...a stronger economic justice program...would be an addition to our current policies, not a replacement for our social justice commitment. It would help people IN our base...nobody is proposing economic justice policies that would be white-only.

[ProudLib72]

99. We do make changes

That's why we have a platform revamped for 2016 to show those changes. WaPo called it "The most progressive Democratic platform ever". So I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that we are afraid of change.

Our problem is twofold: We have to fight against those things in my list, and we need to have better messaging. Our message gets buried under the crap spewed by the right. We don't have a loud and obnoxious voice like they do. Sure, I will agree that economic justice is a good idea, but to make the change and have it buried under "HER EMAILS" will solve nothing.

[Ken Burch]

100. To my knowledge, nobody here is saying we DON'T need to fight against those things,

It's not as though we can't fight against them and call for changes within the party at the same time.

The idea that we can't is a false binary...the insistence on an "either/or" decision that doesn't actually have to be "either/or"...like the idea that we have to center EITHER social justice or economic justice, but somehow can't center both and can't acknowledge that, while those causes are separate, they are also related and have far more common ground than now.

[ProudLib72]

104. The gist of the OP was that changes need to be made to win elections

My argument is not against changes like the one you call for. My argument is that the lack of such changes is not the cause of our losing constantly. I believe we have a very strong platform as is. Could it be better? Yes, there is always room for improvement. But in the face of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and voting machine hacking making changes to the platform is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's a solution to a problem that is greatly overshadowed by another problem that needs our immediate attention.

[Bradshaw3]

9. And how do you do that by continuing to lose elections?

You think the repubs are going to change things while they have power?

[Garrett78]

12. Easier to get away with those things when you have such massive majorities at every level of gov't.

And when the Democratic Party doesn't offer much in the way of pushback, because it's too busy trying to figure out how to appeal to "white working class voters."

[LenaBaby61]

13. THANK YOU!

"Gerrymandering, voter suppression, hacked voter tabulation machines, and fake news need to be changed drastically."

Thank you!




IF not for all of the things you mention, Hillary WINS the presidency--Hillary wins PA, WI, and MI (I think she won those states)--even with the misogyny, racism etc. The media's STILL only concerned with tReasonous tRump's DEPLORABLE base and them sticking with him, as if they with their smaller numbers can elect him again.

Yes, Dems need to improve in some areas--one is like fighting BACK against thuglicans, and staying on a UNITED message whatever it is CONTINUALLY!!!

But, you could have bought FDR back from the grave, had him campaign when he blew out Hoover in 1932, and he would have lost out to thuglicans/tRumputin given the years of gerrymandering, voter-suppression and help of the ruskies.

NO Dem--not Bernie, Not Pres. Obama, LBJ beats all of that AND the ruskies too.

[Garrett78]

20. Dems have been getting their asses handed to them since long before 2016.

Dems have allowed Republicans to get away with massive gerrymandering and voter suppression by failing to win elections (in large part because the likes of Bill Clinton were convinced that "tough on crime" and "ending big government" and "welfare reform" were key to winning) and by not making a stink about race-based gerrymandering and race-based voter suppression, which only gets worse as Dems lose more and more seats at the state and federal level.

They're too damn busy buying into the myth that the key to success is winning back a bunch of bigots who allegedly voted Dem in the past.

[stevenleser]

96. Your definition of "getting their asses handed to them" differs from mine.

As a result, I don't think it makes sense for us to continue to discourse on this issue.

[Garrett78]

112. State Houses, State Senates, Governorships, the US House...GOP domination.

[stevenleser]

126. And yet win the national election popular vote virtually every time

Since you can't factor that into your analysis, your analysis is flawed.

[Garrett78]

130. The White House is not all that matters.

[stevenleser]

131. But it does matter and you don't account for that. nt

[Garrett78]

133. The Dem POTUS candidate has won the pop. vote in 6 of 7 elections. There. Now...

...let's address the fact that Republicans are near record numbers in terms of state legislative bodies and governorships, while controlling every branch of the federal government. Surely that suggests the modus operandi isn't working. And not just because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, which Republicans get away with because of their majorities...and because Dems don't make enough of a stink about those things.

I guess the reason for optimism is that Trump has a very low approval rating...but he always did.

[LiberalLovinLug]

102. +1000

[misanthrope]

138. Concur

There's a deeper problem

[TheFrenchRazor]

151. word. nt

[ismnotwasm]

2. Like what?

[Garrett78]

16. Like a much stronger defense of BLM, a woman's right to choose, etc.

A much stronger pushback against gerrymandering and voter suppression, as well as xenophobia.

A much stronger push for unionization and a multiracial alliance.

A much stronger push for increasing the minimum wage and a more progressive tax structure.

A much stronger push for public financing of elections, Medicare for All, lowering college tuition, etc.

A much stronger push for environmental protections and green jobs.

A much stronger push for a drastic cut to so-called "defense" spending.

A resistance to those who worry so much about appearing "soft on crime."

And so on.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

22. I agree and would add that I think we need

a much stronger pushback against the vast RW propaganda machine and countermeasures to get the facts to the public.

[Garrett78]

23. Yes. Media literacy, along with sex education, in *every* school.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

24. Yes. And the sex ed can't be that "abstinence only" nonsense.

There. We've solved everything!

[Kathy M]

124. I think you may want to read this article in full from New York Times ..... A lot of

misdirection / false equivalence on social media look no further than Hillary 's own David Brock

"Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents.

“The pond scum of American politics,” is how Tad Devine, a senior strategist to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, described the website in March for its frequent attacks on Mr. Sanders.

"They will put that pressure right on the media outlets in a very intense way,” Mr. Daou, the chief executive of Shareblue, said of the Twitter army he had galvanized. “By the thousands.”

In the sprawling Clinton body politic, Shareblue is the finger that wags at the mainstream news media (“R.I.P. Political Journalism (1440-2016)”) or pokes at individual reporters. It is a minor appendage, but in an increasingly close race for the presidency, it plays its part."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-media-david-brock.html

Two wrongs do not make a right

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

164. So, Shareblue approached the problem in a way that was "wrong."

That in no way invalidates the need to find a "right" way to mount a much stronger pushback against the vast RW propaganda machine and countermeasures to get the facts to the public.

[Awsi Dooger]

31. That's too much

It's all valid and I love that the vast majority of your suggestion are "For" not "Against"

We blew 2016 largely because we obsessed over "Against" with an opponent who was like a coquina fort, absorbing everything with a laugh.

It can't be 6 or 8. You've long since sacrificed public attention span. I'm convinced is has to be big picture and not related to issues. I suggested a slogan of "Remarkable You" a few weeks ago. One person after another would appreciate than and think...yeah I am remarkable. Countless offshoots and ways to make it work, cycle after cycle.

It needs to be something like that, anyway. Apple's "Think Different" is brilliant. The other side perpetually benefits from a link to lower taxes, less government, faith and national security even if it's primarily bullshit and the application is harmful to a heavy percentage of Americans.

Hillary spent tons of time explaining. The details may be fantastic but nobody every got there. We desperately need Middle America to think of one or two strong positive themes when Democrats are mentioned.

[Garrett78]

48. You may be right, but I'm not sure those with such short attention spans can be won over.

I don't know that giving into the dumbing down ethic is the way to go. I'm not convinced Clinton having a simpler message or slogan would have made any difference. I don't think that's what suppressed the youth or POC vote.

But if Dems are going to go that route, then focus on justice or egalitarianism. "Justice for All" could be the slogan, I suppose. Even that, though, inevitably leads to a discussion about what justice entails, including an analysis of how historical injustice continues to impact the present (and what should be done about that). Hammer home Dr. King's quote about how "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Because, ultimately, this situation in which we find ourselves is largely about racism. It's why so many white women support Trump, much less white men. The Democratic Party, as a whole, needs to do a much better job of addressing that reality. Bernie Sanders and many mainstream Dems he opposes are united in their denial of that reality. If anyone wishes to argue otherwise, I'll dig up the post-election town hall meeting during which Bernie flat out denies that racism played a significant role in Trump's victory.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. Bernie, currently the most popular politician, has shown us the way.

[Garrett78]

45. He's too dismissive of the role racism plays in Republican success.

And too enamored with the "white working class" myth.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. No, actually, Bernie is enamored with social change and winning with a progressive platform.

[BainsBane]

146. Then why do we see so many of his supporters

Working for the opposite?

Social change and progressive platform doesn't say much. The OP gave a list of specific areas he'd like to see the party move forward on. Cheerleading Bernie isn't a response to that, particularly when you say nothing about substancce. If we are to create a better party and nation, we need citizens who do far more then promote particular politicians. Monarchies and authoritarian governments are built around powerful men. Democracy requires far more of its citizens than that.

One Senator from Vt does not comprise a a solution.

[Lil Missy]

75. Only on DU is bernie a favorite, and I question that too. n/t

[NurseJackie]

153. Very observant. (You're not the only one with those questions.)

[stevenleser]

97. I don't think the loser of an election or a primary has a mandate. His chosen candidates

on other races have pretty much all lost too.

Again, following that seems to be a bad idea.

[BainsBane]

148. Blindly following is bad period

Whether it's Bernie or anyone else.

[BainsBane]

147. You make it sound like a religion

"Shown us the way". What is that supposed to mean? Are there particular policies that you want to advance, or is your solution for the entire country to blindly follow a 78 year old man? Don't you have any ideas of your own?

[mcar]

161. I caught that too

How, specifically, has Bernie "shown is the way?"

[DoodAbides]

149. "has shown us the way"... on what not to do 2018 and 2020. nt

[George II]

158. "Most popular" in what way?

[JustAnotherGen]

160. Correction - he has shown YOU the way

There is no "us". I think for myself and make my own decisions - no man can bend my mind. Ask my husband! He knows that's a lesson in futility.

[stuffmatters]

61. Good list! Our simple slogan "fairness for all."

Fairness, that's what our party of Democracy has stood for in my lifetime . The Repubs have stood for discrimination, the wealthy. We must get back to messaging and practicing our basic ideology of Fairness at every political opportunity.

Jeremy's slogan in Britain was excellent..."For the many not the few."

[Squinch]

79. That's a good one. Really good.

[stuffmatters]

106. Fairness, it's what everybody wants -fair trade,employment, justice,taxation, conservation, rights,

The list of fairness issues is endless and comprehensive. Fairness is the principle upon which most thought our democracy was built and what most sense has been lost.. I believe this is what 2016 was about.. Trump exploited this malaise without intending to change only to increase the Republican KOCH/ALEC agenda and the empowerment of the few. This public loss of fairness is the reason that Bernie's refrain of the 1% should pay "their fair share" generated so much imediate excitement.Basically he was just reverting to FDR, the foundation of the Democratic Party. We must go back to this message or we simply stand to lose our democracy to the fascism of the insatiable Republican agenda of suppression, destruction, resentment and indecency.

Fairness it's the message all Democrats need to stick to, fairness should be the framing for every Democrat's interview, position, speech going forward. Fairness is the word that unifies all Democrats and appeals to the vast majority of the American public.

[ismnotwasm]

93. Do you think these things should be in the platform?

Take the first one-I agree in principle by the way, what specific actions should Democratics take?

[TomCADem]

122. The Hill - Sanders: Dems must move beyond 'identity politics'

I thought that Bernie was arguing for the opposite, which is why Bernie has been supportive of recent candidates who are not strongly pro-choice.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307014-sanders-dems-must-move-beyond-identity-politics

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday that the Democratic Party must move beyond “identity politics” in order to connect with a larger share of the voting public.

"It is not good enough for somebody to say, 'I'm a woman, vote for me.' That is not good enough," Sanders told a crowd at the Berklee Performance Center in Boston, according to WBUR. "What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industries.”
Sanders, who come in second place to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, has repeatedly voiced his concerns with the party’s lack of support in middle America.

"The working class of this country is being decimated — that's why Donald Trump won," the senator said. "And what we need now are candidates who stand with those working people, who understand that real median family income has gone down."

The Vermont independent, who was named chair of outreach among the Democratic Senate leadership this month, has said the party must shift its focus to winning back blue-collar workers and the economically disaffected.

[Garrett78]

123. See posts #45, #48 and others I've written.

I was never wild about either Clinton or Sanders. Of course, I still voted for Clinton in November against the worst candidate imaginable.

I'm no Bernie Bot.

[BainsBane]

144. I support all of that.

I agree we need to lean in, not retreat.

[smirkymonkey]

157. Yes! And also a complete stop toward the trend of becoming

republican-lite. I think we lose more voters when we try to be more like the other party than we do when we try to stand firmly and proudly for our core values.

[Orsino]

165. Like, "it's the money, stupid."

All the moral stances we'd like our candidates to be free to take? Private money makes them all less possible.

Without minimizing all the important issues we face, Citizens United and other weak campaign finance rules are fucking up absolutely everything. Sure, we can't afford to disarm unilaterally, but this is the elephant in the room.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. I would hope we could agree that we ought to have a vigorous debate about issues, direction, etc

but even that is probably too much to ask.

[BigmanPigman]

5. "We" or "they" should have a debate?

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Please elaborate on what you mean, in asking me that question.

Be specific, okay?

[BigmanPigman]

29. Should the Dems already in office be the ones debating to become more unified as a

party as a show of force as they move forward working with the Repub or the newer dem candidates (who are considering running) deciding on their unified platform or the Dems on DU as general constituents what would we like to see of our reps.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I would say all of the above.

I think most would agree a bigger leadership bench is a good idea, we should have lots of room for new and up and coming faces and voices... and I also think elected officials, even those who have been there a long time, should be (and probably are) open to the idea of examining tactics and positions; this occurs naturally over time anyway, and it should- look at the sea change in party position on LGBT marriage equality from 2004-2016---but to my mind "Democrats" is everyone who is registered as a Democrat, right, so all should be involved in that conversation.

The more snarky part of my post up there reflects my view that there's probably more knee-jerk resistance to this kind of suggestion here on DU than there is, even, in the highest ranks of party leadership; those folks know and understand that change and growth aren't just good, but necessary.

[GulfCoast66]

66. Can't say this about you personally

Because I do not pay enough attention to individual posters but,

It seems to me most people on DU asking this kind of question do not really want a debate rather they want everyone to agree with them.

No all Democrats are 'progressives' what ever the hell that means. And we all have different priorities.

But at the end of the day our real point of disagreement, in my opinion is that some of us support the party and some of us support one man. That is a hard reality to bridge.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. There are two kinds of people in this world.

Those who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and those who dont.

[GulfCoast66]

86. Good point

And what I get for stereotyping.

Have a nice day.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. What about those who aren't sure whether or not there are only two kinds of people? lol

[Fresh_Start]

73. +1 nt

nt

[DoodAbides]

4. There are a lot of factors involved in the 2016 election, from top to bottom.

Complaints I hear about the Democratic Party is often based on smears and non truths. That is the big problem the Democratic Party is facing today.

[rogue emissary]

6. Consensus on major changes isn't a bone of contention.

The issue is what specific major changes and who decides on those changes?

[Garrett78]

11. I get the impression that major change is, in fact, a bone of contention.

Which prevents substantive discussion on what changes should be made.

[rogue emissary]

18. I can't speak to or try to change your impression.

I just don't see you stating what changes you would like Democrats to enact. I know there are a number of changes I could get on board with. I think most Democrats could support major changes, but it still comes down to what those specific changes would involve.

[Garrett78]

21. I made suggestions in post #16. But the whole point of this thread is...

...about the resistance to the very notion that changes need to be made. Several posts in this thread and numerous posts elsewhere on this site are evidence of that.

As I wrote in the OP, I would think such resistance wouldn't exist and that we could simply have substantive discussion/debate about what changes need to be made. Instead, though, there's a great deal of resistance to the very notion that change is needed. How badly do Dems need to get their asses kicked at every level of government before it dawns on folks that the modus operandi (for at least the last couple decades) ain't working?

[rogue emissary]

25. My impression is that resistance is too specific changes other have suggested.

I haven't seen many DU members or Democratics come out against the suggests you listed in post #16.

Also, a lot of that resistance is to the idea of change just for change's sake. Just saying we've been doing things one way for a while which is an oversimplification. Doesn't justify that changing our method will produce substantially different results.

[Garrett78]

32. And my impression is different.

Several posts in this thread and elsewhere clearly suggest that major change isn't needed, that Dems just need to keep doing what they're doing. And I find that to be dumbfounding. Because we've been, for the most part, losing ground for several decades.

[rogue emissary]

36. Reread the thread and even the poster that replied nope is still advocating for major change.

How the DNC combats district gerrymandering would be a major change. That' is as much an internal change to the DNC as the external fight to get fair districts drawn, don't you think?

One of Perez's main focuses has been changing how we fight gerrymandering. Time will tell if those changes and rescore allocations payoff.

[Garrett78]

42. The message in that post is clear: external forces - and not the party itself - require major change

The same message is conveyed in posts #13, #28 and #40. And in posts all across this forum.

[Ken Burch]

7. They won't tolerate anyone pointing out that the party isn't infallible.

n/t.

[LeftInTX]

35. Look I just got in a FB tiff with someone who is obsessed with the Democratic party

He is new to politics and is posting hit piece after hit piece. It has become an obsession. Sabatoge is real. I'm sick of it. He is bashing Kamala, Booker, and Deval Patrick. He calls everyone a corporatist elite. Nothing constructive. Nothing positive. He's turning into a Jackpine Radical.

I know this person in real life. He's trying to be controlling. It's his way or the highway.

[Squinch]

80. LOL!

[betsuni]

84. LOL

Nobody has ever said that, ever, duh. "They" = Democrats.

[Ken Burch]

103. "They" meaning some Democrats

I'm as much a Democrat as you are, and I think that poster is as well.

[uponit7771]

88. Or tolerate complete assholes who consummately bash or leave out Russia, voter suppression

... and gerrymandering as factors either.

[betsuni]

90. +1

[NurseJackie]

98. Or to tolerate it when some call Democrats "feeble" and "idealogically bankrupt".

When it comes to like that "it serves no good purpose" to smear, insult, denigrate, divide, and weaken the party.

[Ken Burch]

101. We all agree that those things matter.

however:
A) There's nothing we can actually do to change those things between now and 2018, so it's not as though focusing exclusively on them helps us;

B) It's not as though if we just take care of those things we can win without changing anything WE do.

Also, nobody who is calling for changes(other than the DNC, with its pointless proposal to recruit anti-choice candidates)are calling for any changes that would be a betrayal to the Democratic base.

There are no grassroots calls for the party to stop talking about racism-nobody on the left wing of the party ever supported that idea-or to stop defending women and gays, OR to not fight voter suppression and gerrymandering.

And there aren't any calls for the party to adopt policies that would benefit white males while leaving everybody else out in the cold.

The biggest change we need would be much stronger economic justice ideas...Schumer's agenda is actually not a bad start on that...in addition to what we already support, not instead of anything we currently support or currently say.

[uponit7771]

120. No we do not "all" agree, seeing the premise of arguments begin as if they're not MAJORITY factors

[Ken Burch]

125. Ok...there is a clear general consensus among us as Dems and progressives,

Whatever our allegiances were in the '16 primaries or even among those with no preference on that, that, whatever else we support, we must defend reproductive choice, must stand against all forms of social oppression, and must not abandon or betray any historically oppressed communities or any part the Democratic base.

Regardless of what any candidates or public figures in the party might say or have said, those of us in the rank-and-file and the activist base are in agreement on all of that.

[stevenleser]

127. And again you choose a less than honest comment.

Absolutely no one on DU would argue that the party is infallible.

[Matthew28]

10. Focus on rebuilding Unions

and a more FDR approach to workers rights, anti-trust and welfare.

[Willie Pep]

14. That is the key.

Deep red states like West Virginia used to be reliably pro-Democratic when organized labor was stronger there. Unions tend to frame economic issues pretty starkly for their members and try to keep them informed about legislation. Without unions people will be more likely to vote based on scapegoating minorities or cultural issues or whatever the right-wing media pumps out. Unions used to provide a counterweight to corporate talking points but they are so weak now they only reach a small number of people.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. Bernie's been out front on this issue for years... just one of the reasons why he's so popular.

[mcar]

162. What has he done about it?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. We're a ven diagram of overlapping cults of personality

That has to change and so do the faces, the country is not invested in our internal hierarchies.

[Phoenix61]

26. There's a difference between changing the dem

platform and changing the dem campaign machine. IMHO, it's not the platform that's the problem. It's the invisibility of the dem party at the local and state level. Gerrymandering happened because we were so focused on national elections. It's not just the leadership in the dem party that's old, it's those that are active in the dem party at the local level. I went to a dem meeting and I swear, I was the youngest person there. I'm 56! I finally saw an add for the Young Dems who are having a meet and greet with our dem senator which is great but nothing else seems to be happening. If the people who are supposed to be the most enthusiastic about the party aren't doing anything to promote it how are we ever going to get voters excited about our candidates?

Just saw on Facebook the meet and greet is an ice cream social sponsored by the young Dems and the executive committee. First add I've seen. It's on Monday. This Monday. What the heck.

[Garrett78]

30. The modus operandi of the last 25+ years is a big reason for that.

I have issues with Bernie Sanders, particularly his dismissal of the role racism played in Trump's victory. The last thing Democrats need to do is buy into the "white working class" myth. As Steve Phillips stated on Democracy Now a couple days ago, "...all this attempt to try to figure out how to woo voters who were drawn to one of the most racist, misogynistic, xenophobic campaigns in history is a fool’s errand."

But the party does need to figure out how to appeal to Bernie's base of support without buying into mythology, without shifting to the right.

[DoodAbides]

33. I agree. nt

[NanceGreggs]

28. Major changes?

No.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. Exactly! "Fifty Four Forty Or Fight", dammit!

Where's our platform position on silver-backed currency and breaking up the railroad monopolies?


Change? Fuck that.

[NanceGreggs]

51. And exactly what major changes ...

... do you think necessary?

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I think Cory Booker just came out in favor of a huge one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/01/cory-booker-puts-marijuana-legalization-at-the-center-of-his-new-racial-justice-bil/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.fe3652c0e82b

Contrast his position, favoring full marijuana descheduling federally- to that of the previous DNC chair, who actively campaigned even against laws that would keep medical marijuana users from being sent to prison.

You dont think thats a big change? Mmm, I do.

Beyond that, I think we should have a lot of discussions about direction as well as issues. See how pissed off people are here at the idea of the party getting behind anti-choicers? Lets make it clear that, for Democrats, choice is non-negotiable.

Make it clear that we support freedom for individuals to control their own bodies, for consenting adults to say and read and watch what they want on the internet, etc. the freedom of people not to live in a fucking theocracy.

we support the bill of rights.

Im not saying we dont already support these things. but we can clarify and amplify a unified message on them. Same with choice.

Other issues are things like single payer health care. A livable minimum wage.

Or okay, we dont all agree on everything, but lets have the conversation. Discuss what it means to be a Democrat and an American and a freedom AND community minded human being in the 21st century, which will already be 1/5th over in 2020.

[NanceGreggs]

55. "I'm not saying we don't already support these things ..."

"... but we can clarify and amplify a unified message on them."

So you're talking about changes to the PR messaging?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. You seem to have taken only one sentence from my post, rather than reading the whole thing.

There are big changes afoot on actual issues, like I said- cannabis is one, to be sure.

Maybe we want to think about structural changes, too. For instance, after the last cycle a lot of people don't like cacuses- to my mind, they seem silly and archaic as well. Why not switch to regular voting. And maybe it is time to seriously shake up the state order of the primaries- i certainly think so.

But absolutely we ought to be doing a better job at articulating values like personal freedom and how that relates to legislative assault on reproductive rights. Myself, I think there is a common thread running through abortion rights, the right of the terminally ill to a dignified exit on their own terms if they so choose, the right of pain patients to humane and effective pain management, and ending the failed, misguided and fundamentally anti-liberty drug war.

That can be presented as a singular philosophical point; under "freedom" - which might resonate in parts of the country where we havent been as succesful. I dont know, I'm not a paid strategist (although I will work for cheap ) but I'm not sure why there would be resistance to the idea that we have conversations about what we might do better. Certainly almost everyone here seems to have something or other they're not happy about.

[NanceGreggs]

150. Just because I chose to repeat ...

... one sentence from your post is not indicative of not having read the entire thing.

I don't see any resistance to discussing what we could or might to better. The resistance is to the professional crepe-hangers who find nothing right about anything the Dem Party does.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. "professional crepe-hangers"?

Is that office down the hall from the Argument clinic? I see a lot of people who don't leave happy unless they can find an argument.

[All-In]

37. As Long As The MSM Is Owned By Corporations Millions Will Be Tricked Into Voting Against Their Kids

People are brainwashed by a multi billion dollar psyops operation. Our corporate / conservative owned TeeVee networks / radio networks.

When did they do a show on why our drugs cost up to 10 times as much as the same drugs in other countries?

When did they do a show on the true cost of gasoline $20 before climate change? (war/pollution)

It's culture war, and threat down comedy show.

I can't watch "real news" (Democracy Now) because it is too bad to even stomach.

[All-In]

38. 50 Trillion In Wealth Is Supporting The GOP Pushing Hard On Dems

If we took "them" on, we would win. The filthy rich all legislation is written to help.

It's scary business, and would take, well, we all know what it would take.

America is an Oligarchy.

It would be nice if someone besides Bernie, Elizabeth, and Jimmy Carter happened to point it out.

We are being screwed and unlimited bribery (campaign contributions) is running our government.

What is good for Americans, or the planet means nothing.

Maybe "our party" could work on this a little more.

[loyalsister]

39. I would refer to Democratic parties

They are obviously not perfectly align across states, districts, or even precincts.
If we want a unified party, we need to have neighborhoods showing their interests and finding common ground.
I think beyond a 50 state strategy. A backyards and bbq local strategy with nonconfrontational discussions that may lead to building some affinity and maybe even unity.
I see that as a starting point for the kind of local organizing that influences local elections.

The best campaigns I have worked on have had tons of volunteers. They have spent time at block parties. The best part of that kind of ordinary engagement is that it builds loyalty.

I think those old tactics should not be discounted and some changes should start at the bottom.

[pnwmom]

40. We need to help more people get registered and continue to fight the gerrymandering. n/t

[betsuni]

41. The United States needs to make major changes.

Americans need to be responsible for their community, society and government. It's all made up of people. Propaganda has been so successful at demonizing over the last several decades. Used to be in sentences, like "Big government takes your hard-earned money and throws it away on lazy welfare queens and foreign aid to aborting heathens smelling of cumin." Now it's down to three words (Lock her up, Build that wall) or one word (establishment, corporatist, neoliberal). Dumber and dumber. At least Americans are generous when it comes to volunteering and donating money, that balances out the extreme individualism and selfishness. This can be changed, though right now I don't know how.

The reason why people get upset is that much of the criticism of Dems is based on incorrect information. For example, every time I see someone claiming that Obama took single payer or whatever it was "off the table" even before negotiating with the Republicans, I get upset because it's wrong. Joe Lieberman and a few other Dems refused to consider it. The votes weren't there. It's a miracle the ACA passed. A lot of things are like this. All it takes is a headline accusing Dems of something and the knees jerk. Of course this is upsetting! Politics is complicated, more than a lot of things. And the modern Republican Party is organized crime, not a regular political party.

For some reason, when it comes to politics, a lot of people refuse to do any research (I guess it's the propaganda embedded in their brains that both parties do it, all politicians are crooks and liars, your vote doesn't count, government is the problem not the solution). Buying a car, a house, a major appliance -- in that case people will compare prices, shop around, find out all about it before deciding. It's a shame.

[Garrett78]

44. "Big government takes your hard-earned money and throws it away on lazy welfare queens..."

Bill Clinton and Dems like him helped promote that very perspective, and that's what has dominated the Democratic Party for several decades.

As for "the votes weren't there," Republicans don't let that stop them. They never start from a position of compromise. They start by demanding a far right outcome and 'settle' for a right wing outcome.

The likes of Lieberman can go f*** themselves.

[betsuni]

46. No, Bill Clinton did not help "promote that very perspective."

Yes, "the votes weren't there" just stopped the Republicans.

[Garrett78]

50. "The era of big government is over." "Welfare reform." Yes, he did.

[betsuni]

52. He signed the bill because of political reasons right before an election.

He'd vetoed two bills already and felt he had no choice because of his campaign pledge to reform welfare. Republicans had control of the legislature. If people want to complain about Third Way and neoliberal in the 90s, go ahead, because that's what Democrats were doing then and it turned out to have negative consequences as far as Clinton signing those Republican bills. Did he want to? Did he promote racist welfare queen innuendos? No, he did not. He called the bill he signed "a decent welfare bill wrapped in a sack of s---t."

Just as a Senator from a rural state votes against gun control, or a congressperson from a big military state votes against decreasing military funding, that's politics.

[Ken Burch]

105. The pledge was to "end welfare as we know it"

The way to do that would have been, in the first two years, to introduce a federal jobs bill that would have employed most people on welfare. It's not as though there was no alternative but to accept the idea that welfare recipients deserved collective punishment simply because they were on welfare.

He could have actually tried to set the terms of the debate on that issue, rather than let the GOP do so even when they were in the minority in 1993-94

It didn't have to mean leaving the right-wing narrative about people on welfare unchallenged. It didn't have to mean never one standing up and rejecting the racialization of the welfare discussion, the Republican lie that most people on welfare were black and most black people were on welfare-assertions you know as well as I were not even close to true.

And no greater good, no long-term progressive objectives were furthered by the signing. Yes, he was re-elected, but we still had a right-wing Congress-the massive embarrassment Newt Gingrich suffered over the government shutdown in '95 should have at least guaranteed we would regain a majority in the House-and during the campaign, he didn't even sound like he wanted his own party to make significant gains in the Congressional races. And he didn't even allow any significant progressive proposals in the '96 platform.

Did we really have to settle for that?

And if that was what our party was going to impose as the absolute leftward limit of the possible, did we have any right to even be surprise when something like what happened in 2000 happened?

It's a tragedy that that did happen, but there needs to be some acknowledgment that one of the major reasons it happened was the choices this party made then. What this teaches us, in my view, is that, in exchange for voter loyalty, there needs to be some loyalty to the voters from which loyalty is expected. There is a limit to how far we can go with saying "you HAVE to vote for us just to stop THEM". That can be done maybe in one election once in a while; it can't be the permanent or even long-term state of affairs.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. And yet, the GOP always finds plenty of tax dollars to build prisons to fill with pot smokers.

"Big Government is the problem" except when it's funding authoritarian wet dreams. Isn't policing the uterii of 100 million women going to be expensive? I suspect it would be.

Republicans are the people who would tell Americans what they can say, read, watch on tv, look at on the internet, or do in their bedrooms and with their own bodies. Aren't they? Certainly that's not what we believe.

That's the definition of "big government", isn't it?

And on the flip side, our messy clusterfuck of a health care system delivers some sort of 20% overhead to the for-profit insurance industry. Obama and our other Democrats have valiantly moved the ball forward when given the chance, but unfortunately making the point to the American people that universal health coverage, and ideally at some point a public option or a SPHC would actually SAVE everyone not directly invested in the for-profit-insurance industry, has been a difficult nut to crack.

Interestingly enough, the best way to educate and get people to appreciate the ACA seems to have been the GOP trying to take it away.

[xajj4791]

54. What change is needed?

The Democratic Party needs to fight propaganda at all levels.

We need to leverage social media to our benefit.

We need to stop letting the GOP set the narrative and take an active stance in determining the future of our country by stopping privatization of government responsibilities, getting rich democrats to fight the rich pubs, and get our messages out to the public.

We have great ideas for when we are in power but no one is taking power to make those ideas a reality. We should start looking for our 2020 candidate now so that we are not running 17 in the primary, bring every case of gerrymandering to court pleasing race based and stop Voter suppression laws the same way.

[underthematrix]

56. LOL! criticize to your heart's content but I'm gonna vote a straight DEM again and again

and again

[kentuck]

58. Single issues tend to divide.

In many ways, the Democratic Party has become a Party of single issues.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. 'member 10 or so yrs ago, marriage equality advocates were yelled at to shut up & not want "ponies"?

Everyone is of course grateful to them now, for doing the right thing back then....



....right?

[pansypoo53219]

60. DON'T BE WIMPY. fire breathing liberals.

[ileus]

62. No....we're right and we should shove it down their throats every chance we get.

We will eventually have total power as they die out. For now if they don't like it we don't care, vote for the other guy...we'll win in the end.

[Scoopster]

63. THEY ALREADY DID.

Clearly you weren't paying attention during the Convention, when Bernie was given extraordinarily broad power & control over the party platform and changing the party rules on a national level and then afterwards just plain quit and started criticizing the changes that HE JUST MADE.

And I'm curious - what would you change about the party to make it more appealing to people who have been subjected to decades of brainwashing by right-wing talk radio, Fox News and Sinclair local stations who have convinced them that "both parties are the same" and "Democrats only give a shit about non-white people" and "the GOP is the party of faith, freedom and jobs"? What would you change about an election where there is CLEAR PROOF that there was foreign interference of some kind on every level? What would you change about decades of gerrymandering, skimming the voter rolls for anyone with a record or a duplicate name, and stacking local election boards with the above-mentioned brainwashed partisan proles?

[Squinch]

81. Seriously. We just negotiated one of the most progressive platforms ever. Why not go with it,

unite and get to registering voters, telling voters what we have done and will do for them (which we NEVER do) and pointing out that the Republicans suck?

This constant navel gazing and wheel-reinventing makes me nuts.

[beachbum bob]

64. its not thedemocratic party but the democratic voter that too often sits on their asses

and allows minority of conservatives win elections....we are here today because of voters....not doing their job

[liberal N proud]

65. Here we go again!

[obamanut2012]

68. lulz no

[Bengus81]

71. Change matters not when gerrymandering goes on all over the US n/t

[Weekend Warrior]

72. Why do we all have to agree.

Can't these things be addressed without the "can't we all agree" aspect. That right there guarantees the debate will start out side-tracked. People, just make your case without making it about members. That's how a discussions on these things are started.

[Lil Missy]

74. Repukes are the ones who need to make major changes. Dems and liberals just need to vote for Dems

[Squinch]

76. Can't we agree that for now we should concentrate on spreading the news far and wide about

what is good about us (like, the platform), and what's bad about Republicans, rather than what we Democrats feel is bad about each other? Can't we for once not do the Republicans' job of smearing us for them?

Can't we agree that for now we should present a united front that does not confuse the average voter, until we get back into power?

Can't we agree that job 1 is to stabilize the existence of the Republic, which is now in jeopardy, and that there is plenty within that task to keep us busy?

[oberliner]

77. No, not at all

Why would the party need to change drastically?

[Garrett78]

107. Because Republicans have huge majorities at virtually every level of government.

State Houses, State Senates, Governorships, US House...complete and utter domination by the Republican Party.

[oberliner]

109. There are more Democrats than Republicans

And Hillary won the popular vote by several million.

The problem we have electorally has to do with where Democrats and Republicans live.

[Garrett78]

111. Against the worst candidate ever put forth by a major party.

Meanwhile, Republicans dominate the state legislative and gubernatorial landscape. With majorities in the US House and US Senate, as well.

[stevenleser]

128. Since that is the only factor you consider, again, your analysis is flawed. nt

[Garrett78]

132. The "factor" I'm considering is the overall state of things.

Republicans are near record breaking numbers at the state level, while also controlling every branch at the federal level.

But, hey, we'll ignore all that because our candidate won the popular vote against the worst POTUS candidate imaginable. And *my* analysis is flawed? M'kay.

[samnsara]

78. we won by 3 mil votes!

[Garrett78]

108. Yep, Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes.

Yet Republicans have the White House, the US House, the US Senate, the Supreme Court, a large majority of governorships, and far more state legislatures.

Believe it or not, the popular vote in the presidential election is not all that matters. Democrats have been losing ground, at every level of government, for decades.

[HughBeaumont]

166. Don't forget corporations, the media (and, in turn, the national narrative) and religion.

Just about the only thing they DON'T control is the internet . . . and guess what's going to happen to that once Net Neutrality goes the way of the dodo?

Our local and state losses hurt us dramatically. That's going to require at least a decade or two of re-programming rural and suburbanite voters who currently vote against their best interests in order not to inconvenience the wealthy people they think they're going to be someday.

The GOP has far too many ad dollars to play on their pet hates ("Mooslims, Mex'cins, teh blaaaaax, wimmen, students, welfare queens" etc, etc, etc).

[Proud Liberal Dem]

82. We definitely need to figure out some way to address

Republican-based electoral shenanigans like gerrymandering and voter suppression for sure and make sure that every eligible voter who wants to cast a vote can cast a vote and that their vote is cast for the right person. After last year's fiasco, we definitely need to make sure our voter machine and electoral infrastructure is secure. Our platform and policies are generally popular and well-accepted by the public but there is a serious problem when we can win the majority of votes and not win the requisite number of seats. Also, we need to figure some better way to hit back against the Republican slime machine during campaigns. As I said before, Democratic policies are generally popular with the public, which is why the Republicans have to lie, twist, and distort them and use propaganda and fear until the Democratic candidate looks little better than pond scum by the time of the election. Oh, and of course, every eligible Democratic voter needs to get out to vote in every.single.election. NO EXCEPTIONS. We can't get and keep a majority if we get out to vote in one major election every 4 years but then sit on our butts during the midterms or all of the local and state elections. Republican voters do it. Why can't ours?

[Bleacher Creature]

83. No.

I'm not sure what you mean by "major" changes, but I 100% reject the idea that the Democratic Party needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt. The party as a whole (and its platform) is on the right side of just about every issue. It's also incredibly diverse, and becoming moreso each and every day.

I sometimes have issues with strategy, including decisions made as to when to raise certain issues, who will represent the party's interests during legislative fights, etc., but those aren't fundamental, structural issues that warrant "major changes."

This idea that the Democratic Party is inherently corrupt and out of touch is a canard created by the JPR/Jill Stein folks who are happy to watch the whole system burn down, even if Trump is the one who ultimately lights the first match.

I absolutely and completely reject that entire premise. I'm proud of the party and will always be a Democrat, and no amount of minor quibbles will ever change that for me.

[cyclonefence]

85. No

I believe the 2016 election was a bizarro-world event. We are right; they are wrong. The planets will re-align.

[Garrett78]

117. Republicans have been dominating at the state level for a long time.

Not to mention their huge majority in the US House.

In spite of running truly terrible candidates at every level of government.

[WinkyDink]

87. ANOTHER THREAD on "Democrats must change! Drop this principle; compromise on that principle!" WTH?!

Trump is still going to be impeached.

[Garrett78]

110. I said nothing about dropping principles or compromising. See post #16.

Compromising and dropping principles is precisely what's put Dems in such a terribly weak position nationwide. Disastrous "tough on crime" legislation, so-called "welfare reform," devastating free trade agreements, "the era of big government is over," giving up the fight for single payer health care before the fight began, etc.

The fact is Republicans have huge majorities at virtually every level of government. They dominate the state legislative and gubernatorial landscape. How does one not conclude that the modus operandi of the Dems ain't working?

[dawg]

89. We need to dispense with the circular firing squad.

That'd be a change I could believe in.

We publicly nitpick profoundly qualified candidates like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, Republicans enthusiastically line up behind idiots like Steve King, Louie Gohmert, and Donald Trump.

Swing voters aren't going to swing our way if even *we* seem lukewarm about our candidates.

[Garrett78]

113. Bashing individual candidates is not what I'm advocating.

I'm advocating that which I listed in post #16.

And I'm advocating that the party take to heart what Steve Phillips stated as a guest on Democracy Now: "...this attempt to try to figure out how to woo voters who were drawn to one of the most racist, misogynistic, xenophobic campaigns in history is a fool’s errand."

[rock]

91. Not to themselves

To the Gerrymandered areas, yes. To the laws that restrict voters, yes.

[Garrett78]

115. They're able to gerrymander and suppress because they have majorities.

Republicans dominate the state legislative and gubernatorial landscape. Not to mention the US House.

[hamsterjill]

94. The only "change" we need is a level playing field.

68 million of us voted for Hillary this last election and Trump sits in the White House.

We need to fix the gerrymandered districts, look at the use of the electoral college, and we need to make sure no one is fucking with our voting machines because many of us are not convinced that this didn't happen.

Other than that - I'm find with the Democratic Party.

[Garrett78]

114. She beat the worst candidate *ever* by 3 millions votes. I guess that's impressive. But...

...state legislatures, governorships, the US House and the US Senate also matter.

The presidency is not all that matters.

[hamsterjill]

134. Fix gerrymandering and that will affect local elections.

And yes. THREE MILLION is impressive when the other side cheated.

[Garrett78]

136. Gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts are enabled by Republican majorities.

And by Dems not making enough of a stink about those tactics.

We live in a country where Republicans are near record numbers in terms of state legislative bodies and governorships, while controlling every branch of the federal government (with 60+ million seeing fit to vote for Donald fucking Trump). The path the Democratic Party has been following for the last several decades simply ain't working, and external factors alone aren't responsible.

[hamsterjill]

156. Well, good luck with your desire to revamp everything to your liking

If things change too much, loyal Dems such as myself, might not support all the changes.

I have a feeling the party leaders know that, too. I don't expect anything too drastic.

[stevenleser]

95. No. I don't want major changes from how well we do on national elections for the past 25 years.

More people voted for our candidate than the other candidate seven out of eight elections.

That does not suggest major changes are needed. That suggests minor adjustments.

[Stinky The Clown]

116. Congrats. You're better than the last guy who made this run.

[Garrett78]

119. I'm not sure what that means. What I do know is that...

Republicans control about 70% of state legislative bodies, nearly 70% of governorships (record breaking territory), have a clear majority in the US House, have a majority in the US Senate, and that an unimaginably horrific POTUS candidate received more than 62 million votes.

That's not merely the product of gerrymandering and voter suppression. The modus operandi of the Democratic Party over the last several decades is terribly flawed. While Bill Clinton may have won both times he ran, his presidency was a disaster in the long run. Crime bill, welfare reform, NAFTA, "era of big government is over," Glass-Steagall, etc.

[displacedtexan]

118. No.

[UTUSN]

121. No. Just being THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

[Lunabell]

129. Absolutely

And those who refuse to see it doom the party.

[dflprincess]

135. Moving even further right is not going to help

returning to the ideals of the New Deal and Great Society would mean more. Why not start pushing FDR's Economic Bill of Rights, rather than throwing women's rights under the bus?

It might also help if the party weren't so inclined to turn a blind eye to election fraud. We've known since 2000 that the Republicans can only win by cheating but the DNC largely stays silent. While the Republicans become more overt in their actions the Democrats turn a blind eye and act like anyone who is concerned about it is a "conspiracy theorist".

[Garrett78]

137. Agreed.

See post #16.

I don't agree with abandoning "identity politics," as Bernie and supporters of his advocate. Nor do I agree with those who deny that Bill Clinton's Admin produced a number of horrors.

It's not about Sanders vs. Clinton for me. As a leftist, I think they both represent substantial flaws.

[BainsBane]

139. Yes, and I say start by refusing to capitulate

to those seeking to erode the rights of women and people of color--the overwhelming majority of the population and the Democratic electorate. Stand up for what is right. Don't try to placate people who despise the party and its voters.

There is far too much energy, time, and resources devoted to appeasing those working to undermine the party and and reduce its voters to second-class citizenship. Stop playing nice with people who did not vote Democrat in the last election and have said they will not in the future.

When people go from saying they can't vote for our nominee because she want's "progressive" enough, claiming the party didn't give them a reason to vote for Dems over Trump, to suddenly claiming they care so much about Democrats winning that they are certain its necessary to undermine the rights, economic survival and lives of everyone but a small minority--they reveal a clear agenda. We need to stare down that agenda. If they can't defend it on its merits, they kick it to the curb.

All the talk about how the party should run to the left, should stand up for core values, has quickly given away to demands to undermine the rights of the majority, under the pretext of "winning"--something their own record of zero electoral wins shows they know nothing about. The Democrats may have done badly in recently elections, but they have 1000x better than that critics. The idea that trashing the rights and the lives of the vast majority of Democrats is somehow a winning strategy is so ludicrous that it's obviously contrived to advance an agenda they can't make on its merits. The first thing to do if someone cares about the Democrats' winning is actually vote Democrat.


In 1964, LBJ stood up for Civil Rights knowing with certainty it would cost the party the South. He did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. To continue to promote oppression was unconscionable, and LBJ took a stand. Democrats need to stand up for what is right, and that means taking a stand against those who seek to turn the clock back to the 1950s.

We do need to stand for something. We need to stand up against injustice wherever it lies, not just in the GOP. That means the party needs to develop proposals to stop the concentration of wealth at the very top, but it also means stopping efforts to concentrate it at the near top, in the hands of one demographic that already averages incomes above the rest of Americans. It requires standing up against the erosion of equal rights because without fierce protections for them, society can only become more unequal and more unjust.

[Garrett78]

140. There seem to be 2 dominant camps.

On the one hand, you have the loyalists who deny that the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama Administrations produced multiple horrors (or state that they only did so because they had no choice).

On the other hand, you have Bernie and supporters saying we should abandon "identity politics" and that racism isn't much of a factor in Trump's support.

I strongly disagree with both camps. And it is those perspectives that are largely responsible for Democrats being in such a weak position nationwide (with Republicans near record numbers in terms of state legislative bodies and governorships, while controlling every branch at the federal level in spite of being batshit crazy).

See post #16.

[BainsBane]

141. That doesn't respond to my post

Bout it does point to the obsession over personality politics, which is another sign of rhe erosion of of conviction, not by party leaders but by voters. If voters stand for nothing but political tribalism, how can we choose leaders who do? Democracy can only survive with an engaged and critically thinking electorate.

[Garrett78]

142. I think it does.

I agree with you to an extent, but I also think there are legitimate reasons why many have become disenchanted. The irony of Bernie advocating for the abandonment of "identity politics" is that the Democratic Party pretty much did just that a long time ago. Mainstream Dems have sent the message that we're going to take POC and women for granted, while trying to appease the very forces who increase inequality.

[BainsBane]

143. This has gone far beyond Bernie

Yes, they see him as a rallying point, but I don't think he meant to unleash a white male supremacist undercurrent. At least I hope he didn't. I do wish he'd take a stand against it.

The point about the party taking voters for granted is true to a certain extent. But the fact is that women and people of color make up a significant portion of the party leadership, both locally and nationally. The party does uphold civil rights, and the Obama administration used DOJ to advance those causes, extending Title IV to cover rape, for example.

The election was a backlash a whitewash and a male lash. Most white men think the Democrats are a party of women and people of color, which is largely true. Only they resent that, and we see so-called progressives targeting leaders who are women and PoC under the pretext that they are bad for our brand--meaning how white men, including themselves, see the party. I myself have no problem with the party being seen that way, but then I don't believe conservative whites male voters are more valuable than everyone else. I also can see the changing demographics. Trump's election and this RW putsch to reorder the party according 1950s hierarchies come from the same place. Some insecure white men, who are not all white men, see their privilege slipping away, and they are desperate to reassert it. Whatever concessions they gain in the short term cannot last. Even voter suppression will run its limits.

[denbot]

145. No

[kacekwl]

154. The Democratic Party needs to get a coherent message

and stick to it like glue . All need to be on the same page as to the message. Then find a way to get people to actually vote. Get those who need ID they need. rides to the polls, mail in ballots, register etc. If the republicants keep removing thousands from voting we have to get more to vote since it seems illegal cross check is not going to be stopped.

[dembotoz]

155. Not...on... reproductive.... rights

[Billb93]

159. Dem changes

I agree. The party has to become younger in people and ideas. They can't just be against Trump and the GOP's policies, they have to offer alternatives and explain the benefits. Free college, a livable min. wage, health care for all, solutions for climate change and more.