Can the Democrats come back?

[Sarpedon]

He's already started breaking his promises, (or at least his surrogates are) so who knows?

So far:
Muslim Ban.
Jail Hillary.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He's already started breaking his promises, (or at least his surrogates are) so who knows?

So far:
Muslim Ban.
Jail Hillary.

Don't forget that promise he gave to make America great again.

 

[Jayjay]

He's already started breaking his promises, (or at least his surrogates are) so who knows?

So far:
Muslim Ban.
Jail Hillary.

Don't forget that promise he gave to make America great again.

When did he promise that? I always thought his campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again, Because I Sure As Hell Won't".

 

[dismal]

She is the most perfectest candidate ever, in addition to being the most qualified candidate ever.

And the most transparent.

The genius of her campaign was that she didn't talk about herself or her policies, but she worked very hard to protect my kids from hearing all the bad things Trump said by near-constantly running commercials with all the bad things Trump said.

 

[credoconsolans]

Her showing up and campaigning won't neccesarily have made a big difference. She lacked a good message, was an establishment candidate when people were sick of the establishment, had an air of self-entitlement from her initial expected "coronation" and topped off with her "I'm with her" rather than "She's with us" slogan, and followed after 8 years of Obama (elections tend to oscilate back and forth). She was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign with a bad message. What needs to change to get the Democrats back on course is an actual course correction, not more campaigning with the same broken message.

Push to get money out of politics and put Elizabeth Warren up next time. Make her your first female president, and use a slogan similar to "We are the 99%".

I find such criticisms confusing.

She WON the popular vote. That means the people GOT her message and wanted HER over Trump.

 

[bilby]

Her showing up and campaigning won't neccesarily have made a big difference. She lacked a good message, was an establishment candidate when people were sick of the establishment, had an air of self-entitlement from her initial expected "coronation" and topped off with her "I'm with her" rather than "She's with us" slogan, and followed after 8 years of Obama (elections tend to oscilate back and forth). She was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign with a bad message. What needs to change to get the Democrats back on course is an actual course correction, not more campaigning with the same broken message.

Push to get money out of politics and put Elizabeth Warren up next time. Make her your first female president, and use a slogan similar to "We are the 99%".

I find such criticisms confusing.

She WON the popular vote. That means the people GOT her message and wanted HER over Trump.

The vote was 47.4% Trump, 47.7% Clinton. That means that less than half of the voters picked either candidate; and those voters who picked one or the other were almost exactly evenly split.

'The people' once again delivered a resounding 'We have no fucking idea', when asked to pick from two options. Neither side can claim anything other than a technical victory. Fortunately for Trump, his technical victory is the one that counts, according to the constitution, and according to the rules the various states use to select electors to the college, and according to convention and tradition.

If we are to disregard the actual rules, laws and traditions, and make our own, my personal opinion would be that these results don't justify putting either of the candidates in the Oval Office. The Electoral College should find someone more suitable to be POTUS, and ignore both of the roughly equally-sized minorities that voted for either Clinton or Trump. Surely there is SOMEONE in the USA who meets the qualifying age and citizenship conditions, and who could do a reasonable job of being the president?

Perhaps they could select the person who has paid the most taxes over the last four years, without donating any money to any party political campaign. That way you will get a fairly random, apolitical, citizen who has made a success of his or her life. (I would guess that you might need to go a long way down the list of top taxpayers to find a person who hasn't contributed to a political party or PAC). Or they could find some other non-partisan way to select a president. That's what the EC is meant to be for, isn't it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see this question asked every 4 years, about whichever major party lost.

So. Yes. The Democrats can and will come back.

They will come back stronger if they realistically analyze why the lost this time. You can say "well, these are the problems with Hillary that caused Hillary to lose" or you can say "it is all the fault of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc". One of those involves sufficient self-analysis to do better next time around.

I don't trust the 2020 ballot. The Democrats can't come back if the vote is rigged.

 

[skepticalbip]

I see this question asked every 4 years, about whichever major party lost.

So. Yes. The Democrats can and will come back.

They will come back stronger if they realistically analyze why the lost this time. You can say "well, these are the problems with Hillary that caused Hillary to lose" or you can say "it is all the fault of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc". One of those involves sufficient self-analysis to do better next time around.

I don't trust the 2020 ballot. The Democrats can't come back if the vote is rigged.

Setting up a Trump-like excuse in advance in case the Democrats lose again in 2020?

 

[Jayjay]

Do democrats have a shot at taking either the congress or the senate in 2018?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do democrats have a shot at taking either the congress or the senate in 2018?

House or Senate, not Congress or Senate, as Senate is part of Congress.

As for a shot, the opposition party generally does well in mid-term elections so yes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do democrats have a shot at taking either the congress or the senate in 2018?

House or Senate, not Congress or Senate, as Senate is part of Congress.

As for a shot, the opposition party generally does well in mid-term elections so yes.

Ya, but these are the Democrats. Nobodies the world can fuck things up better than them. Don't count out their incompetent mishandling of a situation.

 

[Jayjay]

I was thinking the question in terms of seats that are up for grabs, and whether they are in red, blue or swing states. Of course even the most obvious advantages can be squandered as this weeks election showed.

 

[Terrell]

Do democrats have a shot at taking either the congress or the senate in 2018?

''

They have more seats to defend than the Republicans, and turnout for the Dems in midterms tends to be poor compared to presidential elections. I'd say it's unlikely at this point, absent something to cause major disgust with the Republicans. They had better odds this time, but couldn't get it done.

 

[fromderinside]

Considering that Trump will be filling up a bunch of backed up seats with GOP approved justices and there is no way they don't double down on the Jim Crow, do you see Democrats coming back from this? I am really worried that Trump will be the next Erdogan.

Democrats are perfectly capable of blocking outrageous federal judge appointments.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do democrats have a shot at taking either the congress or the senate in 2018?

Every seat in the House is up for grabs in 2018, as they are every two years. That means that, theoretically, the Democrats could win every seat leaving no Republicans in the House. They only need to have a persuasive campaign that will attract the voters.

One third of the Senate seats will be up for grabs (33 seats in 2018), as they are every two years. Of the seats being contested 23 are currently held by Democrats, 8 are currently held by Republicans, and 2 are currently held by independents. That means that if the Democrats are persuasive enough during the campaigns they could theoretically hold onto their current 23 seats and take the other 10 seats.

Prognosticating how this will actually turn out is, however, little more than bias masquerading as analysis.

 

[RVonse]

Her showing up and campaigning won't neccesarily have made a big difference. She lacked a good message, was an establishment candidate when people were sick of the establishment, had an air of self-entitlement from her initial expected "coronation" and topped off with her "I'm with her" rather than "She's with us" slogan, and followed after 8 years of Obama (elections tend to oscilate back and forth). She was a bad candidate and ran a bad campaign with a bad message. What needs to change to get the Democrats back on course is an actual course correction, not more campaigning with the same broken message.

Push to get money out of politics and put Elizabeth Warren up next time. Make her your first female president, and use a slogan similar to "We are the 99%".

+1 Agree

 

[Derec]

One third of the Senate seats will be up for grabs (33 seats in 2018), as they are every two years. Of the seats being contested 23 are currently held by Democrats, 8 are currently held by Republicans, and 2 are currently held by independents. That means that if the Democrats are persuasive enough during the campaigns they could theoretically hold onto their current 23 seats and take the other 10 seats.

Both the independents (Sanders and King) are caucusing with the Democrats, so they would not be really taking their seats in any meaningful sense. And I guess Sanders could be retiring in 2018 leaving the possibility that a card-carrying Dem takes over, but that would not change much if anything.
And it's a lot harder to hold on to 23 seats than 8. Unless of course Trump does as bad as some have predicted, at which point all bets are off. For example, if a lot of people find themselves without healthcare they might want to take it out on the Senators who voted for the repeal.

 

[Blahface]

Considering that Trump will be filling up a bunch of backed up seats with GOP approved justices and there is no way they don't double down on the Jim Crow, do you see Democrats coming back from this? I am really worried that Trump will be the next Erdogan.

Democrats are perfectly capable of blocking outrageous federal judge appointments.

Not if Republicans remove the filibuster. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dems remove the filibuster for non-scotus judges already? Even if they have it available, the Democrats are still Democrats so they probably wouldn't use it anyway.

 

[dismal]

Democrats are perfectly capable of blocking outrageous federal judge appointments.

Not if Republicans remove the filibuster. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dems remove the filibuster for non-scotus judges already? Even if they have it available, the Democrats are still Democrats so they probably wouldn't use it anyway.

Yes, the Dems talked a lot about how horrible the filibuster was, but that was back when no one could imagine there would ever be another republican President again. Like, last week.

Surely in this modern era now they will not cling to their outdated anti-filibuster principles that they never had anyway.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Democrats are perfectly capable of blocking outrageous federal judge appointments.

Not if Republicans remove the filibuster. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the dems remove the filibuster for non-scotus judges already? Even if they have it available, the Democrats are still Democrats so they probably wouldn't use it anyway.

Dems need only three votes to go along with them retaining the filibuster.