Where to for the democrats now

[coloradoatheist]

Would Hilary actually try again in 2020?

Hopefully no. She lost to Trump.

 

[ronburgundy]

They need to get back to being a left wing party of the people. The working class voters who won this thing for Trump are their natural base and they need to appeal to them. The Democratic strategists need to get out of Washington and go talk to people around the country and do so just to listen to them and not to try and build focus groups.

.

The problem is that Trump won the rust-belt by feeding them absurd lies that he'd bring their high paying union manufacturing jobs back with protectionist policies that he would never honestly consider enacting because they would harm his own wealth and that of most of the 1% who all his actual economic plans will be designed to benefit. That is why most GOP leadership opposed him early on, because the lies he was telling were so directly contradictory to actual GOP economic policy, but with retained control of both houses they can ensure that none of his promises see the light of day.

There isn't an actual truth Hillary could have told the rust-belt that would be more feel-good appealing to them than the lies he told.

Plus, the strong racist and xenophobic sub-text of Trumps campaign had strong appeal to these blue collar workers who have always been more aligned with the right-wing socially (and racially) but voted Dem for Union reasons.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They need to get back to being a left wing party of the people. The working class voters who won this thing for Trump are their natural base and they need to appeal to them. The Democratic strategists need to get out of Washington and go talk to people around the country and do so just to listen to them and not to try and build focus groups.

.

The problem is that Trump won the rust-belt by feeding them absurd lies that he'd bring their high paying union manufacturing jobs back with protectionist policies that he would never honestly consider enacting because they would harm his own wealth and that of most of the 1% who all his actual economic plans will be designed to benefit. That is why most GOP leadership opposed him early on, because the lies he was telling were so directly contradictory to actual GOP economic policy, but with retained control of both houses they can ensure that none of his promises see the light of day.

There isn't an actual truth Hillary could have told the rust-belt that would be more feel-good appealing to them than the lies he told.

Plus, the strong racist and xenophobic sub-text of Trumps campaign had strong appeal to these blue collar workers who have always been more aligned with the right-wing socially (and racially) but voted Dem for Union reasons.

But the irony of that is that it's Republican nominee outsold what the left has been selling for a long time in terms of those policies. It was also Bernie's appeal too. Hillary was the one wishy washy on it depending on what polls thought.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

from the front page of the NYT

"Liberal elites were too arrogant to take him seriously."

No, no, no.
You still are not getting it.

Liberal elites (including the New York Times) are too arrogant to take working class white people seriously. Elections are never really about the candidates, but about what the voters want. The Dem. Party under the leadership of Bill Clinton, threw labor under the bus, then backed the bus over it, then pulled back up to the stop sign and then back fired smoke on the body as the bus pulled away. It is no simple happenstance that Clinton lost the rust belt. Had she won WI, MN, OH and MI, she'd be the one giving acceptance speeches this morning. Those people lost not just jobs but entire industries to ravenous globalization, technological innovation and unfettered financialization, all of which were embraced as good things by the DLC led Dem. Party. Then the so called party of the people shat on those now unemployed people and went to Martha's Vineyard to party all night with the beautiful people.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, the Clintons need to go away, and we need new leadership. I'm hoping that Pelosi and Schumer will also get out of the way. They can keep their seats, but we need new leaders. Its a shame, as Schumer hasn't had much of a chance, but these old line democrats need to see the writing on the wall. No one wants them anymore.

Now, where to find it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Would Hilary actually try again in 2020?

She may well try but I hope that the Democrat rank and file have now gotten over their Clinton worship and will quickly dump her during the primaries if she does try.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Would Hilary actually try again in 2020?

She may well try but I hope that the Democrat rank and file have now gotten over their Clinton worship and will quickly dump her during the primaries if she does try.

I think that if she tried, the party elders need to throw her out of the building. That may be difficult since, as a former First Lady, she has Secret Service protection, so they'd need to settle for politely escorting her out of the building.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Maybe it is still time to admit that Clinton, when she walked, her feet touched the ground.

So are you enjoying trolling? I've already indicated Clinton was hardly baggage free.

Your version of "not baggage free" is "the Republicans have attacked her for 24 years". You've never said that she had any fault that was individually hers and not the fault of her critics. You have never said anything about her that would show you think she herself possesses any faults.

Even one fault. You are representative of many Hillary supporters in that respect.

And that's why she lost.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So are you enjoying trolling? I've already indicated Clinton was hardly baggage free.

Your version of "not baggage free" is "the Republicans have attacked her for 24 years". You've never said that she had any fault that was individually hers and not the fault of her critics.

That is false.

You have never said anything about her that would show you think she herself possesses any faults.

That is false. Going for the trifecta?

Even one fault. You are representative of many Hillary supporters in that respect.

Trifecta pays out at 1-8. I know, the odds are crap, but it really was a safe bet that you'd make three false statements.

And that's why she lost.

She lost because the Nation wanted to buy a jalopy from a shyster. OMG!!! He bringing the high paying union jobs back for goods!

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem is that Trump won the rust-belt by feeding them absurd lies that he'd bring their high paying union manufacturing jobs back with protectionist policies that he would never honestly consider enacting because they would harm his own wealth and that of most of the 1% who all his actual economic plans will be designed to benefit. That is why most GOP leadership opposed him early on, because the lies he was telling were so directly contradictory to actual GOP economic policy, but with retained control of both houses they can ensure that none of his promises see the light of day.

There isn't an actual truth Hillary could have told the rust-belt that would be more feel-good appealing to them than the lies he told.
b
Plus, the strong racist and xenophobic sub-text of Trumps campaign had strong appeal to these blue collar workers who have always been more aligned with the right-wing socially (and racially) but voted Dem for Union reasons.

But the irony of that is that it's Republican nominee outsold what the left has been selling for a long time in terms of those policies. It was also Bernie's appeal too. Hillary was the one wishy washy on it depending on what polls thought.

The far left has been selling protectionism but the Dems have not, because they know it won't work, and that it would turn off many moderate Dems who favor wage control and wealth redistribution methods over protectionist efforts to dictate what goods can be produced where and by whom. Protectionism, nationalistic xenophobia and racism are cozy bedfellows. They made a nice package that only a GOP candidate could sell to Union workers while still retaining most of the party base. Most of the true economic conservatives that oppose protectionism and opposed Trump initially eventually realized it was a ruse and that unlike a Dem saying such things, it was a hollow promise from Trump, especially if they retained both houses.
Keep in mind that the rust belt states are all doing much better today than under Bush. So, the narrative that they felt economically abandoned is over-blown. It's a combination of false economic promises combined with appeals to the racism and general social conservatism that has long been a part of the white, rural, working class who only ever voted Dem due to the anti-Unionism of the GOP.
'

 

[ronburgundy]

So are you enjoying trolling? I've already indicated Clinton was hardly baggage free.

Your version of "not baggage free" is "the Republicans have attacked her for 24 years". You've never said that she had any fault that was individually hers and not the fault of her critics. You have never said anything about her that would show you think she herself possesses any faults.

Even one fault. You are representative of many Hillary supporters in that respect.

And that's why she lost.

I have a strong disdain for Hillary as a person. But for each of her faults, Trump has a far more extreme level of the same faults, plus countless other incompatibly more dangerous faults that virtually no presidential candidate has had (such as his infantile emotional instability, and his extreme ignorance of every fact relevant to creation and implementation of viable foreign or domestic policy). While her faults are why she was not popular in absolute terms, they cannot possibly explain why she lost to Trump. She lost because too many people bought Trump's and the RNC's non-stop lies and misdirections (including the Comey red-herring), false promises of protectionism, and emotional appeal to their most ugly aspects of their nature.

Yes, a more appealing candidate could have over-come those things but without those things even a not-so appealing Hillary would have won.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We asked this same question after that horrible mid term a while ago in which they had record low turnouts. They ran all of their candidates on a platform of "Vote for us, the other guys are terrible!" and offered nothing -- LITERALLY NOTHING -- of substance on their own. Individual candidaes did better with a superior ground game but the DNC on the whole convinced itself that "The Republicans are horrible people!" was enough to get people to the polls.

it wasn't. So they lost.

In this case, it seems Debbie Wassherman Shultz doubled down on this assumption and figured that anyone Hilary ran against would be horrible enough that terrified Democrats would flock to the polls to elect her just to stop the opposition. A golden opportunity to get the First Woman President elected finally (it was totally her turn after the black guy won it last time). It apparently never occurred to them that in order for people to turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton, she had to actually OFFER them something that they wanted. She didn't, so they lost.

She did offer something we wanted. Intelligence, experience, sanity, Constitutionality.

She was also clothed, sober, breathing oxygen and spoke fluent English, but that isn't all that inspiring either.

I'm referring to the complete lack of any actual policy proscriptions that anyone might actually care enough about to actively want to vote for. As it stands, most of the people I know who voted for Hilary did so PURELY to block Donald Trump; those who didn't care enough to block him simply stayed home, and those who agreed with one or two of his positions ended up voting for him.

- - - Updated - - -

CRAZY ELECTION FACTS!!!

The Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections, yet only won the Presidency twice.

Gerrymandering works wonders

 

[Jayjay]

CRAZY ELECTION FACTS!!!

The Democrats have won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 elections, yet only won the Presidency twice.

Gerrymandering works wonders

That's not gerrymandering, although the effect is approximately the same.

 

[credoconsolans]

She did offer something we wanted. Intelligence, experience, sanity, Constitutionality.

She was also clothed, sober, breathing oxygen and spoke fluent English, but that isn't all that inspiring either.

I'm referring to the complete lack of any actual policy proscriptions that anyone might actually care enough about to actively want to vote for. As it stands, most of the people I know who voted for Hilary did so PURELY to block Donald Trump; those who didn't care enough to block him simply stayed home, and those who agreed with one or two of his positions ended up voting for him.

The people I know who voted for Hillary voted for her because she was clearly the best choice.

Sanity, intelligence and Constitutionality isn't enough anymore?

Sad.

"Proscriptions"? What did you want her proscribe?

 

[Terrell]

Gerrymandering works wonders

How Congressional districts are drawn only matters in ME & NE as far as the electoral college is concerned. For the remaining states it's winner take all and state's borders rarely change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would Hilary actually try again in 2020?

Hopefully no. She lost to Trump.

Hopefully if there's an election in 2020 the people will realize how big a mistake they made this time. I have serious doubts as to whether there will be a real election then, though. (There will almost certainly be a vote. Whether it's the will of the people or not is a big question mark.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From DNC Headquarters

Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.

Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ational-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

I think the party should follow Zach

 

[skepticalbip]

From DNC Headquarters

Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.

Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ational-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

I think the party should follow Zach

Heavy stuff. It is encouraging to see that there are some brave enough in the Democratic party to stand up to entrenched insiders and call out for reform.

 

[Derec]

Hopefully if there's an election in 2020 the people will realize how big a mistake they made this time. I have serious doubts as to whether there will be a real election then, though. (There will almost certainly be a vote. Whether it's the will of the people or not is a big question mark.)

Overreact much?

 

[Will Wiley]

Trump promised working people lots of things he cannot deliver. There is an opportunity there