• The Democrats' diversity challenge, aka US Democrats may be becoming the UK Labour Party
    52 replies, posted
[QUOTE]JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — What a difference a decade makes. In the 2006 midterm elections, every single Democrat running for office in Cambria County, the county this old industrial city sits in, garnered nearly 70 percent of the voters' support up and down the ballot. From Gov. Ed Rendell, to Sen. Bob Casey, to the late congressman Jack Murtha, they all owned this region electorally. Same goes for the legislative races for the state House and Senate. Ten years later, nearly every single Republican running for office here garnered nearly 70 percent of the voters support up and down the ballot with the exception of two state house seats. Donald J. Trump, Sen. Pat Toomey, Rep. Bill Shuster and Rep. Keith Rothfus all won broadly. But this isn't the story of Donald Trump. This is the story of how the Democratic Party fell into the darkness of the wilderness in a county that was once one of the most Democratic counties in this state. It is also the story of the near extinction of the Blue Dog Democrat, a moderate, pro-life, pro-gun legislator and fiscal hawk who used to fit like a glove in regions like this all over the country. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats such as then-Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel understood their path back to the majority was through moderate Democratic candidates; he was right. Voters no longer trusted the Republican majority but were not looking to vote for a liberal Democrat. When the Democrats offered up moderate candidates, their middle-of-the-road ideology jelled with the majority of Americans. They won and they won big. And the Blue Dogs coalition, 44 moderate members from across the country including four here in Pennsylvania, became the shining example of what Americans wanted, a Democratic Party that more closely resembled their grandpa's party.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://wexmain.newsok.com/the-democrats-diversity-challenge/article/2613114"]Washington examiner source[/URL]
Not much to say other than that they're right.
The Democrats will do better next election if they harness this anger. The nature of the democratic system in America means that the party out of power is guaranteed to do better as the populace swings back.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51746016]The Democrats will do better next election if they harness this anger. The nature of the democratic system in America means that the party out of power is guaranteed to do better as the populace swings back.[/QUOTE] If they push out moderates then no.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51746030]If they push out moderates than no.[/QUOTE] The Democrats look way more moderate then Trump right now.
Honestly, the dems are nowhere near as fucked as Labour. If they can get Keith as the big guy in charge they'll do fine. Meanwhile Labour is led by a old school 70s mindset socialist who's out of touch and who's party consists of cowards, retards and arselickers who can't agree on anything with each other. We have no one to turn to while the dems do.
Maybe if they do a proper 50-state strategy, and not only just focus on Cali/NY, they'll win back some ground.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51746036]Honestly, the dems are nowhere near as fucked as Labour. If they can get Keith as the big guy in charge they'll do fine. Meanwhile Labour is led by a old school 70s mindset socialist who's out of touch and who's party consists of cowards, retards and arselickers who can't agree on anything with each other. We have no one to turn to while the dems do.[/QUOTE] Except by kicking out moderates, the Democrats are dooming themselves. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Llamaguy;51746037]Maybe if they do a proper 50-state strategy, and not only just focus on Cali/NY, they'll win back some ground.[/QUOTE] which would require them funding moderates a lot of them.
For a time we had the Lib Dems, though. They were merely keeping the Tories from going full retard, granted, but they were still doing something. The political world desperately needs young, untainted blood.
[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;51746036]Honestly, the dems are nowhere near as fucked as Labour. If they can get Keith as the big guy in charge they'll do fine. Meanwhile Labour is led by a old school 70s mindset socialist who's out of touch and who's party consists of cowards, retards and arselickers who can't agree on anything with each other. We have no one to turn to while the dems do.[/QUOTE] Why and how will Keith improve the Democrat's chances?
[QUOTE=ironman17;51746046]For a time we had the Lib Dems, though. They were merely keeping the Tories from going full retard, granted, but they were still doing something. The political world desperately needs young, untainted blood.[/QUOTE] Guys you are straight up ignoring that we need to pull back to the right on most states [QUOTE]Today the Blue Dogs are decimated, there are only 17 left, only two of them women. And every year they face expensive, heated primary battles from progressives, and are about to face the same onslaught next year from the 2018 Bernie Sanders purists who want them out of "their" party. Legendary Democratic strategist Dane Strother thinks that is a very bad idea. "If the Blue Dogs do not have a seat at the table, and if they do not rebuild, the Democrats will never hold the majority again," he said bluntly. Strother added that if there is a progressive purity test, "Then we will be in the wilderness for the next forty years," he said. "I think the Blue Dogs have to be revived and respected this cycle. There will be a test. If the party does not back the incumbent Democrat Blue Dog in the primary then the Democrats will have a big problem for a long time."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51746030]If they push out moderates then no.[/QUOTE] the republicans are doing a pretty good job of that. The issue right now is the moderates hitched themselves to the clintons for 20 years and now are reviled in their party and their policy of being cozy with the financial sector is pretty much impossible to defend on the trail. Ironically, trump pretty much showed everybody what they need to do, keep the financial sector and the special interests at bay until the election is over then they can start hashing out policy. Its not nescisarily their fault, but wallstreet is reviled today among everybody, even trump supporters, so they just can't be seen involved in any party that wants to win anymore
They Do NOT LIKE THE GOP But they are closer to them than the left is now.
I could easily vote for a blue dog dem type candidate.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51746077]They Do NOT LIKE THE GOP But they are closer to them than the left is now.[/QUOTE] I question whether outright swinging right is the answer, as the fact of the matter is that clinton WAS painfully, boring moderate. But at the same time, I do think it's at the point where the dems need to chill on social issues and focus on presenting a workable plan which benefits the economy and SPECIFICALLY leads to the middle class seeing those gains. I get the impression that the electorate as a whole cares less about how economically 'left' or 'right' the methodology is so long as it isn't outright nationalizing businesses or other blatant communist dictatorship shit.
who has the capacity to bring about such wide-reaching reform to the party, though? how do you change cultural/political norms on that scale? not trying for a sarcastic way of saying that this is impossible, by the way, because i don't think it is. this is just a genuinely overwhelming issue for me
Moderates are more liberal. 20 years ago being anti gay could be considered a moderate position.
[QUOTE=froztshock;51746107]I question whether outright swinging right is the answer, as the fact of the matter is that clinton WAS painfully, boring moderate. But at the same time, I do think it's at the point where the dems need to chill on social issues and focus on presenting a workable plan which benefits the economy and SPECIFICALLY leads to the middle class seeing those gains. I get the impression that the electorate as a whole cares less about how economically 'left' or 'right' the methodology is so long as it isn't outright nationalizing businesses or other blatant communist dictatorship shit.[/QUOTE] In spite of all the shit that went down in 2016, the Democratic party is still the more popular party. [video=youtube;H76e8yIbXi4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H76e8yIbXi4[/video]
They need moderates in the south and midwest and leftists on the west coast and north east then they can take back the federal government. There is really no other solution here. Unfortunately the Clinton name has tarnished the reputation of blue dog democrats. They have two years until the midterms to think up a battle plan, pray they don't fuck it up.
[QUOTE=Anteep;51746053]Why and how will Keith improve the Democrat's chances?[/QUOTE] he (and afaik all the DNC candidates) believes strongly in a 50-state strategy, funding Democrats across the country in every level of government instead of just in swing states every four years, as is said in the article [QUOTE]"We need to stop talking about winning 3 million more votes than Trump and start talking about all of the state house, senate and congressional seats we've lost and why," said Strother.[/QUOTE] he also believes that Democrats lost because they abused the trust of the working class, losing sight of how helping them isn't mutually exclusive to the party's progressive roots, how identity politics have unnecessarily fractured the party. here's some bits from an article by him i just found [QUOTE][URL="http://time.com/4643955/keith-ellison-democrat-dnc/"]The choice between the white working class and people of color is a false one.[/URL] Hardworking Americans of all backgrounds are being left behind. In my district, which is 63% white, people in the African-American area of North Minneapolis want the same things for their families as those in mostly white working class suburbs. This is true across our country, not just in my hometown.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]But there are other coalitions that are being turned on one another, as well. Take labor protection and environmentalism — two core Democratic values. Republicans claim you can't both have clean air and grow jobs. This too is a false choice. Unions and environmental groups recognized this ten years ago when they formed the Blue-Green Alliance to build a clean, fair economy for all. You don’t often think “environmentalist” when you hear “steelworker.” But David Foster, their first Executive Director, left his post with United Steelworkers District 11 in Minnesota to take on the task of bridging the divides he often saw with environmental advocates. In fact, the two current co-chairs are Leo W. Gerard, the International President of the United Steelworkers, and Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. The Democratic Party needs to follow the lead of folks like David, Leo and Michael by showing where we can find common ground and standing up to attempts to drive us apart. Because whether you’re struggling to find work after your factory shut down in western Pennsylvania, a DREAMer going to school in Arizona, or working three jobs to make ends meet in Atlanta, know that Democrats are your champions. We are the party that fights to raise the minimum wage, guarantee high-quality education, and provide affordable health care. What we need is a Democratic Party that is willing to listen to everyone and organize conversations that bring people together. Because at the end of the day, we’re a team. So when Republicans bring divisiveness, we have to bring the unity. It’s who we are. And it’s how we take our country back.[/QUOTE] tl;dr he thinks Democrats should have actually tangible effects on the working class across the country again
[QUOTE=Cone;51746224]he (and afaik all the DNC candidates) believes strongly in a 50-state strategy, funding Democrats across the country in every level of government instead of just in swing states every four years, as is said in the article he also believes that Democrats lost because they abused the trust of the working class, losing sight of how helping them isn't mutually exclusive to the party's progressive roots, how identity politics have unnecessarily fractured the party. here's some bits from an article by him i just found tl;dr he thinks Democrats should have actually tangible effects on the working class across the country again[/QUOTE] you got the point, but then again, you got justice democrats trying to push away anyone they consider not left enough.
It would also help if they don't support a candidate who siphoned all of the DNC funds from downticket races for her own race (and lost).
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51746258]It would also help if they don't support a candidate who siphoned all of the DNC funds from downticket races for her own race (and lost).[/QUOTE] honestly the lack of downballot funding was probably just as big a problem as this diversity challenge, if not bigger (although i don't want the DNC thinking that they shouldn't shift their message)
[QUOTE=Cone;51746224]he (and afaik all the DNC candidates) believes strongly in a 50-state strategy, funding Democrats across the country in every level of government instead of just in swing states every four years, as is said in the article he also believes that Democrats lost because they abused the trust of the working class, losing sight of how helping them isn't mutually exclusive to the party's progressive roots, how identity politics have unnecessarily fractured the party. here's some bits from an article by him i just found tl;dr he thinks Democrats should have actually tangible effects on the working class across the country again[/QUOTE] that's good then, let's see if they stick to it
I don't know about this even. Considering the massive support Bernie Sanders had, who was far more radical than Clinton, I think the issue seems to be more than the Democrats aren't, in the words of Trump, "high energy" enough. They're trying to be old-school in a world where the GOP are swinging harder and harder to the right, and it's [I]working for them.[/I] The tons of voters who want progressive policy are disillusioned with them so they don't vote at all, and the GOP mobilizes its base to win the electoral college.
[QUOTE=Cone;51746224]he (and afaik all the DNC candidates) believes strongly in a 50-state strategy, funding Democrats across the country in every level of government instead of just in swing states every four years, as is said in the article he also believes that Democrats lost because they abused the trust of the working class, losing sight of how helping them isn't mutually exclusive to the party's progressive roots, how identity politics have unnecessarily fractured the party. here's some bits from an article by him i just found tl;dr he thinks Democrats should have actually tangible effects on the working class across the country again[/QUOTE] see this is the stuff that clinton should have been running on from the get go, instead they pushed enviroment and energy away and let trump run wild claiming it would kill jobs. Coal workers don't want to be told they have to go to school again, its fair, but letting the GOP get away with saying "we'll reopen your mine!" lets them push this narrative that its the dems who shut down the mines
[QUOTE=Anteep;51746336]that's good then, let's see if they stick to it[/QUOTE] He's also got the Sanders movement behind him which means he'll have good allies on top.
[quote][B]Rahm Emanuel[/B] understood their path back to the majority was through moderate Democratic candidates; [B]he was right.[/B][/quote] I think we can do without Rahm Emanuel's advice here. This guy actually wants us believe the secret to victory lies in pushing [I]even more[/I] moderate candidates - but victory for whom exactly? The people or the party? We've seen what kind of effect "moderate" Democrats have had on the working class of this country. What we actually need is progressive populism that addresses people's needs, not more of the "moderate" neoliberal policies that got us into this mess in the first place. This is exactly what happened in 2008 in response to the Bush administration. Instead of embracing progressive ideas, the Democrats pushed for capitulation to the corporate center. And what did we get? SuperPAC-funded, establishment-branded slogans of hope and change. Not much changed, and whatever progress we made is now being systematically obliterated by far-right idealogues.
[QUOTE=Cone;51746224]he (and afaik all the DNC candidates) believes strongly in a 50-state strategy, funding Democrats across the country in every level of government instead of just in swing states every four years, as is said in the article he also believes that Democrats lost because they abused the trust of the working class, losing sight of how helping them isn't mutually exclusive to the party's progressive roots, how identity politics have unnecessarily fractured the party. here's some bits from an article by him i just found tl;dr he thinks Democrats should have actually tangible effects on the working class across the country again[/QUOTE] And that's pretty much it, frankly. So much hemming and hawing and strategerizing ignores a very very simple very plain very obvious social construct: Santa Clara and San Jose democrats have no basis in reality. None. [quote] But they're super rich [/quote] And that's all they are. They live in a nice insulated internet bubble where everyone can compare how progressive they are and how many hyphens they can stick next to their chosen identity for the most points in the I'm Sorry Identity Game, and they contribute [I]nothing[/I] to the furtherance of democracy and representation. Nothing. Zero. All they do is feed their favorite lobbyist so that lobbyist can then promote whatever is the flavor of the month in guilt based politics that has [B]zero basis in the day to day life of anyone actually in the party that doesn't make millions per year[/B]. Obama met with this clique twice and that was it. The rest of the time he spoke to the common man and look what happened. [quote] bernie elitists [/quote] Complete and utter horseshit. Sanders has been for workers rights and the guy on the ground [I]since day fucking one[/I]. Day one. Portland and Washington in general need to come back down a little south and realize the hyper polarized hyper snowflake politics that govern their respective geography [B]do not exist anywhere else in the country except a pocket in Silicon Valley[/B], because no one else in the country lives off of internet startups and speculative technology. They do not even kind of speak to the masses anywhere else, and THAT is the problem. Also the author of this piece seems to have forgotten how many people turned for Sanders rallies in their exact area in their rush to start characterizing people into neat little groups that can snipe each other over twitter, which is exactly the shit that got Trump into office.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51746148]They need moderates in the south and midwest and leftists on the west coast and north east then they can take back the federal government. There is really no other solution here. Unfortunately the Clinton name has tarnished the reputation of blue dog democrats. They have two years until the midterms to think up a battle plan, pray they don't fuck it up.[/QUOTE] I have actually problem calling them "Blue Dog" Democrats because they calling themselves "New" Democrats like UK's Blair Labour Party or "New Labour". And if they keep thinking this way to go, Well they will keep losing in next other 20 years and some their members will probably joining Republican Party (with lesser Libertarian and Green Parties) to remaining be relevent. But yes your plan will kinda work for south put rest of nation need socially real Liberal with ecomonically Centrist-leading-Liberal positions if they need my generation back. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.