Democratic Party Platform: How to win?

Climate can't be your central plank. Your central planks need to deal with two issues: prosperity and security. (Climate change is both, but too long-term for most people to vote over.) Tell people how they'll be richer and more secure under your programs. Then all the other good stuff.

Warren had one good thing on student debt: pointing out that the govt actually makes money on student loans, and that it shouldn't.

You know what I think would be a cool foreign policy plank? "I won't engage in any military action without first getting approval from Congress."
 
Last edited:
Medicaid for all, green new deal and saving democracy (& rebalancing the judiciary) would seem like it covers all your groups (the economically hurt, the young green-minded & the urban liberals). You can't win in immigration (basic human decency & status quo doesn't sell; treating the problem at its root is costly interventionist foreign policy, so not popular as well), but in foreign relations, everyone interested in it (= experts) will prefer a sack of rice to Trump, so you don't need a lot of noise there as well.
 
@Gori the Grey state above that the US actually makes money from student loans.

How many people know this.
If you say you are going to fix student loans Trump will say that "$200m* a year gets written off loans a year because of dead beat students, and they give our money to, you will not believe it , bankers, and they want to give more hard working people money away". * I have no Idea what the US student bad debt rate is.

So the pitch should be
"We will ensure that the graduate community pays for the student loans. If a student goes on to become a successful banker on Wall Street they will pay back at a higher rate, if they earn less as a teacher in Huntington West Virginia they will pay back less. We will be establishing a number of graduate action zones to encourage our well educated young people to help the growth of new industry in our former mining areas"

Free higher education worked perfectly fine around WW2 up to the 70ies in most countries.

A progressive tax system goes well together with free higher education.
Low income people cannot complain that they pay the free education of lazy partying students because they do not pay themselves high marginal tax rates.
The educated high income people with high marginal tax rate pay back to the government the money, that the government long time ago invested in them.
Only the higher income people that had self-made careers from little education could complain... but in them days, many of them were mostly investing everything they earned in their companies with a decent salary for themselves.

The problem ofc with that old system was that it created a positive relation between the government as provider and the student as receiver: a social debt leading to social cohesion between citizens and their government.
That is in the neoliberal thoughts heretical. The government must be run as an incorporation just like every citizen should do for himself. The accounts have to kept precise.

In terms of national wealth creation this neo-liberal approach is sub-optimal for the total pancake. But why would the few care about the many, when the slice for the few is bigger ?
 
Free higher education worked perfectly fine around WW2 up to the 70ies in most countries.

Yes but do you want to get rid of Trump and then improve things.
 
Yes but do you want to get rid of Trump and then improve things.

You mean how likely is it that my fundamental pitch is going to gain voters away from Trump ?
I am not able to judge that... the US is another culture... but yes, I see your point: 2020 is about the Dems winning from the GOP/Trump. The short term.
 
Last edited:
Universal health care. It seems to me they can't though, the insurers own too many people in the party.
 
you said Warren was a worthy adversary and adcarry's rebuttal pointed to how badly she got trolled by Trump
No I didn't. Here is the relevant exchange... Hobbes said
I think we just need someone that can go to to toe with him without flinching...

We need a scrapper.
So I said
Elizabeth Warren has proven herself to be the most capable in that regard... she is constantly going at it with Trump and actually succeeds in out-trolling him occasionally.
In other words, she does better than others in the very specific task of trolling Trump. Then @Lexicus asked for an example, and I cited how she was trolling him during the campaign. I never "said Warren was a worthy adversary" you just made that up... what I actually said about Warren as an adversary in the POTUS race was:
I don't know how well Trump-troller-extraordinaire translates into POTUS candidate though.
So I've actually expressed misgivings about how "worthy" her trolling abilities make her.

Also, pointing out that Trump trolls Warren has no relationship to my point, which was that Warren trolls Trump a lot more than others do. So again, the "rebuttal" as you call it was a complete non-sequitur.
 
Last edited:
Your "Not One Dime" might actually be better, because you can make it a chant, like "Build the Wall" and "Lock Her Up"

It's funny that we were thinking along so much the same lines.
 
I never "said Warren was a worthy adversary" you just made that up...

I wasn't quoting you, I was characterizing your assessment of Warren vs Trump. If you dont think she's a worthy adversary, I stand corrected. But thats not the impression I got from your praise of Warren's ability to fight Trump. I didn't make that up.
 
I think that warren is too gray a figure to command enthusiasm in activists and have more people bother to vote.
Imo it should be bernie 2020, and if that fails iirc cortez can run in 2024? (Age wise, i mean).
 
Your "Not One Dime" might actually be better, because you can make it a chant, like "Build the Wall" and "Lock Her Up"

It's funny that we were thinking along so much the same lines.
Not One Dime! Not One Dime!
I think that warren is too gray a figure to command enthusiasm in activists and have more people bother to vote.
Imo it should be bernie 2020, and if that fails iirc cortez can run in 2024? (Age wise, i mean).
She's 29 now. As for Warren... as I've said I worry that she's missed her window. As for Bernie... he needs to win a primary.
 
the US is another culture... but yes, I see your point: 2020 is about the Dems winning from the GOP/Trump. The short term.

That would pretty much be the entire history of American politics in a nutshell, right there. Populist, selfserving, short-sighted and sprinkeled with greatness. A majority of Americans seem brainwashed enough to never notice this problem. They get more and more frustrated though. Which is a good thing. Maybe they wake up sooner or later?
 
Get away from obviously failed and uninspiring Neoliberal policy. Adopt a platform designed to address core, chronic issues of the laboring class writ-large:

1) Healthcare reform: implementation of a universal single-payer healthcare system
2) Large-scale student debt forgiveness, implementation of stricter regulations on student loan providers and for-profit universities, implementation of programs to make college more accessible and more affordable (subsidies to prospective students, more and better access to grants, etc.)
3) Large-scale infrastructure improvements and/or plans to fund, maintain, and expand public transportation nationwide.
4) Implementation of the Green New Deal
5) Laws designed to protect and expand unions and union representation. We're in a spot where "unfettered" capitalism is broadly recognized as an ill. Union is perceived as a dirty word due to 40 years of Neoliberal propaganda and cultural conditioning, but I think it would be fairly easy to adopt a Soc-Dem type countermessaging that places unions as a necessary and healthy counterbalance to corporate tyranny that could be met with broad-based support. It's an easy answer, e.g. to complaints of outsourcing, soul-sucking retail work, abrupt factory/store/office closures/bankruptcies that result in large severance packages to corporate leadership and nothing for the actual workers, etc.
6) Greater regulation of
a) Gig economy jobs
b) Timesheet manipulation of hourly jobs to avoid full-time benefits​
7) Voter expansion and protection. The bill the Dems introduced this week (mandated 14 days of early voting nationwide, election-day registration, election-day established as federal holiday) is a credential which should put at the front of their 2020 campaign
8) Stricter oversight for police departments
9) Comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for DREAMers, stronger protections and avenues of access for refugees, broader and easier access for individuals to immigrate into the country legally
10) Stronger federal protections for access to abortions
11) A backstop rule that allows for continued government funding in the event of the failure to pass a budget (e.g. government reverts to previous year's budgetary allocations)

The Democratic base historically has been a coalition of women, minorities, educated urban middle/lower-middle class, and organized labor. The adoption of the Neoliberal ideology under Carter, intensified under Clinton precludes any meaningful appeal to, essentially, any of those groups. All the party can do is pay lip service to them while doing nothing to actually help them when in power. At best the Democratic coalition sees the occasional bone thrown their way and at worst they see their political power actively undermined (particularly in the case of the unions). This is why the Dems failed so catastrophically in 2010 and 2016. The components of the Democratic coalition can only be duped so many times before they recognize that the Democratic leadership doesn't actually represent the base's interests. This was especially visible in the form of Hillary who completely ignored the African American and organized labor arms of her coalition, and this was repaid in the form of the "shocking" losses in Wisconsin and Michigan, both states with historically strong Union membership.

By contrast, Obama won in 2008, essentially, by playing the part of a populist and pushing a message that promised meaningful change for all the apparently disparate groups of the Democrat coalition. "Change" is a powerful message for women, minorities, the urban poor/middle class, and organized labor, all of whom have spent the past 40 years getting screwed over by the Neoliberal policies of both the Democrats AND the Republicans.

All of these policies are broadly popular, and more to the point, predicated on common-sense solutions that can be messaged simply and repeatedly. Trump won, in no small part, I think, because his messaging was: a) simple to convey ("Build the Wall", "Drain the Swamp", etc.), b) easy consume and understand, and c) possible to repeat consistently without distortion. The Democrats sit astride a bunch of policy positions that are very easy to explain and message and resonate with a broad base of voters. They have just been historically very, very bad at messaging them. Less "I'm with Her" and "When they go low, we go high" and more "Health care for all," "Save the planet," and "Fair treatment for workers."
 
Last edited:
Warren has an unpleasant demeanor, that's her main problem. She needs to learn how to be entertaining like Trump, he gets away with having such a vile personality because he makes people laugh - all she does is lecture, she's too much like Hillary in that regard. But Warren has a more appealing political agenda so I think she could beat Trump. But I also think she's more likely to buckle on certain issues involving war.

Biden is both the best and worst candidate from my POV, he and Warren tap into Trump's populist appeal. And people feel sympathy for him because of losing loved ones and a sense he would have beaten Trump in 2016 had he run. He kinda 'deserves' it this time. Unfortunately he's the biggest warmonger in the Dem field from what I can see, although Bernie has a similar track record. I saw Biden viciously demagogue a critic of the drug war who wanted reform, and now we got some reform. He's a scumbag, he's got too much blood on his hands if the Dems actually vote on their rhetoric.
 
All of these policies are broadly popular, and more to the point, predicated on common-sense solutions that can be messaged simply and repeatedly. Trump won, in no small part, I think, because his messaging was: a) simple to convey ("Build the Wall", "Drain the Swamp", etc.), b) easy consume and understand, and c) possible to repeat consistently without distortion. The Democrats sit astride a bunch of policy positions that are very easy to explain and message and resonate with a broad base of voters. They have just been historically very, very bad at messaging them. Less "I'm with Her" and "When they go low, we go high" and more "Health care for all," "Save the planet," and "Fair treatment for workers."
Not One Dime! No More Wars! Save Our World! We Want Jobs! Count Our Votes!

Any other suggestions?
 
Back
Top Bottom