Lexicus
Deity
With the caveat that the Republicans didn't exactly lose 'at every level' - they racked up wins in state legislatures.
What can the Democrats do to actually win elections again?
- Thread starter Bootstoots
- Start date
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,659
Why wouldn't the Democratic establishment be happy to compromise with a Republican government? Many* significant Democratic triumphs of the last 20 seem to have come when they took a Republican idea, rebranded it a Democratic idea, then enacted it. See, Clinton's economic and deregulatory policy of the 90s, see Romneycare, see tuff on crime, see general stances on trade and intellectual property. I kind of hope they go full obstructionist when it comes to health care as the Republicans look menacing, but I kinda think they're just going to roll over to have their tummies scratched, sniff a couple butts, and then enjoy the hiatus in responsibility for the brand.
*No, not all.
*No, not all.
I also think they will do exactly this.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,062
He lost favorably among white voters? So what? An elected politicians duty is not to campaign for the next election. He souled have done what he believed right, not what he believed popular. That is the way a country is changed. Being constantly in campaign leaves all problems unsolved. You have to be confrontational to shift the political stage. And Obama, from what I've seen (I've watched from afar) was a compete failure.
Light Cleric
ElCee/LC/El Cid
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 3,225
I just want to say that I think the term "SJW" is atrocious and really should be retired along with a lot of other dumb terms(I need to make a thread on this later), if for no other reason than it makes social justice itself have a stigma. The people I see use that term the most are rather cringe-inducing and not the kind I like to associate with. If it ever meant anything, it doesn't anymore, and slapping that label on someone will trigger the same backlash I talked about earlier. That said, I think there were people who were tired of seeing** being told to "shut up" (even when they really should), saw Trump saying whatever he wanted without consequence, and were enamored with that.
About the economic interests point, I think you'd be surprised how much traction you'd get if you really started going after white collar criminals. Everyday Republican voters aren't really big fans of those people, and there's still incredible resentment lingering from the bailouts. People watch banks break the law time and time again and get away with just giving up a small part of the profits they reaped from their crimes, Comcast commits massive fraud and gets fined like .0000000000001% of what it makes in a year etc. At the risk of sounding like a wannabee revolutionary, a lot of people would not be sad to see some of these people thrown in jail and be shown prison isn't just for poor people. Yeah, it'd be really hard to get that to happen, but you could get a lot of people riled up and raise some hell. Instead of targeting "the rich" in general, go after concrete examples. Bubba in Alabama doesn't give two craps about the capital gains tax, but he'll care if you threaten to throw someone from Wells Fargo in the slammer because they made fake bank accounts in his name. There is, of course, a (difficult but solvable) problem here that I think everyone can see with that, and that's another topic.
Anyway I am spoilering this next part because it's kinda off topic about Obama and the but it goes off the "smugness" point and I wrote it so what the hell I'm going to post it(WARNING: long-winded af):
Spoiler :
**Whether this actually happened matters less than the perception that it happened, which is, unfortunately, kind of Trump in a nutshell. Like, white people shouldn't be upset that they don't get a say about the n-word because it's none of their goddamn business, but some of them are.
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
I don't know what "going more radical on SJW-ism" means. Does championing the left-wing and progressive/anti-conservative cause fall under that?
I'm not sure that is not a winning strategy. As far as I know, Hillary lost partly because she failed to rally the progressive base enough, including minorities that are alienated by anti-progressive platforms that the Republicans are increasingly championing. And she still won the popular vote by two million. It looks to me like rallying the base is a valid strategy that might be simpler than trying to manage the ideological acrobatics that would be required to conquer the moderate ground.
Last edited:
Yes
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
The Democrats won't have a black person to run against for 8 years.
Lexicus
Deity
Yes, I only use the term because it's a convenient one for the identity-politics-aligned left (which, by the way, I consider myself a part of). I wholeheartedly agree with you here. SJW is a term invented by reactionaries and most of the people who use it as a condemnation are pretty despicable.
EDIT: or, if you will - deplorable.
Yes, I agree completely. It's too late to go after the banksters for the crisis - statute of limitations and all - but going forward this is absolutely something the Democrats should do.
That's a good point, but we do have a President who's historically unpopular with the electorate. IIRC having such a low approval rating and high disapproval rating before even taking office is unprecedented.
I don't think he was a "complete failure." It's too early to tell anyway. I also kind of disagree with you - in a democratic state I think it's acceptable, even desirable, to do what you think the electorate wants you to.
I'd say the problem at the beginning of Obama's term was the opposite - he thought not prosecuting the bankers was the right move - in my view it would have been both the right thing to do and (unprovably) tremendously popular.
Last edited:
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
You mean unpresidented!
But yes, you're correct - Trump's approval rating is historically low for an incoming president, and by a TON. And if you look at presidential approval ratings, they never go up during a president's time in office unless there is some seismic event that happens to create a rally-around-the-flag effect - think 9/11, a war, killing bin Laden, a failed impeachment attempt, or people looking at the odious replacement and realizing what they've got. Trump's bizarre, erratic behavior and obvious lack of fitness for the job are not assets as far as keeping his approval ratings afloat even at the terrible 40% he's starting at. He could be in lame duck territory in 6 months, where the deplorables are the only people left who still approve.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
The Democrats need to start being more, well, democratic. They can do so by focusing on the key areas below.
Voter turnout. Democratic voter turnout, as a proportion of the total Democratic population, stinks. About 43% of the Democratic-leaning electorate are non-voters versus 30% of the Republican-leaning electorate. Given the razor-thin margins by which Trump won key states, if the Democrats had been able to get a sliver of that population to the polls in states everyone knew were important, like Ohio for example, the results of the election would have been different. It is all about voter turnout. The Democrats have the numbers to win, they just need to get their numbers to the polls.
Candidate Turnout. I live in a heavily Democratic state where many national Democratic leaders hail from. Problem is, there’s a massive talent deficient at the state and local level. Many races are unopposed at both the primary and the general election levels. With few local leaders taking up the call to run for local office, I worry the picks for those running for higher office will be limited significantly. Furthermore, dynamic local candidates and races can get people much more interested in other items on the ballot.
Make Broader Appeals. Democrats have been focusing heavily on Democratic-heavy areas, and urban areas in particular. That’s proven to be insufficient. Appeals need to be made outside of the city centers to suburban and rural voters. Trump was able to dominate the rural voter conversation because he actually went out and met with rural voters whereas Clinton focused primarily on urban centers and talked primarily about issues in a manner that was appealing only to urban voters.
Change Up Identity Politics. In line with broader appeals, the focus on identity politics, as it presently exists, needs a real close look and retooling. Close-knit identity-politics coalitions are critical for winning local elections, but the importance of making appeals to specific ethnic groups wans real fast as the electorate for any particular office grows bigger. Indeed, the very concept of identity politics on a broad level seems to turns voters away from the Democratic Party. Democrats should continue to emphasis identity politics at the local level where doing so wins them races, but should moderate their approach to identity politics on the nation level. That doesn’t mean stop fighting for issues important to specific ethnic groups, but instead emphasizing the value of those Democratic position on those issues to all Americans instead of spotlighting limit groups.
Class Politics. One way to move towards an appeal to the broader electorate and away from classic identity politics will preserving emphasis on core issues that affect the groups generally served by identity politics is to take a renewed emphasis on class politics. For as much as their policies have generally served the interest of the working class, the Democrats have largely moved away from the class politics dialectic. That has proven to be a big error. Class politics is a dialectic can reach across ethnic lines and across geographies, and the Democrats’ reduce use of is has been costly.
Voter turnout. Democratic voter turnout, as a proportion of the total Democratic population, stinks. About 43% of the Democratic-leaning electorate are non-voters versus 30% of the Republican-leaning electorate. Given the razor-thin margins by which Trump won key states, if the Democrats had been able to get a sliver of that population to the polls in states everyone knew were important, like Ohio for example, the results of the election would have been different. It is all about voter turnout. The Democrats have the numbers to win, they just need to get their numbers to the polls.
Candidate Turnout. I live in a heavily Democratic state where many national Democratic leaders hail from. Problem is, there’s a massive talent deficient at the state and local level. Many races are unopposed at both the primary and the general election levels. With few local leaders taking up the call to run for local office, I worry the picks for those running for higher office will be limited significantly. Furthermore, dynamic local candidates and races can get people much more interested in other items on the ballot.
Make Broader Appeals. Democrats have been focusing heavily on Democratic-heavy areas, and urban areas in particular. That’s proven to be insufficient. Appeals need to be made outside of the city centers to suburban and rural voters. Trump was able to dominate the rural voter conversation because he actually went out and met with rural voters whereas Clinton focused primarily on urban centers and talked primarily about issues in a manner that was appealing only to urban voters.
Change Up Identity Politics. In line with broader appeals, the focus on identity politics, as it presently exists, needs a real close look and retooling. Close-knit identity-politics coalitions are critical for winning local elections, but the importance of making appeals to specific ethnic groups wans real fast as the electorate for any particular office grows bigger. Indeed, the very concept of identity politics on a broad level seems to turns voters away from the Democratic Party. Democrats should continue to emphasis identity politics at the local level where doing so wins them races, but should moderate their approach to identity politics on the nation level. That doesn’t mean stop fighting for issues important to specific ethnic groups, but instead emphasizing the value of those Democratic position on those issues to all Americans instead of spotlighting limit groups.
Class Politics. One way to move towards an appeal to the broader electorate and away from classic identity politics will preserving emphasis on core issues that affect the groups generally served by identity politics is to take a renewed emphasis on class politics. For as much as their policies have generally served the interest of the working class, the Democrats have largely moved away from the class politics dialectic. That has proven to be a big error. Class politics is a dialectic can reach across ethnic lines and across geographies, and the Democrats’ reduce use of is has been costly.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I would agree that being cowed from making explicit, class-based arguments against the rich by charges of "class warfare" was a huge tactical error, though it's no doubt also a product of not wanting to piss off donors. However, I don't agree that there has to be an either-or dichotomy between identity-based appeals and class-based appeals. There is space for both.
Lexicus
Deity
I also don't think it's an accurate description of what happened. The Democrats took the thirty pieces of silver from the finance sector and that's when they stopped making real class-based arguments.
Agree wholeheartedly as I think I've said a number of times before. In fact I would go further and say you MUST connect the two:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/07/left-class-racism-identity-struggle-oppression/
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Neither do I, and that’s why I took pains to point out that there certainly is a place for identity politics. At present, focusing on the interests of small groups in electing parties to offices that represent wide swaths of the electorate is less effective than alternative areas upon which the Democrats could focus. That doesn’t mean identity politics doesn’t have its place, rather it means that identity politics is not a generally effective means to get people elected to high office.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Candidates matter much more than policy. The Democrats didn't lose the presidency and fail to retake the Senate because the message was "Stronger Together" and not a more benign version of "Up With Whites!" They failed at both things because they ran a retread at the top, retreads in Wisconsin and Indiana, and a candidate in Pennsylvania who couldn't clear the extremely low bar of being more appealing than Pat Toomey.
We're on more than 2 decades now of Democratic platforms and policy being consistently much, much more popular than the Republican one in almost all policy areas. The problem is not policy or messaging, which was made all the more clear by the fact that we elected a president who doesn't have any real policy ideas.
It's all about attitude. People don't like Bernie because they are worried about the ramifications of income inequality or think re-upping Glass-Steagall is important for the health of our monetary system. They like him because he says bankers are frauds and belong in jail, and because he calls out wealthy special interests for buying politicians. That's what Democrats are missing, the willingness to speak truth to power on behalf of the powerless.
We're on more than 2 decades now of Democratic platforms and policy being consistently much, much more popular than the Republican one in almost all policy areas. The problem is not policy or messaging, which was made all the more clear by the fact that we elected a president who doesn't have any real policy ideas.
It's all about attitude. People don't like Bernie because they are worried about the ramifications of income inequality or think re-upping Glass-Steagall is important for the health of our monetary system. They like him because he says bankers are frauds and belong in jail, and because he calls out wealthy special interests for buying politicians. That's what Democrats are missing, the willingness to speak truth to power on behalf of the powerless.
Last edited:
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Forgot to mention an addition, and big, way in which the Democrats can become more democratic.
Get Better Leaders. The e-mail leaks from the DNC last year really proved the leadership in the Democratic process had little interest in the actual democratic process. DNC leaders fed Clinton questions expected at debates and otherwise inappropriately backed Clinton over Sanders. All of that was not only a tremendous failure in leadership but also a massive dismissal of passionate Democratic supports who backed Sanders. That sort of cronyism needs to be addressed.
Get Better Leaders. The e-mail leaks from the DNC last year really proved the leadership in the Democratic process had little interest in the actual democratic process. DNC leaders fed Clinton questions expected at debates and otherwise inappropriately backed Clinton over Sanders. All of that was not only a tremendous failure in leadership but also a massive dismissal of passionate Democratic supports who backed Sanders. That sort of cronyism needs to be addressed.
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,659
The more things change.
At least the draft isn't on. There was more protest dedication with that iron sizzling. You could credit the events that triggered the following...
... with the later flights of the B-52s. If you're inclined to think those probably shouldn't have been done.
At least the draft isn't on. There was more protest dedication with that iron sizzling. You could credit the events that triggered the following...
Spoiler :
... with the later flights of the B-52s. If you're inclined to think those probably shouldn't have been done.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Answering the thread title:
Not much else that they aren't already doing. But then again, they don't need to do much else than they are already doing, either. Remember, eight years ago, we were asking the same question about Republicans.No doubt in four or eight years, it'll be the same
The truth of the matter was, and still is, it's easier to rile up and motivate angry people than happy people ; and people who are dissatisfied with the government than people who are happy with it ; and many people in the US perceive "the president" as the government. That has translated in recent memories to it being very difficult for a party to keep the house, senate and governorships when they hold the presidency. The Republicans managed it, true, but they managed it in the wake of post-9-11 and early-Iraq hyper-patriotism.
The Democrats will get back on the upswing now (barring another 9-11, or Trump turning into a political miracle worker).
People are just reading entirely too much in terms of national trends from a handful of results.
Not much else that they aren't already doing. But then again, they don't need to do much else than they are already doing, either. Remember, eight years ago, we were asking the same question about Republicans.No doubt in four or eight years, it'll be the same
The truth of the matter was, and still is, it's easier to rile up and motivate angry people than happy people ; and people who are dissatisfied with the government than people who are happy with it ; and many people in the US perceive "the president" as the government. That has translated in recent memories to it being very difficult for a party to keep the house, senate and governorships when they hold the presidency. The Republicans managed it, true, but they managed it in the wake of post-9-11 and early-Iraq hyper-patriotism.
The Democrats will get back on the upswing now (barring another 9-11, or Trump turning into a political miracle worker).
People are just reading entirely too much in terms of national trends from a handful of results.
Oruc
Reactionary
Don't try to be the candidate for wallstreet and occupy wallstreet
Edit: also it would help if democrats didn't openly rub their hands for the day whites are a minority and can be completely ignored. Actually have some ideas instead of being purely about demographics
Edit: also it would help if democrats didn't openly rub their hands for the day whites are a minority and can be completely ignored. Actually have some ideas instead of being purely about demographics
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"WE MUST SECURE A FUTURE FOR OUR WHITE CHILDREN but hey let's not make it about race"?
The point of tension, mind you, is that all identity groups are divided along lines of class, and organisations like the Democratic Party tends to relate to minority groups not directly, but through the mediation of bourgeois "community leaders", who inevitably promote their class interests as demographic interests. That's not to dust off the old Marxist claim that class is fundamental (which I do tend to believe, but have learned to bite my tongue about), but that any political project in which the working class is simply regarded as another constituency will always, ultimately, come to neglect them.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
