By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Path Forward for Democratic Party?

Nymeria on 14 November 2016
pokoko said:

Maybe, but the truth is that most of Trump's plans were vague enough to get him elected but don't really give us enough to think they'll have much impact.  For instance, he said he would "replace Obamacare with something terrific" but what?  He's only mentioned small scale stuff.  He's going to force manufacturers to abandon billion dollar plants in other countries with tariffs?  Good luck with that.  If they come back, they'd just replace expensive American workers with robotics, anyway.

The truth is, most of the problems aren't going to be fixed because there really isn't a magic bullet that would please everyone.  The President will still be held responsible, however.  Hell, the best way to be regarded as a great President is to use short term solutions where those that come after have to deal with the fallout.  The results from Regan's policies all crashed into Bush I.  When people talk about Obama's debt numbers, they often include the amount inherited from Bush II.

I'm cynical about politics for a reason.

 

It isn't as much an end game, but a mentality I think can be addressed. For example, getting money out of politics is about impossible, but if you hammer that cause home over and over and point out "we want to end corruption, they don't!" I do think that is a path to office and if they do somehow manage to come through with it be a landmark victory can point to for years after. If you start out settling for half measures you end with quarter or less measures self full filling the notion that can't get things done, because they are hard to get done, so they don't get done.

Around the Network
Nymeria on 14 November 2016
vivster said:

There is no reinventing. The parties are fine how they are since they appeal greatly to their voter base. The policies never change. The difference is made by a handful of idiots who vote something different every time because they aren't really interested in politics.

Idiots are fickle, so trying to appeal to them is nothing more than a gamble.

Take disgruntled Bernie supportes for example. They didn't vote because it wasn't Bernie running. As loyal Bernie fans they didn't vote for Hillary and as such went against everything Bernie tried to achieve. Those people do not respond to logic, they only act on buzzwords. The best you can do is hoping they won't get too many buzzwords to sway them to not vote.

 

With that mindset I am not sure I see a winning strategy. Even if you tried to have a single candidate primary that acted like a coronation you can't stop others from running to create "buzzwords" and possible dissent. The goal is the party and its members have an identity and message that resonates with large group of people to win elections across the country. If people reject that identity you are correct, failure is inevitable and nothing is certain. I make my assertions based on observations recently to best set the Democrats up for victory.

Soundwave on 14 November 2016

To be honest the Democratic Party shouldn't panic too much. Always learn from a defeat, but the demographics long term still favor them (50% of kids under 18 today are a "minority" group, one day soon that will be the US majority).

They won the popular vote by a large margin and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, are still traditionally blue states.

On important issues, the American people are leaning more liberal as time goes on. Gay marriage? Majority of Americans support it. Abortion rights? Majority of Americans support it. Taxing the mega-rich? Majority of Americans support this. More benefits for the middle class? Majority of Americans support this. Universal healthcare? Majority of Americans support that. Make it about the issues.

It's hard for any party to win 3 straight national elections, it gets harder every time, and Hilary Clinton simply wasn't a charismatic enough candidate with too much baggage. 


Hate to say it, but Bernie would've won without much fuss as he would've locked Trump out of those Rust Belt states. 



sethnintendo on 14 November 2016
pokoko said:

 

Trump has taught me to believe the exact opposite.  Being extremely vague worked brilliantly with him.  He had almost no plans or explainations, which worked extremely well with the less educated and less informed.  Just make a bunch of promises, over and over.  Talk about what you will do, not how you will do it.  "I'm going to clean up corruption!  I'm going to stop excessive spending in Washington!"  How?  Who cares.  If someone keeps bringing up that you have no plans, go after them and label them as someone who is against stopping corruption or excessive spending.  

 

He got away with being vague with little pushback.  I missed the debates (believe I was working or watching football during them) but he probably didn't get that much pressure to go deeper into his plans and if he did he easily sidestepped the question probably and went to something else.  Just hearing his sound bites from his rallies are cringe worthy to me.

"Oh we are going to bring the jobs back.  So many jobs.  So many...  It's going to be great."

... the sad part is that it worked.



Nymeria on 14 November 2016
Soundwave said:

To be honest the Democratic Party shouldn't panic too much. Always learn from a defeat, but the demographics long term still favor them (50% of kids under 18 today are a "minority" group, one day soon that will be the US majority).

They won the popular vote by a large margin and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, are still traditionally blue states.

On important issues, the American people are leaning more liberal as time goes on. Gay marriage? Majority of Americans support it. Abortion rights? Majority of Americans support it. Taxing the mega-rich? Majority of Americans support this. More benefits for the middle class? Majority of Americans support this. Universal healthcare? Majority of Americans support that. Make it about the issues.

It's hard for any party to win 3 straight national elections, it gets harder every time, and Hilary Clinton simply wasn't a charismatic enough candidate with too much baggage. 


Hate to say it, but Bernie would've won without much fuss as he would've locked Trump out of those Rust Belt states. 

 

Barack Obama got more votes both times in 2008 and 2012 than Clinton did in 2016. They didn't all go to Trump, voters were depressed. Assuming demographic shifts and resting on that could lead to further voter depression. May have a million supporters, but if no one shows up, it does not matter. Why I emphasize charisma, clear message and fighting for something to resonate with people.

Around the Network
LadyJasmine on 14 November 2016
Darc Requiem said:
The Democrats have the advantage in demographics. Virtually every voting block is in their favor. The only group that votes Republican are white males. People are looking too deep into the results. The Democrats nominated a candidate that wasn't well liked by her own base and rife with scandals. A candidate that still won the popular vote.

 

 

True but I would be wary that Minorities can shift alliances..

Obama is widely liked in the Indian community and somehow Trump got a ton of the the Indo American support lol 



WagnerPaiva on 14 November 2016

Never Hillary, that´s for sure. The Clintons are over.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

CosmicSex on 14 November 2016

So if the people voted and someone who didn't get the most votes won again, how is of by and for the people really valid. Regardless of where we go from here we need to really think about this. What the electoral college has done is give more power to a single vote in certain areas and I dare anyone to say that is fair or makes us equal. In Britian, the measure to leave the EU was, even if misguided,a will of the people. Why do we allow this in the US.

I say this because the majority of people in this country voted against Trump and now they get to watch as the hate groups claims victory and celebrates. There is something so fundamentally fucked up about this.



LadyJasmine on 14 November 2016

I am sorry stating that a majority of people voted for Hillary is false.

She got 47% of the vote and mostly largely in Cali and NY.

In the battleground states that Trump won, turn out was very high.



Darc Requiem on 14 November 2016
LadyJasmine said:
Darc Requiem said:
The Democrats have the advantage in demographics. Virtually every voting block is in their favor. The only group that votes Republican are white males. People are looking too deep into the results. The Democrats nominated a candidate that wasn't well liked by her own base and rife with scandals. A candidate that still won the popular vote.

 

 

True but I would be wary that Minorities can shift alliances..

Obama is widely liked in the Indian community and somehow Trump got a ton of the the Indo American support lol 

It wasn't about the support Trump got. It was that Hillary was so hated that most of the electorate stayed home. If you look at the votes Obama got compared to Trump, it's not close. The two Republicans that lost to Obama would have won in a landslide in this election as well.