dagblog - Comments for "How the Democrats Are Failing the Resistance" http://dagblog.com/link/how-democrats-are-failing-resistance-23830 Comments for "How the Democrats Are Failing the Resistance" en Yeah, enough bitching as http://dagblog.com/comment/244798#comment-244798 <a id="comment-244798"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244794#comment-244794">He&#039;s offering a diagnosis,</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Yeah, enough bitching as "diagnosis". I've read through about 10,000 pages over the last year on everything the Democrats are doing wrong, nothing much sensible on what can help them win with this horribly shifted, irrational playing field. Yes, a few more glib epithets to touch America's fickle heart is all we need... Be more populist, in touch with the people, meaning what exactly? For all of Andrew's British education and conservative indictrination with Hajek et al, he's never told me how you reason with a bunch of white hillbillies in the throes of an opioid epidemic, among other key demographic challenges, and that's the kind of inside info we need, not more pundit bullshit about being more exciting, unless we're going to fight fire with fire and start streams of illegal money funding our coffers, in which case I'm pretty sure we can compete, because the little people do love money, even if we're not sure what else.</p> <p>And like so many others, Andrew ignores that Hillary actually won the popular vote and would have rather easily won the electoral vote if not for 1) Comey, and 2) massive Russian disinfo as illegal campaign advertising, and 3) coordinated vote suppression. Put another way, "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" We don't protect black people when getting mauled by the police, even with a black prez, and we don't protect a female candidate getting mauled by the Russians, the media, the GOP, etc. If they can run over her woth impunity, they can crush anyone else we put up, so I'm rather gobsmacked to see Andrew supposed opting for some more political philosophy in the face a tsunami of money.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 20:56:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 244798 at http://dagblog.com I actually don't know if I http://dagblog.com/comment/244795#comment-244795 <a id="comment-244795"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244779#comment-244779">Andrew&#039;s on fire.</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I actually don't know if I agree with him. But I nonetheless posted it because I think he's a pretty important voice having been a swing voter himself for a very long time. I was surprised that he still thinks the "white midwestern" vote will be key and that "left populism" is where the party needs to go for 2020.  Maybe for now and for 2018, but after that, I am skeptical. I especially am surprised because he could see the potential of other types of swing voters, himself being a gay Catholic who is conservative on some policy.</p> <p>I am thinking more along the lines that there will be a counter-reaction by then and populism will lose it's allure among a big enough segment of swings that are enthralled with it right now, to add to the majority that voted for Hillary in the last election. (Flavius' comment downthread is along the same lines, i.e., in 2008 Obama got a nice coalition to win, in 2012 some of those dropped away, then comes Trump to really mess with things.)</p> <p>There are many reasons, I can't think of them all right now.  But one is the big retirement trend among establishment Republicans. Those seats are in danger of being filled in 2018 by Trumpies, or similar nut cases, because of the type of districts they come from, and because only the passionate in those districts may turn out for midterms. Which will make Congress even wackier and less able to accomplish anything for the short term. So by 2020 there will be a counter-reaction where even those that sometime stay home get off the couch and vote "enough of this! can't take it anymore, we need some sane grownups running this country." And in the presidential whoever is the sane grownup will get a huger majority than Hillary did. And Congress will flip to Dems just by virtue of the "throw the bums out" thing which is traditional.</p> <p>And that's without a charismatic candidate or even changing platform much.</p> <p>I think Biden gets it, for one:</p> <p><a href="http://dagblog.com/link/joe-biden-s-platform-2020-anti-populism-23549">Joe Biden’s Platform for 2020: Anti-Populism</a> He's certainly known to understand the white working class, and he doesn't see totally pandering populism as the answer.</p> <p>Whether he's the one that could do it is another question. But I suspect he's reading where the zeitgeist will be correctly. And he does totally get <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/biden-best-trait-leaders.html">the charisma thing,</a> even if he can't, as many argue, effect it in himself.</p> <p>Edit to add: I think everyone should always keep in mind that Hillary won a majority and came very close on electoral. And that those people are far from changing their minds about crazy populism, instead their numbers are growing every day Trump stays in office. And a President Pence will not change their numbers</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 19:01:59 +0000 artappraiser comment 244795 at http://dagblog.com He's offering a diagnosis, http://dagblog.com/comment/244794#comment-244794 <a id="comment-244794"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244785#comment-244785">I see it as a litmus test or</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>He's offering a diagnosis, not a cure. I would love to hear the cure from him as well, but its absence does not cause me to discount the diagnosis. Negativity is not the same as inaccuracy.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 18:27:00 +0000 Michael Wolraich comment 244794 at http://dagblog.com Nationwide Obama got slim http://dagblog.com/comment/244792#comment-244792 <a id="comment-244792"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244788#comment-244788">Trump had a decrease in</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Nationwide Obama got a slim white majority in 2008.</p> <p>Not in 2012. But with my bias towards  bread- and- butter explanations   I attribute some portion of that decline  to the unemployment surge in the interim .That of course was due to the sub prime fiasco which W bequeathed to Obama but that's life.</p> <p>I'm sure  one can't get numbers on this  but common sense says that particular Democratic curse will gradually  weaken.</p> <p>But you pick the cherries where the cherries is so I agree with you that an increased Black vote is low hanging fruit.</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:24:12 +0000 Flavius comment 244792 at http://dagblog.com RMRD - I pretty much agree http://dagblog.com/comment/244790#comment-244790 <a id="comment-244790"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244789#comment-244789">White voters are responding</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>RMRD - I <s>pretty much</s> agree with everything you wrote here about Virginia. The Justin Fairfax f-up was inexcusable. I hope you're right about New Jersey.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:17:45 +0000 HSG comment 244790 at http://dagblog.com White voters are responding http://dagblog.com/comment/244789#comment-244789 <a id="comment-244789"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244784#comment-244784">Despite being saddled with</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>White voters are responding to racist ads. There is nothing that can be done about that. Until white hearts change. Northam left his black Lt Governor Justin Fairfax off of campaign literature. Northam also spoke against sanctuary cities despite the absence of sanctuary cities in Virginia. Northam is stupid. Hillary won Virginia. Northam may win his race despite his stupidity. If Gillespie wins it will mean that white voters are responding to a racist message despite Nazis marching in Charlottesville.</p> <p>Democrats will likely sweep New Jersey.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 15:48:54 +0000 rmrd0000 comment 244789 at http://dagblog.com Trump had a decrease in http://dagblog.com/comment/244788#comment-244788 <a id="comment-244788"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/how-democrats-are-failing-resistance-23830">How the Democrats Are Failing the Resistance</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Trump had a decrease in approval in rural America. While Liberals may see that as a sign of progress, The rural voters have seen the light. The truth is that those rural voters are pissed that the Wall has not been constructed and that harsh immigration reform has not taken place.</p> <p><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-popularity_us_59db9763e4b0b34afa5b12b3">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-popularity_us_59db9763e4b0b34afa5b12b3</a></p> <p>The Democrats are accused of abandoning the white working class. The question is never asked if the white working class abandoned the Democrats because of issues of race. LBJ knew that the white South was gone after the Civil Rights Act. Trump got white voters with Birtherism and a fantastical Wall to keep out brown foreigners. We are told if we are just a little more Socialist, whites will love Democrats again.</p> <p>A more rational plan is to realize that asegment of whites have given up on the Democrats and focus on areas where Democrats can make inroads.</p> <p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/06/democrats_misguided_desire_to_woo_the_white_working_class.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_good_fight/2017/06/democrats_misguided_desire_to_woo_the_white_working_class.html</a></p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 15:29:03 +0000 rmrd0000 comment 244788 at http://dagblog.com I see it as a litmus test or http://dagblog.com/comment/244785#comment-244785 <a id="comment-244785"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244782#comment-244782">It&#039;s not a litmus test. It&#039;s</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I see it as a litmus test or some kind of standard that I haven't seen anyone pass in decades. Really, when I'd hear Obama or Sanders speak, it's just so much blah blah blah to me, but so are TedTalks - nicely packaged pablum, but at least not evil. What's this motivational enlightenment I'm supposed to feel? I mean, when the mayor of New Orleans spoke on statues, I was impressed that he summarized a complex feeling succinctly. But I don't need a dozen bullet points to hit the G spot - I can handle complexity as well.</p> <p>He's saying don't be like Trump, don't be like Hillary  - too many negatives on what not to do - howabout a goal line?</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 13:09:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 244785 at http://dagblog.com Despite being saddled with http://dagblog.com/comment/244784#comment-244784 <a id="comment-244784"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/how-democrats-are-failing-resistance-23830">How the Democrats Are Failing the Resistance</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Despite being saddled with the most unpopular President since forever, the Republicans will very likely regain the governor's mansion in Richmond. The Democratic brand is absolutely toxic in large parts of the country. Things are so bad that I don't know whether any Democrat could have won in the Old Dominion this year. 1) Right-wing media is a big reason. 2) Racism and xenophobia which hate radio and internet sites exploit are also major stumbling blocks for the Democrats. 3) Finally, numerous well-publicized examples of party exemplars siding with Wall Street against Main Street have made it all-but-impossible for Democratic candidates to overcome 1 and 2 in much of the nation.</p> <p>I wish I had a solution. Purity tests - <em>e.g.</em>, every Democrat must support Medicare-for-all, tuition-free public colleges, higher top marginal tax rates, an end to the trade deals, and a significant reduction in military deployments overseas  - might help a little since they're all popular and good policy. But they'd also alienate the donor class which - like it or not - does provide party candidates with needed finances. At a minimum, the Dems must clean up the DNC and embrace both progressive populist candidates throughout the heartland and truly redistributionist policies. </p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:25:37 +0000 HSG comment 244784 at http://dagblog.com It's not a litmus test. It's http://dagblog.com/comment/244782#comment-244782 <a id="comment-244782"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/244779#comment-244779">Andrew&#039;s on fire.</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's not a litmus test. It's a warning. I hope he's wrong, but I fear that he is not.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 04 Nov 2017 11:52:48 +0000 Michael Wolraich comment 244782 at http://dagblog.com