Victory for 3rd Way Democrats?

    Well, it's Monday morning, figuratively speaking, and victory has many fathers & mothers while losing's an orphan, as JFK noted. So putting a stake in the ground...

    Has the centrist Democrat revived over the last year? Let's see how this went - Wilmont Collins won as a black Liberian immigrant in Helena - and a member of Child Protection Services and the Naval Reserves - focused on support for the homeless and increased funding for police and fire departments. Can we split that baby any nicer?

    Vi Lyles won as a black woman in Charlotte focused on many of those wonky issues like highway tolls and sports stadiums, along with affordable housing & homelessness, land use and public transportation. Key in this was balancing civil rights activism with careful support/non-criticism for the police in new community policing and more of a partner approach with the police. In short, she was midway between her GOP opponent and her earlier Dem competitor Jennifer Roberts. This was shown with Lyles' position as supportive of LGBT rights without being heavily tied to the movement.

    Melvin Carter, son of a police sergeant and  won St Paul as a hard campaigning, well-connected community figure, a hometown son connected to both traditional black and expanded white communities, endorsed by Gold Star father Khizr Khan. and concerned about rapid community growth, multicultural issues, affordable housing, and proper police use-of-force.

    In Virginia, Northam, pronouncedly not endorsed by Bernie Sanders, perhaps is a win for bland politics as usual, or the idea that you don't have to be hugely photogenic and interesting, but can simply focus on reasonable policy positions while the other side self-destructs. Northam's positioning is an interesting mix, as in 2 issues largely foreign to Virginia - his agnosticism on pipelines that likely infuriated Sanders, countered by his support for sanctuary cities - an issue brought up by a Virginia vote earlier in the year and latched onto by Republicans. Northam's race stepped into the thick of Republican posturing on race and crime and immigration - probably helped by proximity to DC, and many though he'd gone to far with an ad that focused on the racism and intimidation of the deplorable mob. He also treaded softly around Confederate monuments in the charged southern state, punting the decision off to local communities, while backing increased minimum wage and other bread-and-butter issues. But mostly it was a competitor embracing the latest GOP litany of high controversy items, against a Democrat showing up and trying to be reasonable. Reasonableness won.

    Many of these campaigns had dirty outside ads running in them, seemingly rejected, and to a large extent it was a referendum on the changes that Trump's wrought - more than earlier touted contests likely too soon after the election to have reached Trump fatigue. Little in these races symbolizes a yearning for "Revolution" - much focuses the need to tackle key issues in cost of living, economic fairness, and security - both from criminals and overstepping police. While certainly not definitive, the election seems to reflect an identity-influenced, can-do approach to growing issues of our time while avoiding confrontational approaches that divide the community. Is that a 3rd way, a new way, or simply the Democratic way? Not sure, but hope it keeps working.



    Senior Democratic strategists said their candidates had found a way to tie Republican candidates to the deeply unpopular president, not through his uncouth statements and behavior but through his unpopular policies.

    "We're getting better about our Trump messaging," said Jessica Post, who heads the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a group dedicated to winning state legislative elections.

    ...Post and Toscano pointed to Virginia delegate races in which the Democratic candidates talked about Trump and local issues, sometimes in the same breath — a lesson national Democrats might heed in next year's midterm elections.

    "You can't just run on Trump. We used that energy to build our base, but we had to have something else. And in every one of these places, we had something else," Toscana said. "It started to rain candidates for us. People came out of the woodwork and wanted to run."

    tl;dr/shorter PP: deplorable *PLUS* incompetent *PLUS* unimaginative = boat anchor

    Caveat: does not apply to Alabama

    Roy Moore in witness protection? maybe went with Jared to Saudi Arabia? kidnapped by aliens while doing crop circles? interesting to see a candidate disappear for 2 weeks a month out from election. the bloom is off the rose, maybe a bit of hope for Alabama yet....

    Hilarious. A Republican homophobe lost to a transgender Democratic candidate in the Virginia 13th district

    In Virginia’s 13th District, outside Fredericksburg, voters ousted Republican Del. Bob Marshall, the author of the state’s bill to ban transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice, and replaced him with Danica Roem, a transgender woman who ran on a platform of fixing the area’s transit problems

    But Hippie mag WSJ notes $5.6 trillion spent on wars since 2001. While it's nice to have wars that aren't killing so many these days, it would be nice to have less stupid wars that accomplish more while costing much less, so we can actually afford to do some of those equally interesting things like stopping poverty, paying for education and healthcare, migrating to jobs & tech of the future....  $50 billion a year is a pretty big hole in the budget just to keep Lockheed and Boeing engineers employed - probably a more efficient make-work program.

    Sheesh, bad math day on my part - we're talking almost $140 billion a year for wars and military. That's a lot of Robitussin and Spark Notes.

    Roland Martin talked to Tom Perez today. Perez said that the Democratic Party had twice as many boots on the ground for Northam as they deployed for McAuliffe. He also specifically addressed disillusionment of black voters with the Democratic Party. He honed in on the enthusiasm gap among black women. The party is addressing these issues. Martin says black turnout appears to be up by 7-8%, but final numbers may not be available for several weeks.

    Democrats did do outreach. Democrats came looking for black voters who were not going to vote. Democratic leadership did kiss black butt. I was worried that leadership was too brain dead to go after these potential voters.


    And: DeBlasio in NYC. First time a democrat repeated since Koch-who really wasn't one.

    And Westchester and Nassau with together a population =to Nevada or Utah both returned dems. .

    Could say bragging rights go to those of us who didn't sign on to the "dying party" construct. Better, the Scottish verdict "not proven". Or Harold Wilson's " A week's a long time in politics". Or Casey Stengel's "and in Center Field...........Mickey Mantle. .....I seem  to be a better manager when Mickey Mantle plays Center Field. (I'm old enough to remember Casey was considered a pathetic failure as Manager of the last place Boston Braves.)

    The Braves  didn't have Mantle in Center Field.

    And the Virginia House of Delegates :48 to 47. I'll take it.

    Yes, more than take it, because: gerrymandering power.

    See my comment about DeBlasio elsewhere, you might not agree.

    As to Westchester, yes, it's turning very blue. All NYC "burbs." From last night's Live Thread @ Five Thirty Eight:

    One of my key races to watch was the county executive contest in New York’s Westchester County, where Republican incumbent Astorino is trying to hold on. In very early returns, he’s down 14 points.

    That county executive result wouldn’t be too much of a surprise, since Westchester has become quite blue. But there are a lot of GOP seats for Congress up next year in more purple suburbs in New York and New Jersey — so not a great sign for the GOP if moderate Republicans are having trouble holding on there.


    No surprise there to me, really, I can't tell you how my ears are ready to fall off from Westchester peeps saying "I was a registered Republican but this guy is ruining the country." They're ready to turn the country over to a dictatorship of Mattis, Tillerson, Mnunchin and Cohn, and close down that Congress too, they are teh stoopids. I bet Schumer gets tons of letters every week from *retired businessman of Westchester* screaming: why don't you do something?!!! It's like: hate everything Trump country.

    really, I have to rant more on it. My inbox is inundated with Westchester folk doing: did you see this!?!! End of the world: war with North Korea or health insurance FUBAR or similar. And I answer: yes I saw that, I saw that a couple days ago, I toldja, I'm a secret news junkie. I've moved on to the next thing. And you've got to stop reacting to the daily sturm and drang, or you'll have a heart attack.

    Interesting points about VA:


    Corbyn-esque youth surge for Northam except without the memes or socialism.

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 8, 2017


    Northam did a lot better than Clinton with white college grads but also a little better with non-grads.

    No tradeoff. Just more popular.

    — Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 8, 2017

    retweeted by Nate Silver


    And then in general:

    For you specifically, I think this goes to Hillary's "likabilitiy" factor, from 538's Live Coverage thread:

    Clare Malone 9:45 PM Northam Is Outpacing Clinton Among Women

    I noted some demographic trends from the Virginia exit polls earlier tonight, but I just wanted to point out something that’s going on with the women’s vote in the state, and more specifically the white women’s vote.

    Northam is outpacing Clinton with women in a way that’s pretty striking to me: He’s winning 60 percent of women overall, compared to Clinton’s 56 percent, according to the exit polls. He’s winning white women with 48 percent compared to Clinton’s 41 percent, white women without a college education 32 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent and white women with a college degree 57 percent to Clinton’s 50 percent.

    He isn’t, however, winning black women at the same rate that Clinton did. Hm!

    Yes, of course, all the unfair smears hurt, Comey, Russians et. al., but I think smears tend to stick to her for a reason, they remind some people of how they don't really like her that much.Not a lot of people, but enough. So that women who might normally go with the woman, decide: oh what the heck, I really don't like her, let's try radical not-so-traditionally-Republican Trump, see what happens. And then they were sorry they did that!

    Not to dismiss your theory, but at this point a lot of people might vote a viper snake over the recent lot of Republicans. There's been real pain for being too snooty and buying into "both are flawed candidates". This year maybe it's "flawed vs disastrous & dangerous". Nate Silver frequently notes that people get unrealistically complacent about odds, thinking 20% means "never" rather than 1 out of 5 times. Now that "never" has happened, they're going to overcompensate the other way - even improbable outcomes will draw alarmed reactions. Even from millennials.

    Of course even non-observant people may also notice Republans trying to blame things on a woman who was defeated a year ago into retirement, and left her lastf post 5 years ago (although even Democrats seem at times challenged to realize a stint as Secretary of State had 0 influence on US domestic policy or operations, such that the supposed Obama-Clinton years were anything but - even her appointments and actions at State were often carefully proscribed).

    Oh I think the very same kinda people would also very much dislike the whole let's blame Hillary after the fact game. Swings by their nature are: please no sour grapes partisan shit, don't like those games, tell me what are you gonna do for soccer mom, and everybody else trying to bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan at the same time.

    I know Charlotte NC fairly well, especially the power people.I would definitely agree with your comment. That definitely is where a "third way" Dem is the way to go. Her "wonkishness" no doubt helped her a lot.

    Conversely,I think  Flavius' comment noting DeBlasio's win in NYC should be tempered with this:

    There are still some precincts whose votes haven’t come in yet in the New York City mayoral election, but Democrats’ dreams that de Blasio would have a record performance in a New York City mayoral race seem to be falling short. So far, with 72 percent of precincts reporting, de Blasio has 64 percent of the vote. He’s falling short of his 2013 performance in every borough except Manhattan, where he is basically running even.

    I think if a good strong "third way" person had run against him, he would have been a goner. His "snowflake" brand of liberalism is not that popular here and hasn't been in a long time.  The only time I ever hear his name in the Bronx or Manhattan is either complaining about him or something with rolling of eyes. And that includes from Latinos in the Bronx. And Queens and Staten Island are more conservative. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I am betting hipster Brooklyn is the only place he has true popularity. NYC majority goes for tough guys and/or wonks, no snowflakes. Koch was the last Dem to act tough guy. DeBlasio just had the luck of bad opponents, with a good "third way" opponent, he would have ended up like Dinkins.

    As for Westchester and Nassau counties which Flav mentions, I haven't even checked the story of the races, but both of those are like third way personified, classics.

    DeBlasio ended with 66% of the vote, down from the mid 70s four years ago. I have no particular insight into the details other than feeling his opponent was stronger than 4  years ago . The universal pre-K seems a

    two-for: addressing educational inequality at the same time it frees  women (and men) to earn.  And usefully contributing to the city's  labor pool.

    And his wife is a real asset.    

    The Nassau County win was particularly satisfying since the Republican incumbent ,  combined anti immigration pandering as in Virginia with the  fantasy personal attacks which seem to be a specialty of Long Island Republican campaigns.. A richly deserved loss. When last I heard he hadn't admitted losing.

    Good blog. Fair assessments. I was very pleasantly surprised by some of the results. I wouldn't have bet a nickel on Northam. So, the early call was great news. Although he is too centrist for my tastes and his support for the pipeline did divide VA Dems, there's no question but that he was the best option in the general and his 8.9% win augurs well in next year's Congressional races - in Virginia at least.

    Other somewhat unexpected pluses, the Medicaid expansion in Maine was a great win. Also, in addition to the mentioned transgender winner, Virginia replaced the Republican whip in the House of Delegates with Democratic Socialist Lee Carter.

    Overall I think it only wise to assume the Dem party is not in some miracle revival but just getting the benefit of an extra boost on the traditional result of mid-terms dissing a new president, because the new president is especially disliked.

    Neither "death of party" scenarios that many were predicting, nor a total revival of fondness for the Dem party, politically things are going according to hoyle, as usual.

    Some of the Five Thirty Eight people last night making the same cavaet:

    Question for the group: If you were stranded on a deserted island and had to choose only one electoral prior to bring with you, is “the president’s party tends to lose” the most effective one we have?

    Yeah, Micah — “midterms are big problems for the president’s party” is a cardinal rule. It would probably be my No. 1.


    Micah, I’d modify slightly to “the president’s party tends to lose in elections when the president isn’t on the ballot.” But, yeah, that’s been among the most empirically ironclad rules in American politics. It’s held true through many political environments over many years. And that’s why nothing about tonight should really be all that surprising.

    First — why the hell would I need an electoral prior on a deserted island?

    But to answer the question: It’s close. Although I’d probably pack partisanship along with my copies of “Election” and “Little Earthquakes.”


    What’s normal here: State-level candidates in off-years (including midterms) not infrequently try to distance themselves from the president. Voters tend not to buy and punish the president’s party anyway. Obama aides even said in 2009 that losing Virginia candidate Creigh Deeds failed to embrace Obama fully. What strikes me as unique, at least, is the president’s overt distancing himself from the losing candidate, saying that “he did not embrace me or what I stand for.”

    I will never forget the shock of seeing the results come in the 1994 Gingrich revolution. Nobody seemed to have predicted that sweep. It was like "are people really that upset with Clinton? who knew?"  Not. Over time you get to see: this just happens, it's about turn out, the angry opponents of the new administration turn out, when they might not have if they had someone more agreeable in office. And those not so upset stay home.

    So I think though it was a sweep, it was a "business as usual" sweep which also probably means the Dem party has not suddenly newly endeared itself to the country. But neither is it dead.

    To me another thing it says is Third Way still looks to be the safest bet. No evidence of any of this new populist shtick from either far right or far left is safe, rather it's very risky.

    P.S. This is why I am a bit cynical about the argument that the Dem party needs a new inspiring message to stir up the troops and get people involved. I think the "Gingrich" revolution was misread, people were not inspired by their damn list of promises or whatever. What they wanted is fresh faces and some making of sausage or yes, even gridlock action.  I think the mass of voters don't go for the inspiring messages, they see both as big tent parties. What they want is fresh faces, not a message. Just someone else. And some tempering when things get too radical for them. Just throw the bums out, try new bums. Just stymie the new president some, whoever he is, because some of the things he did/said, you didn't like. Things you didn't like: enough to get you off the couch to vote between presidential elections.If everything seems so-so or okay, you don't bother, don't get up off the couch. In the end, it is all still going towards the middle....hence some kind of Third Way from the getgo in presidential years.

    With respect to " change" , like   Barber Conable: I am a raging incrementalist.No one, repeat no one,  is smart enough to implement significant changes without in parallel causing impossible- to-fully- predict damage..

    Every good idea has its victims.

    Get the direction right and implement incrementally repairing the broken china as you go along..


    nice rules wink I'm especially susceptible right now because of so much radical change in many other areas of life. The average human being is built to handle only so much (r)evolutionary anxiety and stress before throwing the towel in, going stark raving mad etc.

    I'm most curious whether guns showed on ballots anywhere. Housing did - it's more an in-your-face issue than healthcare for possibly most (too many healthy people, dammit, they're just not invested). I'd guess with as many times as we hear "multicultural" and bits about escalating force wisely that take-a-knee is getting through, but not without a very careful support-your-local-police-officer taped to it. I'm not sure jobs and immigration were so dynamite this time around (perhaps people realizing the prez and his henchmen aren't going to create any?)

    Also did sexual harassment play any role in support for female candidates? The mantra last year was "a woman, but not that woman". What with Weinstein reviving pussygate as a oyblic issue, are voters suddenly willing to give women an extra break, will boorish conduct that's always plagued women be slapped back, and will the sisterhood be something more than just a theoretical bonding?

    want to say I saw a lot on how well some candidates finessed immigration and how that it was important, but ALAS i draw a blank right now on it  as to who or what TOO MUCH INPUT (together with some brain fog medical problems kicking in) ..frown

    Well thru the fog I think your point about not pressing hot buttons is getting through. "Don't take the gauntlet", Kesey used to say, "just walk away". We've been playing on their home turf, and home team always has an advantage. Media helps keep it that way. Speaking of which, think the dudes in the press bus had more trouble being studs without Hillary on the ticket? Harder to waste an hour gabbing about a 20-year-old sex scandal for example. Maybe a few issues leaked through finally.

    Of the 17 "experts" Politico asked for comments on VA, this guy pegged a major one for me succinctly. It's actually more important than stepping lightly on "hot button" issues, it's real important, it's a main problem, it's the main poison that is Trump that gets him mega disapproval ratings:

    ‘The culture wars excite a certain section of base—but also alienate many voters’

    Stuart Stevens is a political consultant with Strategic Partners and Media.

    Tuesday night’s election results highlighted the difficult position in which Trump places many Republican candidates. The culture wars excite a certain section of base—but also alienate many voters who are more focused on the economy and a traditional conservative message of less government.

    It seems instructive that the Republican lieutenant governor and attorney general candidates outperformed the top of the ticket. Both held conservative positions but did not engage in inflammatory cultural issues. I’d say there was a message in those results for future Republican candidates.

    And Trump loves doing it, he's not going to quit. Culture wars = "ratings" as well as distraction. It's hard not to feed this troll when he decides on a topic, everyone's got an opinion on such things. But the majority don't want the troll to be an elected official and want them to stay out of it; culture wars are for talk radio hosts and preachers. There are plenty of conservatives as well as liberals and inbetween that don't want government telling us how to live and act, they make a majority.

    I was going to post, but the list started running out of steam around Donna Braxile (with a completely anodyne forgettable statement - preferable I guess)

    Well, FWIW, this other guy after Donna makes a point that I noted is also strongly stressed by Nate Silver's new post, using references to Cook Report studies:

    ‘Republicans would be wrong to ignore the eagerness of affluent whites with college and graduate degrees to rebuke this president’

    Matthew Continetti is editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon.

    Democrats won last night by mobilizing anti-Trump sentiment among highly educated suburban voters. Republicans will be tempted to dismiss Democratic victories in states that haven't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 1988 (New Jersey) and 2004 (Virginia). But they would be wrong to ignore the eagerness of affluent whites with college and graduate degrees to rebuke this president. For one thing, anti-Trump enthusiasm puts the GOP congressional majority at risk. For another, overlooking the class dimension to Tuesday’s results blinds Republicans to the true nature of their coalition—and thus leads them to champion policies, such as corporate tax cuts, that will have little to no direct impact on their voters.

    Hmmm, looks a bit like a divide-and-conquer(some) strategy that someone somewhere recommended...


    Too literal - that would be "filet-and-conquer" at the cell division level. Or mass impaling, as interpreted by Catherine di Medici, which I guess in an odd way was an early form of  concentric "splinter groups". But no, I was simple thinking of breaking down group cohesion.

    Continetti is right to point out that the tax bill is trouble as regards this demographic that many in Congress now need to keep happy:

    The recriminations sparked by Democratic victories in this week’s elections threaten the fragile GOP push for tax cuts and raise deeper questions about Republican identity and fealty to a historically unpopular president.

    The Catch-22 predicament for the GOP as to tax bill and corporate tax cuts: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said GOP donors will quit giving to Republicans if Congress does not pass tax reform.  I remember reading this previously elsewhere, corporate donors directly threatening: do what you promised us on taxes, or else.

    here's the just say no to culture wars warning again:

    Some are skeptical of reading too much into one off-year election. And even Democrats have had heated disagreements over whether identity politics help the party or drive people away. But David Ramadan, a Republican who served in the Virginia General Assembly from 2012 to 2016 said the warning for his party was clear.

    “Tuesday’s results show that unless the Republicans go back to being mainstream conservatives and run on issues like education, jobs and transportations instead of sanctuary cities and Confederate statues, they will hand not only Virginia to liberals, but they will hand the country to liberals and Congress to liberals next year,’’ Mr. Ramadan said.

    from  A Year After Trump, Women and Minorities Give Groundbreaking Wins to Democrats @

    I'd also like to point out how all the minority candidates cited in the article disproves the theme of how unless there is "outreach" from the Democratic party, "they" will stay home and not vote. "They" were already running for office long ago. Who got them to run, and who helped pay for their campaigns, I honestly don't know. I don't even know if they all ran on the Dem ticket. But the point is: they were no longer sitting and waiting and staying home and threatening not to vote, rather, they were active and running for office.

    Back to the Times's quote: this is also where the immigration issue came in, what I remember reading is that Northam was stepping lightly around it. Looked it up, here on his website, they just spoke of it as regards the state and says he opposes things like Trump's "Muslim" ban for the state.Doesn't offer an opinion on national immigration policy, smart cookie--none of his business--and also shows how he addressed the main concerns of many het up about immigration, the use of welfare resources and assimilation:

    One in 9 Virginians was born outside the United States. We’re a community of immigrants, and Ralph believes our strength lies in its diversity. As such, he opposes legislation that would bar individuals from entering the state based on race, religion, or country of origin—legislation like President Trump’s Muslim ban. Ralph supports the work of the Virginia Office of Newcomer Services, which helps immigrant and refugee communities gain economic self-sufficiency and social integration.

    Edit to add: Granted that immigration policy is not always considered a "culture wars" issue, but this David Ramadan of the VA GOP obviously considers "sanctuary cities" to be one.

    AA, the Democratic Party did do outreach because black people complained. That was the point of the Politico article you posted. I provided a link to interview of DNC chair Perez with Roland Martin. Perez specifically noted that Democrats had to step up outreach because their was an enthusiasm gap in the black community.He mentioned the criticisms the DNC received from black women. The Democratic Party responded with outreach. Preliminary data suggests black turnout rose by 7-8%. The enthusiasm gap and threat to stay home worked.

    Perez had to support black outreach in order for Democrats to win. The party had to make monetary commitments.

    Here is the link to Roland Martin’s interview with Tom Perez. You can listen to Perez addressing the enthusiasm gap in the black community and the effort put in by the Democratic Party.

    The Democratic Party kissed black butt and the Democratic Party won. Perez was knocking on doors in the Hampton Roads area. The threat to stay home worked. 

    Edit to add:

    There are two issues, there were people activated to run for office.

    There was also a push to get black voters out to vote.

    From your Politico article

    —Steve Phillips, a major donor to the Democratic Party who is also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said Northam should have talked more about the “most high-profile presidential-backed white supremacist march in this country,” and about affirmative action and criminal justice reform.

    “If a majority of your voters are people of color, that should be your starting point,” said Phillips, noting a majority of the people who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 in Virginia were black or Hispanic. “It’s an afterthought when it should be your first thought.”—

    Also from the Politico article

    —When BlackPAC first polled voters of color in the state in August, what it found concerned it. The percentage who said they were extremely likely to vote was in the high 60s, and Northam was trailing Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 performance among voters of color—-

    If There was no outreach, many black voters would have stayed home resulting in disaster.

    2nd Edit to add

    Perez knew about the enthusiasm gap and began pouring resources into Virginia in July

    You were complaining that they weren't doing it for weeks and months. The point: these candidates were already running. They are part of "the party" Contradicts your contentions.  Minorities were already active in the party. Not at all left out of it!!!

    My only point with political parties, the way they work is that the reach needs to go the other way, you want action from a political party, you get active in that party. You don't threaten to sit and wait for the party to come to you.

    Later, when election time rolls around, the political parties in a huge country like this one will target GOTV monies to swing districts. For districts where it doesn't matter to the results how many in it come out and vote, where the results are basically pre-ordained, the parties will not waste efforts there.

    I am done. Let me be clear: Say what you like, let the readers of comments decide. I am not trying to convince you of anything, not trying to debate. Trying to analyze the situation, not trying to persuade anybody of anything, I am not an activist. Push any meme you like, people can decide for themselves.

    I’ll let the Roland Martin interview speak for itself. Perez knew that there was an enthusiasm gap and brought in forces. Likely black voters were in the 60% range in August when people were “already running”. Democrats put boots on the ground. There was a surge in black voters. We won’t know how much of a surge for several months. You need money for campaigns. The Democrats infused money.

    Black enthusiasm was down. From the WaPo

    —BlackPAC officials say they will concentrate on voters who aren’t likely to show up at the polls.—

    ​Black voters who were threatening to stay home were the ones targeted. Again, listen to Perez’s words.

    Edit to add:

    From what I was reading it did not appear that the leadership was doing enough. It turns out that they did have a game plan. They did realize that people were threatening to stay home.


    Charles Blow expressed his joy over the victory Democrats experienced in Virginia. He also notes that some Democrats were yammering about identity politics being bad.

    Pls note Nate's talking about mid-terms. Usually there's a honeymoon that this year isn't happening. 8 1/2 months in, Trump is on the ropes.

    yes and in his later long piece that I added below he certainly stresses that strongly, that you can't really tell with a year to go, that so many things could happen to turn things upside down, especially with this volatile presidency and Congress.

    No to bullies?

    I just saw this

    The race against longtime incumbent Del. Robert G. Marshall, who once called himself the state’s “chief homophobe,” turned ugly when he and his supporters produced ads disparaging Roem’s transgender identity. But in the end, that tactic failed.

    And then I thought of this

    He also treaded softly around Confederate monuments in the charged southern state, punting the decision off to local communities

    I've seen polling convinced me how important that approach was. not to inflame.

    With a lot of  other things, just hit me like this:

    don't feed the trolls won. And bring back the grownup moderators, stop the flame wars.


    Read carefully:

    Whites: Gillespie 57-42%

    Blacks: Northam 86-13%

    Hispanics: Northam 66-33%”

    This is our destiny for the next few years, only tweaking it a bit.

    Nate Silver has now done a lengthy summary on what the signs are for 2018, that the fundamentals favor Democrats but it's complicated, with lots of what if's, since it's a year away. Overall my takeaway is he thinks Dems look healthy even though

    Democrats also face a big disadvantage in the way their voters are distributed across congressional districts, as a result of both gerrymandering and geographic self-sorting. Although these calculations can vary based on the incumbency advantage and other factors, my back-of-the-envelope math suggests that Democrats would only be about even-money to claim the House even if they won the popular vote for the House by 7 percentage points next year. The Republican ship is built to take on a lot of water, although it would almost certainly capsize if the Democratic advantage in the House popular vote stretched into the double digits, as it stands now in some congressional preference polls.

    Nonetheless, my sense is that the conventional wisdom has, to this point, somewhat underrated the Democrats’ chances of having a wave election next year. And it’s for some fairly stupid (although understandable) reasons [....]

    read on there, as it's interesting.

    But I was really grateful to see him address the  white working class directly in the following excerpt!

    Finally, there’s perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the white working-class vote, and its potential to sway the 2018 midterms in favor of Republicans. This could be more of a concern for Democrats in 2020. But the midterm electorate is typically more educated and better off financially than the presidential-year one. Also, most of the pickup opportunities that analysts envision for Democrats are in wealthy or at least middle-class areas. On average, the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive rank in the 65th percentile in educational attainment (as measured by the share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree) and also the 65th percentile in median household income. Some of them are fairly white, and some aren’t — but almost none are both white and working-class.

    Competitive districts are mostly well-off and well-educated

    Demographic ranking for the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive

    followed by the actual chart from Cook Political Report with the competitive districts.

    This is, of course, about short term rather than long term. And if you're someone that cares about the Dem party you might want them to work differently, to think long term.

    And I in turn would point out that the long term thing is gonna be hard no matter what demographics you think should get "outreach" or in other words, be pandered to, UNLESS YOU GET SOME POWER TO REVERSE SOME OF THE GERRYMANDERING FIRST. Or someone else does that for you, like the Supremes. Until then, you have the problem of having to win districts that were planned to lean GOP.

    Until you do that, you can either address the concerns of people who lean GOP, or, like you could ask people to move to those neighborhoods to change the demographics! And force culture change that way. Easier to do via television and movies, mho. Some talk radio hosts dying off might help, too... cheeky

    Michael Moore is on Real Time tonight. His advise is not to chase after Trump supporters. He feels that if Trump supporters are still with Trump after Charlottesville etc., those voters are gone. Michael Moore suggests that Democrats focus on their base and the folks who didn’t vote..

    Latest Comments