Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

That's what Hillary's campaign tried to do and failed. Remember this horrifically wrong take by Schumer: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

 

A different candidate might have better success, but it's risky. I'd prefer a more progressive candidate, but the Dems need to go with a candidate that at the very least appeals to the Democratic base voters.

 

Dems would be hard pressed to nominate someone as universally reviled outside of the base as Clinton. They'd probably have to nominate Pelosi. I agree with your synopsis though - they should think less about appealing to specific blocs & more about nominating the best candidate.

 

I agree with Moiraine on Warren & I think she's more valuable in the Senate than running for POTUS anyway. 

 

Harris would be viable. I definitely think she could restore the black voter turnout to Obama levels. The "coastal elite" tropes would be extremely predictable, but I think she could overcome that if she did well.

 

If you want someone progressive, De Blasio, Harris, Booker, Bernie, Garcetti or Sherrod Brown are probably the best bets. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

I’m still interested in Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m still interested in Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

 

Bernie and Gabbard top my list right now, but I'll wait to see what the other candidates have to offer before deciding.

[BigRedBuster]

No Bernie please. 

[zoogs]

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I don't think there's a non-controversial candidate since controversy can (and will) be manufactured by the opposing side.

 

Bingo.

 

Anyone looking for an off-ramp to justify not stopping the Republicans in 2018 or 2020 or ever has already got it. There's no need to lay the groundwork ahead of time. Your credibility will only increase if they wait until after the target is tangible to pick their casus belli. 

[RedDenver]

Midterm migraines for the Democrats

Quote

 

Democrats have more midterm anxiety than you might think, given most pundits are confidently predicting Republicans will lose the House.

Two sources with direct knowledge tell me that at the recent Democratic Senate retreat at Mount Vernon, they invited a focus group of voters to discuss the issues they care about and the political landscape.

 

What the voters kept saying: "Republicans have the wrong agenda; Democrats have no agenda."

 

Will the Dem party listen?

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Midterm migraines for the Democrats

Will the Dem party listen?

 

The question is what do the even do to change the perception?

 

If people are going to just go along with the talking points charlatans like Trump, Paul Ryan & the Fox News bozos ascribe to Democrats, it doesn't much matter what Democrats run on.

I think they could do better at messaging at times, sure. But if people are content to listen to the lazy ad hominems Trump flops out about Dems & breathlessly await the latest media fascination about who he had an affair with or who he called a name, Dems are really stuck up sh#t creek without a paddle trying to sell a message.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Midterm migraines for the Democrats

Will the Dem party listen?

 

 

I honestly think it's okay to talk a lot about Trump, but the stuff they have to include is what his policies mean for the environment, what his policies mean for education, health care, immigrants, minorities, the deficit, things like that. The status quo was way better than what we're going to have with his policies. The agenda should be to stop the bleeding, then reverse what has been set into motion.

 

A lot of the agenda in my opinion should be to reinstate, but not via executive order, a lot of what Obama put into place. They also need to fix health care but I don't even know what they can say about that at this point. The ACA should have been fixed, not trashed. They're blamed for all of the negative stuff with the ACA, so they don't have much credibility when they talk about it to the average voter.

Also... what was the GOP agenda in 2012 and 2016 other than going gungho with gerrymandering? It was all about Obama and then Clinton.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

Exactly.

 

The simplest way to do it: "Here's what Trump's doing wrong, here's how it hurts you personally, here's how we'll do better."

It doesn't have to be hard. Dems are too clever by half a LOT.

[RedDenver]

7 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Exactly.

 

The simplest way to do it: "Here's what Trump's doing wrong, here's how it hurts you personally, here's how we'll do better."

It doesn't have to be hard. Dems are too clever by half a LOT.

I think the bolded part is what voters aren't getting from the Dems. For example, what has been the Dem party message/agenda for the last 8 years? Since ACA got passed I can't remember much of anything proactive by the Dems.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I think the bolded part is what voters aren't getting from the Dems. For example, what has been the Dem party message/agenda for the last 8 years? Since ACA got passed I can't remember much of anything proactive by the Dems.

 

I agree. I think they got too comfortable with Obama as the face of the party since he was so charismatic and somewhat assumed whatever he set their agenda to be they could skate on because he was so likeable. Thus, you get complacency in a lot of areas. I've long thought Republicans have superior messaging, even if their message is insincere or dishonest, which also hurts.

 

It's helpful to remember whatever the Dem agenda was the past 8 years, it was DOA for much of it anyway because of stonewalling from the Congressional GOP. But they still could have done a better job selling their case to the public in a way that captured their attention.

 

But I do feel they've made a stark turn since 2016. Messaging from people like Schumer & Pelosi still underwhelms, but universal healthcare is rapidly becoming a litmus test for the party. I'd imagine if gun control efforts continue to get a lot of run that will become a more prominent issue. Increasing numbers of candidates are swearing off PAC money. They've obviously shut the government down over DACA.

 

They need to refine their economic plans from the awful "Better Deal," but they are drawing a line in the sand on a lot of issues now. But Trump sucks all the air out of the room at all times.

[Moiraine]

Agree. The GOP propaganda is far superior.

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Agree. The GOP propaganda is far superior.

Not just the propaganda but the message. The GOP has clear goals for what changes they want to make. The Dems don't.

 

As @dudeguyy says, they had a weak "Better Deal", which was at least a start. Mostly they just oppose Trump/Republicans but don't actually commit to any actions.

[Moiraine]

23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Not just the propaganda but the message. The GOP has clear goals for what changes they want to make. The Dems don't.

 

 

When they don't try to follow through on their message, it's just propaganda. They've followed through on some of it. Done the opposite on other parts.

The GOP has a way better propaganda machine. That is likely one of the biggest reasons these voters think the GOP has a bad message and the Democrats have none. Regardless of how stupid it is, and how much of it never happens, the GOP message/propaganda DEFINITELY gets through to people.

 

One problem the Democrats have is that some of their "message" is what people don't want to hear, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. For example, they don't want to cut taxes. They can hardly go around talking about this all the time.

 

The other messages are pretty obvious - solve social inequities, slow down climate change, protect the environment, keep abortion legal, improve the ACA* (or come up with another idea now). They don't always do these things either so some of it's propaganda. I don't think they care all that much about the environment. They just care more than the GOP.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

When they don't try to follow through on their message, it's just propaganda. They've followed through on some of it. Done the opposite on other parts.

The GOP has a way better propaganda machine. That is likely one of the biggest reasons these voters think the GOP has a bad message and the Democrats have none. Regardless of how stupid it is, and how much of it never happens, the GOP message/propaganda DEFINITELY gets through to people.

 

One problem the Democrats have is that some of their "message" is what people don't want to hear, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. For example, they don't want to cut taxes. They can hardly go around talking about this all the time.

 

The other messages are pretty obvious - solve social inequities, slow down climate change, protect the environment, keep abortion legal, improve the ACA* (or come up with another idea now). They don't always do these things either so some of it's propaganda. I don't think they care all that much about the environment. They just care more than the GOP.

 

Wish I could +1 this more.

The right-wing media (at least in 2016) was dominated by highly partisan, far-right media sources. The right-wing media is far more susceptible to sustained propaganda & disinformation campaigns. (this is an excellent link with lots of fascinating info & graphics - highly recommended).

 

Conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe false but threatening-sounding information, whereas liberals are more likely to feel motivated to engage in critical thinking.

 

I think you're both right. I agree American liberals need to do a better job selling their vision, no doubt. I think they face a uniquely challenging person leading the other party to do so against.

 

But I absolutely agree with what you're saying as well. The GOP have a highly disproportionate propaganda machine in Fox News, conservative radio, Breitbart, Facebook "stories" vs. whatever the liberals have - MSNBC & HuffPo?

 

The bolded is important too. Clinton couldn't sell job retraining to coal minors because she got caught in a bad soundbite & hammered on it - but also because it was not a message they wanted to hear. They're naturally resistant to uprooting their way of life to adapt in the face of a changing energy landscape.

 

The GOP merely panders to people about what they want to hear & avoids telling the tough truths. We need more politicians on both sides willing to be honest about the hard issues even if it's politically difficult to do.

 

The good news in all of this? I don't know what the GOP has left in their agenda after tax cuts that's broadly popular to sell. Their sell going forward is going to get increasingly difficult.