Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

 

Let me say this as someone who follows the dynamics of the Dems much more closely than that of the Republicans, whom I view as completely out-of-touch and dysfunctional:

 

Since Bernie made his push last year, I've seen an increase in the number of "Berniecrats" who run on a platform similar to his and reject PAC money in politics.

 

Thus far, we've seen several special elections in which they came close, but no cigar. A lot of that has to do with the demographics of the districts in which they're running. We're talking deep red KS, MT, and GA. Ossoff may yet pull it off it GA, but Quist in MT and a rather moderate Dem in KS both lost by much slimmer margins than were expected. I know for a fact Quist was a Berniecrat and didn't want dark money, and he got absolutely SWAMPED in GOP donor money in his race. I'm assuming the candidate in KS did as well. Here's an article on the challenges Ossoff faces in GA:

 

Democrat Jon Ossoff, whose $8.3 million war chest has made him a contender for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, is under siege. The National Republican Congressional Committee is up with ads claiming Ossoff “lied” about his national security clearance. The pro-President Smushed up Caterpillar Your 6-Year-Old Brother Set On Fire With a Magnifying Glass group America First Policies is priming $1.6 million of ads about Ossoff’s national security clearance. The Congressional Leadership Fund has spots linking Ossoff to comedian Kathy Griffin — and about his national security clearance.

 

Republican-aligned outside groups funded mainly by large donors have swamped their Democratic counterparts, led by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Paul D. Ryan-aligned super PAC that has announced plans to pump $7 million into the race. The main Democratic super PAC aimed at House races, in comparison, has announced only $700,000 in spending ahead of a June 20 runoff.

 

Apologies for my extensions changing some of the verbiage. But you get the point. We're at an impasse. Ossoff's war chest is largely from individual donations.

 

What is the correct choice? Take the Bernie approach and swear off big money or take the money to try to stay afloat for the massive amounts they'll have spent against them?

Well you cannot play until you get in. So on one side you say "I'll take the money now but commit to working towards changing the laws that govern money in politics". You will get attacked for not being consistent. Or You run your campaign as pure as the driven snow (where did that phrase come from , but I digress) don't take the money and get hammered. Part of me says the former - play by the rules as they now exist and then try to do something about them. Don't do what the 2nd district congressman in Okla is about to do: He campaigned on term limits, committed to running for only 3 terms. Now that he is about to be voluntarily 'termed out' he is reneging and thinking strongly of running for the 4th. It has a lot of people's blood boiling. But if he gets the endorsement of the Indian tribe, he'll probably be able to pull it off.

 

 

I think you're probably right. They're really up against it because if they campaign as a politician of the people who eschews PAC money, they're going to get absolutely buried. I feel like the spending against them is so fierce right now that for they've got to play ball as is to try to address the issue once elected. If all Dems ran on an anti-dark money platform, I still feel like they'd get destroyed and the GOP majority in Congress would widen.

 

The gray areas in Citizens United are incredibly problematic for this issue. The rich and powerful can subvert the normal limits on financial donations if they really want to.

 

The thing that makes it even more lopsided is that there just isn't an equivalent issue on the far-right. Being outraged by big money in politics, while the sentiment is spreading among the general populace ever so slowly, is really only a hair-on-fire issue that rankles the progressives further left of center. They're the only ones who will call out a pol from their own side of the aisle on their finances as reason not to vote for them. Sure, the far-right crows about globalist cucks, but at the end of the day, they'd vote for a center-right politician long before considering an alternative that is further left, regardless of who's spending to back them. It seems to me that hardcore progressives are far more likely to sit an election out or vote third party exclusively due to a Dem's donation history or views on campaign finance.

 

So, to put it mildly, the Democrats face a large disadvantage in this arena.

[deedsker]

Or we could change to single transferable voting system for our voting system and basically eliminate all gerrymandering in general at the state and local level outside of one spot positions. First past the post is the worst voting system which creates the two party system.

[zoogs]

Good news out of Georgia? http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/09/poll-jon-ossoff-karen-handel-georgia-239349

 

 

 

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has not released full results from its new survey, which was conducted by Abt Associates. But it did break down the results by party, which help explain why Ossoff has gained traction in a traditionally Republican district: Energized Democrats are almost completely united behind him, while he is picking off a small but significant share of Republicans and winning independents.

 

I hope these trends are accurate.

[Danny Bateman]

Every special election thus far has shown a similar trend. Here's an interesting FiveThirtyEight chat about what is likely to happen in the 2018 midterms. From what I've gleaned, they believe the Democrats best chance is to take back the House running on a campaign of being a check on the Trump/Bannon/Ryan/McConnell agenda.

 

Here is a piece analyzing the special elections that have happened so far that supports that proposition.

 

 

Of course, it's a very small sample size seeing as we're talking about special elections, but so far overall there has been a net swing of 14.4 points in the Dems directions since Trump was elected.

 

If they came anything close to that in 2018 it would be an electoral bloodbath in the House. The Senate math is awful for them, as they've got far too many seats up for reelection compared to the GOP's relative few, so they won't make much ground up there if at all.

 

Still, Ossoff deserves to win. Handel has run a horrible campaign as an unspectacular conservative who refuses to call out Trump. In their debate, she actually did this:

 

[Moiraine]

The momentum would need to last a long time. But Trump will probably help keep that going.

[zoogs]

"I do not support a livable wage."

 

Wow. That's very honest. Good for her. My goodness, though.

[Moiraine]

Republicans' opposition to social welfare programs AND opposition to increasing the minimum wage is the same thing as telling millions of people:

 

"Starve to death."

[zoogs]

But you see, we need people to be kept in that situation to make sure the rest of us can stay/get more comfortable. Did I mention that the poor people deserve it anyway?

 

^Conservative platform in a nutshell.

[Danny Bateman]

I just had an idea and I thought I'd toss it out there and see what you all think...

 

If we hearken back to the 90s, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was instrumental in sweeping gains for the GOP that was responsible for delivering a GOP majority in both chambers of Congress. Clinton was thus forced to shift to the center, though he did so successfully.

 

The key takeaway for me is that the Contract with America worked so well for Republicans because it was an easy to understand, repeatable mantra behind which they could all rally. They made promises voters could grasp and then tried to deliver.

 

Do you think Democrats could run on a similar platform in 2018/2020? I definitely think it could work on a Congressional scale, but I also think whomever would be the party's presidential candidate in 2020 could make excellent use of it as well.

 

If it were me running for president, I would run on a platform of "It's time to be honest with the American people again." It works so well because everyone knows that Trump is completely and totally dishonest. He's also a blatant flip-flopper with no real convictions beyond being popular, it seems. Then you look at the Congressional leaders who are trying to speed through their plan for healthcare, shrouded in absolutely secrecy, who can only be bothered to repeat campaign bumper sticker slogan-like phrases when asked how to fix the problems in the ACA or how their plan will be better. Read this interview with 8 Senate Republicans. It's absolutely striking how little they are willing to deviate from talking points or how little they even know about their chamber's version of the bill. It hasn't even been shared with fellow Republicans. Murkowski, who is one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate, even took time to trash the House bill.

 

So the GOP yelled for close to 8 years about how godawful the ACA was, about how they could do so much better, and this is the result. No plan in place, a House bill rushed through that got absolutely shredded by the CBO, and a Senate process that has been the absolute opposite of transparent. Their talking points about how the ACA was rammed through without public input expose them as complete frauds as well.

 

Basically, I think you take a plan to paint Trump and the broader GOP as dishonest liars and build some real policy around it. Not just "Trump is bad; vote for me."

What do you think?

[RedDenver]

I just had an idea and I thought I'd toss it out there and see what you all think...

 

If we hearken back to the 90s, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was instrumental in sweeping gains for the GOP that was responsible for delivering a GOP majority in both chambers of Congress. Clinton was thus forced to shift to the center, though he did so successfully.

 

The key takeaway for me is that the Contract with America worked so well for Republicans because it was an easy to understand, repeatable mantra behind which they could all rally. They made promises voters could grasp and then tried to deliver.

 

Do you think Democrats could run on a similar platform in 2018/2020? I definitely think it could work on a Congressional scale, but I also think whomever would be the party's presidential candidate in 2020 could make excellent use of it as well.

 

If it were me running for president, I would run on a platform of "It's time to be honest with the American people again." It works so well because everyone knows that Trump is completely and totally dishonest. He's also a blatant flip-flopper with no real convictions beyond being popular, it seems. Then you look at the Congressional leaders who are trying to speed through their plan for healthcare, shrouded in absolutely secrecy, who can only be bothered to repeat campaign bumper sticker slogan-like phrases when asked how to fix the problems in the ACA or how their plan will be better. Read this interview with 8 Senate Republicans. It's absolutely striking how little they are willing to deviate from talking points or how little they even know about their chamber's version of the bill. It hasn't even been shared with fellow Republicans. Murkowski, who is one of the most moderate Republicans in the Senate, even took time to trash the House bill.

 

So the GOP yelled for close to 8 years about how godawful the ACA was, about how they could do so much better, and this is the result. No plan in place, a House bill rushed through that got absolutely shredded by the CBO, and a Senate process that has been the absolute opposite of transparent. Their talking points about how the ACA was rammed through without public input expose them as complete frauds as well.

 

Basically, I think you take a plan to paint Trump and the broader GOP as dishonest liars and build some real policy around it. Not just "Trump is bad; vote for me."

 

What do you think?

 

 

I think a clear policy platform is a great idea. But I doubt the Dems can even do that. They're a party of platitudes and talking-points as well.

[zoogs]

What?....

[Danny Bateman]

Would you say you think they're equally as dysfunctional as the GOP, RedDenver? Bit of a loaded question there, but feel free to explain your thoughts on both parties however you wish if you disagree.

[RedDenver]

Would you say you think they're equally as dysfunctional as the GOP, RedDenver? Bit of a loaded question there, but feel free to explain your thoughts on both parties however you wish if you disagree.

If we're specifically talking about messaging, I'd say the Repubs and Dems are roughly equal in using platitudes and talking-points instead of describing policy and legislation. The difference is that the Repubs talking-points are fairly consistent across the party, which leads to them parroting each other, where as there's less uniformity across the Dems.

 

And when I say Repubs and Dems in this post, I'm talking the about politicians/party leadership and not the voters.

[Landlord]

idk about dysfunctional, but they definitely don't have the narrative and the marketing cohesiveness down the way that the GOP does. The Republican animating myth is a good one - always has been.

[Landlord]

idk about dysfunctional, but they definitely don't have the narrative and the marketing cohesiveness down the way that the GOP does. The Republican animating myth is a good one - always has been.