Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

Here's a break down of the early debate after the Ossoff loss: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/democrats-ossoff-loss-georgia/index.html

 

And here's an article about the "Panera bread" strategy: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15834898/panera-voters-georgia-election

 

And an opinion piece on why the Panera strategy is flawed: https://medium.com/all-of-us/the-panera-strategy-didnt-work-for-ossoff-it-won-t-work-for-dems-nationally-8ea76ac0a5b9

 

I disagree with hot takes in the wake of Ossoff's loss (see Nate Silver) and I actually think there's a darn good opportunity with educated suburban voters. Lost in the fact that these special elections were losses is the other point that the Democrats are making big gains in surprising areas, because these are the voters the Republicans lost and at least so far don't seem to be going back to Trump. If we're going to siphon off any Republicans, let it be those ones and not the ones drawn to white nationalism.

 

Also, I don't think this has to come at the expense of the Democratic base. I mean, it won't be easy to accomplish, but I think it's a worthy project. And lastly, I'd rather the Democratic Party continue to lose and be a minority party if it means they keep cornering the market on reason. Even in minority you can steer and influence national politics and discussion; the Republican Party has proved this over several decades. We're all the better off if someone remains the adults in the building....and slowly, gradually shapes us into a world where rationality and level-headedness wins again.

 

That is ultimately, to me, far more important than how many seats the Democrats win in 2018, 2020, or whenever. And this is I think a flaw/danger in the party system; they're responding to the pressure to deliver victories. These goals are not necessarily aligned. Quite often, they're not.

[RedDenver]

 

Here's a break down of the early debate after the Ossoff loss: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/democrats-ossoff-loss-georgia/index.html

 

And here's an article about the "Panera bread" strategy: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15834898/panera-voters-georgia-election

 

And an opinion piece on why the Panera strategy is flawed: https://medium.com/all-of-us/the-panera-strategy-didnt-work-for-ossoff-it-won-t-work-for-dems-nationally-8ea76ac0a5b9

 

I disagree with hot takes in the wake of Ossoff's loss (see Nate Silver) and I actually think there's a darn good opportunity with educated suburban voters. Lost in the fact that these special elections were losses is the other point that the Democrats are making big gains in surprising areas, because these are the voters the Republicans lost and at least so far don't seem to be going back to Trump. If we're going to siphon off any Republicans, let it be those ones and not the ones drawn to white nationalism.

 

Also, I don't think this has to come at the expense of the Democratic base. I mean, it won't be easy to accomplish, but I think it's a worthy project. And lastly, I'd rather the Democratic Party continue to lose and be a minority party if it means they keep cornering the market on reason. Even in minority you can steer and influence national politics and discussion; the Republican Party has proved this over several decades. We're all the better off if someone remains the adults in the building....and slowly, gradually shapes us into a world where rationality and level-headedness wins again.

 

That is ultimately, to me, far more important than how many seats the Democrats win in 2018, 2020, or whenever. And this is I think a flaw/danger in the party system; they're responding to the pressure to deliver victories. These goals are not necessarily aligned. Quite often, they're not.

 

I was mainly just linking the articles for people to read, and I agree that the 538 perspective not to overreact is the correct one. However, I also think it's possible for the Dems to look at all 5 special elections and adjust their approach.

 

One point you made that I disagree with is that the Dems should attempt to siphon off Republican voters. First, if the Clinton campaign showed anything, it's that the Dems need their base. This comment by Chuck Schumer turned out to be very wrong, “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.” Note that Clinton lost 3 out of those 4. Second, there are more independents than either Republican or Democratic voters. Just by the numbers, appealing to independents seems like the way to go, not to mention that you'd think independents would be easier to sway than registered Republicans.

[Danny Bateman]

It should be noted that Trump's numbers with independents are pretty dismal at this point. He can recover, but who knows if he will. If he doesn't, it makes the hill that much easier to climb for whomever opposes him in 2020 (if he makes it that long).

 

I think the Democrats problems are more cultural than strategic at this point.

[zoogs]

Yup, and to be clear RedDenver, I wasn't criticizing your share, just responding to parts of it!

 

I agree & disagree with parts of what you say. I don't think there are clear right answers on strategy right now, though.

[deedsker]

Republicans: killing more Americans than ISIS since AHCA.

 

Boom! Deedsker is a marketing genius!

[Pedro Guerrero]

http://www.wowt.com/content/news/Democrat-leader-removed-from-position-after--430264033.html

[RedDenver]

[funhusker]

It is absolutely a legit question, and one that should be answered.

 

I would not be shocked at all if the DNC was hiding something, especially with what we know about what was happening at the top with handicapping Sanders and leaking debate questions. Like Moiraine said in another thread, not necessarily illegal but very shady. There might very well be more.

 

That said, it shouldn't make Trump and his ilk feel like they are off the hook for anything.

[RedDenver]

Ralph Nader pulls no punches in his critique of the Dems:

[The Dems] decided to campaign by TV, with political consultants influencing them and getting their 15-20 percent cut. When you campaign by TV you campaign by slogans, you don’t campaign by policy.

...

The Democrats began the process of message preceding policy. No — policy precedes message. That means they kept saying how bad the Republicans are. They campaigned not by saying, look how good we are, we’re going to bring you full Medicare [for all], we’re going to crack down on corporate crime against workers and consumers and the environment, stealing, lying, cheating you. We’re going to get you a living wage. We’re going to get a lean defense, a better defense, and get some of this money and start rebuilding your schools and bridges and water and sewage systems and libraries and clinics.

Instead of saying that, they campaign by saying “Can you believe how bad the Republicans are?” Now once they say that, they trap their progressive wing, because their progressive wing is the only segment that’s going to change the party to be a more formidable opponent. Because they say to their progressive wing, “You’ve got nowhere to go, get off our back.”

[zoogs]

Ralph Nader is not an impartial observer. He's a political opponent agitating for change and jockeying for influence. Buying into such speak is an expression of alignment with his goals (which I won't say is a good or bad thing -- I don't know. Change could be good), but it doesn't lead to accurate assessments.

 

What was the term? Generic platitudes and all that -- it describes this as much as any political TV ad.

[RedDenver]

Ralph Nader is not an impartial observer. He's a political opponent agitating for change and jockeying for influence. Buying into such speak is an expression of alignment with his goals (which I won't say is a good or bad thing -- I don't know. Change could be good), but it doesn't lead to accurate assessments.

 

What was the term? Generic platitudes and all that -- it describes this as much as any political TV ad.

For sure Nader is biased, but I think don't think he's agitating/jockeying as he's just doing political commentary/analysis these days. It's easy to say he's not a Dem (or he's an opponent) therefore we can ignore his critique, but I don't buy that. What of his comments do you agree/disagree with?

 

I think he's on the money (pun intended) here about the corporate funding of the Democratic Party. And I agree with his criticism that the Dems don't have a policy message, as I've expressed in this thread previously, but just a message of opposing the other team.

[zoogs]

I don't think there's anything wrong with him doing that, to be clear. But he clearly has a political agenda! Maybe it's the right one? He, Sanders, Gary Johnson -- they're trying to build movements and always have been.

 

I'm not saying to dismiss Nader himself or his politics out of hand. I'm saying to see talk like this for what it is: Party Rhetoric.

 

I can't even begin to agree that the Democrats are somehow just an opposition party. That's egregiously backwards and really politically costly. The guys who constructed the ACA, Dodd Frank, Paris, Iran, etc, don't have policy? As we're discussing in other threads, I think the indictment is that their entire message is "We have substance here", but this ends up not registering with people who just want to be given a clear narrative and a few positions to ideologically stick with. I wouldn't call that policy; I'd call that an "Our Opinions Are The Best Opinions" religion. This is clearly, IMO, what Nader is advocating; the way he frames his argument, the only acceptable actions are ones supporting a particular set of policy positions.

 

Ergo, it's about ideology and not policy. And I don't think ideological rigor is nearly as healthy. Though, again, I can't confidently say I think Nader, Sanders, etc have the wrong ideas. And I definitely can't say being ideology-centric as opposed to just policy academic isn't the right strategy to win.

[zoogs]

Red, I appreciate all of these thoughtful discussion, by the way, in spite of our many disagreements. And I think I've been finding my footing in terms of what I'm trying to say here. 'Policy' is perhaps too vague a term; the distinction is between substance-centric and ideology-centric. The latter is is how you end up with such substance-deficiency Paul Ryan's budget dreams and Trump's "STATE LINES" health plan.

 

I'm worried that this is slipping. It's no longer that Hillary is wrong on for example fracking, it's that her entire wing of the party is wrongheaded or empty (I've no opinion for fracking and no reason to be extremely opposed to it, btw). I'm gnashing my teeth here watching legitimately interesting policy disagreements on the left get characterized as systemic failings (e.g, 'RIGGED', 'ESTABLISHMENT', 'You have no policy') with increasing frequency. I can accept academic arguments about fracking (for instance), or tweaking the ACA or keeping some budget compromise or other. I have no idea where I'd en up in a number of those debates. I find it harder to admit that a certain stance or certain personnel are required lest it be considered a grand deficiency in the entire party's wiring.

 

On the one hand, It's understandable that there is a BIG strategy debate that needs hashing out. We all want more seats to be won, on some level.

 

But to get back to harping on policy and substance: I don't want to see us lose our focus on this topic over "What's the Correct Dominant Ideology for This Party/Country". We have a great contemporary example of what this looks like down a pretty short road. If the Left wins more seats but becomes this, then they'll *probably* be better than the Right, but not by much.

 

Sorry for the book, but this discussion's given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

[RedDenver]

I can't even begin to agree that the Democrats are somehow just an opposition party. That's egregiously backwards and really politically costly. The guys who constructed the ACA, Dodd Frank, Paris, Iran, etc, don't have policy? As we're discussing in other threads, I think the indictment is that their entire message is "We have substance here", but this ends up not registering with people who just want to be given a clear narrative and a few positions to ideologically stick with. I wouldn't call that policy; I'd call that an "Our Opinions Are The Best Opinions" religion. This is clearly, IMO, what Nader is advocating; the way he frames his argument, the only acceptable actions are ones supporting a particular set of policy positions.

 

Ergo, it's about ideology and not policy. And I don't think ideological rigor is nearly as healthy. Though, again, I can't confidently say I think Nader, Sanders, etc have the wrong ideas. And I definitely can't say being ideology-centric as opposed to just policy academic isn't the right strategy to win.

The Dems are (mostly) an opposition party. What are they or have they proposed recently (past 4 years) that is constructive as opposed to just opposing the Repubs? I can only think of one thing: some have started pushing Medicare-for-all, and that isn't even the party leadership. And here is where we disagree: they didn't have a message of substance. If they had, and it didn't work, then I'd be inclined to think they should go another way. Just look at the policies you mentioned, which ones did they campaign on? Not one of those do I remember a candidate running on.

[RedDenver]

Red, I appreciate all of these thoughtful discussion, by the way, in spite of our many disagreements. And I think I've been finding my footing in terms of what I'm trying to say here. 'Policy' is perhaps too vague a term; the distinction is between substance-centric and ideology-centric. The latter is is how you end up with such substance-deficiency Paul Ryan's budget dreams and Trump's "STATE LINES" health plan.

 

I'm worried that this is slipping. It's no longer that Hillary is wrong on for example fracking, it's that her entire wing of the party is wrongheaded or empty (I've no opinion for fracking and no reason to be extremely opposed to it, btw). I'm gnashing my teeth here watching legitimately interesting policy disagreements on the left get characterized as systemic failings (e.g, 'RIGGED', 'ESTABLISHMENT', 'You have no policy') with increasing frequency. I can accept academic arguments about fracking (for instance), or tweaking the ACA or keeping some budget compromise or other. I have no idea where I'd en up in a number of those debates. I find it harder to admit that a certain stance or certain personnel are required lest it be considered a grand deficiency in the entire party's wiring.

 

On the one hand, It's understandable that there is a BIG strategy debate that needs hashing out. We all want more seats to be won, on some level.

 

But to get back to harping on policy and substance: I don't want to see us lose our focus on this topic over "What's the Correct Dominant Ideology for This Party/Country". We have a great contemporary example of what this looks like down a pretty short road. If the Left wins more seats but becomes this, then they'll *probably* be better than the Right, but not by much.

 

Sorry for the book, but this discussion's given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

I think you're trying to say the Repubs policies are empty. Is that a good summation? I agree with that; my issue is that the Dems can't capitalize on that weakness because they don't have a counter proposal of their own. Maybe the Dems are finally going to propose Medicare-for-all or something else to replace/fix the ACA instead of just saying that the AHCA/BCRA is bad - because they're really just implying that the ACA is ok as it is, and that's not going to win any votes.

 

Let's taking the fracking example and I'll show why it doesn't make sense. The Dems say they're going to fight climate change. Climate change is based on CO2 emissions. Burning natural gas releases CO2, so fracking (and the resulting natural gas that gets burned) contributes to climate change. So shouldn't the Dems have a policy to limit/eliminate fracking? Or at least stop opening new fracking wells? Instead many of the Dems support fracking. The problem isn't that they support fracking - it's that their message is inconsistent.

 

Ideology absolutely matters, but practicality matters too. And that's where policy fits in: how you propose to accomplish your goals.

 

You're welcome. At least all the typing we've done hasn't been completely in vain.