Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

Sounds promising

smh

got any better ideas?

So what you're saying, akm, is the Dems still have not a clue. Mind boggling

What clue?

lol great takeaway. yeah, fuck trying to appeal to more people, what a dumb strategy.

I think they should stop looking at the US population as a series of focus groups and start crafting a message that appeals to everyone. We need to fight racism in the criminal justice system, for instance, because it is the right thing to do, not because it "appeals to blacks." It should appeal to everyone.

They are just playing into the hands of the Republicans who want to tell white people their interests are at odds with other groups. They're not. Their interests are at odds with the capitalists, not their fellow wage earners. It's a con.

I agree, but it's a long and deep con that's difficult to unseat from people's minds. I mean I favor the socialist, class-uniting approach as much as anyone but it may not be easy to convince people out of their resentments ("those people" don't work, while I do and pay for their social programs, etc.)

Would be nice if maybe, idk, the media did more to emphasize that black and hispanic people are "working class" too.

^^^

One of the most pernicious things about post-election commentary has been the ongoing discounting of minority voters (except for occasionally and unfairly blaming them for not doing enough to support Clinton).

my boss met with tim kaine and others last week in DC (he is a big Dem fundraiser). Takeaways were: Clinton campaign did not follow the same strategy that Obama did, staying in Detroit and other places, and as a result lost minority voters; white uneducated middle aged men are a shrinking demographic and probably do NOT need to be targeted by the party, as they turned out in fewer numbers for Trump than they did for McCain and Romney, the party absolutely needs to focus on minority out reach in those geographic areas; and, they are going for impeachment ASAP. Bombard congress with calls for investigations on Trump, which means not just sympathetic Dem congresspeople, but Rubio, McCain, people in the Republican establishment who are not going to stand for the extent of the corruption once is starts becoming more public after the inauguration.

― akm, Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:03 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think he's *totally* wrong, but you can't rely on just "demographics," you've got to figure out how to actually make sure those people can get registered and turn them out if your plan is to rely on them. I agree that focusing too hard on turning the least likely demographics to vote democrat can be a waste of resources, but there are also negative consequences from sending the message "we don't need you."

As far as impeachment, I mean I kind of don't see how you can avoid that tack with a Trump. I just hope they don't forget to also hammer the rest of the GOP, because impeached Trump probably = President Pence and we're going to have just as hard a fight as ever at the national, state and local levels if we do manage to get Trump out of there.

xps Not to mention there are plenty - millions - of whites in red states who understand social equality benefits all. Shouldn't give up on them too.
This idea that Dems should not have "leaned so hard" on this issue doesn't smell right to me at all, but what do I know, I'm just a clueless minority

got any better ideas?

― sleeve, Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:08 PM (one hour ago)

i guess "do everything exactly the same, except with a better candidate" isn't the WORST idea. (akm, is your boss donna brazile?)

the impeachment shit is a pipe dream. dems are in the minority

start crafting a message that appeals to everyone

lol like what

this whole idea that there's all these people who voted for Trump that the Dems can "win back" is hilarious

Democratic Party: Dear white midwestern people, did you know you get free stuff under our plan? You do!

GOP: they won't tell you this but the blacks and browns and gays get that free stuff TOO

Milwaukee suburbs: well fuck that noise! MAGA

as a mere observer I'm inclined to think they're fucked if they don't go for some variant of the Ellison/Sanders/Warren route, no more milquetoast "centrist" "bipartisan" nonsense

this whole idea that there's all these people who voted for Trump that the Dems can "win back" is hilarious

except it's not. many of those people voted for Obama. and Hillary was a unpopular candidate even in her own party.

pretending all Trump voters voted for the same convenient reason seems like a dead end. people don't solely vote based on this "free stuff" dogwhistles.

pretending that they are untouchables we can never win back is "deplorables" part two

Would be nice if maybe, idk, the media did more to emphasize that black and hispanic people are "working class" too.

The category is misleading, because as a few pieces have pointed out, "working class" means "middle class" now. Black and hispanic just remain "poor," I guess.

I still think Trump voters were largely incoherent, as a macro bloc and as micro blocs. I'm still not sure what specifically they even wanted beyond making American great, and as far as meaningless, amorphous generalities go, they felt Trump was more likely to deliver that. If anything, perhaps it means Democrats should offer even fewer specifics next time around and stick to emotion-targeting generalities, too. "A Better Future." "Giving You What You Deserve." "Something to Be Proud Of." "All You Can Eat Special." "A Buy One, Get One Free Economy."

It is maddening to me that after all the polls and research got wrong, they would turn to polls and research for future strategy. Rather than, you know, Obama's inclusive 50-state strategy.

pretending all Trump voters voted for the same convenient reason seems like a dead end. people don't solely vote based on this "free stuff" dogwhistles.

Well Adam the job before you is clear: "start crafting a message that appeals to everyone"

I mean here's your argument as I read it, you and the inimitable (and always right, don't forget!) Iago Galdston:

akm says that some Democratic leaders said, secondhand: white uneducated middle aged men are a shrinking demographic and probably do NOT need to be targeted by the party, as they turned out in fewer numbers for Trump than they did for McCain and Romney, the party absolutely needs to focus on minority out reach in those geographic areas;

you say "yeah, fuck trying to appeal to more people, what a dumb strategy."

The Democratic candidate won by 3 million votes nationwide, over 2 points, a relatively comfortable margin if we lived in a functioning democracy. You seem to be saying that the right thing for the country is to focus on a hundred thousand or so white folks in the Rust Belt, since they decided the election (and god forbid anybody try to reform our election system, apparently). You really think another 500 field studies on counties that have a Cracker Barrel are what we need to take back the Senate and the White House?

Trump won the White House by winning 76 percent of counties with a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and 22 percent of counties with a Whole Foods Market. This 54-percent gap is the widest ever recorded. When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, it was 19 percent; when George W. Bush was elected in 2000, it was 31 percent; and when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, it was 43 percent.

If the dems don't address this growing disparity they've clearly learned NOTHING

It's not rocket science and it's not about free stuff. Democrats need to emphasize that they believe a solid, stable society starts with strong civic institutions that protect people from economic precarcity, and regulations that prevent them and the environment from being exploited and abused. The idea that white men just won't be into this stuff is so senselessly cynical. It needs to be messaged better.

People are racist but that isnt the main and only thing about them. We should fight the Republican propaganda not hand people over to it.

I feel like there has to be an easily-digested way of telling voters 'you either support some sort of cooperative society where we work towards raising all ships or you support a handful of oligarchs exploiting and oppressing everyone else, and yes that includes you'.

uh yeah seems like focusing (relatively more) on the people who actually decide the election might be...a good idea

fucking genius over here

no instead let's "reform our election system", a totally not vague and achievable goal

I think the solution is to burn down all the Cracker Barrels.

looking forward to k3vin k.'s big plan to win over the rust belt burbs - the only Americans that matter

anybody who talks about reforming the electoral college on a state-by-state basis clearly a fuckin' clown

k3vin have you seen any good articles about the people who supported Trump? I don't know of any, I'd really like to learn more about the priorities and worldviews of Real Americans and perhaps something of the milieu in which they live. I'm sure none of the coastal elite publications I read sent any reporters to red counties, much less any actual Trump rallies, so if you could hook me up with some links that'd be great

as long as they're inside the cracker barrels

Maybe it's not either/or

I'm sure none of the coastal elite publications I read sent any reporters to red counties, much less any actual Trump rallies, so if you could hook me up with some links that'd be great

here u go

http://www.mtv.com/news/2937584/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/

tom, the good news is that in 4 years the "election system" is going to be reformed and we won't need any of their votes. and if we lose again, we can at least hold onto our sense of superiority that we won the popular vote!

that IS good news! thanks buddy

the impeachment shit is a pipe dream. dems are in the minority

― k3vin k.

_everything_ is a pipe dream for the dems right now. they can do _nothing_. stoking the fires of distrust and hatred against somebody who, honestly, quite deserves the distrust and hatred of pretty much everybody in the world doesn't strike me as "same old shit".

i think you and adam are wrong to think that the people who voted trump, by and large, be won back by democrats on a _policy_ level - at least, not by any policy the democrats could in good conscience endorse. kaine & co are correct to conclude this election was not decided on policy issues.

those of us who disagree with their policy approach can and should push through sandersite ideology in the primaries, but just because we disagree with their policies does not make those policies the primary reason for the democrats' failure.

The idea that Trump voters can't be won back is fundamentally wrong, even moreso in the Rust Belt areas that matter - it's self-defeating and pointless to do anything if you're going to assume that Trump's support is rock-steady and unchanging. The number don't show that - without Comey's letter, Hillary wins. With a candidate who doesn't have historically bad unfavorables, the Democrats win. Even with the Electoral College, which is never, ever going to go away.

Jumping straight from saying that to "oh so you think we should just focus on white suburbanites" is bullshit.

I'd say that without Hillary, Hillary wins.

Democrats need to emphasize that they believe a solid, stable society starts with strong civic institutions that protect people from economic precarcity, and regulations that prevent them and the environment from being exploited and abused. The idea that white men just won't be into this stuff is so senselessly cynical. It needs to be messaged better.

― Treeship, Sunday, December 18, 2016 2:22 PM (forty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is like David Brooks from the left

Well, all this focus on embittered rust belt voters is a distraction because it conveniently ignores the well-off exurbans who always vote GOP and didn't GAF about the candidate's racism and misogyny because IOKIYAR.

Useful class guide: anyone with a mortgage is some kind of middle class.

xp

i.e, you're just describing Clinton's campaign. as she lost, it's not hopelessly cynical to think that wouldn't work

Democratic Party: Dear white midwestern people, did you know you get free stuff under our plan? You do!

GOP: they won't tell you this but the blacks and browns and gays get that free stuff TOO

Milwaukee suburbs: well fuck that noise! MAGA

Guh, hi from WIsconsin, where this could not be more wrong.

Wisconsin voters went for Tammy Baldwin, a lesbian and an outspoken liberal from Madison, in large numbers. They voted for Obama twice, again in large numbers.

The Milwaukee suburbs? Yeah, those places aren't going to vote Republican ever, any more than Madison and Dane County generally are gonna vote Republican. But those are movement Republicans, wealthy suburbs defined by white flight from "scary" Milwaukee. They are not swing districts and they are not that big. When Democrats win Wisconsin, which they often do, they win without those places.

If you want to know who voted for Obama and Trump, it's rural voters and to some extent voters in the smaller metro areas like Green Bay. They've voted for Democrats before and they'll vote for Democrats again -- possibly as soon as they realize the Medicare they love is about to turn into a clone of the Obamacare they hate. I doubt many of them go to Trump rallies. I think they're voting on some general vague sense of "throw the bums out" and I think the steady hammer of "Clinton is a crook Clinton is a crook Clinton is a crook" gained some purchase there.

the electoral college isn't going to last another decade

http://www.salon.com/2008/11/03/racists_for_obama/

kaine & co are correct

and yet they lost, almost as if winning elections is not about being correct.

look, i don't know what kind of midwesterns you guys have met. on the whole they seem like nice people with a reputation for being overly polite.

so suzy, milo z and eephus all seem to be making a similar point which is that there are Obama/Trump voters and then there are movement conservatives and the Obama/Trump voters can be probably won back by not having EMAILS win the headlines almost daily - which is to say, there's not much from a policy perspective that Dems need to change

rushomancy puts it best but got there too soon, should have sat on that post imho

That forks into two conversations, though. A better candidate can squeak out what we expected of Hillary without much changing, but if Democrats want to use future demographic changes to win big (in Congress and the states) the same old same old isn't going to do that.