Democratic (Party) Direction

Erm, maybe the Koop.

(I feel like Bork went stacheless for a time too, but maybe I'm mistaken.)

Forecast is for Democrats to get 54 percent of the vote and only 47 percent of the seats. https://t.co/IE898c52Ca

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 24, 2017

sounds fair

https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/f/fb/Roy_Snyder_%28Official_image%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20141026132126

the GOP aided and abetted former KGB agents making fools of the USA, stirring the Nazi / KKK pot in the process, all to cut taxes on their "libertarian" donors, when inequality is already at historic highs. shouldn't be a tough sell, DNC

I mean what you just said is exactly what I hear from Schumer / Ellison / Harris / Perez / Warren every single day -- it's literally the party line! And yeah, I think it's selling.

Need to get fundraising consultants to stop being ass hats - except then who do you hire to do the fundraising

Meanwhile Sanders continues to be Capt. Save-A-Trumpkin:

Sanders defends Trump voters: Most aren't racist, sexist, deplorables https://t.co/hWkfVsXxrv pic.twitter.com/fI2EaD2Aj6

— The Hill (@thehill) April 1, 2017

I mean I get what he's trying to do, or what he thinks he's trying to do, but the voters he's talking about would have looked at a Trump-Sanders race and thought, "Hmmm, I can vote for all this populist/working class messaging OR I can get that plus get rid of Mexicans and black people??" **pulls lever hard for Trump**

The thing is, Sanders is right -- the numerical majority of Trump voters are just the usual upper-middle-class white Republicans in suburbs who would never go to a Nazi rally (but who also would keep on having dinner with their uncle if their uncle were a Nazi.) It would actually be better if people would break out of thinking that Trump voters are "anti-elite" when the truth is more like "As always, the GOP voters were substantially wealthier than the Democratic voters, but somewhat less so in 2016 than when Mitt Romney was the candidate"

"the usual upper-middle-class white Republicans in suburbs who would never go to a Nazi rally" often intersects pretty neatly with "racist, sexist and homophobic." (Racism is why suburbs exist!!) It's not, like, a perfect-circle Venn diagram but the overlap is not trivial. Why he continues to push that these are the voters Democrats needs to pursue rather than get a candidate who can attract traditionally-Democratic 2016 non-voters is bizarre to me.

seems he's buying into the 'ignored working class' trope that everybody relies on because it's easier than admitting that rich white people are racist

It's almost as though Sanders is a politician thinking about effective rhetorical strategies to win over voters rather than claiming a meaningless moral high ground.

These are not voters he is going to win.

I feel like we're really beating this to death but the left strategy for the democrats is not to win over rich racist white people, but to simultaneously win over working class "Reagan democrat" types AND turn out more minority and young voters by focusing on an economic message with broad appeal. Appealing to rich suburban white closet racists was Clinton's strategy.

“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.” Remember?

that's what we're saying, and considering trump voters are rich suburban white closet racists it's strange that he's letting trump voters off the hook

Working class "Reagan democrat" types became Reagan democrats BECAUSE OF RACISM. Pulling them "back" into the Democratic coalition (assuming it could be done at all, since they're mostly older types who skew Republican anyway) would make it harder, not easier, to pass a left/progressive agenda. Universal healthcare? Maybe/probably. Higher minimum wage? Probably. Dismantling the prison/industrial complex? LOL no. Stopping overseas adventurism? Nah.

Like we shouldn't really have to keep covering the point that winning over Trump voters means winning over marginal Trump voters, not most or all trump voters. Its such a politically naive strawman argument.

Can we get a 100% certain summary of what would work pls, just so we can buy/sell our dollars prior to the next war ye start thx

Just the summary of what would definitely work pls thx

Phil D you are dead wrong. First, many of those same people voted Obama, even twice. Second, there is a lot of support now among working class voters for stopping overseas adventurism - that's where the military comes from.

honestly i think bernie wasn't a great candidate because of his policies (even though i like and agree with all of them and think the dems need to adopt his stances) but that he was good with 'low information' voters, he was smart enough that he know he didn't need to bother getting into policy, instead just say the same things over and over and over

I mean that's the whole reason you had enough Sanders people flipping to Trump to supposedly swing the election in a key states. Because there is crossover appeal with a lot of economic policies. Trump capitalized on it although he wasn't sincere about it

Saying the same thing over and over again is called being on message and it's standard election strategy.

post-election as well, it seems.

It could also be called lying.

Phil D you are dead wrong. First, many of those same people voted Obama, even twice.

That's the same Obama who's now considered the Evil Corporate Centrist Sellout Enemy of the Left? Just checking. I don't think you can count a past vote for Obama as a future vote for Sanders under any circumstances. Certainly not a slam-dunk.

Second, there is a lot of support now among working class voters for stopping overseas adventurism - that's where the military comes from.

I'd like to see the polls for that. I realize there's the economic and job training arguments that can't be ignored away -- the military often being the best option for both among poor whites and minorities alike -- but people are, after all, still enlisting knowing they're going to be deployed.

Dude economics is like 90% of the reason people join the military in the US, are you serious?

glad you all are finally solving the mystery of what happened in 2016, i'll be over here taking notes

A conversation precisely on this question.

90% is a number you almost certainly pulled out of your ass. For one thing, it differs greatly whether you're talking about enlistees/NCOs or the officer corps. For another, people in the lowest income quintile are less likely to be eligible to serve for the simple reason that they're less likely to have a GED or high school diploma, which is required.

Yes, economics is a major if not the major driving force. It's not the only one.

A 2011 Pew survey asked post-9/11 military veterans to list the most important factors that had motivated them to join the military. Nearly 90 percent listed serving the country as an important reason for joining, and 77 percent listed educational benefits as important. Upwards of 60 percent said they wanted to "see more of the world," and 57 percent said that learning skills for civilian jobs was an important factor. In contrast, only 27 percent said that difficulty finding a civilian job had been an important factor in the decision to join the military.

xp to Alfred a tweetstorm about the Lilla interview:

Sweet Jesus, @IChotiner, it's before 10 and I need a stiff drink: https://t.co/7yIwhVmicE

— Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) August 25, 2017

i couldn't get past all the cloying "i need a stiff drink," "i can't even," "i'm drunk already," twitterisms. is there anyone on twitter who isn't just a idiomatic meme regurgitation device masquerading as a human?

Trump iirc

there's been a completely hysterical racist voting purge rampage in this country the past 3, 4 elections iirc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/21/most-americans-oppose-sending-more-troops-to-afghanistan-except-in-trumps-base/?utm_term=.0f01e10d48b4

2/3 of Americans oppose Afghanistan troop surge, including about half of Trump voters.

Just make sure all the voters who got turned away in Wisconsin and similar states ACTUALLY GET TO VOTE. Grassroots registration and turnout people then can funnel back doorstep concerns to candidates, and then message the hell out of the resultant platform.

(An Ellison DNC would be doing this).

man alive otm today

White supremacist presidents will pardon other white supremacists. That's what happens when communities of color don't vote.

— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) August 26, 2017

ffs

enjoyed seeing all the ppl i follow from different walks of life drag him tho

Just make sure all the voters who got turned away in Wisconsin and similar states ACTUALLY GET TO VOTE. Grassroots registration and turnout people then can funnel back doorstep concerns to candidates, and then message the hell out of the resultant platform.

(An Ellison DNC would be doing this).

I wonder what Gwen Moore, who represents in Congress a Milwaukee district whose low turnout in 2016 was part of the reason Trump scraped by in Wisconsin, is doing? Oh, she's part of the DNC's voting rights commission. The Democratic party is going to fight like hell to keep the GOP from suppressing its votes and that would be just as true if Keith Ellison or anybody else was DNC chair.

I mean, maybe you think the national party, Russ Feingold (LegitPAC), Eric Holder (National Democratic Redistricting Committee) etc. are all just pretending to be interested in protecting the right to vote? But why would that be? It's an existential threat to two-party politics and it's central to everything the party is doing.

Now if you want to know whether the Democrats are funneling back doorstep concerns to candidates, that's a better question. If they did that in Wisconsin, they'd find that a lot of people want Democrats who are friendlier to gun owners. Should the national party message the hell out of that, or not? (This is a serious question, by the way.)

considering the national party message is ignore Wisconsin entirely they would probably do better with any outreach at all

Do you even google, bro?

As a Democrat living in Wisconsin I would say that's ... not the case? Would be shocked if the national party doesn't put a very big shoulder behind Tammy Baldwin in 2018.

The state party here has serious organizational problems, that much is true; and I think that has as much to do with soft showing in 2016 as anything national Democrats did.

if they devoted half the time they spend talking about Donald Trump to promoting a bold progressive agenda it would be a better strategy. scolding people for not digging through the mountain of trash is not a good strategy.

ICYMI

There is an actual fight going on over whether the Democratic Party should change entirely to a system of open primaries or, even more horribly worse, a system of caucuses, to pick its presidential nominee.

Point The First: Who cares in 2017? The house is burning down and you're vetting the firemen.

Point The Second: Don't do this. A political party that conducts open primaries is a political party just begging to be hijacked by the loudest voice in the room and/or ratfcked by any half-witted operative on the other side. Your party's nominating process should be kept within your party. And caucuses are completely worthless, both in terms of practical politics and in terms of the basic function of finding a nominee....

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57208/democratic-unity-commission-problems/

you realize that without caucuses and open primaries hillary would've beaten bernie even more dramatically than she ultimately did?

it's not my party and there's no saving it

also Bernie never had a fucking shot

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/348651-kamala-harris-announces-she-will-co-sponsor-single-payer-health-insurance

An interesting thing I'd like to point out about this is SUCK IT FREDERIK! SUCK IT!