the national election disaster being brought to us by national democratic party leadership

[msongs]

and the abandonment of the 50 state strategy. total failure of the party to be effective at the state levels in too many states.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/04/1444198/-DKos-Community-Power-to-Crowdsource-the-Rebuilding-of-the-50-State-Strategy

[NYCButterfinger]

1. I want Steve Beshear for DNC chair

It seems he's the only one that can win in Ky.

[yeoman6987]

3. I heard tonight republicans have 32 governorships

That is stunning. I can't believe it. Can't blame that on gerrymandering. I am rather shell shocked over that. That means only 18 governors are democratic. Shocked!!!

[Dawson Leery]

4. Dismal turnout gave the Thugs Maryland, Massachusetts, and Florida.

[world wide wally]

7. and we see what happened in Wisconsin, Kansas, New Jersey, Louisiana, and the list goes on...

I guess this is what people want (?)

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Sometimes, the people don't really get a choice

In last year's gubernatorial primary in Arkansas, for example, the more liberal Democratic candidate was pushed out before the votes were even cast in favor of a more conservative candidate who, as it turned out, had been Bill Clinton's driver at one time. And that candidate lost by a big margin to his Republican challenger.

[No Vested Interest]

9. We see here on DU a huge number of people who are self-labeled Dem.

but say they won't vote for some Dems if they do not an ideal in any number of ways.

In other words, no party discipline among some Dems, while Republicans are masters in party loyalty and get their smaller nuber of voters out every time.

[B Calm]

12. Most all of them are right-wing trolls and DU needs to follow the rules

and start banning them!

[msongs]

2. every repub should have a dem opponent at least to promote the brand on the ballot nt

[rhett o rick]

5. The Oligarchy runs the Democratic leadership and the Oligarchy loves Republicons.

Figure it out. The Oligarchy (as indicated by Goldman-Sachs) doesn't care if the president is HRC or Bush, so the Democratic Leadership Elites don't care either. As long as it isn't a progressive that might try to make them pay their share of taxes.

[Scuba]

13. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[DonCoquixote]

6. none of this means anything without 4 simple words

Debbie Wasserman Schultz...FIRED!

Honestly, unless there is a determined effort at the grass roots, we might as well say we want to lose, because LOSING is one thing she does very very well. Count the Senate seats, House Seats, and yes Governorships we have LOST under her tenure, and then ask yourself why she seems untouchable.

And no, I do not say that as one of those lefties that seems to be out of fashion here; if anyone can somehow make Hillary Lose the general, it will be Debbie, because Debbie does denial better than anyone. Hillary should drum her out, mercilessly, and put in a fighter, a real fighter.

And no, this has nothing to do with Debbie's gender. I have zero, ZERO, ZERO! doubt that there are many women in our party that would clean the clocks of both Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rince Priebus, making them both look like amateurs. Want me to drop some names?:

Jennifer Granholm
Kathleen Sibelius,
Janet Napolitano,

all three governors who know how to work at the state level!

[rhett o rick]

14. But that would be a simple band-aid and not address the real problem. The Oligarchy controls the

leadership of the Democratic Party. Remove Ms. Schultz and she will be replaced with another just like her.

[KamaAina]

17. They can have Janet Napolitano

She's spent her entire brief tenure as head of the University of California system trying to cram still more tuition hikes down students' throats. Thankfully, Jerry Brown is having none of it.

[SoapBox]

8. Just when you thought it couldn't happen again...

Thanks to DWS and DNC.

Pathetic.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. White working class voters have slipped further away

With such extreme weakness in that block, our chances in races like Kentucky governor have taken a huge hit. It's not a surprise. Obama has lost a ton of support among that group and it attaches everywhere, essentially nullifying our advantages via the ongoing demographic shift. There were countless foreboding articles in 2014 and early this year.

It's one of the reasons I seldom post here anymore, and have basically stopped following politics closely. I know the math and situational application. We maintain some chance in presidential elections because blocks that support us heavily show up in far greater dependability, and the electorate becomes 53-54% female. Minus that dynamic our opportunity is in the most favorable states and districts, and that's about it. With the heavy majority of governorships decided in non-presidential years, it would take an incredibly unpopular GOP president for us to have any hope of balancing the numbers. Likewise with the senate and House.

I warned Chris Bowers on MyDD nearly a decade ago that a push toward the extremes of both parties would only favor the GOP, and by considerable margin. They have that natural advantage of 32% self-identified conservatives to 21% self identified liberals. There were many red states and districts that were content to elect Democrats at local and statewide level as long as complacency was the norm, and moderates on both sides. Once you get the activists more involved and dictating the nominees, there is far greater danger of right wing lunatics getting elected than anyone considered far left. We end up nominating people we're still not crazy about while the other side has no problem lining up their nutcases. The high profile tea party senate failures receive some press and mocking but it's mostly a blip, and certainly doesn't dissuade the other side, not when they understand darn well that they own the margin for error. They'll merely find the next wing nut who doesn't say as many outrageous things for public consumption. Problem solved. And it will only continue in that direction.

Bowers was totally clueless because he was operating under the extreme tailwind of 2006, with post-Katrina Bush and the still unpopular war. I actually received an internal warning on MyDD when I posted that it was asinine not to realize that you can't make big picture decisions under such favorable conditions without realizing how vastly the terrain will change once those advantages are absent, if not reversed.

The fact that we won only 30ish seats in that 2006 climate should have been a slight hint at the fragility of our situation and plan. Republicans would have more than doubled that net under similarly disastrous conditions for the other side, based on that 32-21 devastating reality.

[MisterP]

15. yeah, it's sort of a "everything Bush believes, except that gays cause hurricanes"

[DonCoquixote]

16. We end up nominating people we're still not crazy about while the other side has no problem

Have you considered that the so called moderates are also responsible for this? Look at Hillary, her high marks are when she leans left, not when she goes for right wing policies like Syrian war. Perhaps you need to ask why people do not turn out when they are told, with very clear voices that they are not wanted.

and

"Obama has lost a ton of support among that group and it attaches everywhere, essentially nullifying our advantages via the ongoing demographic shift."

In other words, we should keep nominating Archie Bunker types who are barely less servile to the oligracy and barely less bogoted than the Klan, gotcha.