General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI agree - "Move left, Democrats"
Pandering to racist, xenophobic, nativistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic Americans to garner a few votes here and there is morally repugnant and more importantly electorally suicide:
The far more important and largely untold story of the election is that more Obama voters defected to third- and fourth-party candidates than the number who supported Mr. Trump. That is the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House. The way to win them back is by being more progressive, not less.
To be clear, all white voters matter. But Democrats must make tough, data-driven decisions about how to prioritize their work. Right now, too many are using bad math and faulty logic to push the party to chase the wrong segment of white voters. For example, Guy Cecil, who spent nearly $200 million as head of the progressive super PAC Priorities USA, urged the party to rebuild trust with the millions of white voters who voted for President Obama and Donald Trump.
The math underlying that conclusion is incorrect (Mr. Trump picked up not millions, but only 784,000 white votes in the 10 battleground states he won by single digits). And it misses the bigger and more fixable problem of white Democratic defections to third- and fourth-party candidates.
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/opinion/move-left-democrats.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®
vi5
(13,305 posts)We are never going to win over any of those Trump voters at this point. The lower hanging fruit are the non-voters.
Like the article says "all white votes matter" but we have to be realistic about what is within our reach and what is outside of our reach.
This will require not listening to the beltway media who insist and will continually insist that it is those working class, rust belt coal voters or whoever else that we must pander to. I know that's hard because our politicians are hardwired to listen to them above and beyond everyone else, but we've got to hammer this point home loudly.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Oppose the upward transfer of wealth and be consistent about it.
All but the billionaires benefit. That's a lot of voters.
BumRushDaShow
(128,836 posts)who has put more billionaires in as heads of the federal departments.
They knew he was a billionaire because they watched him on TV sauntering through his tacky Manhattan palace dripping with gold leaf and getting off his private jet emblazoned with his name. They wanted to BE like him and have what HE has - women at his side (where he could grab their pussies whenever he wanted), driving around town in a fancy limo, cruising on his own personal yacht, golfing on a course he owned.
Drumpf voters deceived the media and the left about their reasons for voting for the billionaire. It was not just to "get jobs", it was to eliminate the "others" who they were told were taking those jobs from them. I.e., not other white billionaires, but women, POC, "illegals", teh gays, non-Christians, etc.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Pandering to white voters who didn't stick with the Democratic candidate - in opposition to the "racist, xenophobic, nativistic, homophobic, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic " Republican candidate - seems pretty repugnant, too.
How about we appeal to ALL Democrats and leave the race of other voters out of it?
An aberration - a fluke of events - cost us the Electoral College. That's what we need to fix.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Race is fixed, attitudes aren't.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)They mention race (white) multiple times.
Example: "...the white flight that should most concern the next D.N.C. chairman, because those voters make up a more promising way to reclaim the White House."
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)probably not before 2100, if at all.
The attainable goal, is to reach into the red districts and find the Dem voters there, get them organized and motivated, and give them some candidates to vote for. Far too many Congresscritters run unopposed.
Progressive programs and values poll very well. We need to run on them.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Suggesting we need to run candidates on more progressive programs and values "in red districts" is some kind of fantasy!
You understand that's why no Democrat runs at all - it is a "red district"!
You think Elizabeth Warren could win in West Virginia? No - only a Manchin can win there.
We have to be smart!
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)Perhaps you have it backwards, many of those red districts are red because no Dem ever runs there. If we stay home in our coastal enclaves, we'll never get our country back.
I'm not saying we can flip 200 red districts. I am saying we will flip [font size=4]zero [/font]districts that we don't run in at all. The Dem party needs to expand it's footprint.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)And I don't "whine" about shit!
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)and I didn't attach any purity tests in my comments, either.
I get, from your handle, that you are basically a yellow-dog Dem, and frankly, I'm OK with that. I know that many Dems that get elected from southern and more rural states are borderline DINOs, and I accept that as a fact of life. We are, after all, the big tent party. In the end, we have a great chance to expand our base right now, and I would love to do so. GOTV in blue districts is all well and good, but that ended up allowing Trump to win the EC. We need to expand into those red districts and flip some, now.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Now we are to interpret the results as, "Move left, Democrats?"
When Carter came in, he brought Democrats in.
When Clinton came in, he brought Democrats in.
When Obama came in, he brought Democrats in.
Any of these guys represent the Warren/Sanders(?) wing of the party?
If history is any indicator of where we are going - there are going to be a lot of disappointed leftwing Democrats ahead.
Then, we'll get the "whining."
Reasonable pragmatic "yellow dog Democrats" are here to ease you into it, and "feel your pain." Gimme the Democrat who wins, not a losing ideal.
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)but if we continue to drift to the right, more and more progressives will continue to split off and vote 3rd party.
That helps the Repubs as much as ignoring red districts because we "can't win there." We have a big tent, and there is room for conservative Dems in it. I am neither a yellowdog, nor a bluedog. I'm a Democrat, and a progressive and a liberal. I will vote for the most progressive Dems I can find on the ticket, which isn't too hard where I live. You may not believe it, but I understand that southern and rural Dems will never be as progressive as I am. I actually get that. Like I said, I don't do purity tests except in really extreme cases, and I hope that DINOs like Manchin get primaried, at least.
Sure, put up some yellowdog conservadems on ballots. Put somebody on ballots instead of letting the Tea Partiers run unopposed.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's about winning, not idealism.
If 60-70% of the voting citizenry of a state would rather vote to gouge their eyes out than support a liberal Democrat, you begin to understand the term 'pointless.'
A fiscal, social conservative DINO - like Manchin - is our only option. If we want 51 senators in the senate to keep the wolves at bay, we are not going to do it by moving to the left.
Pragmatism - not fantasy.
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)Fine, put up Manchin-like candidates, I don't give a fuck. What I'm talking about is getting some Dem Party offices opened in those areas. Put some D boots on the ground and some Ds on the ballot. Pragmatism is not about giving up and saying we have to eat a shit sandwich. Pragmatism is saying it is better to fight for something. We're not going to get to 51 Senators by conceding 25 states. Nor will we flip any Repub seats in the House if we don't even put up candidates.
You're arguing platform and basic philosophy. I'm arguing electoral party mechanics. I suspect we have a couple of red districts here in my blue state that could be flipped. It won't happen if the DNC ignores them. I suspect there are quite a few districts nationwide that have a lot of Dems who feel ignored by the National party.
And BTW, it is very seldom "60-70%" of the citizenry that votes R. When mid-term turnout is in the 40% range, we are conceding our Democracy to 21% of the electorate. Even red states have blue voters, many of whom have been energized by the recent protests. Get them organized and out to vote and we could flip a lot of seats in '18. And no, I don't expect them to be "Sanders" Democrats. But it would sure help if they were Dems. Fuck, I'm not necessarily a "Sanders" Democrat, though I voted for him in the Primary.
Pragmatism. Winning pragmatism.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That's why we debate issues, and not just live in our little "bubbles," even at DU!
After all, we are not intolerant, jack-booted lock-step Republicans!
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)Like I said, my argument is about party infrastructure. You were the one arguing ideology that I basically agreed with all along, although I guess you didn't see that.
Congrats! You win the internets today.
BumRushDaShow
(128,836 posts)plus the other "fixable" factor was again - turnout. I.e., in addition to those fleeing to other parties or not voting the Dem at the top of the ticket... For example here in Philly, we produced the > 400,00 vote margin that usually throws the state BUT-
2016 = 584,025 (Clinton) 108,748 (Drumpf) 7,115 (Johnson) 6,679 (Stein) 1,987 (Write-in) 1,064 (Castle)
2012 = 588,806 (Obama) 96,467 (Romney) 2,892 (Johnson) 2,162 (Stein) 449 (Write-in)
2008 = 595,980 (Obama) 117,221 (McCain) 3,071 (Nader) 1,057 (Barr) 696 (Write-in)
http://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/resources-a-data/ballot-box-app
And here (with a Dem governor) we didn't have Voter ID fiasco that plagued 2012.
That being said, there were 16,845 votes for "3rd parties" (or write-ins) just in Philadelphia alone. Although if you threw the Johnson votes to Drumpf, it would be close to what McLame got here in 2008. Still, 2008 & 2012 had 4,824 & 5,503 3rd party votes respectively, for 2008 & 2012 vs almost 4 times as much in 2016.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)Excellent article
Me.
(35,454 posts)But what bothered me about it was that it seemed to turn into an advocacy piece for Rep. Ellison. There are several good candidates running and to just point to one was a miss as far as I'm concerned.
Wounded Bear
(58,645 posts)although it did mention Perez in passing and gave him a tepid thumbs up. Besides, the DNC is not really a policy group. It's supposed to be an organizing and GOTV group. Perhaps they have lost their way a bit.
Whoever gets the job, IMNSHO, the most important thing to do is expand our base into red areas we have been ignoring for too long. There are a lot of Dem votes out there. We need to organize and harvest them.
The recent demonstrations have been great, and there is good evidence of Dems collecting together to supprt Dem causes and candidates. That's what we need.
KPN
(15,642 posts)it didn't address the millenials who opted to stay home. Ellison can best bring those people out in support of the D Party in my view. The article did not really address this, but that's why I support Ellison.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)KPN
(15,642 posts)Based on my experience and observations regarding the party's success (or comparative lack thereof) since 2010, and the epic 2016 failure.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)gerrymandering that is causing problems. And hacking. And not using modern communication techniques.
A huge party of the problem is the DNC leadership over the last 8 years or so. Having Kaine and DWS (Clintonites) was a disaster and Obama should never have put them in there. That role isn't like an ambassadorship you can hand out like candy to your favorites. I suspect he did it to give Clinton a leg up on the last election and we all paid for it.
That said, Ellison should stay in Congress and do his damn job. There's nothing in his resume that says he can head a nationwide organization.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)he doesn't care how he gets votes, that is one reason he attached himself to Bannon. The Republicans figured out many years ago with the Moral Majority to emphasize to these voters that abortion, gay rights, racial equality would mean the end of the world. They fell for it and Reagan then proceeded to deregulate everything in his path while they felt a false sense of security on social issues. Its worked for them for decades, Trump just took it to a radical new low. The Tea Party never understood the value of labor rights, human civil rights and God forbid they ever opened their eyes to climate change. They hated Obama for no good reasons, they believed he was their enemy. Trump may be the one to finally show them how wrong they were, his only goal is to plunder. Never pander to racists ever and I don't think as a party we ever will.
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)both ends of the political spectrum is not what is going to win for us. Those who tell you differently are the same ones who sat home this last election and fought against our candidate.
Wise up! Hillary didn't lose. It was stolen by our own holdouts, haters, and grifters for Bernie just to be against Hillary. Hillary won the popular vote, we picked up seats in both the House and Senate. Independents chose what they thought would be meaningful and honest change. They won't fall for it again. Get a grip!
bdamomma
(63,836 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)you think of a wing of our party or the left that does? I'd like to start using their name to embody this phenomenon. I just assumed it was a media mangling of the Sanders position, in the wake of the election results, which was far off the mark, but apparently there are advocates among us?