Does the party need to move right culturally to win more elections?

[geek tragedy]

Swing voters in this country are not fiscal conservatives/social liberals. They're the opposite--social conservatives (especially on race and immigration) who are open to more liberal economic efforts.



https://www.voterstudygroup.org/reports/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

People assumed that we had won the culture wars going into the 2016 elections. It's pretty clear that we didn't.

Tr*mpism thrives in cultural polarization and political tribalism defined by identity.

How do we defuse that? The fashionable answer in some parts is to embrace economic populism, but how many Tr*mp voters would a socially liberal win over with single payer and free college(which would get demonized as a --you can guess it--free stuff for disfavored minorities and immigrants, and for snooty urban elites, respectively).

Seems pretty clear that some stuff--the call-out culture, privilege-shaming etc are going to have to be repudiated, since we'll need to be at pains to show that the party 'respects' those voters. But, will that be enough? I guess it was for Obama.

[MFM008]

1. Ossoff

Was a "moderate".
Notice how they all lose.

[geek tragedy]

6. Ossoff shows how awkward it is for us to try to win Romney strongholds nt

[JHB]

14. That election was in Gingrichland

This is a district that sent Newt Gingrich to Washington to protect them from The People's Republic of Escape From New York (or at least that's how his campaigns sounded). Heavily Republican, conservative, affluent.

There are limits to what can be extrapolated from a Democrat not being able to scale this particular cliff.

[Demsrule86]

25. Ossoff was not a moderate...he believed in choice and notice how Mello, Quist, Thompson and

Perriello went down...all endorsed by Sen. Sanders. If you think a progressive could win that district, they can't . I lived there... it will never happen.

[NurseJackie]

55. I saw that pattern too.

[hrmjustin]

28. We lost in Montana last month with a more liberal candidate.

[leftstreet]

2. No. We already have enough GOPers. Think NON VOTERS

[SHRED]

3. Not on California it doesn't

[geek tragedy]

7. What works in California doesn't work elsewhere.

I wish the country were as liberal as California.

[Egnever]

128. And that is exactly why all this party purity stuff is nonsense.

[get the red out]

4. It wouldn't help

How could Dems ever go far enough to the right socially to please Rs anyway? It would split the party.

[geek tragedy]

8. Don't need to win the hardcore Republicans over, but rather the swing populist voters

We don't need to win the cultural battle, just defuse culture as a weapon

[Demsrule86]

26. No...while candidates in red states can run on most of our issues...we can never politicize

civil rights...you would lose more than you would gain.

[Lordquinton]

140. "defuse culture as a weapon"

Could you elaborate on that statement?

[moose65]

75. That is correct!

It wouldn't matter how far to the right a Democrat moved. If they still had the D after their name, they would get creamed. If you're going to vote for someone like that, there's already a Republican on the ticket. One of my favorite Alan Grayson quotes: "You can't beat a Republican by trying to BE one!"

[Sgent]

132. Tell that to

Governor John Bel Edwards of Louisiana -- a state that went for Trump by 20 points.

He's how we win in red states -- but he would never be accepted on DU because he's too conservative since he's anti-choice and pro gun. That said, he did expand Medicaid to 400,000 people, and has refused to renew a regressive sales tax fighting instead for progressive corporate and individual taxation.

He's also been against LGBT discrimination in hiring / firing, for civil rights laws, etc.

[get the red out]

142. That actually gives me hope

Because every region has its cultural differences. I just worry that in most cases all Rs have to do is scream PELOSI, CLINTON, OBAMA in the direction of any Dem running for office and people will just not listen to anything that candidate has to say after that.

Personally, all I care about is getting Dems elected, Rs are going to destroy us. Primaries should be where the party hashes it out amongst themselves (wish it were that way though).

[ck4829]

5. Elections are generally a sham process

It's time to start questioning their legitimacy.

[HAB911]

9. correct

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029231772

[hatrack]

10. Not just no, but FUCK NO

.

[ananda]

11. No, and fuck no!

We need to follow the Sanders revolution.

Sanders is what Dems used to be ... good liberals!

[Jacquette]

34. What about conservative Democrats?

Is that even allowed anymore? Many of us feel as if it isn't.

[OriginalGeek]

46. what's a conservative democrat?

if a democrat is, among other things, anti-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-civil and equal rights for Women and LBGTQ then I have no desire to associate with them.

If that's what the Democratic party wants to be in order to win then I will no longer be a Democrat.

[Jacquette]

48. I can only speak for myself

Pro civil rights, women's rights, environment. Pro abortion rights but not after 2nd trimester. Pro Lgb but not T. Pro free trade but not globalism. Pro term limits. Pro LEGAL immigration only. Not get here, start a family and apply for citizenship like it's your right. Pro death penalty for crimes against children ONLY.

I am 60 yrs old, female AA. Am I still considered a Democrat?

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. Nah you should fuck off and join the rest of the people who want to push "bathroom bills"

opposition to transgender rights makes you "Not a Democrat" by definition since it was in the party platform: http://www.transequality.org/blog/democratic-party-platform-takes-strong-stands-on-transgender-equality

you also don't get to say "I'm pro civil rights...except for transgender people".

[LostOne4Ever]

96. + infinity nt

[Voltaire2]

97. Thank you.

[lillypaddle]

64. You've only got your toe in the water

Dems like to dunk right in there. Pro choice means pro choice, not "only if I agree with the terms." You sound pretty conservative to me. I wouldn't consider you a Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

74. I am with...you are a Democrat... I am a woman (white) too...when I go to

work for the party...it is the ladies that run the elections...few guys...and we vote...I missed one election...I was in delivery.

[Jacquette]

78. Based on the responses to my op you are not welcome or needed

if you are socially conservative.

I can live with being an Independent involved with local and state politics.

[Demsrule86]

82. I am welcomed and needed...I am a proud Democrat and a liberal.

I have no problem with a big tent...but what you call socially conservative, I call civil rights. While we have our Manchins and others...glad they are here...it can not be who we are. What do you mean that you are socially conservative...anti-choice? or anti-Gay? You don't see that as moral issue? One could say anti-civil rights Democrats in the 60's were socially conservative, but they were still wrong.

[Jacquette]

95. By socially conservative

I mean I am pro choice. But there should be a limit. I do not believe a woman 6 mo pregnant with a belly out to there should get an abortion on demand. In my mind that's a formed baby, a human being. And at that point they have rights.

As for gay rights my son is gay. After raising a gay child NO ONE can tell me I don't support the lgb community. But I don't support the trans narrative of being women of being female, I don't. And apparently nowadays that translates into being anti the entire lgb.

[Voltaire2]

99. Who else should we allow overt bigotry against in our party?

Why just trans people? I don't think that will be enough bigotry to pull in enough bigots to turn things around in districts like GA6.

If getting the bigot vote is the objective we need to open the floodgates.

[Gravitycollapse]

107. It means you're transphobic.

You're ignorant of the trans rights movement and the lived experiences of trans people.

[Heddi]

115. no, it translates to being an anti-choice transphobe

Pretty it up all you want, but you're a transphobe. And please show me cases of women who are 6 months pregnant who are getting abortions on demand for convenience.

I'll wait.

[LostOne4Ever]

120. You mean you only support civil rights when it affects YOU

If your son wasn't gay you probably wouldn't support lgbtq rights at all, and if SHE were trans you would probably support the T but not the LGBQ.

The same bigotry that killed Matthew Shepard kills trans women every year. By supporting the LGB but not the T, you are undermining the cause that is standing up for your child. You support is 100% conditional and therefore artificial.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. You realize that third trimester abortions are for medical necessity, right?

90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

Nobody's aborting a 6 month fetus because 'ho hum it's going to ruin my tennis game', or whatever other 'on demand' idea you had in mind.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/09/film-review-after-tiller-third-trimester-abortion/

You're tilting at windmills. Or you've been led to tilt at a windmill, whatever.

[Gravitycollapse]

106. Technically, a Democrat. I don't want you in our party.

I certainly won't throw undocumented immigrants, members of the trans community, and victims of a racist justice system under the bus to get your vote.

[Heddi]

110. I don't know why you'd consider yourself a democrat

anyone who is willing to deny transgender men and women full and equal rights is a bigot. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or butts.

You can call yourself a Democrat, but if you're not willing to allow me and my doctor to come to a decision regarding abortion (per you, no abortion after the 2nd trimester), don't support the "T" In LGBT, and anti-immigration, then I think you're more aligned with the Republican party. They're full of people who, like you, don't believe in full and equal rights for all people, and who think they know better about the status of my uterus than I do.

My party would not be one bit weaker if you weren't a member of it. We'd probably be stronger, to be honest.

For the jury: this is the post I"m responding to:
Jacquette
48. I can only speak for myself
View profile
Pro civil rights, women's rights, environment. Pro abortion rights but not after 2nd trimester. Pro Lgb but not T. Pro free trade but not globalism. Pro term limits. Pro LEGAL immigration only. Not get here, start a family and apply for citizenship like it's your right. Pro death penalty for crimes against children ONLY.

I am 60 yrs old, female AA. Am I still considered a Democrat?

[Hortensis]

144. Wow. This is a little shocking and in denial. Democrats

come with a wide range of values. Notably, many of our "identity" groups contain large numbers of conservatives, like black people, who voted for Hillary in extremely high percentages, far above white. Hispanics in lesser numbers, but still high and critically important. Want to shove them all back to the Republican Party too?

Please note, political bigotry is every bit as real as race and gender, as is merely extreme political intolerance. And hands meaning to toss criticism at others may swing too sloppily and come back on one's own face.

[Act_of_Reparation]

145. "political bigotry is every bit as real as race and gender"

[Heddi]

146. You have got to be kidding

Not wanting my party to be infiltrated with people who don't believe Trans folks deserve full rights, who don't believe in abortion, and who are pro-death penalty is "political bigotry?"

You better call the ACLU on Skinner--this whole site must be like Stormfront to you, with the constant "political bigotry" we show towards conservatives of all stripes on this site, all day, every day. Heck, there's even a Top 10 Conservative Idiots...that's practically, like, eugenics!!!!11!!!

No, Someone who openly advocates their transphobic positions isn't welcome in my party. You can get all snuggly with them if you want, but I prefer people who call themselves democrats to be actual democrats, you know, not hold positions that align to the right of Newt Gingrich.

[Demsrule86]

50. We have some and will need more to win back Congress.

But...they should not be endorsed by Party leaders...you cannot make it OK to take away a woman's right to choose, take away the the right to marry for Gays or turn your back on Black lives matter.

[Jacquette]

76. If there is a Dem purity test

then it's clear I've failed abysmally. These are the exact same feelings I've had since I cast my very 1st vote for President 40 yrs ago. Carter, Mondale, Clinton x2, Gore, Kerry, Obama x2. I've never voted R, never. Straight D, right down the line. And now I don't belong.

I will never become a Republican but by changing to Independent, I can concentrate on local and state politics.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. "These are the exact same feelings I've had since I cast my very 1st vote for President 40 yrs ago"

That might be part of the problem, don't you think?

[Jacquette]

88. No I don't. Back then it wasn't a problem.

I wasn't a Reagan democrat or one who flip flopped btw R and D every election cycle. Back then I was considered a liberal.

[OriginalGeek]

105. it wasn't a problem back then because we just didn't know as much back then

Hell, I voted for Reagan my first time voting - as a fundamentalist baptist not long out of 4 years of christian high school when I was still a brainwashed white, male Texan.

But no R's since then except for one protest vote against a local D sheriff who doesn't believe in medical marijuana for anyone.

When I was 18 I didn't even know there was such a thing transgender. I knew there were gay people but my church told me they were sinners going to hell. Thankfully I'm an atheist now - and probably always was but didn't know it until I was faced with the real world outside my religious indoctrination bubble. It's not my place to tell anyone who they are allowed to be or allowed to love. All I can do is always vote for inclusion and equality whenever I can and be a friend to anyone who needs me.

Abortion decisions are not mine to make. It's between the woman and her doctor no matter when it happens. I am and always will be for full, unfettered access to abortion no matter what. Privacy laws SHOULD mean I would never know about it anyway as I'm not the one getting the abortion. I always think of "on demand" as a bit of a code phrase for "I'm against it really..." I'm not against it. At all. I'm personally convinced that anti-choice is a religious position even for my atheist friend who is against all of them.

Death penalty is way too permanent to take a chance. We know 100% positive there have been people executed who were not guilty of the crime. Doesn't matter how heinous the crime - and yes there are surely some who I would selfishly want to exact some terrible revenge for in a moment of weakness but I usually come to my senses and I will always vote against DP.

I probably wouldn't pass a purity test either as I have a valid concealed carry permit. I'm 100% against the state executing someone however I would defend my family or neighbors or innocent strangers if forced to. I have never actually carried anything anywhere but I do have a handgun and a couple hunting rifles inherited from my FIL.

So I don't know if it's you or me or neither who needs to leave the Dem party. All I know is the Dem I want to be takes the above positions and whatever party is doing that is what I'll be.

[Gravitycollapse]

108. Times change. I suggest you get with them.

You're not going to get sympathy from me because you are being ostracized for your transphobia.

[Act_of_Reparation]

143. So, not shifting your opinion once in 40 years isn't a problem?

Allow me to answer with a quote I can't source:

"The learners will inherit the earth, while the learned will find themselves beautifully prepared for a world that no longer exists."

[Voltaire2]

101. Social Conservatives endorse bigotry

and repression of civil rights. On which issues should we woo these bigots?

[Demsrule86]

137. We simply run as Ossoff did...he was pro-choice and came damn close.

[SharonClark]

47. Dems used to be 'good liberals'?

When were they ever more liberal than they are now?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Political parties, and even elections, are becoming irrelevant to a lot of people...

While canvassing, I find an almost predominant attitude that neither party is worth dealing with. They have become irrelevant, especially amongst the young. Kinda like churches.

One major problem is that Republicans generally campaign on "What we can do for you." Democrats campaign on "What we can do for the community." Republicans then have the edge on self-interest and I have no interest in becoming more like them that way.

Locally, party affiliation seems to be a habit more than anything else, and whoever is in power-- as long as they keep filling the potholes they will stay in power.

[Tatiana]

13. In the Bible Belt, yes.

We could use some Christian Democrats with integrity to run in elections down there. Republican voters aren't just indoctrinated by Faux News, but in their pulpits every Sunday. If we can make religion a non-issue, more voters will be willing to listen to our perspective on health care, the economy and other important topics.

[Saviolo]

15. What would the left have to give up, then?

We get to hold on to "more liberal economic efforts" but show a more socially conservative face. What are you willing to give up to attract those voters?

LGBTQ rights?
Roe v. Wade?
Immigration/refugee policies?
Food stamp/welfare programs?

The socially liberal ideas that the right hates tend to be those that help women, visible minorities, LGBTQ, and the poor. Are you willing to dump any of those groups under the bus to attract a new demographic that doesn't support them?

The economic debate between conservative economic and liberal economic policy is one that I can understand. I can see how the right -expects- their economic policy to work, but I don't agree that it does. But I can see no common ground on the right with their regressive social policies and ideals. Denying women health care, denying gay and trans people work and housing, oppressing POC, making immigrants a sub-class. That's where they're expecting you to go.

[geek tragedy]

17. it's an incredibly painful dilemma.

I don't have the answers, but it seems unacceptable to betray core princples, but it's also unacceptable to let Tr*mpism govern this country.

Maybe we defuse the cultural stuff. That was the Obama idea, we're all Americans etc. Can we still pull it off?

[Kolesar]

109. That's kind of strong, but it had to be said

I think the answer is finding underserved groups and building the coalition, but the idea takes a lot of development. It is the Wellstone method.

[Bradical79]

16. I'd leave the party if that became the norm -nt

[Moostache]

18. People NOT voting are more important than messages...

The bottom line is Truman was right some 70+ years ago....given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican, the voters will always choose the Republican. Faking it or selling out core principles to chase votes is a losing idea.

1) Start saying this with me right now...SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE.

It needs to be a mantra and a common ground principle for the party. The price of admission to the Democratic Party is you are full-throated supporting the RIGHT of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN to basic healthcare and emergency services to save their life when possible.

The Democrats need an issue and an identity that they are willing to "go to the mattresses" for...if not healthcare, then what? The "we're not as bad as the GOP / we're NOT Trump" message has been found wanting...we need a banner, a rallying cry, a mantra.

As the polling shows, the public's appetite for taking away health care instead of making it better is about as popular as rancid meat. The way forward has ALWAYS been a push to remove the profit motive from health care and life or death decisions. I have a friend who nearly died from an imminently treatable affliction that became a crisis because he lacked health insurance, ended up in an ER for a life threatening situation and was subsequently ruined by a $65,000 bill that he has no chance of ever paying - ruining his credit, his ability to move or find new housing and essentially sapping him of the will to live in general. What's the point of trying to build a future when your present is a shit show and the bill for that shit show is going to ruin you for decades to come?

This is the best we can do? Allowing citizens to have their lives destroyed by illness, by fate, by bad luck? Allowing greed to put up barriers of profit siphoning between patients and doctors in the form of the insurance company middle man, hand out for a cut of the money? The imagery should NOT be one of "government inefficiency" but rather one of "private profiteering". The argument should not be based around anything but the lack of material impact the insurance provides versus the amount of healthcare it deprives as a result of the need to feed the overhead instead of attend to patient's needs.

2) Get Joe Kennedy into campaign mode NOW!

The hope of the Democratic Party lies in his hands in my opinion. I have seen him deliver some passionate speeches in Congress and while some may say he needs more seasoning and time to grow, I say there is no possible greater contrast to offer the nation than a Kennedy taking on 75 year old pasty ass Trump in 2020...or Pence if events take Donnie 2 Scoops out prior to the voting...

We need a fresh face, one with passion and vigor and yes, name recognition. We need a standard bearer with the fire of Sanders, the smarts of Clinton and the passion of their bases rolled into one...in my eyes, that man is Joseph Kennedy.

3) Expunge any and all "Blue Dogs" from the party

If you are not a full Democrat that can be counted on to toe the party line and stay with the party just like these GOP bastards, then go join the other team or go it alone. We have to stop allowing the party to be riven by the craven opportunists that are really nothing more than spineless GOP wannabes and enablers anyway. I won't name names here, but there are too many still around that need to go and go quickly, as in the next 90 days...the campaign mindset of just pointing out how mean the GOP is also has to go...

4) FIGHT the perception that "Government IS the problem" already!!!

Goddamn that Reagan era bullshit...it is STILL an effective sound bite and accepted mantra for the right and it is and always has been total BULLSHIT!!! Our government is of, by and for THE PEOPLE....we have allowed the corporations and business interests to cynically buy seats in congress, buy chairman's gavels and sell out the PEOPLE, but the GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE FUCKING PROBLEM....the piece of shit PEOPLE WE ALLOW IN THE GOVERNMENT ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

There has never been an adequate rebuttal of this horse shit proposition from the Democratic Party...the closest we have is the little montage from "The West Wing" that Lawrence O'Donnell wrote:

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
I’ll tell you what they did.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.
Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Liberals created Medicare.
Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.

What did conservatives do?
They opposed them on every one of those things, ­every one.

So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator.

Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people is the fundamental IDEA of America...it is what we should be fighting to maintain. We have allowed the discussion to devolve from WHO is in charge to whether or not the government should be there at all (which is a disingenuous dodge by the fascists and plutocrats of the Right....they want government alright, just one that services ONLY their needs and not the needs of the nation as a whole).

Its time to stop that nonsensical "role of government" canard and start fighting a more visceral campaign to redefine not the role of government but the COMPOSITION of the government. We allow the GOP a free pass to use the government and its power to strip away rights and freedoms and to define morality and right/wrong in their own religious-tinged light....NO MORE DAMMIT!!!

What is the role of government in the lives of the people? It is everything and everywhere and that is NOT changing...only the way it is used has been changed in the last 40 years. The New Deal and Great Society programs sought to establish the government as a force for good in the lives and rights of the citizens. That message, that hope, that vision has been clouded by a beach bully kicking sand in our faces, stealing our towel and telling us we have no right to expect any assistance from our government at all.

I do not buy that.
I do not believe that.
I do not accept that.

Times are always a changin'...that much is certain...but universal truths do not change as readily. Our government is the PEOPLE in theory...its time to take that back in reality.

[Demsrule86]

20. I completely disagree with you. When we had a majority and power we had blue dogs...without then, we

can not win...like it or not, we are more of a centrist country.

[Demsrule86]

19. Some candidates may be to the right...but we can not change who we are...right is right...

We must maintain our fight for civil liberties for all.

[Trial_By_Fire]

21. There already is a party that is the 'right culturally'...

We call them republicans.

[ollie10]

22. We don't need to go further right! That would make it worse, not better!

This line of "thinking" assumes that if we package ourselves with a finger in the wind we will start to win more elections.....wrong!

People want genuineness, not phoniness. They are tired of whom they call typical politicians. That is part of how Trump got to be president, by attacking politicians, the establishment, etc

I voted for Bernie in the primary, but I am not saying we need to go further to the left either.

What we need to do is figure out the values we stand for as a party, the issues that we fight for. We need to articulate who we are better....as it is the Rs are defining us.

Maybe we have to get together and write up some sort of manifesto, with the issues that unite us and find some way of getting this out to the voters. How voting for Ds will help voters' lives better than voting R. Get a list of winning issues we hammer home and present a vision for America in the process. We don't have to go conservative, or go liberal....we need to articulate ourselves better. We have the winning side of the issues on the environment, global warming, education, health care, the economy, jobs, infrastructure, etc etc etc.....

The Rs are good for marketing their ideas into catchy phrases....like MAGA or America First. Why let them be the only ones to effectively market their pathetic ideas? We can come up with something truly inspirational if we tried.

[smirkymonkey]

38. +1000

[dawg]

23. No, but in some districts it would make sense to try and project a "traditional" image.

Image matters more than most of us are willing to believe. And looking more "conservative" while simultaneously proposing liberal policies could influence enough low-information voters to make a difference.

And I know that sounds bad - in so many ways.

[Skittles]

104. BIGOTED IMAGE

just say it like it is

[dawg]

117. Not bigoted.

Just stuffy-looking. (And maybe a little "churchy" or "gun-ish", depending on the district.)

[Skittles]

125. DIG DEEPER

they're either bigots, or they vote for a party that openly supports bigotry....THEY SUCK

[Solly Mack]

24. Sure. Why not register as republicans while we are at it?

In fact, let's make Trump our new poster boy for how to think and behave! Let's write Paul Ryan and tell him how much we admire him!

I know! I know! I know! Let's take up donations and send Mitch McConnell roses!!!

Yeah!! That's the ticket!!!

Translation: Fuck that shit.

[leftstreet]

32. Replace Pelosi with Ted Nugent!

[Solly Mack]

43. The possibilities are endless!

[smirkymonkey]

40. Exactly! Eff that!

The problem is that we have been inching to the right for years and it's not working for us. We are afraid to stand up for what we are and we keep losing.

[Solly Mack]

44. I agree.

[KTM]

90. +1

[Wounded Bear]

27. Seems to me the party HAS been moving rightward for many years...

Not working out so well. We need to fight that, not embrace it.

[Demsrule86]

51. The country has moved right...and the idea we need to move left is wrong and will cost us

elections. You have to deal with reality.

[WoonTars]

98. By what metric has it 'moved right'?

If anything the country has moved more to the left, but we keep losing elections because of gerrymandering. Democrats got collectively well over a million more votes than the Republicans in the House, but they maintained a majority of seats. That is purely down to gerrymandering.

We need to stop letting the Corporate Media and their Stenographers from framing the message and stand up for Liberal/Democratic principles and offer substantive alternatives rather than just saying "hey, at least we're not as bad as THOSE guys"....

[David__77]

29. I think that "cultural conservatism" could be broken down into numerous components.

For instance, I do not think that upholding the ideology behind "whiteness studies" will be popular among many people who favor policies traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. On the other hand, many of those same voters might have no problem with abortion being legal and same sex marriage being legal.

[Demsrule86]

54. Well too bad for them...we can not walk away from civil rights period...or you lose me and

millions of Democrats.

[David__77]

113. I would make a distinction here.

I think that one could disagree with the ideology underlying "whiteness studies" (as developed, for instance, by the Maoist or former Maoist Noel Ignatiev), and still uphold civil rights.

[Demsrule86]

136. How exactly would that work?

[RadiationTherapy]

30. I think there is a greater desire for some sort of "radical change" than there is desire

for more conservatism/liberalism. Moving center isn't radical in any way. I think that going more left has at least a chance to stimulate some typically-non-voters, but moving center in some ways validates the claim of "both parties support the classist status quo."

[Demsrule86]

56. So why didn't Quist stimulate non-voters? The Dem governor beat Gianfort in 2016

Now the Dem. Governor was a moderate. Those who don't vote don't care;they share values with the GOP and simply are not interested in politics...the GOP is good enough for them...what makes you think they don't share Republican values?

[RadiationTherapy]

100. Are you asking me why your single data point doesn't support my hypothesis

and then drawing your own conclusions about the single data point in terms of the hypothesis? I don't know if that is an effective way to think about this.

[justiceischeap]

31. You can't win if the game is rigged

We need to do two things, IMO. Get dirty money out of politics and outlaw gerrymandering.

If you rig your voting districts so that not all people are represented, it doesn't matter how many people turn out if that district is rigged for one side.

Ossof did a damn fine job in a district he should have lost by large margins. As did the candidate in SC and all the other special elections we lost.

Think about how close the Dems came to winning in areas that should have never been that close.

Also, another issue is that the Dem Party needs a clear message that doesn't consist of only anti-Trump/GOP.

[FBaggins]

33. Yes! and also No!

The party needs to re-learn Tip O'Neill's maxim:

All politics is local.

In some areas... yes, that means moving to the right. In other areas, it means moving to the left.

In ALL areas... this means being well to the left of the Republican running for (or currently in) that seat.

[underpants]

35. Gerrymandering and disenfranchisement covers most of it

The state races get almost no attention but they weigh heavily on the national picture.

Put me down as a No.

[Blue_Adept]

36. This is one way you can tell it's a Wednesday after an election

At least there's no Wasserman-Schultz to kick around this time!

[LeftinOH]

37. A little bit of pandering wouldn't hurt...

Appeals to patriotism and religious faith always work, because that shit sells. Superficial platitudes go a loooooong way with conservatives.

[Va Lefty]

39. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

[ileus]

41. Just stop being regressive on the 2A.

If we want to win with 70% margins adopt a progressive stance on the 2A.

[Hoyt]

52. Oh Bull. Gunners need to get real about their crappy "hobby" and life-style.

[YoungDemCA]

67. And Democrats need to get real about how toxic they are in many parts of the country.

With the gun issue being a not-at-all insignificant part of that.

[Hoyt]

68. How toxic who is? White wing racist gun lovers.

[YoungDemCA]

69. A lot of lifelong Democrats own guns too.

Yet many of them are becoming increasingly uncomfortable in the party, and racism is not the reason (or at the very least, not the MAIN reason).

[Hoyt]

70. One who would leave the party over guns, isn't much of a Democrat in my mind. But, fine.

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. In a perfect world no would listen to ska.

But they do.

So quit bellyaching and make due.

[Hoyt]

91. So, let's put more George Zimmermans and Michael Dunns on the street to appease gun lovers?

I don't think they will be voting for Democrats, but dream on.

[Act_of_Reparation]

111. Yes, that's *exactly* what's being proposed here.

You are obviously paying very close attention to what people are saying.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. You have a very strange idea of the meaning of "progressive" (n/t)

[Coventina]

42. If the Dem party throws me under the bus to appeal to Trumpers, I'm gone.

End of story.

[brush]

45. I'm not in favor of trumpifying the Democratic Party

[mythology]

49. No

We need to work on gerrymandering and vote suppression as well as marketing the party.

We need to commit at the local level. I don't mean for House of Representatives, but at the state and city government levels. Not only does that give us a bench of candidates, but it energizes the local support and builds the party. The party didn't get here overnight. The fix will take time.

[Saviolo]

53. This here.

All of those super energetic youths that are being crapped upon because the boomers think millenials are useless need to take the energy and engagement they had in the last election (whether from Bernie or Hillary), and drive it to local politics. School trustees, city council, etc... and move up. Fill up the grass roots with liberals and progressives and they'll filter up. You won't even recognize national politics in 15 years if we can get that kind of engagement.

[Demsrule86]

58. Who is crapping on them?

Some crapped on themselves by not supporting the Democratic candidate. They won't have time to be political because Hillary would have helped with student debt but now existing agreements are being torn up by Devos. Also, while they showed up for rallies...not so good about voting...look at Virginia, Perriello was counting on younger voters to turn out, and they didn't.

[Saviolo]

87. You haven't seen the dozens and dozens of thinkpieces?

The hot takes about how Milennials are destroying every industry ever since forever? According to articles from places like NBC, Business Insider, Fortune, Fox, Bloomberg, etc... Milennials have ruined everything:

Link to tweet

Regardless, I'm talking about the engaged ones. The young, enthusiastic, idealistic wonks who are progressive and excited. They need to get involved in lower levels of government and filter up through the ranks.

Those young progressives need to be encouraged and guided. New blood, new life for progressive causes everywhere.

[Else You Are Mad]

57. So let me get this straight.

The far left Bernie got crap by most of the moderate left leaning Democrats for backing a pro-life Democratic candidate and now those Democrats want to embrace even more right wing Democrats? Am I missing something here or is there a bit of Bernie induced hypocrisy?

I am not insulting any DUers or any Democrats, I am seriously just confused?

[Demsrule86]

61. Actually no...I don't. I was angry about Mello...and did not see why we even got involved with

a mayor's race until I found out Jane Kleeb who worked for Sen. Sanders was the Party chairperson. And if Sen.Sanders is willing to throw social issues under the bus like pro-choice, he is not a leftist perhaps a populist;I am not sure ... He is after all independent.

[Else You Are Mad]

62. But, by saying we need to embrace right wing Democrats...

You are doing exactly what Sanders did.

[Demsrule86]

73. What I said was ...candidate have to be tailored for their district. That is a fact to regain

the majority. We can have a big tent...but the platform remains the same and no party leader endorsements either.

[Else You Are Mad]

89. So it is okay

If we allow pro-life, anti-lgbt, and racist right wing Democrats so long as no one from the party endorses them?

How could our platform remain the same if we permit such candidates to run? I would rather go down fighting then have right wing, Christian crazies in my party.

Also, just to let you know, by not fighting such candidates means you actually do endorse such vile candidates. If that is the future of the Democratic party count me out.

[Voltaire2]

59. Drafting the Republican Party has been the strategy

since the 90s. We've lost the house the senate the vast majority of the stat es and as a consequence the courts and as another consequence the congressional districts have been gerrymandered to make regaining the house very difficult as have state legislative districts as yet another consequence voter suppression is a fact of life. By all means let's pursue this fabulous strategy to its bitter end, which is about where we are now.

[Demsrule86]

79. Today must be opposite day...we had it all in 2008 and the GOP won in 10

largely for the same reason Hillary lost in 16...the alt-left (for want of a better term...greens and who knows who) didn't turn out ...Obama couldn't give them single payer so they turned on him...and we all paid the price for it. I remember threads where Obama was called horrible things on this website. Now what happened in 2000 that made United possible...why the alt-left turned their back on Gore...and elected Bush via Nader who ran as a third party candidate...fun times. Now Democrats have to raise big bucks to stay competitive...So what you blame on the moderates and Democrats like me (liberal and loyal) really was because of the alt-left (Greens)actions in not supporting Democrats in every election. They couldn't get it all now( damn it)...so they took their ball and went home....and now you want more losing ...because that is what will happen if we do as you say. You learned the wrong lesson...the lesson is be loyal to your party and vote Democratic in every election...including mid-terms and state elections. Work within the party to improve it and put your stamp on it...don't criticize the Democratic Party unless you want to drive voters away because you will do exactly that.

[Vinca]

63. If I wanted to be a Republican I'd change parties.

[qanda]

65. You just go right ahead

I already want little to do with this watered-down version of progressivism. If the Democrats have to sell their souls to win then I'd rather lose.

[Blue_true]

66. No. Moderate with a good message.

Also, some on our side must learn to respect that every district is different, a candidate that plays well in one gets crushed in another.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

71. No!

And who(m) would that include throwing under the proverbial bus to win elections? Women/Reproductive rights? LGBTQs? The poor? The sick? Not to mention that being a Democrat is akin to Satan to some people in rural Republican areas of country where, short of totally hiding your party label, no amount of backwards pandering will ever get wingnuts to vote for you. Sorry, but if the Democratic Party moves backwards like that and decides that it HAS to throw a bunch of people under the bus and move backwards on issues (where we are in the overall MAJORITY) to win elections , I would HAVE to reconsider my support of the party. No ifs, ands, or buts!

[Greybnk48]

72. NOPE. The shift to the right in the 90's almost

killed our party. No more of that triangulation crap.

[Orrex]

77. Hell yeah! We should abandon the wimmins and those pesky gays.

Not to mention people of color. They had their brief flirtation with actual personhood. Let's kick 'em all under the bus and start winning elections!

[WoonTars]

80. Hell no!!

Republican lite is NOT the answer.

[LisaM]

84. I think the party needs to be dynamic to match the voters in different areas.

That's supposed to be one of the tenets of the Dems - be a big tent. But it seems as if a lot of people want to crowd into a smaller and smaller tent.

[alarimer]

85. Absolutely not.

Not if they want to lose by even more through suppressing voter turnout by the BASE. But I also think that sometimes you do have to vote for the lesser of the evils, even if you disagree with them on some things. But for the party as a whole, no, they should not move right on social issues like abortion or gay rights. I

What we are seeing are the final death throes of the bigot vote. Right now they are more numerous, but it won't last.

The problem with Ossoff was not his principles or lack thereof. The problem is (and his is not alone here) is the political consultants that force a bland, middle-of-the-road-ness on these candidates. When I heard him interviewed on NPR, what came across was something so inoffensive, so bland, as to be meaningless. Now, this kind of thing is not restricted to Democrats, but Democrats do it so as to appeal to the middle. It almost never works. Suburban Republicans are never going to vote Democrat, no matter what the message is.

Ossoff is young and inexperienced and I think that also played a role. While that lack of record can also be a positive (no skeletons), here it may have been a negative.

[WinkyDink]

86. NO. As Harry Truman once famously said:

“If a voter has a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, he’ll vote for the Republican every time.”

[samnsara]

92. so we need to dumb down to get votes? hell NO!

[Bettie]

93. Moving toward "Social Conservatism"

would be leaving pretty much everyone who isn't white, straight, male, and wealthy behind.

It would mean no longer struggling toward racial equality, no more working toward LGBT+ rights, no more caring about women's rights.

Call-out culture and various types of shaming are not particularly helpful...but we can't just concede to people who are still stuck in another century.

[aikoaiko]

94. No, but we have to address those swing voters more effectively

It's hard to do.

[gordianot]

102. No

[Skittles]

103. FUCK NO

NO PANDERING TO FUCKING BIGOTS

[vi5]

112. No, we need to win non-voters....

The number of "reachable" moderates or GOP leaners is so minimal that we will never win the war, only tiny battles along the way that will get us nowhere and win us nothing except fleeting, easily dismantle victories.

We need to start energizing people that don't vote or that have given up on politics.

I'm in my late 40's and have been highly politically engaged and involved, and a hardcore Democratic partisan since I was in my teens and I find myself increasingly just throwing up my hands in disgust or just wanting to stop giving a fuck because our leadership just continues to be so tone deaf and inept with regard to what is going to motivate people to get to the polls. I continue to vote and donate and volunteer but I feel like I'm not being heard and that nobody is willing to try any sort of new strategies or tactics or anything else. So if I feel that way I don't know how anyone expects to be inspiring to new voters or not as highly partisan or informed voters.

But hey, apparently I just want a pony or something.

[k8conant]

114. No We should be the change we want to see.

We should stand for what we believe in.

[onecaliberal]

118. No. We are not evil greedy morally or ethically bankrupt. We are NOT republicans.

[YOHABLO]

119. We need to establish a law that says: you don't vote, you don't drive. Too harsh?

[Fait Accompli]

121. The party needs to move left economically. Not right culturally.

Kick the bankers, lawyers, insurers and lobbyists OUT.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

122. Moving right won't help where "Democrat" is a toxic brand

What can help isn't moving to the right but trimming the left fringe who don't really do much other than have public tantrums that alienate the public at large and then go vote for the Green Party.

Total public disavowal, there is no confusion in Europe about where the center-left ends and red diaper fringe begins.

[geek tragedy]

124. I would expect the Evergreen College types to get Sistah Souljah'd between now and 2018 nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

131. I sure hope so

But I will just about guarantee they're going to see to it 2020 makes 2008 look like a post-Thanksgiving drunk uncle politics or football argument.

At least Bernie sort of gathered them up in one place, we're going to have our very own Marxist clown car.

[Awsi Dooger]

123. We are in an awkward stage right now

The people who came of voting age during the Reagan years are voting dependably and will still be around for a long time. We are dominating the newcomer voters but they aren't reliable and too often go off on tangents like third party. Some of our key demographics like single females don't show up in midterms. The white working class shift is very real and has been evident for several years, long before 2016. Fear sells. It is moving white men now just like 9-11 shifted a critical percentage of the so-called security moms. Many states are trending our way but several simply aren't ready, like Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia.

It's hard to panic when our party has carried the popular vote in 6 of the past 7 general elections. Imagine how different the dialog and country would be without those flawed Florida ballot designs or Hillary sensing she should campaign in different states, that barely squeaking over the electoral line was plenty.

Bill Clinton used to speak of the impact of strong and wrong. That explains Donald Trump. Realistically we need to handicap the electorate and cater to what they respect. White males are allowed to bullshit and get away with it. Note that commercial with a disc jockey who seamlessly pretends to be a financial analyst. Trump pretended to be everything to everybody. IMO, every time we nominate a woman or a black man we are taking an admirable risk that probably isn't worth it in this era. Every race, not merely president. Obama may have won two terms but he also forfeited a huge chunk of white males along the way, and now every one of our candidates is paying for it for the foreseeable.

I'd prefer to win narrowly than to explain and strategize. It's perfectly fine for the background photo to resemble America as a block even if our candidate himself front and center resembles the prototype CEO.

As always, I don't care about issue breakdown compared to bottom line self-identify numbers. As long as the country has a 3/2 split of conservatives over liberals we have little margin for error.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

126. Do it and I'm gone.

[MoonRiver]

127. No, we need fair elections. Period.

[iamateacher]

129. No

No.

[Warren DeMontague]

130. We need the Supreme Court to recognize that gerrymandering disenfranchisement

I agree with you that the professional tumblr class bullshit has been counter-productive, to say the least:

I have a gaggle of nieces and nephews in their early 20s who think "liberals" stand for things like censorship and finger-wagging and telling people what they can watch on tv or how many swear words they're allowed to hear in a video game

but since we have the 1st Amendment we are going to continue to have people promoting head-banging dumbfuckery under the banner of "progressive" ideological gatekeeping (I've been convinced for some time that some of it is a Koch Bros. funded long game, but I digress) ....

so back here in the real world, yeah, we need to find earthy candidates who can speak to local concerns. But that shouldn't mean abandoning values like reproductive freedom.

Instead, we need to make "liberal" and "progressive" synonymous with personal choice and freedom, again. Anti-censorship/PRO FIRST AMENDMENT. Pro-cannabis legalization (an issue that- hello!- is popular all over the place and across the political spectrum)... and maybe it's time to realize that gun control is a loser at the federal level.

[bresue]

133. After listening to Jeh Johnson today, I think we need to fix our voting machines first....

[kacekwl]

134. I believe the majority of citizens support

Social Security, Medicare, gay rights, healthcare for all, pro choice, real tax reforms, anti war, clean air, alternative energy etc. So why won't the majority come out to vote ?

[geek tragedy]

135. Racism is a big thing nt

[BootinUp]

138. Wait for the pendulum to swing. Trump

Is making it swing faster

[Calculating]

139. Never mentioning gun control would be a good start

I fully believe her strong gun control viewpoints cost Hillary the election. I also believe it cost gore the 2000 election. Gun control is simply a losing issue politically speaking. It's similar to the Republican opposition to gay marriage or their opposition to marijuana legalization.

[NYResister]

141. No. Senator Sander's atempted that message in the primary,

and lost.

Advocating the abandonment of Civil Rights is Republican lite.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. Where on that graph are typical Democratic (and Republican) policies?

It's not a question of where swing voters are compared to base voters; it's a question of where the swing voters are compared to party policies.