General Discussion

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

118. There is absolutely proof that suggests an approach to a broader audience improved results

Mon Jun 12, 2017, 02:49 PM

Jun 2017

The election of 1992 which featured Bill Clinton and a shift away from Progressivism toward a more center left approach produced the first victory for Democrats in 16 years. This began a 24 year span where Democrats only lost the popular vote once in seven elections after being destroyed in three straight.

Folks like you attack Clinton and his approach and the changes he brought to the party, but since then, Democrats have won more national contests than they have lost.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Every Democrat should read this article in the NY Times. [View all] kentuck Jun 2017 OP

Ossoff's stategy might win a race here or there... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #1

The only way to get more progressive policies is to win elections. DanTex Jun 2017 #4

True. I think the challenge for Democrats will be how well they can adapt to their districts? kentuck Jun 2017 #5

Educate voters to care about policies over sound bite. Too many Dems had no idea what HRC promoted bettyellen Jun 2017 #26

And that condescending approach is why she lost Les Cowbell Jun 2017 #52

Condesending says the man who tells me to "try reading" Lakeoff bettyellen Jun 2017 #112

Not values. BRAND. Rump voters abandoned all Hortensis Jun 2017 #119

AND we need to contest across the country. The Dem leadership should tblue37 Jun 2017 #27

the way to win elections is to focus on how Republican policies harm voters virtualobserver Jun 2017 #10

Joe Manchin won in WV while running away from Obama. DanTex Jun 2017 #14

The Democratic Party has been using this time honored strategy since the early 90's... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #15

The problem, in my opinion, is that even when they get a majority in Congress... kentuck Jun 2017 #17

They act like mushy moderates because that is how they campaigned. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #20

In order to have the power to craft legislation by being in the majority...you have to accept Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #81

And in that time controlled the White House for 16 years. And won the popular vote DanTex Jun 2017 #18

As we have seen, controlling the White House isn't enough. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #21

controlling the white house gave us supreme court justices and nation wide same sex marriage JI7 Jun 2017 #37

it didn't give us Merrick Garland virtualobserver Jun 2017 #39

that has to do with republican control of senate . if hillary had won merrick garland would be sc JI7 Jun 2017 #40

No, the Republicans would have blocked the nomination for 4 years.... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #42

in the end it really is about demographics and white voters voting on white privilege JI7 Jun 2017 #43

No, it is about Democrats not making the case for themselves and against Republicans. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #45

we have actual numbers. there is a reason why trump appealed to mainly white voters JI7 Jun 2017 #47

As I said....Democrats didn't make the case. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #51

I absolutely agree with this. alarimer Jun 2017 #91

+1 betsuni Jun 2017 #49

Feel free to suggest another term besides "hard left". DanTex Jun 2017 #88

It has nothing to do with "left" virtualobserver Jun 2017 #95

Yes, it has everything to do with the hard left. DanTex Jun 2017 #99

No, the onus is on you. You have to explain to me why this strategy which lost 1000 seats.... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #100

That's a joke. The Democratic Party has both won and lost a lot of seats over the DanTex Jun 2017 #103

your endless straw men about Nader and Stein bore me. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #106

They're not straw, those are real people. DanTex Jun 2017 #109

the current strategy is leading to electoral losses virtualobserver Jun 2017 #116

Can I borrow part of your post? moda253 Jun 2017 #110

Sure, by all means, post away. Thanks. DanTex Jun 2017 #113

Thanks! moda253 Jun 2017 #117

That's your spin. It may very well be that this strategy kept us from worse losses. You have no stevenleser Jun 2017 #32

There is no proof that suggests the opposite virtualobserver Jun 2017 #38

gore got more votes than bush. and hillary got more votes than trump and a higher percentage of JI7 Jun 2017 #41

Yes, but my point is still true..... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #44

people vote on many issues. and people who voted for trump voted largely on race and other social JI7 Jun 2017 #46

I'm not talking about Trump.... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #48

you have to admit the bigotry first. they vote republican because the republicans represent JI7 Jun 2017 #50

that's the thing, though.....the Republicans don't actually represent their interests virtualobserver Jun 2017 #53

if their interest is banning immigrants, refugees. opposing black lives matter, the republicans DO JI7 Jun 2017 #55

none of those things actually are in their interest.....they are just the flags that Republicans.... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #57

you don't decide what is in their interests. they do and they show it by voting year after year JI7 Jun 2017 #58

If we are going to be the victim party, then we let the Republicans continue to delude them virtualobserver Jun 2017 #60

i'm calling them out on their bigotry. i'm not going to pretend why they voted the way they do JI7 Jun 2017 #62

So you aren't into trying to win elections....you just want to scold them virtualobserver Jun 2017 #63

they should be scolded if they are bigots instead of pretending it isn't what it is JI7 Jun 2017 #65

how does that win elections? virtualobserver Jun 2017 #66

how does pretending the bigotry doesn't exist win ? JI7 Jun 2017 #67

waiting on demographic changes is not a strategy virtualobserver Jun 2017 #69

it has been explained many times. their problem is with black lives matter and immigrants JI7 Jun 2017 #70

Republicans are not a monolith virtualobserver Jun 2017 #71

candidates run for office to get into office so they appeal to what the voters want JI7 Jun 2017 #72

There is absolutely proof that suggests an approach to a broader audience improved results stevenleser Jun 2017 #118

not in terms of the House....only 6 of those 25 years. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #120

House races are not national elections, they are local elections where the constituencies vary widel stevenleser Jun 2017 #121

You don't get my point. House and Senate races NEED to be nationalized. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #122

Worked pretty well when Howard Dean did it in 2006 sweetloukillbot Jun 2017 #59

Agree 100 percent n/t Les Cowbell Jun 2017 #54

Congressman for the district alone MiddleClass Jun 2017 #19

So, you think that a Democrat who shows disrespect to Nancy Pelosi will stand up for us? virtualobserver Jun 2017 #22

We can make the case after we take back the house...and the reality is that progressive does Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #83

Progressive will sell in red states, it just has to be explained properly virtualobserver Jun 2017 #92

It won't sell...it just won't. Maybe after we get back in power with the help of centrists... Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #102

when you really look at the race in Kansas.. virtualobserver Jun 2017 #105

Neither candidate was ever going to win...they were the wrong person for the state. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #108

The refrain that we heard during the General Election campaign was... George II Jun 2017 #94

No one cast their vote based on something from the convention that they never even heard about.... virtualobserver Jun 2017 #98

Silly article. Warpy Jun 2017 #2

Ding, Ding, Ding! peggysue2 Jun 2017 #33

I agree, but let's woodsprite Jun 2017 #78

If it needs to be tattooed on anyone it is Bernie Sanders! moda253 Jun 2017 #111

Ossoff would not be considered GOP light anywhere. and Gingrich's district is not the same as when JI7 Jun 2017 #36

I agree with Rep. Emanuel Cleaver tammywammy Jun 2017 #3

+100 kentuck Jun 2017 #6

I agree, tammywammy. brer cat Jun 2017 #9

I'd take a Manchin over Cruz every day. tammywammy Jun 2017 #11

In the past, progressive ideas have been shut down, even in very progressive districts... kentuck Jun 2017 #13

If even very progressive districts brer cat Jun 2017 #23

Ever think that is because progressives GulfCoast66 Jun 2017 #29

maybe those progressive ideas are not progressive or the district is not progressive. i know in this JI7 Jun 2017 #35

Well...if they can't get elected in progressive districts whatever that means...than Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #84

I'm getting tired of sanders purity litmus tests AlexSFCA Jun 2017 #7

Yet Sen. Sanders endorsed Mello who was a anti-choice...and voted against women's rights in Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #85

That was a purity test in an of itself. alarimer Jun 2017 #93

exactly AlexSFCA Jun 2017 #96

Why is economic policy a must have? And abortion rights are civil rights. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #101

The article's main premise is false mcar Jun 2017 #8

Progressives believe themselves to be the "base" of the Party, whether accurate or not. kentuck Jun 2017 #12

I couldn't get through the whole thing mcar Jun 2017 #16

Good point. Women and minorities are the base, pnwmom Jun 2017 #28

NYT loves its Dems in Disarray memes mcar Jun 2017 #34

do women and minorities not come in the far left variety? But clearly the left of the party is maybe JCanete Jun 2017 #61

Sanders lost by 4 million votes, so it makes little sense pnwmom Jun 2017 #64

yeah, I agree with that. JCanete Jun 2017 #68

Exactly Me. Jun 2017 #30

It starts with unwinding gerrymandered districts DeminPennswoods Jun 2017 #24

I believe in running candidates appropriate to their districts/states. Tatiana Jun 2017 #25

+1000 Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #86

districts are different. there is no one way to win. you have to know the district JI7 Jun 2017 #31

While not so much here, it should be noted that Bernie is extremely popular in this country CentralMass Jun 2017 #56

It should also be noted that candidates he supported have lost races...thus his popularity does not Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #87

Sanders would never have won. nt cwydro Jun 2017 #73

Ossoff is running a smart campaign for voters of HIS district and we should NEVER lose sight beachbum bob Jun 2017 #74

I do believe that a perceived change in the Party could be good for the Party. kentuck Jun 2017 #75

one reason conservatives win, they APPEAR to be "stronger"....democratic leaders beachbum bob Jun 2017 #76

They say doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition... kentuck Jun 2017 #79

democrats have principles and the overriding priciples are always centered in beachbum bob Jun 2017 #82

No, we need a change in attitude from some...you will never make everyone happy. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #89

Agree partly with the article... Mike Nelson Jun 2017 #77

And how is he different then Mello and Perriello in Virginia...both supported by Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #80

Post removed Post removed Jun 2017 #90

C'mon AlexSFCA Jun 2017 #97

Sounds like Ossoff is running to represent his future constituents Freethinker65 Jun 2017 #104

His emphasis on wasteful spending and his bland both-sideism do not excite. Orsino Jun 2017 #107

Perhaps it is not strategy, but just who Mr. Ossoff is? Freethinker65 Jun 2017 #114

Oh, shit. I hope not. n/t Orsino Jun 2017 #115