Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:45 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
I think the democrats are a permanent minority party

I used to think Karl Rove was full of shit with his talk of a permanent GOP majority. There is no way a party like the GOP, which when you ignore what they say they stand for (small government, middle class tax cuts, middle class jobs) and look at what they actually do, really only stands for 2 things. Plutocracy and white identity politics. I didn't think it was possible to build a long standing coalition on white identity politics and economic policies that benefit the wealthy. But it is.

In 2012, the GOP lost the popular vote in the house by 1%, and won 234 seats.

In 2018, the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 6%, and won 225 seats.

Gerrymandering plays a role, but democrats being in urban areas plays a big role too.

There are arguably more red states than blue states (something like 30 red states). So the senate will probably be GOP for the forseeable future. Granted, Obama won slightly more states than the GOP in 2008 and 2012, but in 2000, 2004, 2016, the GOP won about 30 states vs about 20 for the democrats.

The electoral college is biased towards the GOP. They've lost the popular vote 2x in the last 20 years and still won the presidency.

So call me a pessimist, but I think the democrats are looking at permanent minority status for the next 20 years or so. At least until the silent generation and the oldest baby boomers die off and are replaced by millennials.

Am I wrong? Someone prove me wrong.

If I'm right, what should the democrats do? Should we focus more on state and local politics instead of federal? Should we throw all our weight into capturing one branch of federal office (the presidency seems our best shot) to prevent GOP legislation from being passed? Should we assume the senate is still in play for us? I know the democrats had 60 senators as recently as 2008, but whites w/o college have left the democratic party in droves since then. But then again, democrats have gained some college educated whites in the meanwhile. Plus the % of voters who are millennials or minorities has grown.

I know some people say 'you shouldn't worry about politics'. But at this point there are 2 things I care deeply about with politics. Affordable, reliable health care, and democracy. And I see the GOP as a threat to both of them. If the GOP weren't a threat to them, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

Granted neither party has any interest in truly reforming health care (ie, changing how it is run so that it is more affordable). But at least the democrats aren't trying to destroy medicare and medicaid, or trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, or trying to make it harder to sign up on the exchanges. And the democrats aren't moving towards authoritarianism.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-08-2018 at 05:46 PM.
  #2  
Old 11-08-2018, 05:59 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,528
I think Democrats are and will be the majority party. Reasons as follows:

1. Texas is turning blue. If it does, Republicans will find it virtually impossible to win the presidency again. They can't afford that swing of 38 EVs the other way.

2. Democrats could disperse themselves into red rural states like Wyoming, the Dakotas and Idaho and easily negate the whole Republican advantage of getting Senators from those two states (although Democrats don't want to do it this way.)

3. Even with all those baked-in GOP advantages that you speak of, the Republicans have only barely been hanging on for their political lives by the skin of their teeth. Bear in mind, for instance, that ten years ago there were 60 Democratic senators. That's even accounting for the Republican advantage of the small rural red states.

4. Once Trump leaves the White House, he will leave such a heavy and tarnished legacy on the GOP that it might not recover for a full decade.
  #3  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:17 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,569
"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan

You know, if the DEMs were consistently getting 50%+ of the eligible vote and still weren't winning government you'd have a genuine beef.

When DEMs don't win with 25% of the eligible vote you've got nothing to justify the overweening sense of entitlement.
  #4  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:17 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,779
I'm not sure about the next 15-20 years, but the Senate will eventually be overwhelmingly biased towards the GOP due to migration to urban states. In 2040 it's estimated that 70% of the population will live in 15 states.

Much less confident in predictions about the House in the future.
  #5  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:18 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan

You know, if the DEMs were consistently getting 50%+ of the eligible vote and still weren't winning government you'd have a genuine beef.

When DEMs don't win with 25% of the eligible vote you've got nothing to justify the overweening sense of entitlement.
Why would the eligible vote matter one iota? If the Dems won 90% of the actual vote, but there was only 30% turnout (so 27% of the eligible vote) it would be acceptable for the GOP to win majorities?
  #6  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:24 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,274
I don't think that it is possible for a party to simply be a permanent minority.

If that is the case, then the majority party will start to fracture a bit, and end up creating two parties, or having a faction cross the aisle.
  #7  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:24 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan

You know, if the DEMs were consistently getting 50%+ of the eligible vote and still weren't winning government you'd have a genuine beef.

When DEMs don't win with 25% of the eligible vote you've got nothing to justify the overweening sense of entitlement.
Democrats win the majority of the vote in the house, senate and presidency and still lose those elections.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #8  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:24 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,910
On election night, I heard that the #1 issue mentioned in exit polls by folks who voted for Democrats was health care; for those went GOP, it was immigration.

What happens if the Democrats just throw up their hands and say, oh, we agree with the GOP on immigration, so that debateís now over; are we likewise in agreement on health care? No? Huh. Okay, so: should we debate that, now?
  #9  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:30 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 11,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
I'm not sure about the next 15-20 years, but the Senate will eventually be overwhelmingly biased towards the GOP due to migration to urban states. In 2040 it's estimated that 70% of the population will live in 15 states.
Those 15 states will have a lot of electoral votes. Not 70%, but a lot more than 50%.
  #10  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:36 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,489
I’ve read a lot of folks who think that focus on local issues is a good idea regardless of whether you agree with the premise of the OP or not. After all, that’s where gerrymandering starts, for example.
  #11  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:38 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
On election night, I heard that the #1 issue mentioned in exit polls by folks who voted for Democrats was health care; for those went GOP, it was immigration.

What happens if the Democrats just throw up their hands and say, oh, we agree with the GOP on immigration, so that debateís now over; are we likewise in agreement on health care? No? Huh. Okay, so: should we debate that, now?
Well, they lose the support of quite a number of democratic voters, as we do not agree with the GOP on immigration. To start with, the GOP's stance on immigration is not actually grounded in facts, so in order to agree with their concerns and their solutions is to join them in irrational fantasy. An irrational fantasy that not only harms the people who would like to immigrate to our country, but also our country itself.

Even if I were willing to bend on immigration, what is next? Is there anything that the democrats would be not asked to throw up their hands and say that we agree now? Abortion, guns, the economy, taxes, welfare, entitlements? What happens when the GOP doesn't agree with healthcare either?

You are basically saying that the democrats shouldn't even try to find a compromise solution, but just completely capitulate anything that they value, in order to beg for some scraps.

Healthcare will become a greater and greater concern for more and more americans. There are many who voted for the GOP who personally receive benefits from the ACA that the GOP is trying to take away. They currently have healthcare thanks to the ACA, so they are not worried about that, they are worried about the immigrants that they are told to fear to distract from the fact that the GOP wants to take away their healthcare.

No, I think the dems should run on healthcare, and point out every single time that the republicans have tried to take it away. When they bring up immigration, just point out that illegal immigration is a net negative, if they bring up legal immigration, point out the benefits it has to the economy, and move back to healthcare.
  #12  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Those 15 states will have a lot of electoral votes. Not 70%, but a lot more than 50%.
But they will have only 30 seats in the senate.
  #13  
Old 11-08-2018, 06:49 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, they lose the support of quite a number of democratic voters, as we do not agree with the GOP on immigration.
I donít get it: youíre talking about people who currently prefer Democrats to the GOP, but who wouldnít prefer the Democrats for a myriad of other reasons if this one were a tie?

Quote:
You are basically saying that the democrats shouldn't even try to find a compromise solution, but just completely capitulate anything that they value, in order to beg for some scraps.
Iím saying drop one issue if you think you can win the rest of the issues by dropping that one, and if you think youíll lose the rest if you donít drop that one.

If Iím wrong about that ó if capitulating on immigration wonít get them everything else ó then, sure, itís a different story. But if Iím right, and that happens to be the one thing they donít get if they capitulate and itís one of the many things they donít get if they refuse to capitulate? Whatís the upside?
  #14  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:01 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
On election night, I heard that the #1 issue mentioned in exit polls by folks who voted for Democrats was health care; for those went GOP, it was immigration.

What happens if the Democrats just throw up their hands and say, oh, we agree with the GOP on immigration, so that debate’s now over; are we likewise in agreement on health care? No? Huh. Okay, so: should we debate that, now?
I don't think it would matter because immigration is just a proxy for white identity politics. If it weren't immigration, it would be some other aspect of white identity politics that was the #1 priority of republicans. inner city (aka black) issues like crime or drugs, NFL protests, Islamic extremism, etc. Anything that made native born white christian tradcons feel their identity and sense of status was under threat would be the no. 1 threat.

You can't beat the GOP by claiming to be white nationalists too. For one thing, the democratic party can't win that fight. For another, a huge chunk of the democratic coalition is people who don't like white identity politics (mainly its victims and white liberals, who combined make up the bulk of democratic voters). Also the GOP heavy reliance on white identity politics is partly why college educated whites, especially women, have become more swing voters recently. If the democrats start being white nationalists too, their coalition gets deeply demoralized.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-08-2018 at 07:05 PM.
  #15  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:04 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But they will have only 30 seats in the senate.
And their house seats will represent fewer voters per representative.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #16  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:14 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t get it: you’re talking about people who currently prefer Democrats to the GOP, but who wouldn’t prefer the Democrats for a myriad of other reasons if this one were a tie?



I’m saying drop one issue if you think you can win the rest of the issues by dropping that one, and if you think you’ll lose the rest if you don’t drop that one.

If I’m wrong about that — if capitulating on immigration won’t get them everything else — then, sure, it’s a different story. But if I’m right, and that happens to be the one thing they don’t get if they capitulate and it’s one of the many things they don’t get if they refuse to capitulate? What’s the upside?
Well.. about that, it is not so clear that Democrats should:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...ants#read-more
Quote:
Voters oust Republican sheriffs who collaborated with ICE to deport immigrants

A number of Republican sheriffs who for years worked hand-in-hand with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were ousted from office by Democrats this week. “The victories were emblematic of a greater shift among the electorate,” Think Progress reported, “a backlash to Republicans’ overall racist, anti-immigrant midterm messaging.”

Among the Democratic victories was the defeat of Republican Donnie Harrison, who had served as Wake County, North Carolina’s sheriff since 2002. Harrison had partnered with ICE under the 287(g) program, through which “ICE deputizes local or state law-enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration laws.” In reality, it’s a program rife with racial profiling, costs counties millions, and tears families apart.

Democrat Gerald Baker pledged to stop that, saying that “you’ve got a guy who may get stopped out there for expired tags or no driver’s license and he gets in there and they put that detainer on him and he may have a wife and whole house full of children, babies and everything else.” On Tuesday, the voters agreed with him and elected him the new sheriff. “I’m a little in shock,” said Felicia Arriaga, a professor of sociology at Appalachian State University.
Quote:
It wasn’t just anti-immigrant figures that got stopped in their tracks. In Oregon, an effort by sheriffs and anti-immigrant hate group FAIR to end the state’s longstanding sanctuary policies and force police to collaborate with Trump’s deportation force lost by a massive 63-37 percent margin, immigration rights advocacy group America’s Voice said. Nationally, other anti-immigrant candidates running for federal office were also defeated by voters.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...lost-decidedly
Quote:
Donald Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant fearmongering failed some of his closest allies in numerous key races Tuesday, including the stunning defeat of professional vote suppressor Kris Kobach, who lost the Kansas gubernatorial race to Democrat Laura Kelly. Kobach, who vice-chaired Trump’s sham of a voter fraud commission, “has a long history of vilifying immigrants and pushing repressive policies,” said immigrant rights leader Frank Sharry. “He has inflicted pain on millions. It finally caught up with him.”

Kobach wasn’t alone. In Pennsylvania, Lou Barletta lost the state’s U.S. Senate seat by double digits. The congressman, Sharry continued, “is about as Trumpy a candidate as there is. As mayor of Hazleton, he became a nativist firebrand. As a member of Congress, he has been an anti-immigrant stalwart,” and as a Senate candidate, he received donations from an extremist group with ties to a notorious white nationalist. Pennsylvania said “no gracias” and re-elected Democrat Bob Casey.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-08-2018 at 07:15 PM.
  #17  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:19 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Those 15 states will have a lot of electoral votes. Not 70%, but a lot more than 50%.
30% of the senators. Never get to make a single appointment without giving into every whim of the opposing party.

aka complete fucking bullshit.
  #18  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:31 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
30% of the senators. Never get to make a single appointment without giving into every whim of the opposing party.

aka complete fucking bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? The concept is in the very name of the country.
  #19  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:41 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,098
Why you are wrong in map format
  #20  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:47 PM
Snarky_Kong Snarky_Kong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Why is it bullshit? The concept is in the very name of the country.
Doesn't make it a good idea. Being able to extort that from the larger states was, is, and will continue to be a horrible injustice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton
Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third.
Hypothetical: say 3 people each lived in 49 states and 300,000,000 in the remaining. You would be ok with the 147 people having 98 senators? If not, what proportion do you consider acceptable?
  #21  
Old 11-08-2018, 07:52 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 12,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What happens if the Democrats just throw up their hands and say, oh, we agree with the GOP on immigration, so that debate’s now over; are we likewise in agreement on health care? No? Huh. Okay, so: should we debate that, now?
The smart play on health care would be to ju-jitsu the recent flood of Republican bullshit and declare "We want to work with the Republicans to keep their promise to protect people with preexisting conditions from being denied coverage or charged more."

The attentive student may note that the Republicans didn't actually promise the latter even while lying through their teeth. This is a variation on the "Pigfucker Ploy", named after LBJ's observation about the value of making the other guy deny it.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.

Last edited by Steve MB; 11-08-2018 at 07:53 PM.
  #22  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:05 PM
survinga survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I used to think Karl Rove was full of shit with his talk of a permanent GOP majority. There is no way a party like the GOP, which when you ignore what they say they stand for (small government, middle class tax cuts, middle class jobs) and look at what they actually do, really only stands for 2 things. Plutocracy and white identity politics. I didn't think it was possible to build a long standing coalition on white identity politics and economic policies that benefit the wealthy. But it is.

In 2012, the GOP lost the popular vote in the house by 1%, and won 234 seats.

In 2018, the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 6%, and won 225 seats.

Gerrymandering plays a role, but democrats being in urban areas plays a big role too.

There are arguably more red states than blue states (something like 30 red states). So the senate will probably be GOP for the forseeable future. Granted, Obama won slightly more states than the GOP in 2008 and 2012, but in 2000, 2004, 2016, the GOP won about 30 states vs about 20 for the democrats.

The electoral college is biased towards the GOP. They've lost the popular vote 2x in the last 20 years and still won the presidency.

So call me a pessimist, but I think the democrats are looking at permanent minority status for the next 20 years or so. At least until the silent generation and the oldest baby boomers die off and are replaced by millennials.

Am I wrong? Someone prove me wrong.

If I'm right, what should the democrats do? Should we focus more on state and local politics instead of federal? Should we throw all our weight into capturing one branch of federal office (the presidency seems our best shot) to prevent GOP legislation from being passed? Should we assume the senate is still in play for us? I know the democrats had 60 senators as recently as 2008, but whites w/o college have left the democratic party in droves since then. But then again, democrats have gained some college educated whites in the meanwhile. Plus the % of voters who are millennials or minorities has grown.

I know some people say 'you shouldn't worry about politics'. But at this point there are 2 things I care deeply about with politics. Affordable, reliable health care, and democracy. And I see the GOP as a threat to both of them. If the GOP weren't a threat to them, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

Granted neither party has any interest in truly reforming health care (ie, changing how it is run so that it is more affordable). But at least the democrats aren't trying to destroy medicare and medicaid, or trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, or trying to make it harder to sign up on the exchanges. And the democrats aren't moving towards authoritarianism.
Things ebb and flow. The Dems are not a permanent minority party. They just won the House, and they now are governors in almost half the states. They've been the POTUS 16 out of the last 26 years. And they were the majority in Senate up until 2014. Red & Blue states aren't static. Some shift colors over time. Some grow more red, and some grow more blue, and some become purple (Virginia used to be red, and is now more purplish).

As a former Republican, there were times when I tap-danced on what I thought was the grave of Democratic electoral chances, and I was proven wrong. At this point, I do think the Dems fell asleep a little after Obama was elected, and they got out-worked by Republicans - hence, the gerrymandering. But the Trump election woke them up. I think the Dems, in the near term, are going to continue to surge.
  #23  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:15 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,058
Again, what is with all this pessimism? Why are people even bringing up these things as legitimate? We just gained a majority in one House, and you're trying to argue that we might be a permanent minority? That is literally and factually impossible, because we just won a majority.

I've never seen people respond so pessimistically to an electoral victory.

Are y'all watching Fox News now or something?

Last edited by BigT; 11-08-2018 at 08:16 PM.
  #24  
Old 11-08-2018, 08:22 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Again, what is with all this pessimism? Why are people even bringing up these things as legitimate? We just gained a majority in one House, and you're trying to argue that we might be a permanent minority? That is literally and factually impossible, because we just won a majority.

I've never seen people respond so pessimistically to an electoral victory.

Are y'all watching Fox News now or something?
We gained a smaller majority in the house by winning by 6%, than the GOP won by losing by 1%. Thats a problem.

If government truly represented voters equally I wouldn't feel this way.

But the house, senate and presidency all reward republican voters more than democratic voters. Democrats need to maintain a 3-6% advantage in elections just to break even due to the structural disadvantages they face.

Throw in gerrymandering and voter suppression, and feeling pessimistic is perfectly reasonable.

Throw in the democrats general lack of willingness to use the power given to them by voters, and the pessimism gets even worse.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-08-2018 at 08:23 PM.
  #25  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:02 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
Doesn't make it a good idea. Being able to extort that from the larger states was, is, and will continue to be a horrible injustice.



Hypothetical: say 3 people each lived in 49 states and 300,000,000 in the remaining. You would be ok with the 147 people having 98 senators? If not, what proportion do you consider acceptable?
Oh well. Form a new constitution and in essence a new country then.
  #26  
Old 11-08-2018, 09:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
You probably should read dailykos articles with a little more of a critical eye. First of, whoopdie doo that "a number" of sheriffs lost on ICE cooperation. And wow, Oregan kept a law on sanctuary cities. Thanks Portland, I mean Oregon.

The Dems could probably triangulate a little better on immigration but most definitely on gun control and voter id.
  #27  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:06 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,528
Also, societies usually only trend further and further liberal with time. Sure, every now and then there's a conservative backlash (i.e., Brazil going Bolsonaro,) but the strong undercurrent of modern history is liberal and liberal.
  #28  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:26 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,739
How about this idea: Democrats should stop focusing on being the party that appeals to urban voters, and instead try to be a party that appeals to a broader cross-section of voters. There was a time Democrats did that. Not shockingly, they tended to win a bit more in Congress.

But, by all means, continue to be the party of the urban poor and those who want to do good by them, and then complain that the deck is stacked against you, because you've chosen poorly what you should stand for. Or, rather, please DON'T continue to do that, because it's what allows the Republican Party to be filled with some real idiots any more.
  #29  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:26 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Also, societies usually only trend further and further liberal with time. Sure, every now and then there's a conservative backlash (i.e., Brazil going Bolsonaro,) but the strong undercurrent of modern history is liberal and liberal.
I tend to agree, but the whole rise of fascism is making me not sure.

It seems like societies move towards liberal democracy, social democracy, a welfare state, social egalitarianism, etc. But who knows anymore.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #30  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Also, societies usually only trend further and further liberal with time. Sure, every now and then there's a conservative backlash (i.e., Brazil going Bolsonaro,) but the strong undercurrent of modern history is liberal and liberal.
How about Russia, China and Turkey?
  #31  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:31 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
How about this idea: Democrats should stop focusing on being the party that appeals to urban voters, and instead try to be a party that appeals to a broader cross-section of voters. There was a time Democrats did that. Not shockingly, they tended to win a bit more in Congress.

But, by all means, continue to be the party of the urban poor and those who want to do good by them, and then complain that the deck is stacked against you, because you've chosen poorly what you should stand for. Or, rather, please DON'T continue to do that, because it's what allows the Republican Party to be filled with some real idiots any more.
The democrats are hemorrhaging support from whites w/o a college education lately.

As recently as 1996, whites w/o a college degree mildly preferred the democrats. In 2016 they preferred the GOP by 39 points. When you lose that much support from a group that make up 1/3 of voters, it is going to hurt.

http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conten..._education.png

The issue is how do we appeal to them without giving up our values as democrats? If the reason they left the democrats is because they oppose feminism, racial justice, gay rights, etc. how do we appeal to them without giving up our own values?

I have no idea. Hopefully a strong economic message would appeal to a few of them. But I think the democrats have let themselves be painted as limp wristed pussies, which will make it very hard for them to get support from people who tend to subscribe to traditional masculine values.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 11-08-2018 at 10:32 PM.
  #32  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You probably should read dailykos articles with a little more of a critical eye. First of, whoopdie doo that "a number" of sheriffs lost on ICE cooperation. And wow, Oregan kept a law on sanctuary cities. Thanks Portland, I mean Oregon.
One should notice that you had to omit the loss of guys guys like "I was anti-immigrant before Trump showed up" Kris Kobach in Kansas to make a point. In any case, as the Atlantic reported, Republican gains in the senate obtained in great part by race baiting can not hide the fact that the xenophobic and anti-ACA Trumpian message took a beating in most house races.
  #33  
Old 11-08-2018, 10:48 PM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post

In 2018, the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 6%, and won 225 seats.
That's not counting the still undecided seats. Final tally will probably be in the 229-235 range.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 11-08-2018 at 10:52 PM.
  #34  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:54 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,628
I'm going to do a bad analogy here because I like bad analogies:

I've often said that red states never have real fiscal problems, because their fiscal problems tend to come from tax cuts, not spending commitments. So they can solve their fiscal problems just by raising taxes, whereas blue states have to figure out how to get out of fiscal commitments they made that might be legally difficult not to mention politically terrifying.

Democrats have a similar problem as red states. They have a huge reservoir of voters they COULD win, but choose not to cater to them. Solving their political problem is easy: restore the DLC and Jim Webb wings of the party to their former glory. Then they win enough white working class voters to win elections again and the Senate goes back to 2006-era difficulty, rather than the Red Wall it seems to be today. Republicans, on the other hand, can't win any new voters. They've maximixed their voting base and turnout probably can't get much higher than it is. Their only path to more voters is a longterm plan to change their image. Which would take at least 20 years to really bear fruit. In the meantime, the Democrats could be poaching those Obama/Trump, Reagan Democrat voters.
  #35  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One should notice that you had to omit the loss of guys guys like "I was anti-immigrant before Trump showed up" Kris Kobach in Kansas to make a point. In any case, as the Atlantic reported, Republican gains in the senate obtained in great part by race baiting can not hide the fact that the xenophobic and anti-ACA Trumpian message took a beating in most house races.
I didn't have to omit anything to merely point out a couple of eye-roll worthy pieces of evidence in your quotes. Maybe you should have linked and quoted the Atlantic article rather than some high spirited dailykos sumup.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-09-2018 at 12:59 AM.
  #36  
Old 11-09-2018, 09:39 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I don’t get it: you’re talking about people who currently prefer Democrats to the GOP, but who wouldn’t prefer the Democrats for a myriad of other reasons if this one were a tie?
Okay, first we need to discuss what is meant by throwing up our hands and giving in.

It is a false impression that democrats are for open borders. We are simply for humane treatment of those who are looking to immigrate. So, do we throw up our hands and give our blessing to family separation policies?

We also do think that immigration is good for the country's economy, and this is backed by numerous studies, do we throw up our hands and concede to having a weaker economy?

We think that the wall is a massive waste of money, it is environmentally disastrous, is a serious problem to american citizens who live on the border who will be having to give up their property to accommodate the wall, will have virtually no effect on immigration, and is a negative symbol the belies our advertising that we are a nation of freedoms. Do we throw up our hands and allow this ill conceived project to continue?

Do we need to agree to amending the constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship, do we need to agree that anyone who was born to a midwife should be suspect of immigration fraud, should we agree to racially profiling people based on the color of their skin (people who can trace their family history back to before the founding of our nation) to enhance enforcement of immigration policies?

What is it, exactly that the democrats are supposed to give in to to assuage the irrational fears of anti-immigrant xenophobes? You tell me what "giving in on immigration" looks like, and I'll tell you if it is worth it.
Quote:

I’m saying drop one issue if you think you can win the rest of the issues by dropping that one, and if you think you’ll lose the rest if you don’t drop that one.
Do you really think that by dropping just one issue, suddenly all the other things that the democrats want to do to improve the country will become possible? Even if we get behind building a wall with machine gun nests, condoning separating families who try to come here, weakening our economy by stifling growth, and demonstrating to the world that we are no longer a shining city on a hill, but rather a festering ghetto behind a fence, does that mean that republicans will agree to allowing people to have healthcare?
Quote:
If I’m wrong about that — if capitulating on immigration won’t get them everything else — then, sure, it’s a different story. But if I’m right, and that happens to be the one thing they don’t get if they capitulate and it’s one of the many things they don’t get if they refuse to capitulate? What’s the upside?
I do think that you are wrong on that. If we give them everything that they want on immigration, then they will just demand more on tax cuts, on reproductive rights, and on cutting spending. Even if you are right on that, what exactly does it mean to capitulate on immigration, and what kind of healthcare plan do you really think we can get for that trade?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
How about this idea: Democrats should stop focusing on being the party that appeals to urban voters, and instead try to be a party that appeals to a broader cross-section of voters. There was a time Democrats did that. Not shockingly, they tended to win a bit more in Congress.
the problem with that, is that most people live in cities. That is why democrats tend to get more of the vote than republicans. Republicans get their support from empty swaths of uninhabited land.

Republicans tend to live in places where people just don't want to live. There are fewer economic opportunities, so they have to rely on the government to support them.

Unfortunately, the way that our system is set up, it rewards the states that people don't want to live in by giving the same voice in government as the states that do have economic opportunities that draw people to live there. That there are more states that have low populations that need to receive federal government support to survive and have the political power to force the urbanized states to contribute to their welfare is not the fault of the democrats. he democrats actually worked for the people in those states by trying to strengthen worker protections and unions, but the republicans that the people who were being helped by the democrats managed to get people to support their dismantling of their own protections.
Quote:
But, by all means, continue to be the party of the urban poor and those who want to do good by them, and then complain that the deck is stacked against you, because you've chosen poorly what you should stand for. Or, rather, please DON'T continue to do that, because it's what allows the Republican Party to be filled with some real idiots any more.
I'll agree that the right wing has done a good job at making the smear that the democrats only care about the urban poor, but that is not the only people that are represented by the democrats. That there are those who are helped by democratic policies, but still choose to vote for the party who tries to remove those policies is not the fault of the democratic policies.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 11-09-2018 at 09:42 AM.
  #37  
Old 11-09-2018, 09:52 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I didn't have to omit anything to merely point out a couple of eye-roll worthy pieces of evidence in your quotes. Maybe you should have linked and quoted the Atlantic article rather than some high spirited dailykos sumup.
Nowhere you can show that they were wrong. What you did is illogically shooting the messenger. And I did point from the very beginning that I don't see how clear the point was from the poster I replied to (Now that, what he said, demanded an eye roll and a reply). He did so by only picking the examples of dubious or close republican gains as reasons for the Democrats to drop their support for immigrants or legalization efforts, while ignoring what took place in the House elections or how the ground is shifting in places like Texas.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 11-09-2018 at 09:55 AM.
  #38  
Old 11-09-2018, 11:33 AM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
That's not counting the still undecided seats. Final tally will probably be in the 229-235 range.
Maybe even more than that. The NYT shows the Dems have now won 230 seats, with 13 left undecided. According to 538, the Dems are in good positions in 10 of them.

Final results indicate that this was a very good election for the Dems at all levels except the senate, and even there they won almost all the swing state seats that were up.
__________________
Right now, itís Girlsí Generation. Tomorrow, itís Girlsí Generation. Forever, itís Girlsí Generation!
  #39  
Old 11-09-2018, 11:41 AM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I used to think Karl Rove was full of shit with his talk of a permanent GOP majority. There is no way a party like the GOP, which when you ignore what they say they stand for (small government, middle class tax cuts, middle class jobs) and look at what they actually do, really only stands for 2 things. Plutocracy and white identity politics. I didn't think it was possible to build a long standing coalition on white identity politics and economic policies that benefit the wealthy. But it is.

In 2012, the GOP lost the popular vote in the house by 1%, and won 234 seats.

In 2018, the democrats won the popular vote in the house by 6%, and won 225 seats.

Gerrymandering plays a role, but democrats being in urban areas plays a big role too.

There are arguably more red states than blue states (something like 30 red states). So the senate will probably be GOP for the forseeable future. Granted, Obama won slightly more states than the GOP in 2008 and 2012, but in 2000, 2004, 2016, the GOP won about 30 states vs about 20 for the democrats.

The electoral college is biased towards the GOP. They've lost the popular vote 2x in the last 20 years and still won the presidency.

So call me a pessimist, but I think the democrats are looking at permanent minority status for the next 20 years or so. At least until the silent generation and the oldest baby boomers die off and are replaced by millennials.

Am I wrong? Someone prove me wrong.

If I'm right, what should the democrats do? Should we focus more on state and local politics instead of federal? Should we throw all our weight into capturing one branch of federal office (the presidency seems our best shot) to prevent GOP legislation from being passed? Should we assume the senate is still in play for us? I know the democrats had 60 senators as recently as 2008, but whites w/o college have left the democratic party in droves since then. But then again, democrats have gained some college educated whites in the meanwhile. Plus the % of voters who are millennials or minorities has grown.

I know some people say 'you shouldn't worry about politics'. But at this point there are 2 things I care deeply about with politics. Affordable, reliable health care, and democracy. And I see the GOP as a threat to both of them. If the GOP weren't a threat to them, I probably wouldn't care nearly as much.

Granted neither party has any interest in truly reforming health care (ie, changing how it is run so that it is more affordable). But at least the democrats aren't trying to destroy medicare and medicaid, or trying to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions, or trying to make it harder to sign up on the exchanges. And the democrats aren't moving towards authoritarianism.
Perhaps the Dems should learn that winning the popular vote, especially wrt the presidency is meaningless and instead stop mentioning it and focus on winning the contests the way they actually work? Just a thought.

I don't think the Pubs have a permanent majority nor are the Dems some sort of permanent minority. US politics just don't work that way. I think the Dems had the greatest run of control in the past, but even that eventually changed. The Pubs, however, haven't come close to the longevity of control the Dems enjoyed previously for decades. And I fully expect in the next presidential election the Dems to boot Trump out...assuming they will grasp the concept that winning the popular vote means exactly nothing in the US with our system.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #40  
Old 11-09-2018, 11:46 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,811
Can I just throw some water on the panic here? Take some deep breaths.

Democrats won the House vote in 25 States this week. Those States have a total of 314 Electoral votes. Most notably, PA/MI/WI/MN all went Democratic by comfortable margins. If Tuesday's pattern holds in the 2020 Senate election, Dems would pick up 3 seats. That doesn't include Arizona, so 4 seems realistically possible.

We can't get complacent, and it's going to be a tough fight, but we are winning. All the demographic trends are working in our favor. It doesn't do any good to gripe about ways the system is rigged against us that we can't change.
  #41  
Old 11-09-2018, 11:52 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
How about this idea: Democrats should stop focusing on being the party that appeals to urban voters, and instead try to be a party that appeals to a broader cross-section of voters. There was a time Democrats did that. Not shockingly, they tended to win a bit more in Congress.

But, by all means, continue to be the party of the urban poor and those who want to do good by them, and then complain that the deck is stacked against you, because you've chosen poorly what you should stand for. Or, rather, please DON'T continue to do that, because it's what allows the Republican Party to be filled with some real idiots any more.
Let's see...per exit polls,

32% of voters were urban, and they went Democrat 65-32.

17% of voters were rural, and they went Republican 55-42.

51% of voters were suburban, and they split evenly.

So...what was your point, again? Democrats need to change their approach because...
  #42  
Old 11-09-2018, 11:57 AM
Thing Fish Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 2,811
Also: the only demographic Republicans win is whites over 45. Whites 30-45 break even, and those 18-29 are Dem 56-43. Ti-ii-ii--ime is on our side, yes it is...
  #43  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:18 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Nowhere you can show that they were wrong. What you did is illogically shooting the messenger.
I didn't say they were wrong. I said the evidence was unpersuasive. "A number of sheriffs" is too incomplete and that Oregan measure* never had a chance. That's not shooting the messenger.

Yes,Waldo Pepper's suggestion was also too vague but I didn't feel the need to be the 3rd person saying that and my only support was "The Dems could probably triangulate a little better on immigration but most definitely on gun control and voter id". I stand by that. The main Dem points on immigration poll well but some tweaks could be made.

*according to Ballotpedia, it was the only immigration initiative on the ballot this year. The "no" side had staggeringly higher funding ($400k spent on yes, $7M on no) in a blue west coast state. They've had their sanctuary laws since 1987. That doesn't feel like proof that Americans at large are rejecting Rs immigration stance.
  #44  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:21 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,528
I am even fonder of bad analogies than adaher, and so I'll follow up his with a worse one: :P


Think of it as Germany vs. Russia in World War II. The Republicans (Germans) are outnumbered but have better equipment (gerrymandering, Electoral College, Senate, etc.) The Democrats (Russia) don't have those advantages but have sheer weight of numbers.

Germany made deep advances but eventually was overwhelmed by the near limitless number of Soviets.

Same way in America. While the GOP may have many structural advantages, the Democrats will eventually prevail by sheer massed numbers, especially as the Boomer generation dies out.
  #45  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:51 PM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
How about this idea: Democrats should stop focusing on being the party that appeals to urban voters, and instead try to be a party that appeals to a broader cross-section of voters. There was a time Democrats did that. Not shockingly, they tended to win a bit more in Congress.
I'd argue that it's not the urban poor alone, but rather the crazy quilt of politically impotent groups that they've hitched their wagon to that cause the problem.

I mean, it's great to be ideologically pure and stick up for all the underprivileged, persecuted and disenfranchised groups, but the fact remains that all of them together isn't enough to amount to a significant amount of voters.

I mean, black people as a whole compose 12% of the country. Are they 12% of the Democratic party focus? White people are 64% of the country, and most are not part of the groups the Democratic party espouses.

The Democrats play too heavily toward trying to induce white guilt for a myriad of social issues, and not enough on demonstrating how they benefit the white, mostly middle-class majority. In other words, don't try and win with white america by telling them how black people are done wrong by the system and how that needs to change. Unless you manage to make them feel guilty, that's an abstract thing that doesn't affect them.
  #46  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:53 PM
Aescwynn Aescwynn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Nowhere you can show that they were wrong. What you did is illogically shooting the messenger. And I did point from the very beginning that I don't see how clear the point was from the poster I replied to (Now that, what he said, demanded an eye roll and a reply). He did so by only picking the examples of dubious or close republican gains as reasons for the Democrats to drop their support for immigrants or legalization efforts, while ignoring what took place in the House elections or how the ground is shifting in places like Texas.
Speaking of Texas, although Beto didn't win (though he came close enough to force Ted Cruz to declare that going forward he will be the senator "for all Texans"--quite a concession), there was a significant shift at the state level.

In the Texas senate, two seats flipped from R to D. And in the Texas house, 12 seats flipped. That means that we can (maybe) move beyond bathroom/anti-transgender bills and sanctuary city rubbish.

Not only that, but the U.S. Reps who lost their jobs were some of the Trumpiest, and some of the most powerful. Pete Sessions who headed the Rules Committee is out. And the chairmanship of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology moves from a climate-change denier (Lamar Smith of San Antonio) to Democrat Eddie Bernice Johnson, who promises to "restore the credibility of the Science Committee as a place where science is respected."

Here's more cause for hope:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...latures-agenda
  #47  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:17 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Perhaps the Dems should learn that winning the popular vote, especially wrt the presidency is meaningless and instead stop mentioning it and focus on winning the contests the way they actually work? Just a thought.
Perhaps people should stop pointing this out as if it is not known every time that democrats point out that more people voted for their party, yet it gets less representation in government. To focus on winning contest the way they actually work is to win with not just a majority, but an overwhelming majority, in order to eek out a slight majority in congress.

We know this, and repeating it as if you think that we don't know this, especially in such a condescending way, adds absolutely nothing to any conversation.

In fact, that was the exact premise of the OP that you quoted here, that it requires more than just a majority in order to be in power, then you come along and patronizingly and a with a bit of hostility remind the OP that it requires more than a majority for democrats to be in power.
Quote:
I don't think the Pubs have a permanent majority nor are the Dems some sort of permanent minority. US politics just don't work that way. I think the Dems had the greatest run of control in the past, but even that eventually changed. The Pubs, however, haven't come close to the longevity of control the Dems enjoyed previously for decades. And I fully expect in the next presidential election the Dems to boot Trump out...assuming they will grasp the concept that winning the popular vote means exactly nothing in the US with our system.
The parties may shift, but the fact remains that the smaller states that have less economic activity and fewer draws to their population will continue to dictate to the economically prosperous and populated states. This trend will continue to get stronger, as more and more people move into urban areas, and fewer and fewer people live in areas that have very little economic potential. this concentrates more and more power into the hands of people who have failed. Their economy has failed, their towns have failed, their families have failed when their children move off to the city in search of gainful employment. And they cannot accept that these failures are entirely of their own doing, and so they will do everything they can to bring the rest of the country down with them.

You can remind people all day that our government is not a representative democracy, and with whatever tone you like, from patronizing to spit fleckeled, but it still won't be telling anyone at all anything that they don't already know, and won't be advancing any conversation in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'd argue that it's not the urban poor alone, but rather the crazy quilt of politically impotent groups that they've hitched their wagon to that cause the problem.

I mean, it's great to be ideologically pure and stick up for all the underprivileged, persecuted and disenfranchised groups, but the fact remains that all of them together isn't enough to amount to a significant amount of voters.
So, you are saying that the democrats should not represent those who have no representation? That those who are persecuted and marginalized should have no one to turn to? That if you are a minority, you simply shouldn't expect to have any rights? (Unless of course, you are a republican, in which case, your minority status enshrines you with control over the presidency and the senate.)

Yeah, no.
Quote:
I mean, black people as a whole compose 12% of the country. Are they 12% of the Democratic party focus? White people are 64% of the country, and most are not part of the groups the Democratic party espouses.
Yeah, what the fuck were we thinking? I mean, why'd we even free them from slavery, they only make up 12% of the population. We should focus on the difficulties of being a straight white male in america, and if you are anything else, then who cares?
Quote:
The Democrats play too heavily toward trying to induce white guilt for a myriad of social issues, and not enough on demonstrating how they benefit the white, mostly middle-class majority. In other words, don't try and win with white america by telling them how black people are done wrong by the system and how that needs to change. Unless you manage to make them feel guilty, that's an abstract thing that doesn't affect them.
Democrats don't induce white guilt. Democrats simply point out the difficulties that minorities face everyday, and try to address those. That you choose to make it all about you, and *your* feelings is only a reflection on you, not on the merits of preventing people from being persecuted and marginalized due to their skin color.

This is certainly a major divide between republicans and democrats, however, in how we treat people who are not like us. Tell you what, TOWP offered to give us healthcare if we allow the republicans to do whatever they want to anyone who tries to get into this country, what are you willing to give us if we let you start persecuting minorities again?
  #48  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:23 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Okay, first we need to discuss what is meant by throwing up our hands and giving in.
Agree with the GOP, on this issue, swiftly and loudly and often.

If, say, Trump says he wants to send troops to the border, don’t argue; don’t make the argument the story. Just agree, and that’s a story; and promptly move on to arguing about an issue where the Democrats can get lots of momentum.

Announce, whenever given the opportunity: look, we disagree with the GOP about a lot of things — health care, gun control, affirmative action — but on *this* issue, we’re in agreement. Neutralize it and move on.

Quote:
It is a false impression that democrats are for open borders.
But, see, here’s the thing: it’s not so much a false impression as it is a misleading one, right? Some folks are (a) for open borders, and (b) Democrats. And, just like I often see here that if 99 Republicans stand with one neo-Nazi then by default it’s a lot like 100 neo-Nazis, I’d advise the Democrats who aren’t for open borders to, uh, swiftly and loudly and often denounce anyone who declares for open borders. Don’t just hope that folks won’t lump you in with them; announce it.

And anyone who says they aren’t for open borders, but are for letting anybody stay after they’ve made it in? If they declare themselves to be Democrats, then I’d figure: distance yourselves from them, likewise; don’t just hope not to be mistaken for one of them; make that clear, too.

Quote:
I do think that you are wrong on that. If we give them everything that they want on immigration, then they will just demand more on tax cuts, on reproductive rights, and on cutting spending. Even if you are right on that, what exactly does it mean to capitulate on immigration, and what kind of healthcare plan do you really think we can get for that trade?
Well, that’s just it: I’m saying to do this if agreeing with the GOP on immigration (which, again, as I understand it got cited as the #1 issue for GOP voters) will let the Democrats pick up enough votes to take power and do as they please on taxes and spending and reproductive rights and so on. If you’re saying they’d also need to compromise on all of that other stuff to get the Senate and the White House, then, sure, what I’m saying about giving up on one issue won’t work.

By analogy, though, consider gay marriage: I remember when GOP candidates loudly and often declared they were against it, just like they were against gun control and higher taxes and abortion rights and a slew of other things. And then the time came when you saw the GOP essentially say, look, we’re now dropping our opposition to gay marriage; the Democrats can propose what they like, we’re not putting up a fight or an argument — well, not on that, just on a slew of other things, which we now want to discuss and pitch. Struck me as sensible then; and neutralizing the #1 issue of GOP voters, to pitch them on other stuff, strikes me as sensible now.

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 11-09-2018 at 01:25 PM.
  #49  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:39 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The democrats are hemorrhaging support from whites w/o a college education lately.

As recently as 1996, whites w/o a college degree mildly preferred the democrats. In 2016 they preferred the GOP by 39 points. When you lose that much support from a group that make up 1/3 of voters, it is going to hurt.
Except that the relative size of that group isn't static. The US population over time is becoming more nonwhite and more college-educated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark
The issue is how do we appeal to them without giving up our values as democrats? If the reason they left the democrats is because they oppose feminism, racial justice, gay rights, etc. how do we appeal to them without giving up our own values?
I'm not persuaded that the percent of the voting population that is white and non-college-educated and opposed to feminism and racial justice and gay rights, etc., is either large enough to be necessary to Democratic electoral success or capable of being appealed to by Democratic candidates.

Let's work on serving the interests of the populace as a whole, and electorally energizing the majority of Americans who do have sympathy with our aims, rather than hand-wringing and wailing over our inability to appeal to the minority of Americans whose hatred for us is constantly nurtured by Republican politicians and media via a steady diet of racism, misogyny, fear, resentment and lies.
  #50  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Agree with the GOP, on this issue, swiftly and loudly and often.

If, say, Trump says he wants to send troops to the border, donít argue; donít make the argument the story. Just agree, and thatís a story; and promptly move on to arguing about an issue where the Democrats can get lots of momentum.

Announce, whenever given the opportunity: look, we disagree with the GOP about a lot of things ó health care, gun control, affirmative action ó but on *this* issue, weíre in agreement. Neutralize it and move on.
It's a bad choice of which policy to capitulate on if this strategy is going to be used. No on the border wall and yes to Dreamers getting citizenship are incredibly strongly held positions by Dem voters and a majority of independents. Voter id, gun control and affirmative action are all much better candidates. And it doesn't need to be a complete capitulation just back off the hardline. Agree on voter id but say it must be coupled with funded registration drives. Don't try to ban "assault weapons", just push for better background checks.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017