In all seriousness, what was wrong with Martin O’Malley? I was surprised he did so poorly.
Had to look him up, but don’t see the problem.
I don’t think Martin O’Malley can live down the mass arrests back in Baltimore. He’d have a really hard time with some major components of the coalition. Remember how the Clinton camp tried so hard to paint Bernie Sanders as a racist? It’s actually a lot easier with O’Malley.
I say this as someone who likes O’Malley, and appreciated how hard he tried to run as a serious progressive. I would wish him luck, but I can see why he can’t get nominated.
2018? Throw out Bruce Rauner and re-elect democrats. If I was living in Chicago, I’d do something in 2019 to throw out Rahm Emanuel, but I can’t, sadly (I live in the 'burbs).
2020? If Trump does well he’ll get my vote, but if he does poorly, I’ll vote him out. Same plan for 2018 with the rest of the ballot.
I am convinced that Democrats can win once trump and “trumpism” self-destruct, which seems almost inevitable providing that we are fighting in the same universe of voters as today.
Therefor our primary goal should be to resist any and all Republican attempts at narrowing the electorate to keep themselves in power.
That’s not much of a plan though. Both parties win, but both parties don’t get to enact their agenda. Sure, it’s very likely we’ll see a Democratic President in 2020, and almost certain that we’ll see one in 2024. But what does that mean? a Democrat in the White House whose only purpose is to slow down Republican progress because Republicans still control Congress and a majority of state governments? And even if Democrats win majorities like they had in 2008, do they enact their agenda and just get their asses kicked two years later and then have it all undone, or do they actually start appealing to enough voters to make their agenda enduring?
Any dumbass party can win in our system, it’s like a stopped clock.
I think the idea has to be to win state legislatures.
One thing’s for certain: Democrats will have sky-high turnout in 2018/2020.
High Democratic turnout is never a certainty.
BTW, a good piece of advice from two up and coming Democrts:
So, a “fraud” cannot win. Good! Have we your word on that, something we can rely on?
The 2018 election outcomes could cause the Democrats to think the country is more right-leaning than it is. As of now, the most probable outcome for 2018 is that the Democrats will lose a few Senate seats, gain a few House seats, and gain a few governorships, and the overall election will be a mixed-results draw. However, given that Senate races typically command more attention than other races, it could easily be interpreted as a Republican win.
The only reason for the loss in the Senate is that 2018 is an exceptionally bad map for Democrats - many seats in Trump-won red states. But Democrats might take the election outcome to mean that they need a centrist/conservative Democrat for 2020.
Trump isn’t really a fraud, in that even his fans know who he is. Trump voters supported him despite his flaws, whereas Clinton voters felt compelled to defend the indefensible. One thing that would help, since base behavior does make a difference, is to stop carrying water for fraudulent candidates.
I think you’re confusing Jon Stewart with Sean Hannity here. But if you’ve got examples, bring 'em.
That is some spin you’ve got there. Trump’s lies and corruption are just good ol’ honest flaws, but Clinton’s considerably less overt dishonesty is “indefensible”. Got it.
Meanwhile, one of those two had multiple actual court cases for fraud. I’m just suggesting that maybe there’s a small clue there that your characterization of The Donald as “not really a fraud” may not be entirely accurate.
Good advice. I recommend it to you.
Did anyone on this board ever say even once that Trump was an honest guy? How many on the other hand not only tried to portray Clinton as honest, but even tried to use statistics to do it? That’s a special kind of ignorant. Or it could have been old fashioned water carrying.
Many, many folks have asserted that Trump is a “straight talker” or similar, and that he lies less than his critics (Obama, Clinton, or others). I’m not sure if any liberal Dopers have “tried to portray Clinton as honest”, but many have (rightfully) tried to demonstrate that she’s less dishonest than Trump or some other Republicans.
Conversely, some Dopers have persistently insisted that Clinton was fundamentally dishonest even in instances where the evidence did not support that conclusion. I’m not quite sure what the opposite of “water carrying” is - “poisoning the well”, perhaps?
The word I chose to use was “blunt”, since straight talk can imply truth, but that’s just people using sloppy language rather than actually believing Trump is an honest man.
No, I think a lot of them thought he was speaking truth to power, or something like that. Many of them thought that his slander of immigrants as rapists and criminals was true; that his fact-free bigoted slanders of Obama were true; that his claims about Muslims cheering 9/11 in NJ was true; etc.
In some ways he was, whichi is part of his appeal. The political class actually has been getting wealthier while the rest of us languished. Their victories have not actually been our victories. He even pointed out that DC has grown wealthier and wealthier while the rest of the country stagnates by comparison.
That does not make him an honest person, we all know he’s a liar. But even liars say true things.