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…
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…
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.
I am even fonder of bad analogies than adaher, and so I’ll follow up his with a worse one: 
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Except that the relative size of that group isn’t static. The US population over time is becoming more nonwhite and more college-educated.
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.
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.
There are things we can change. We can use the courts and ballot initiatives to Overturn gerrymandering. We can fight voter suppression. We can pass laws where states than make up 270 evs agree to give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. We can use the census in 2020 to reduce gerrymandering damage and gerrymander ourselves until it is hopefully overturned on the federal level.
Nobody said give up, just that for the next decade or more the democrats will only win when they win by comfortable margins.
The gop can lose elections and still win like they’ve been doing.
As others have noted, whites without college degrees are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate. Let them worry about how to avoid becoming a permanent minority. The Dems need to keep preaching the message of how justice for minorities is really justice for everyone.
How long until that happens?
Maybe I can explain it in more mathematical terms.
The Democrats are always going to be behind the eight-ball if they’re targeting minorities as their main constituency, up until the point when the country becomes a minority-majority nation.
Even then, to win, they’ll have to target a coalition of minorities that add up to a majority.
Right now, they’re targeting minorities, and not doing much targeting of the white majority- it’s all well and good to represent minorities, but when combined, the minorities still add up to a minority, you have to target the majority in some way, shape or form that’s meaningful to them.
So far, the Democrats seem (I say seem, because it seems to be a huge emphasis in their public communication) to be making a point of looking out for the persecuted, underrepresented, etc… which does NOT describe the majority of people. And some of the more heated rhetoric seems to blame the majority.
That is NOT how you win voters- you may get some who are well off enough to be concerned about minorities, social justice and equality, but for the people who are just scraping by, they hear the Democratic party saying that they stick up for blacks/hispanics/gays/transgender people, and that THEY (white people) are to blame and the root of the problem. Or, marginally better, they hear that the Democrats have a focus on those other groups, and then assume that in a climate of limited resources (i.e. the real world), that focus on THEM is going to mean a lack of focus on US.
Is it at all surprising that people would choose not to hitch their wagon to that horse if that’s the way they’re perceiving it?
It was because you started dismissing them for where they posted that opinion, that once again was based on who won and why, not zero evidence indeed. That it was not the case everywhere was not the point. The point that you continue to miss BTW was that the other poster insisted that the elections showed that Democrats should drop the support of minorities, immigrants or asylum seekers. Once again: I was only making the observation that what the other poster said: what the Democrats must do, was based on incomplete information; there was evidence that countered what he posted, perhaps not as huge as needed to your liking, but that was not why I was replying to it.
And I agree on that.
Here I have to comment, and not against you, but to the ones following the current Mango Mussolini: so much about people in sanctuary cities rioting against that status like Trump said, eh?
So, when they say that they are going to seperate families from their children, we fall in and agree. When they say that they will deny asylum to those who seek it, in violation of international law, we smile and nod. When they say that they are going to deport DACA recipients, we agree swiftly and loudly. When they say that they are going to deny citizenship to people born by midwife, we agree often. When they say that they are going to profile people based on the color of their skin, we give them an enthusiastic nod.
Where does it stop? When they say that they want to start deporting naturalized citizens, do we swiftly agree? When they want to remove first generation immigrants, we loudly proclaim their wisdom? When they set up machine gun nests on the border, and start slaughtering anyone who comes near, we cheer them on, swiftly, and loudly and often?
Who is it that we are agreeing with, anyway, have you seen the comments on a fox new story about immigration? If we listen to them, we ought to be invading these countries and slaughtering their people. How far are we supposed to go?
But, that’s stupid. Basically, you are saying that we need to treat the GOP like a spoiled toddler who has somehow been given control over the household finances. “You want to pay the mortgage? Give me ICE CREAM!!!”
You can NEVER appease a spoiled brat by giving them everything they want, you just make them more spoiled and demanding.
Who is exactly needing to do this? Are you saying that we need to get every single democrat to take on the republican position on this? I think that’s more than a bit of an ask.
Amusing that you would lump people in who are trying to extend the freedoms and improve the lives of others with Nazi’s. You know why marching with a Nazi makes you a Nazi? Because Nazis are scum who want to hurt people and to take over with an authoritarian rule. If you do anything to support a Nazi, then you are supporting hate, there is no way around that.
OTOH, if you are supporting freedom and equality, then if someone else in your group is supporting freedom and equality in a slightly different way, then there is no reason to lump them together, unless you are lazy and willfully ignorant.
Right, distance yourself from anyone who shows compassion or cares about anyone else. Certainly wouldn’t want to be mistaken for one of them if you are trying to win the republican vote.
I think that even if you are right, it is both impossible (you expect every single democrat to fall in line and pretend that they don’t give a shit about people who aren’t them), and even if it were possible, it wouldn’t really be worth it. We’d be selling out our basic principles of humanity and equality.
I also don’t think it would work, not at all. If we gave in on immigration, they will just act the spoiled brats they are, and demand that we capitulate on more. It just makes us look weak, and ready to be taken advantage of.
Right, they were against freedom and equality, and eventually, the times caught up with them, and people realized that it was time to stop being against people having rights. It was freedom and equality that won out against the republican’s stance of denying rights to people based on their sexual orientation. You are asking us to do the opposite.
You are also wrong on how that worked out. The republicans didn’t accept it and let it happen. It happened without them, as they fought against it tooth and nail. Even today, there are people who are elected to office specifically to fight against this “abomination”. If anything, gay rights being pushed through by the democrats has given more power to the republicans as they use it as a wedge issue to fire up their base.
And you are wrong on the analogy, unless you are claiming that every single GOP member fell in line on accepting gay rights, and any GOP member who continued to be against it was ostracized by the rest. That didn’t happen, so it is beyond ridiculous that you would expect it to happen the other way.
I see the problem here. You think that they are targeting minorities. They are not. they are simply trying to improve the lives of everyone in the nation. Now, the fact that white people have it much better than minorities means that minoirites can improve their lot in life faster, but they still have a ways to go to reach the status enjoyed by the white majority.
People blame minorities for their problems because they need a scapegoat. They don’t want to blame themselves for not going to college. They don’t want to blame the white guy who owned the factory that closed and moved to china or increased automation. They want to blame the minorities that are working hard to get ahead, that they see as getting ahead, while they demand that they do not have to work, but should still stay ahead.
They do get this from right wing media, and there really is nothing for that. It is hard to break into a bubble that no one ever leaves. So, when they are told by Limbaugh or Jones or Hannity that there is a black guy who is getting a handout, they want to know why the hand out that they are getting isn’t bigger. When they are told that there are Mexicans coming to take their jobs, they don’t care that they didn’t want that job, they don’t care that they are collecting unemployment or welfare, they are not willing to do that sort of job, but they still join in blaming the Mexicans for their lack of employment.
All of the stuff that you have said in your post is rhetoric that is fabricated by the right wing in order to create this false impression. I don’t know how to combat that. You seem to have swallowed up their propaganda, and I have no idea how to reach you, and you are here, sticking at least your nose out of the bubble. How do I reach someone who stays firmly ensconced in a right wing infosphere that tells him that nothing is his fault, that everything is the fault of others, and that the democrats are promoting those others at his expense? None of that is true, not in the slightest, but it is believed by the majority of republican voters.
What would it take to get you to change your perspective, and take responsibility for your own failures rather than finding a convenient scapegoat, and to accept that even your successes are not entirely of your own doing, but are owed to the stable and prosperous society that comes about when we work together in cooperation rather than trying to compete over scraps?
At the White House. Neutralize their #1 issue, get a Democrat in the White House, and then you have someone working for stuff that’s important to Democrats instead of Trump working against that stuff.
I don’t get why you take it there — or various other ‘what comes next’ questions. My whole point is to drop one issue, the #1 issue mentioned by GOP voters, if doing so will get the Democrats into power to further the rest; the idea isn’t to drop this one issue and also drop the objections to invading other countries, or to drop this one issue and also drop any other issue.
But the GOP actually has been given control over rather a lot of stuff. And an analogy where it’s just “somehow” taken place glosses over the key point: they say their #1 issue just happens to be the one Trump happened to declare his candidacy with? You don’t think it’s resonating with them more than anything else?
You’re saying this of folks who are for open borders. I’m opposed to Nazis because I believe that, if they got their way, things would be horrifyingly nightmarish. And I’m opposed to folks are for open borders because I believe that, if they got their way, things would be horrifyingly nightmarish.
Wait, do we really not see eye-to-eye on this? What, exactly, do you think would happen if open borders — as advocated by few, but not nearly few enough — in fact became the order of the day?
The Democrats had an amazing night on Tuesday, mostly pushed by women, minorities, the young, and other marginalized groups and the advice is to turn away from them? The very folks that are energized to help Democrats should be ignored and shown they don’t matter AFTER doing all this heavy lifting?
That seems unwise and also driven by people who want us to go back to losing or at least are a little uncomfortable that winning can be done without pandering to them or what they see as “normal”, which somehow always tends to be white and male.
Deaths of Parties and movements are often exaggerated.
Not so many years ago I vaguely recall predictions that the GOP was going to go into the sunset. I can find at least this one from '09 sure that the “right wing now is looking at a landscape where it will be doomed to very slow political marginalization” and heck even recently a sage Doper claiming that with Trump the collapse of the GOP was nigh.
It aint dead and the Democatic Party aint so bad off.
Long term there are demographic shifts that have potential impacts. But those shift are not simple and the parties are dynamic entities.
Against the GOP’s long term interests are that the party does poorly with pretty much all groups except Christian whites and not always great with them, less well with younger ones of them and with female or gay ones of them or urban or well educated ones of them, and the demographic trends are to more of all these “other” groups.
Against the Democratic Party’s long term interest is that structurally rural white votes have more power per vote than anyone else, for reasons well explained in this thread, and that the party has been ineffective at winning those voters.
Are those dynamics writ in stone? No.
One or two cycles with different party leaders can see the GOP move away from the current demonization of others approach and find different conservative messaging. Three or four cycles and it takes.
Even faster for the Democratic Party to find ways to demonstrate that actually give a shit about rural whites too and become competitive in some of those states. And some states in the GOP column are urbanizing and having demographic groups that lean D aging into higher voting turnout cohorts. AZ, TX, NC … maybe not there this cycle or next but the long term trend undisturbed is there.
Please note: messaging that less educated whites (inclusive of rural white males) matter too does not require throwing all the rest of us under the bus.
I meant how far do we go in appeasing their xenophobia. What is the cost of getting someone into the white house? I’d agree with enforcing the border and preventing drug, gun, and people smuggling.
Most of the rest of what they want is stuff that I can’t agree to. Out of the list that you replied to, is there anything on it that you would agree is too much, or should we give in to even the most inhumane of policies proposed?
If getting a president in the white house means dragging peaceful members of society out of their homes, if it means sending people “back” to countries that they left as toddlers and have no social, economic, or even language connection with, if it means denying those lawfully seeking asylum, and even threatening them with indignity, family separation, and even with the threat of being fired upon for trying to seek sanctuary, then no, it’s not worth it. I’d rather continue to lose while fighting what I believe in than to win fighting for things that I don’t want to happen.
It’s not a game to me, it’s not about winning or losing, it is about what we do, as people, and the principles that we aspire to.
You aren’t saying drop one issue, as if if we stop talking about it, it simply ceases to be an issue. You are saying to give them what they want. I am telling you what they say that they want, and asking you if you are willing to give it to them.
Right, like I said, like a toddler who has somehow been given authority over the household budget. They are not responsible with it, and only use it as a threat, holding your very home hostage to appease their base desires. Or, another analogy is that twilight zone episode with the kid that inspired the moderation staff here.
And maybe you are right, maybe they hold enough power that fighting against them is a losing proposition, and that giving in to them is a safer move. Well, it may be a safer move, but I don’t agree it is the right move.
I just can’t get behind that analogy. You re comparing a fascist regime that did its damndest to wipe out an entire race, and did not have any plans on stopping there with people who think that the world would be a better place without artificial restrictions on travel and work.
Now, I will agree that the extremely rare and unique individuals who advocate for truly open borders are a bit misguided, but they are fairly harmless and by their very political nature, have little chance of really managing to get their ideas to take hold. Fascism, on the other hand, is more insidious, in that it makes one feel good about ones self, you are being told that you are better than other people, and that’s always nice to hear.
Fascism will always be a much bigger and more dangerous threat than people who advocate for peaceful relations between fellow human beings. Your nightmares are massively misguided.
Well, no, we do not see eye to eye on this, as I would rather live in a world with open borders than a world where nazis rule. I can see the first as a bit problematic, and the second as truly nightmarish. You see the two as equivalent.
What would happen if there was no border control whatsoever, and there was no limit to who could come and go, and no tracking? It’d be a bit of a mess.We’d have some issues with criminals managing to hide more effective by crossing international lines. We’d have a bit more smuggling. OTOH, we’d have cheaper labor for working in agriculture and various industries and commercial enterprises, so, the cost of living for most living in such a country would go down.
It’s not what I would advocate for. I think that people should come through proper points of entry, so that we can limit smuggling, restrict the movement of criminals and terrorists, and encourage people to immigrate who want to come to our country to work hard to help us to make everyone here have a better life.
Now, of course, that I would not put quotas on visas and let pretty much anyone who is not a criminal and who expresses a desire to join us in making america to both be and stay great may make people like yourself say that I am for open borders. And it may even make people like myself, but less versed in the buzzwords that seem to divide us call what I advocate for open borders, as I do say we should open up the door and let people in.