You can get elected talking like Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts. I’m not so sure you can get elected talking like Elizabeth Warren in Arkansas or South Dakota.
Latino voters overwhelmingly (a frickin’ 89%!) support Obama’s executive action on immigration. That alone is a pretty good sign that this was a good political move, and Democratic candidates in areas with lots of Latinos would be wise to support it.
Well, I guess if there aren’t middld class people in Arkansas and South Dakota, then that’s true, but where there are middle class people, then Democrats need to speak clearly and forcefully on those issues.
We’ve asked what the matter with Kansas is. Now we need to talk to Kansas about what to do about it. When one side is fighting for the corporations and super wealthy, someone needs to speak for the rest of us. The Republicans aren’t interested in doing it.
As a Hispanic I have to mention that I did indeed vote in the past election, and so was my family; but I was aware of what it meant not to vote then, unfortunately most Hispanics did not bother much to do so as they did not see much of a move or interest to pressure the House to vote on the issue. Still me and a few Hispanics were sophisticated enough to realize that a lot of that inaction was due to the politics of the election, too many scared candidates told the leadership to cool it on this front.
Unfortunately what we saw was that the democratic candidates were the ones with no sophistication.
Their fear just got them apathy from many that could had made a difference, still one has to look at the future and realize that not even the corporate media will be able to ignore the clear extremism that the Republicans will show against the undocumented immigrants in the coming months (And the health care issue does touch a lot of the legal and already Hispanic citizens) so many more will realize how silly it was to not vote before.
Because Latinos make up what % of voting adults? About 3%.
That’s not accurate – the 3% is for voters among “the Senate races likely to determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the chamber”, not adult voters altogether. The actual number is more like 11%, and is likely to grow significantly.
Yep, just what I was going to notice. It is during presidential elections specially where that growth will be most noticeable.
And I envision you whining like a petulant child after your party got spanked. Oh wait, that one is based on reality!
There was no alternative. The Democrats sealed their fate in 2010 when they passed Obamacare. All the Republicans have done since then is consistently voice strong opposition to that bill, and it worked. It worked in the 2010 midterms, and again in the 2014 midterms. The Republicans didn’t even need to offer an alternative. That’s how damaging the passing of the ACA was to the Democratic party. Bitching about “running toward Obama” or “running away from Obama” is a misguided attempt to avoid an ugly truth: the Democrats committed political suicide in 2010, and they paid dearly for it.
So suck it up and reap what you sow. Or, find newer and more inane ways to rationalize getting spanked. For my personal enjoyment, I certainly prefer the latter. Seeing this board squeal like pigs at the slaughter elicits a sort of morbid joy in my heart. There is justice after all!
I’m pretty sure there are middle class people in Arkansas and South Dakota, but the middle class people in Arkansas and South Dakota are, for the most part, conservative, and vote for Republicans.
And it failed utterly in 2012, of course.
In context, not really. It’s like an invading army picking up 1000 square miles of territory, the good guys counterattack and get back 100 square miles, and then the invading army resumes its advance and gets another 500.
The Democrats control the Presidency and well, not a whole lot else. At least they still have California though!
However, I will give Obama credit. He promised us change. Nearly half of the people in Congress when Obamacare was passed are now gone. THat’s change we can believe in.
Cute, but it’s still nonsense.
If, for instance, the Dems wanted to pass a bill enacting sweeping income tax cuts, especially on the upper brackets, they could make common cause with the GOP and do it. Piece of cake! But the Dems don’t think that makes any sense to do.
What I’d hope is that the Dems and the GOP could at least agree on what the problems are that this nation needs to address. Once they were able to do that, I’d expect them to have very different ideas on how to address them, but at least once you agree on the problems, and are willing to at least grudgingly accept evidence on what works and what doesn’t, maybe both sides could work together towards a solution.
But as a matter of fact, the two sides have totally different views on what problems we need to address, or what are even problems, period. For instance, the Dems generally agree that we need to address climate change, while the GOP increasingly denies that it’s (a) even happening, (b) has anything to do with what we humans are doing, (c) can be solved, and (d) so forth.
Or income inequality, or that there aren’t enough jobs, and that too many jobs don’t pay enough to get by on - the Dems think these are problems, but the GOP doesn’t. Or access to affordable birth control, let alone abortion.
The reason we have gridlock is that we have two parties with two very different and largely incompatible worldviews.
This is why it doesn’t do Dems anywhere much good to be apologetic about being Democrats. Ultimately, one party or the other has to simply *win the argument *, i.e. persuade a durable majority of the electorate, about which world view makes more sense. You can’t persuade anybody by running away from your party.
Why? What does Elizabeth Warren stand for that wouldn’t go over well in a red state?
True. Although moderation can be a winning strategy. You just have to stand for that moderation. Jon Manchin will never have a problem winning reelection in WV because although he runs away from Obama, he actually means it. It’s not just an act he plays in WV and then goes to DC and acts differently. The mistake Pryor, Grimes, et al made were not standing firmly for anything or speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Tru dat. There’s nothing particularly un-moderate about the Democratic agenda, so I’m totally with you here.
The problem with that is that the GOP is going to do their best to demonize any Dem President, no matter how moderate. If Manchin was elected President, within months he would be The Most Leftist Liberal Evar. And any Dem Senators in red states would be running away from Manchin, just like they ran away from both Clinton and Obama.
Every side - liberal or conservative - portrays itself as reasonable and its opponent as extreme. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book.
That doesn’t mean it’s equally accurate/inaccurate for both sides.
The Democratic gains in Congress in 2012 were middling.
For the Republicans, 2010 was historic and 2014 more drastic than most predictions.
Of course, the 2012 presidential election is irrelevant to this discussion, as Romney was the prima facie architect of the ACA and could not extricate himself as a staunch opponent.
Despite the unusually high voter turnout among the young and minorities in support of Obama, which undoubtedly buoyed the Democrats in 2012, there is little if any evidence that Obamacare has ever helped the Democrats in any election. Embracing an unpopular bill is certainly ballsy, but hardly a recipe for success from the standpoint of basic electoral common sense.
Again, the best the Democrats could do was try and run from Obamacare and pretend they knew nothing of it, but they sealed their fate in 2010, and the chickens came to roost.
A technocratic ideology that is easily framed as nanny-ish?
2012 included a Presidential election in which the Democratic candidate won by a large margin. Presidential election years are more significant than mid-terms, because presidential election years include the President plus the House and Senate.
LOL. It’s irrelevant because you say so. Of course.
Embracing the ACA certainly didn’t hurt Obama in 2012. And advocating for it in 2008 helped him win as well.
Considering the statisical success of the ACA, I believe that robust defense by politicians would increase the popularity. I still do.
I think this is crap analysis. The Democrats could hardly have done worse had they actually tried to defend their accomplishments in 2014 – I seriously doubt “running” from the ACA actually bought anyone any decent number of votes, and might have actually improved their very low turnout.