What should their strategy be? The last couple of times Democrats have had the White House and Congress, they’ve passed, or attempted to pass, an ambitious agenda, haven’t worried too much about public opinion in the process, and then lost their majorities just two years later. The two times before that, under Carter and LBJ, they got hammered in the first midterms, but their majorities were so big they maintained control, albeit more dependent on conservative Democrats than ever, so their agendas were curtailed as if they’d lost control anyway.
So what should be the priority of the next Democratic government? Take another bite at the health care apple or something else ambitious and likely suicidal? Or concentrate on just keeping Republicans out of power by playing it safe and sticking to smaller, more popular measures?
My own opinion is that given how awful the Republican Party is at the national level these days, and not showing signs of getting better, Democrats have a responsibility to put them in the wilderness long enough for them to go through a proper reform process. The Democrats need reform too, but as the less awful party these days will just have to do it while holding power. The Democrats’ problem is a lot less challenging. While the GOP is controlled by its angry white mob, the Democrats are such a loose, unstable coaltion that the liberal elites control the party and set the agenda. Both parties need to go back to being more balanced, with the voters of each respective party controlling the agenda and the elite limited to stopping crazy populist stuff.
Keep in mind more people voted for Clinton than Trump. And similar results occurred in five of the previous six presidential elections. The evidence is that the Democrats have public opinion behind them. It’s the Republicans that need to scramble for votes.
And time seems to be moving towards the Democrats. Here’s a map of what the results of the 2016 election would have been if only votes cast by people under 40 were counted. Clinton would have won with 364 electoral votes. Here’s a map showing results if only voters under 25 had been counted. Clinton would have won with 504 electoral votes. Obviously, not every young voter in 2016 will remain a lifelong Democrat but it does appear that the Democrats have a younger voter base than the Republicans.
Democrats are preferred by the public, but that’s not the same as public opinion being behind whatever Democrats want to do. That’s what keeps getting them into trouble, elite liberals thinking they know what’s best for us and that we’ll come along in the end, but it always ends in tears for them.
If they were wise, they’d cut the cost of health care. So long as we’re paying double what the rest of the world is, you’ve got an albatross around your neck in your desire to spread the coverage to everyone.
And no, single payer health care isn’t the right solution for that. Convert employment-based plans to individual plans and create an agency that ranks health plans by expected years of life saved, so people can make intelligent choices about the value of the plans offered to them. Once the costs have shrunk, you can force insurers to accept everyone on a free plan with guaranteed minimum coverage.
This is a refrain I hear often. Yet somehow we always have angry old conservative people.
It seems that people change their political leanings over a lifetime and the overall drift is conservative as they grow older. If that holds and yet birth rates stay lower we may end up with an older population with a conservative majority.
</hijack>
If the Democrats score a majority in both houses of Congress and gain the presidency in 2020 then they need to focus on basic pocket book issues. Do so obsessively. Ask themselves time and again how their proposed policies will impact the family budget of those working paycheck to paycheck.
We’ve had an economy in an anemic recovery for a number of years according to the statistics and yet public perception has not tracked so favorably.
You remember how Mitch McConnell said his main goal was making Obama a one-term president? The democrats need to make it their permanent goal that the republican party ceases to have any power in any way in government. It is a party unwilling and unable to govern, which grasps for whatever power it can get its hands on regardless of the ethical costs, with no regards for the will of the public, as seen by passing a bill with a 17% approval rating that will likely kill a bunch of people. We should have two parties, but they both need to actually be rational actors, and not insane clown cars. Anything else is secondary.
Unfortunately, I expect the opposite to happen. When the pendulum swings back in the other direction, it will swing too far.
When the Dems return to power, instead of defining the agenda by positive values, they will define themselve by what they are not. (not racist, not anti-muslim, and above all …not Trump)
But they will take it too far. Like the radical leftists on campuses all over the country who demand safe spaces, and refuse to let conservatives speak.
Remember how in 2008 Obama was defined, first and foremost as the “Anti-Bush”?
The next Dem president even more negative.So “anti” that the party act only in reaction to Trump.(ie. they will be inadvertantly letting Trump set their agenda for them.)
And it will backfire when they go too far.
In 2020 or so, the Dems will win; and political correctness will take center stage— with a vengeance.
The word terrorism will once again be banned, while “intersectionality” will become a sacred mantra.
No Democrat will appear at a public form unless a Muslim wearing a hijab shares the podium.
“Cultural appropriation” will be treated as a serious and legitmate issue.The signs on bathroom doors will become a major political symbol, more important to the Dems than health care or economic policy.
A white Democratic politician who dares to hold his wife’s hand in public will be shunned for insulting the transgendered.
Then, when the Dems lose again, they’ll blame the folks in flyover country for being unenlightened.
Those are exactly the things that the Democrats need to NOT keep in mind. It’s what causes them to coast and think they are entitled to win elections without trying. It’s what causes them to forget that the Republicans got more votes for the House in 2016 than did the Democrats. And it’s what causes them to forget that most governorships are held by Republicans, by a huge margin. And it’s what will cause them to fucking run Hillary again in 2020.
Never in a million years. That would be crazier than the Republicans nominating Trump. I voted for Clinton in 2016, but I’d actually vote to reelect Trump in 2020 if she was his opponent. She’s proven she’s a loser and what we know about her now damages the primary case for her candidacy: that she’s competent and a good leader. All we’re really left with is that she’s smart, but so are a lot of Democrats.
Personally, I think it’s going to be the Rock in 2020.
chappachula, notice that you said “radical leftists on campuses”. College students are stupid. We all know that. That’s why they’re in college to begin with, to learn how to not be stupid. And the only people demanding “safe spaces” are the aforementioned college students, and failed New York real estate moguls. It’s not something that any real grown-up liberals out in the real world are pushing for.
Once again? When was the word “terrorism” ever banned? And what in the world is “intersectionality”?
Intolerant, fearful Republicans are the only people that give a shit (:D) about public bathrooms and their signage.
I don’t recall anyone ever, like, as in never ever, claiming that a hand holding hetero- ok, white too per your example, couple was insulting anyone.
Try to make Democratic priorities (higher MW, UHC, environmental protection, etc.) happen. If they lose, then they lose, but repealing all this stuff will be as tough or tougher than repealing the ACA… and what’s the point of gaining power of you don’t use that power to make things happen that you always wanted to make happen?
Ha ha! Excellent satire of right-wing opinion. You had me going right up until the bolded bit. Very funny.
…This is a joke, right?
The only people complaining about “safe spaces” are people who don’t understand them, or vastly overstate what’s being asked in the majority of cases.
Intersectionality is the idea that systems of privilege intersect and interact, and that they cannot really be examined independent of each other. For example, being a black woman involves disadvantages that cannot be seen by examining racism or misogyny independently.
My examples were slightly-- but only slightly-- exaggerated.
Chronos–yes, the word terrorism was banned because it’s not politically correct…Obama made a policy of never saying it out loud.
And “intersectionality” is a new word–but you’d better get used to it, quickly.
Google it–it’s the latest craze in political correctness.
It basically means that it is no longer politically correct to talk about gays, or women or blacks, or trans people. Those boundaries all overlap. So you have to combine ALL the various categories of oppressed people into an “intersectional”, mutiple identity— of the “super-oppressed”. It’s identity politics taken to the extreme.
And yes,bobot–I know that right now, it’s only the Republicans who are concerned about bathrooms. But I do honestly believe that in the next few years, (ie. when the Dems get back into office) it will be the Democrats who will go bonkers over the signage–because they are obsessed with being politically correct. The Ladies room sign shows an icon of a person wearing a dress!!!That’s discriminatory!!!
And the whole point of my post was the the Democrats should be moving in the opposite direction: To get back in power, they should be talking about practical issues, that the American people care about- like health care and jobs. Issues that appeal to everyone. Instead, they will focus on political correctness,identtiy politics, and breaking the American people into 50 separate categories of minorities.
I predict that no matter what the Democrats actually do, many or most of their opponents will insist the Democrats are only talking about identity, political correctness, bathrooms, etc. And I expect the Democrats will spend most of their time talking about “practical issues” like jobs, health care, the environment, etc., but will also sometimes bring up issues about civil rights for minorities, as they should. But even if they talk about jobs and health care 95% of the time, many/most of their opponents will insist they spend too much time on SJW-ing or whatever.
A white Democratic politician who dares to hold his wife’s hand in public will be shunned for insulting the transgendered
yes, it was a joke…
But the reason the joke works is that it is only slightly exaggerated… it could actually happen a few years from now.
Being straight and married will be a sign that you are politically incorrect and out of touch ,not to be taken seriously–like being a rich white male is today.
They did. In fact, they did quite extensively. People didn’t listen. Or are you saying that the democrats should just completely ignore civil rights issues, and hope that then, the right-wing media will treat them fairly, instead of focusing on the issues that play directly to the fears of the racists?
What do these words even mean? “Identity politics”? “Political correctness”? Those aren’t actual things. They’re vague buzzwords, typically implying, respectively, “policies that focus on anyone who isn’t a group of white men” and “Attempts to not treat people like shit”, which for some godawful reason both count as bad things for half the political spectrum.
