Problem is, the loss of the presidency is only one part of the picture. The Pubs also control both houses of congress, and the large majority of governorships and state legislatures. Yeah, if Hillary had a couple hundred thousand more strategically-located votes she’d have won the White House … and faced the same intransigent congress that has kept Obama from doing anything except via Executive Orders (to be repealed in 2020 or 2024, just as Obama’s will be in 2016).
Out system of government was specifically designed to distribute power geographically and to limit the power of large urban populations. At this point, both parties have become deeply toxic outside their rural/urban core constituencies; but owing to the design of the system, that divide leaves the Pubs with a relatively stronger hand. If the Dems continue to be the Urban Party, they’ll do fine in presidential elections, but they’re putting themselves on the short end of the stick everywhere else. They need geographic diversity, and they will need to tolerate some ideological diversity to acheive it.
The other mistake the Dems are making is thinking that changing demographics inevitably favor them. They don’t.
For one thing, while the fact that 90% of African-Americans vote Democratic is the good news, the bad news is that there’s nowhere for that number to go but down (and the same is mostly true with Hispanics and others). If the Pubs can manage to get even 25% of blacks and 40% of Hispanics, they win a landslide (and having a New Yorker as the face of their party, as opposed to someone with a Buford Pusser accent, is a good step towards that).
The other problem is the assumption that Democrats will keep getting 40% of the white vote, even as the country gets more non-white. But if they keep doubling down on racial-identity politics, minority-preferences, and call-everyone-who-disagrees-a-racist, they’ll keep driving away lower-class whites. There’s no reason to think we can’t reach a point where Democrats have 80% of nonwhites, plus the yuppie progressives who live alongside them in the cities, and the pubs are getting the other 80% of whites (who will still be the majority for several decades). That’s exactly what the harsher elements of the Alt-right want, and there is evidence that’s where things are headed (The Rise of White Identity Politics | The New Republic). And won’t that be a lovely place to be living.
Listening to the suggestions from people like Fiveyearlurker would be a good idea. Though to judge by the talk of nominating Keith Ellison as DNC chair, they’re not listening.
Could we strategically locate them the people then?
You could build a city on the tristate border of north dakota, south dakota, and montana. If it’s metropolitan area was a couple million, that would overpower the populations of those states, flipping 6 senators, 3 representatives, and at 9 electors. More really, as the population increase would likely give them another rep or two each.
Hahahaha. You could build a city on the tristate border. Why expect anyone else to do your work for you? You should also lead the effort to force the relocation of millions of voters to K9bfriender City. Tell them it’s for the children. That one never gets old.
Refresh my memory, when did the Tea Party smash windows, block streets, or attack police officers?
You’re free to make any assumptions you chose. You’re also free to make any demands as to what other posters may, or may not, post. Your biggest challenge may be enforcing your edicts.
They did not protest the 2012 election because there was zero amount of controversy to foment protest.
And if you want equivalencies, there were more than one stochastic terrorists in the RW, ready to stir up the angry masses if Hillary had won. Not quite equivalent, though – worse, really.
Backing this up is a startling fact I heard on NPR yesterday:
Bernie won the Wisconsin Democratic primary handily, by something like 20%.
You would think that this would cause someone in the Clinton campaign to sit up and take notice? Maybe we don’t have as many fans in Wisconsin as we think? Maybe they’re a bit…restive…and we need to appeal to them?
You would be wrong. Hillary made ZERO trips to Wisconsin, assuming they were part of the Blue Wall.
Hahahaha. You’re a hoot. Did you even read the article you linked, or did you just jump on the first headline you thought backed up your position? You couldn’t have been more wrong. Better luck next time.
According to the article you linked -
*And scene.
That’s how I believe the main stream media and lefty websites would have reported the left wing violence and racism that transpired at the right-to-work protests if it had been perpetrated by the Tea Party–and not left wing union activists.
But it wasn’t the Tea Party.
Fox News contributor Steven Crowder was assaulted by a left wing union activist.
It was Americans for Prosperity’s tent. It was destroyed by violent, left wing union activists.
Clint Tarver’s equipment was destroyed by a mob of mostly white, violent, racist, left wing union activists. As if that wasn’t bad enough, they hurled racial slurs at Tarver as he tried to pick up what was left of his catering equipment.
In just one afternoon, the events in Lansing demonstrated what conservatives have known for a long time: If violence and racism is not the whole of the extreme left wing, it is in its heart. It has been seen in the Occupy movement when their protests have turned violent. It can be seen daily on Twitter, as rabid left wing lunatics attack Michelle Malkin with the kind of venom and racism that would make the late Senator Robert the Exalted Cyclops Byrd blush even in his KKK prime.*
What Did the Democrats do wrong? Well, they lost Wisconsin, for example, by only 27000 votes. TEN TIMES that number of voters were turned away at the polls due to new Voter ID laws.
Reports of Wisconsin voters being turned away are anecdotal and inconsistent with Wisconsin’s voter ID law requirements. The 270K-300K is not a measured number, but a pre-election estimate by anti-voter ID activists.
Actual Wisconsin turnout was fairly high, 68%.
That is a drop from 2012, which was 72%, but not the kind of drop you’d expect if voter ID was causing big problems, since national turnout was down by a similar percentage:
Since anti-voter ID advocates will not accept anecdotal stories as proof of anything, they have to provide more than anecdotes themselves to prove their arguments.
This link says Bill Clinton had the same explanation as some posters here, and had it before the day of the election. It also this says Bill and Hillary had a huge fight over it.
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if she refused to do it specifically because he suggested it. Someday, maybe in a couple years but more likely after both Bill and Hill are dead, there are going to be some amazing books about their marriage/career. Greek tragedy.
That’s better, although it’s far from proof, given that in this particular election it looks like Wisconsin saw turnout decreases on par with other states.
Uh, we already heard before the election that there was nothing there. The problem is whether those who voted for Trump heard it. If you didn’t hear it, that seems unlikely.
As for the topic of this thread, I’m reminded of why I was worried about Clinton early on. I said before that, in my lifetime, the more charismatic candidate has always won. Now, granted, I don’t understand Trump’s mirror-universe version of charisma, but it did at least make him more charismatic than Clinton.
So I agree that we need to never run a non-charismatic candidate again.
I also agree with bringing up the job issue. Since I didn’t watch any political ads (as I knew who I was voting for), I just assumed she was making that appeal, too. Not that I think knowing that she wasn’t would have done me any good.
I do not think changing tactics about calling out racism and sexism is a viable way forward. We lost some of the minority vote to not voting. No need to go further. No need to compromise what Democrats stand for in that way.
I do think there is a need for the anti-bigoted cause to actually use our political correctness with the actual racists and sexists out there. But I don’t think that’s really something that changed the election. That’s just a way forward in general.
Such candidates are rare. I don’t think there’s ever been a race with two, and most races feature none. An intelligent campaign can also make a charismatic but empty candidate look simply slick. All things being equal, charisma is a good thing, but beware of John Edwards types.
“Don’t call Clinton a weak candidate: it took decades of scheming to beat her:
Years of Republican plots, an opponent deified by television, and FBI smears stood in her way – and she still won the popular vote by more than Kennedy did”