Thesis: the Democrats are no longer cool.

Politics & Elections
1

Regarding the nationwide election results from a week and a half ago, pundits and everyone else have offered a lot of explanations for why the Democrats lost so overwhelmingly. And lose they did. While the U.S. Senate got the most attention, the number of Democrats is at a historical low in the House, governorships, and state legislatures. When the new politicians take office, Democrats will have control of the governor’s seat and state legislature in a mere seven states. That’s not very many, especially for a party that’s supposedly riding the demographics to an inevitable majority.

I think all the good explanations for this event can be combined into one: the Democrats just aren’t cool any more.

In 2006 and 2008, the Democrats were cool. They generally had the newer, younger, hipper candidates. Those candidates could speak meaningfully about the issues that mattered to real Americans. They had, in 2008, a presidential candidate who was both black and not terribly focused on the fact that he was black; he was post-racial. They had a sharp contrast with the slate of stodgy old white guys who ran the Republican Party. The Democrats had high-tech campaigns and excellent websites. They had smart, data-driven strategies. They produced good campaign commercials. In short, they were cool, at least as cool as politicians can be.

In 2012, the Democrats were still pretty cool. A little bit of the coolness had worn off due to issues such as Obama leading an endless war in Afghanistan and ordering drone strikes all over the Middle East and violating civil rights and a mediocre economy. But for the most part the Democrats were still cool. They still had the younger, hipper, for multi-racial and post-racial candidates. They still had the cool stances on issues: pro choice, pro gay marriage, against that stupid old supply-side economics promoted by squares in the 80’s. They still had the high-tech campaigns. And the Republicans were still run by old, white guys blathering about abortion and “legitimate rape” and other uncool topics.

Fast forward to 2014. The Democrats aren’t cool anymore. Shall we count the ways:

[ul]
[li]Many Democratic candidates seem to be the candidate only because they were born into a family of rich white politicians: Mark Udall, Michelle Nunn, Mary Landrieu. Pit them against younger, more enthusiastic Republican candidates and it becomes painfully obvious.[/li][li]Democrats are no longer cool on policy. They didn’t run on their cool economic policies, since most people don’t like the results. They couldn’t run on their cool health care reform for the same reason. They couldn’t run on their cool foreign policy, since Pres. Obama recently joined a new war in Iraq–his original coolness came from opposing a war in the same place.[/li][li]Moreover, the Democrats tried to force cool issues to the forefront and just ended up looking lame. For instance, they tried to push through a “paycheck inequality” bill based on untrue claims about gender differences in pay. That’s totally lame. Likewise they tried to make birth control an issue by claiming that Republicans seek to ban birth control, but nobody was buying that lie either. Lame again. Speaking of which…[/li][li]Democrats had the worst ads in this cycle. The NARAL ad attacking Cory Gardner (see link above) was certainly the most widely mocked of the season. Not only is it entirely based on outright lies, but NARAL kept bragging about how “edgy” it was, which proves again that nothing is more pathetic than a bunch of adults who think they know how to be cool. Which leads us to…[/li][li]All those attempts by the Democrats to be cool, which were all just lame and insulting. Remember this? And this? And this?[/ul][/li]
So the Democrats aren’t cool. Of course that doesn’t mean that the Republicans are totally cool, but a few of them are a least a little bit more cool than they used to be. It’s been widely reported that young people were less likely to show up in this election than in 2008 or 2012, and those who did show up were less likely to vote for Democrats. Democrats still have the edge among young people, but that’s not enough. To win elections, they need to win hugely among the younger demographics, and right now they may just not be cool enough to do so.

Choosing a lumbering dinosaur like Hillary Clinton to be their next presidential nominee probably won’t help very much.

2

Today’s Republican is totally about today’s youth, copacetic hepcats with a reet pleat and a drape shape. Boodly-acky-sacky want some seafood, Mama!

3

Oh yeah, the OP is on to something. No one is cooler than Mitch McConnell. Not even Paul Ryan wearing a hat backwards and lifting some weights.

4

As someone in his mid-20s, I only vote for color coded teenagers with attitude.

E: In seriousness, I’d place it more on the hands of general disgust with the whole process due to political gridlock.

5

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have ever been cool. That’s an outright weird term to try to apply to either of them.

6

I think this is the real answer.

When President Obama was running for the first time there was a feeling among many that this would be a watershed turning point in American politics and we would see the ushering in of a new age of political activism that would finally address all of our social ills.

Those of us older an 40 realized that while there was a chance to foster some change, the status quo of Washington would go more or less unchanged but if the only progress you can make is small it’s still progress and worth doing.

In my opinion this left some folks disillusioned, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. At some point you need to realize that there is no magic pill, that it’s not a matter of getting the right guy to be president and then all our problems go away.
Change is painful and slow and determined.

Hopefully those people will come back to political activism with a more realistic and long term view and set long term goals that address issues rather than centering on one specific election cycle.

My very long winded 2¢

7

I do think there’s something to the OP. The Democrats are pretty old, I mean their biggest young up and coming star is 65. The Republicans by contrast have a deep bench full of people in their 40s and 50s and even a couple in their 30s.

The Democrats badly need some new blood, and by new blood I don’t mean find another Nunn, Udall, Cuomo, or Kennedy that hasn’t run for office yet. Get yourselves some Iraq vets. Those were all the rage in 2006, but mostly forgotten by the Democrats since then.

Now that I think about it, watch out for Beau Biden. He’s AG of Delaware, presumably he’ll be governor in a few years, and very likely President by 2028 or 2032.

8

This reminds me of the time that Spy magazine pranked the GOP by inventing a fictitious fan magazine called Republican Beat. Of course, they fell for it, because they think they’re cool.

9

Neither side is cool, by definition. The Republicans are for family values and the Democrats are for trusting the establishment. Only the libertarians are actually cool.

10

Nothing in that quoted statement is true.

The Republicans a most certainly NOT for family values. They work tirelessly to break apart loving families they do not believe in because of their own prejudices.

The Democrats are certainly NOT for trusting the establishment. The Democrats work tirelessly to put controls on business and government to avoid the abuses that all to often unless someone is looking.

The Libertarians however may be cool just because they’re fuckin’ nuts.

11

Then it shouldn’t be hard to recruit solid young candidates from all walks of life. You know, besides the legal profession.

12

I never said any of them were cool, just that your representations were nonsense.

13

Thesis: When your last argument on economic policy is crushed by facts and data, frame your next one around whether one party is cool.

Next debate will be “Quien es mas macho?”

Thesis: Putting “thesis” in front of something doesn’t give it any intellectual legitimacy.

14

I think this is true in the sense that a big part of being “cool” is being confident.

So many of the Democrats running this time would barely admit to being Democrats. In my own state, Alison Grimes’s entire strategy was to never utter Obama’s name or even admit that she voted for him, even though she was a delegate for him to the convention. She was mealy-mouthed about the Affordable Care Act and nearly strained her neck fellating the coal industry. She even had the always ridiculous (but practically mandatory at this point) commercial in which she fires a gun to show that she’s not one of those Democrats.

Republicans may hold many reprehensible beliefs, endorse demonstrably bad policy ideas, and have embarrassing nutjobs among their ranks, but they’re not ashamed of any of it. Right now Democrats are like the “nice guys” who go so far to prove they’re not like other guys that they barely even admit to being dudes, and then can’t understand why the girl went home with the cocky asshole.

I don’t know that Grimes would have won by running as a proud Democrat, but it’s hard to imagine she would have done any worse.

15

There are plenty of “solid young” Democratic office-holders and potential future candidates. This “all the Democrats are old” stuff is just pure political hackery – what guys like Mark Halperin say on Morning Joe to sound edgy and truthy. But it’s crap… plenty of young Democratic state office holders. We won’t know which ones ‘take off’ until one of them actually takes off.

The same goes for the Republicans, by the way. Each party only needs one charismatic and inspiring candidate.

16

It was the dishonesty. It’s not like anyone didn’t already know they would just get elected and vote with Obama 99% of the time.

17

Then perhaps they should stop touting a Medicare-eligible senior citizen who has never done anything outside of academia as the party savior.

Of course, the party’s bench was decimated by the last two midterms. The pool from which to draw candidates for higher office is the smallest its been since Warren Harding was President. Which is why it can’t hurt to find more Tammy Duckworths. Military vets bring instant credibility.

18

WTF? Why do you bring in non-sequiturs like this? Whether or not Warren is a good candidate has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have young prospects.

Halperinesque hyperbole. There are still plenty, young and old, on the party’s “bench”.

Whatever this meaningless statement is, it lacks a cite. It also reeks of the same sort of hackery as before.

Who is arguing against this?

19

I disagree with the first part. The population was smaller in Harding’s time, plus women and minorities didn’t count as potential candidates The pool is much bigger now.

As far as military vets bringing instant credibility, I call bullshit. Military vets are just like anybody else, some are great and some are total assholes. Are we all supposed to flutter our eyes like Scarlett O’Hara and get the vapors just because someone says they’re a war vet?

20

Okay, I take this back – BobLibDem is arguing against this. To this point, adaher is right – not that we should necessarily trust military vets more than non-military vets, but for political candidates, military service does add credibility for the public at large. adaher is right that the Democrats should make efforts to recruit veterans to run for office, and he’s wrong if he’s implying that Democrats aren’t trying to do this.