Jump to content
mu2010

The Democratic Party

Recommended Posts

Starting this thread to discuss the Democrats as they attempt to sort themselves out leading into the midterms and into 2020. They are currently leaderless so I figured a thread for the party as a whole is appropriate and we will see who emerges.

 

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people. I would hate to see the Democrats consume and destroy themselves like the Republicans did starting in 2009 with the Tea Party.

 

I hope the party can adopt a progressive centrism that can pick up a slice of Republicans who don't like Trump. They need to be pro-business while also taking relatively left positions on health care (Universal health care is a pro-business policy, actually - far-lefties just don't know how to make the argument because they, well, hate business.)

 

They need to be open to more pro-life and pro-gun Democrats in places where it makes sense.

 

I hope Northam's win can embolden the center-left wing of the party and I hope Brazile's book can help the party move on from Clinton. I liked Hillary a lot because I like wonky managerial types, and I think she would have been a great president, but she just had too much baggage and the party needs to move on from her as standard-bearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans have destroyed themselves?  They sure picked a funny way to show it-- they're in charge of everything.  They've been wildly successful while the Democrats' Clinton-led move to the center has been a devastating failure.  Instead of maintaining a donor base of its own the party has chosen second place on Wall Street, offering Republican economic theory minus the hatred Republicans employ to sell it.  The results are in and that approach hasn't worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans have destroyed themselves?  They sure picked a funny way to show it-- they're in charge of everything.

 

I said it and yeah I still believe it, I think that their victories are false victories (pyrrhic victories maybe?) and I think the Obamacare repeal debacle showed it more than anything. It was easy to see that coming, if you paid attention over the past 6 years. Now more moderates are retiring, it's Robespierre's reign of terror happening before our eyes. They will push themselves off a cliff unless Democrats run around them and jump off first.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't incorporate Sanders and Warren's emphasis on inequality, stagnant wages, etc, and emphasize that more, they definitely should. But if they turn it into a litmus test where it's full-blown social democracy or you're kicked out of the party, they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

 

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

 

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would hate to see the Democrats consume and destroy themselves like the Republicans did starting in 2009 with the Tea Party.

 

yeah, those Republicans have really destroyed themselves since 2009! lol

 

The Obama Legacy: Over 1,000 Democratic Seats Lost to Republicans

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/the-obama-legacy-over-1000-democratic-seats-lost-to-republicans/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ To build on this a bit more:

 

Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/17/republican_party_the_strongest_its_been_in_80_years.html

 

In 2014, we put together an index to measure the electoral strength of the parties. Rather than focusing on the presidency, we broke partisan control into five categories: presidential, Senate, House, governorships, and state legislatures. We have updated our index using the mostly complete data for the 2016 elections and can conclude that the GOP is in the strongest position it has been since 1928. In many sub-categories, it is near an all-time high.

 

389115_5_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

 

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I ask to eastvillagedon and Ram23 is, if the GOP is so healthy and strong, why haven't they yet passed a health care bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because insurance companies have made a lot of effort to deal with Obamacare and it would be too much of a blow to the bottom line to deal with new pop-up changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

 

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

 

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

 

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

 

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.

 

Not saying you have to be a member of the Democratic Party to post here...but maybe post items that are specific to Republicans in The Republican Party thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, is the The Democratic Party thread or The Republican Party thread?

 

I don't think you have to be a Tea Party member to post in the Tea Party thread.

 

Not saying you have to be a member of the Democratic Party to post here...but maybe post items that are specific to Republicans in The Republican Party thread?

Gotcha.

 

You know what, I'm not sure there is a general Republican party thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

 

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

 

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

 

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 

 

I think both issues have that effect for the Democrats.  Lots of urban and/or union voters are against abortion; gun control is a tough sell in the small cities and rural areas.  Neither has any relation to the core economic message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary won VA by 5.4% in 2016.  Gov. McAuliffe (who will run for the Senate in 2020 there) won by ~2% in 2013.  Ralph Northam won by 9% in 2017.

 

The Democrats picked up 15 (and perhaps one or two more depending on recounts) in Virginia's House of Delegates.  They were clinging to 33 seats and may start 2018 with a 50/50 split.

 

dottle-va-liveblog.png?w=575&h=458&quality=90&strip=info

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-are-overperforming-in-special-elections-almost-everywhere/

 

As we look ahead to 2018, I think Democrats are very well positioned (though they still might not win the House back and the Senate is stacked against them based on the 1/3 of Senate seats up next year). 

 

Trump is locked in at a 37-38% approval rating.  That's historically bad this early in a presidency.  Democrats continue to lead by 8-10 points on generic Congressional ballots.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-sheer-number-of-democrats-running-for-congress-is-a-good-sign-for-the-party/

 

The Democrats are recruiting huge numbers of candidates.  That's been a problem in the past - simply giving up seats/districts where even fielding a candidate might have made it more competitive.

 

There is clearly a surge to the Democrats right now - in part (perhaps even mostly) because of anti-Trump sentiment - but they need to convert that enthusiasm into votes.  Obviously on the horizon is 2020 where there is no clear leader or set of leaders in place yet (it's early so that makes sense) but I think for 2018 to be a success it can't just be "Hey, I'm a Democrat and I'm not pro-Trump."  We'll see what they come up with for the midterms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years

389115_5_.jpg

I think it is interesting that the Republican strength seems to dissipate whenever a Republican is president. And I would assume that a graph showing the strength of Democrats would just be the inverse of the one you posted. It does look like the trend line for Republicans is overall positive, but, as can be seen with Hoover, a particularly catastrophic president (or other exterior forces/economic trends/geo-political movements) can destroy the strength of a political party.

 

But with all of that said I think it's important to point out that with a two-party system with winner take all elections there will always be this ebb and flow between the two parties in charge. The two parties in charge might change over time as they evolve and dissolve, but our political system ensures that there will always be two parties that dominate, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.

 

It seems that right now both parties are in a crisis of sorts, I do not think that the recent wins by Democrats are a sign of momentum for that party. I think the Democrats are still a mess and have no strategy or clear direction (I don't think they will win by simply being anti-Trump), although I do think that Democrats are more popular but they won’t be able to truly gain momentum thanks to gerrymandering (and I’m not saying the Republicans are strong either, that party has its own issues). But with the reduction of competitive districts both parties have become increasingly polarized and unwilling to compromise with each other. Both parties are alienating a large segment of the population, discouraging them from coming out to the polls (this discouragement/apathy is not helped by our uncompetitive elections). I think both parties at some point are going to change…so many possibilities but I think it is likely that one party will diminish in relevance and that instead of switching to the opposing party a new party will emerge and we will have a shift in which two parties dominate our political system.

 

In my ideal world we would shift to a proportional representative system so that we can end this cycle of two party dominance and that would better represent the population, which would lead to more satisfaction (under a two-party system one party might win with 51% of the vote, but that still leaves 49% of the electorate dissatisfied).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yeah, and that would allow single-issue voters to migrate over to their own parties like in the rest of the world and stop dominating policy by proxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican Party the Strongest It's Been in 80 Years

389115_5_.jpg

I think it is interesting that the Republican strength seems to dissipate whenever a Republican is president.

 

Basically every party who holds the White House ends up losing in the midterm elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359761-biden-moving-toward-2020-presidential-run-report

 

Joe Biden in 2020?  He'd be 77 in 2020 and 78 by January 2021.

 

https://shareblue.com/democrats-have-flipped-32-red-seats-across-the-country-under-trump-and-counting/

 

Tuesday’s victories bring the total number of state legislative seats gained by Democrats under Trump to 32, and that number could possibly get larger pending the final calls a few remaining districts in Virginia and New Jersey.

 

By contrast, Republicans have only managed to flip a single state legislative seat from blue to red since Trump’s election — a House district in Louisiana where their candidate was running unopposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nov. 7, 2017 United States elections

Off-year election facts

 

Congressional special elections

Seats contested

6 House seats and 1 Senate seat

Net change

0

All Congressional special election seats were retained by the Republicans.

 

Gubernatorial elections

Seats contested

2

Net change

+1 Democrat, -1 Republican

So, only one state Gubernatorial seat changed hands from R to D.

 

Of the 50 states, after the 2017 elections, the number of states that the Republicans control vs the Democrats on the state Senate level is 36-R vs 14-D. The Republicans lost control of 1 state Senate. On the state House level, the Republicans have a 30-R vs 18-D lead.

 

Of the 7383 state legislative seats as of Nov 1, 2017, the Republicans have an approx. 1k seat lead over the Democrats. I do not think losing 32 state seats in the Nov. 7, 2017 elections means the Republicans have anything to worry about.

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2017

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hate purity politics and am very skeptical of the idea that Hillary lost because she wasn't left enough. I think far left (and far right) people live in their own bubbles and don't understand normal people.

 

Even worse than the extremists imho are the people that don't stand for anything really. They don't educate themselves on issues, or even bother to vote.

 

I very much agree with your point that the party has to be more open to pro life side and some of the gun types. It's interesting how interest groups can become almost completely embedded within one party.

 

I've been saying for awhile that both parties have an issue that gains them very few votes and costs them many.  For the Republicans it's abortion, for the Democrats, it's gun control. 

 

I think both issues have that effect for the Democrats.  Lots of urban and/or union voters are against abortion; gun control is a tough sell in the small cities and rural areas.  Neither has any relation to the core economic message.

 

A lot of female voters would consider the GOP a lot more strongly if it wasn't for abortion, you may be right that the Dems also lose some votes but I suspect the balance is in their favor.  I doubt very much that many (if any) voters would switch from the Dems to the GOP if the national party quit supporting gun control, but they'd likely gain quite a few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both parties are in divisive crises.

 

This is in some sense an artifact of our first past the post electoral system.  The parties are inherently coalitions because you need to be one of the top two parties in this country to wield real power (or check the power of the other top party), but there are of course more than two opinions represented among our 250 million or so eligible voters.  So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

 

If we had a proportionally representative Congress with a 10% voting threshold, you'd see both the Republicans and Democrats split hard at this point, almost immediately.  Rand Paul and John McCain would not be in the same party.  Bernie Sanders and Doug Jones would not be in the same party.  Many of the traditionally Democratic voters who voted for Trump based on anti-globalist issues would form a more openly nationalist party (and more socialist one, despite the ugly historical connotations of mixing nationalism and socialism).  You'd have a Clintonite left-leaning globalist party straight out of the New York Times editorial page, a right-leaning globalist party in the WSJ/NR school, a left-leaning nationalist party (hard to say what its current voice would be, which is one reason why the voices of its likely members were completely missed in the run-up to the 2016 election, but likely something akin to the Social Democratic Party in Germany), and a right-leaning nationalist one in the Breitbart/Townhall camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think you might have some other "parties" as well but they would be very minor.  But you have a pretty good analysis.  I would argue that the current GOP coalition and DNC coalition is each about 3- 5 parties with some overlap in the center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

 

That's exactly it, and that's why I advocate for Democrats (and Republicans too) to cut the purity politics. Voters should understand not everyone in their party will be the same as them.

 

Proportional representation would be great. I actually was thinking a while ago, representation in a legislature based on geographical area of residence is sort of an arbitrary thing. It assumes everyone in a certain area has similar interests to each other and different interests to those in different areas. Why not, instead, have representation based on height, weight, profession, IQ, ethnic background, or Myers-Briggs Personality Type?

 

Proportional representation bypasses this need to categorize and basically gives people representation based on political views, instead of squeezing square pegs into round holes. It's more direct representation. It gives California evangelicals and Alabama socialists a voice.

 

Another relevant observation is if you just look at urban politics in our state, Cleveland City Council follows a ward system while Cincinnati and Columbus City Councils are at large. Political scientists have observed differences in outcomes between those systems.

 

But you're probably looking at changing 51 constitutions, so it's safe to assume our system is here to stay, and we need to figure out how to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the coalition politics that would occur at the level of the legislature itself in a proportional representation system occurs at the party level in a first-past-the-post system.

 

That's exactly it, and that's why I advocate for Democrats (and Republicans too) to cut the purity politics. Voters should understand not everyone in their party will be the same as them.

 

Proportional representation would be great. I actually was thinking a while ago, representation in a legislature based on geographical area of residence is sort of an arbitrary thing. It assumes everyone in a certain area has similar interests to each other and different interests to those in different areas. Why not, instead, have representation based on height, weight, profession, IQ, ethnic background, or Myers-Briggs Personality Type?

 

No dice.  Not enough high-IQ ENTJs to form a viable party.  I'd be SOL.

 

(And in seriousness, you don't want "ethnic background" to the basis, either, and I say that as one of America's still-dominant ethnic group of "various white European hodgepodge.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://shareblue.com/first-time-candidates-26-point-win-breaks-gops-state-senate-supermajority-in-georgia/

 

Democrats are doing just fine.

 

On Tuesday night, most of the attention in Georgia went to a nail-bitingly close race for the mayor of Atlanta, with Democratic candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms winning by just a few hundred votes and a recount on the horizon.

But there was another, less noticed Democratic victory, in a special election that flipped a state Senate seat from red to blue — and ended a Republican supermajority in the chamber.

Georgia’s 6th Senate District, in north-central Atlanta, became vacant following Republican Hunter Hill’s resignation to run for governor. It will now be represented by Jen Jordan, a lawyer and first-time candidate who has fought for sexual assault survivors and victims of predatory lending in court, and sued to block Georgia voter suppression laws in 2006. She supports LGBT rights, public education, a $10.10 minimum wage, and health care expansion, and won numerous progressive endorsements from Daily Kos to NARAL.

 

The win is also significant because it officially ends the GOP supermajority in the Georgia Senate. Republicans already lost the supermajority in the state House of Representatives in November. This means if Democrats can win the governorship next year, Republican lawmakers will not have enough votes to automatically override vetoes, a scenario currently hamstringing Gov. Roy Cooper in North Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not "fine" that's one vote short of a Republican supermajority.  The tortoise is so far ahead we can't even see it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only one seat for up for election.  This is the same pattern the GOP followed after the 2008 election.  2018 will be the test but we are seeing Dems make big gains.  They picked up 16 seats in VA alone.  The pendulum swings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Literally the type of sh*t that will keep them losing. First step of changing is acknowledging the need. You have before you a disenchanted fiscal conservative who would gladly vote for a Dem like Doug Jones. What I won't do, however, is get behind a party or movement led by an Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamela Harris, or Cory Booker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Sanders is not a democrat.  And the GOP has their share of kooks too.  Actually the kooks are running the GOP now.

 

also, whats wrong with Booker?  He is moderate AF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Literally the type of sh*t that will keep them losing. First step of changing is acknowledging the need. You have before you a disenchanted fiscal conservative who would gladly vote for a Dem like Doug Jones. What I won't do, however, is get behind a party or movement led by an Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamela Harris, or Cory Booker.

 

Honestly I think economic conservatism is how Democrats got in this mess.  So much focus on peeling off a Republican here and a Republican there while the Democratic base falls apart.  Politics is fundamentally about economics.  All the Democrats can offer now are weaker versions of Republican points.  What'll it be folks, free trade or FREE TRADE?  The one exception to this is global warming vs coal mines, and of course Democrats have fine tuned their stance to make the unions as angry as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×