2016 Election - DEM AUTOPSY

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
2016 Election - Autopsy of the Democratic Corpse


Dems grapple with lessons from Clinton disaster
By Niall Stanage - 12/12/16 06:00 AM EST


hillaryclintonloss_getty.jpg

Democrats are grappling with how to draw the right lessons — and avoid the wrong ones — after an
extraordinary presidential election.



Hillary Rodham Clinton's loss to Donald Trump is an unmitigated disaster for Democrats, who want to ensure nothing like it happens again. But Clinton’s popular-vote lead over Trump is so large that it complicates the question of how to recalibrate for future elections.

Clinton led Trump by almost 3 million votes as of Sunday, according to a Cook Political Report tracker, with some final results still to be tabulated. More than 128 million votes were cast for the two main candidates nationwide, and Trump emerged as the victor by winning three Rust Belt states by margins of roughly 11,000 (Michigan), 23,000 (Wisconsin) and 44,000 (Pennsylvania).

Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who managed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, pointed out that, amid all the Democratic remorse and recrimination following the election, very small differences in those three states would have led to Republicans questioning their future, not Democrats.

Trippi also saw a danger for the party, in that virtually any explanation for why Clinton lost is plausible, given the narrowness of the margin.

Everybody can point to something that went wrong — and they’re right,” he said. “It makes it impossible to know what the party really needs to do.

“The [Bernie] Sanders people believe, if only we had been more populist we’d have won, and they’re right. The Hillary people believe, if only Bernie hadn’t attacked her so hard in the primary we’d have won, and they’re right. Everybody’s right.”​

The Russians Did It. Adding another explosive ingredient to the mix, the Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA now believes Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. The story clearly has some distance left to run.​

Meanwhile, the immediate direction of the Democratic Party is further complicated because it has no obvious leader with the exception of President Obama, who will leave office in less than six weeks. At the Democratic National Committee — an organization already tainted by emails suggesting its staff helped Clinton over Sanders during the primary — interim chairwoman Donna Brazile will soon leave office, with at least three candidates seeking to replace her. The Clinton political machine, a major force in the party since President’s rise in the early 90s, is fading into obsolescence in the wake of the shock election result.


Rebuilding the DNC
Even the competition to replace Brazile at the DNC shows the different directions in which the party could shift.

  • The early front-runner, Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.), supported Sanders during the primary and has made clear that he thinks a shift to the left is in order — in part to offer the clearest possible contrast to the GOP.
“Democrats win when we harness the power of everyday people and fight for the issues they care about,” Ellison said in a statement announcing his candidacy. “It is not enough for Democrats to ask for voters' support every two years. We must be with them through every lost paycheck, every tuition hike, and every time they are the victim of a hate crime. When voters know what Democrats stand for, we can improve the lives of all Americans.”​

  • Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had previously served as DNC chairman, entered this year’s race and then dropped out. But the former doctor’s diagnosis, delivered via Twitter as he announced his candidacy, was that the party needed “organization and [a] focus on the young” as well as “a fifty-State strategy and tech rehab.”

  • The other two candidates who remain in the race, South Carolina party chairman Jaime Harrison and New Hampshire chairman Ray Buckley have their own ideas. Harrison told the Charleston Post & Courier, “We need to go back to where the party used to be, which is not a political organization but a community organization” that would “talk about bread and butter issues.”

  • Meanwhile, speculation continues to build that Labor Secretary Tom Perez could join the DNC race, perhaps functioning as a bridge between the more establishment-minded thinkers around the Obama and Clinton camps, and the progressives who look to Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as their standard-bearers.

The dividing lines between some of these positions can be the source of friction, even when they are expressed in respectful terms.

When Sanders argued in a Medium post soon after the election that diversity was important but “to think of diversity purely in racial and gender terms is not sufficient,” he faced immediate blowback on social media, especially from non-white progressives.

There are worries in some quarters that the party will try to re-fight this election when the next one rolls around, a strategy that would presumably involve emphasizing an appeal to white, Rust Belt voters. Skeptics worry that such an effort, especially if couched in culturally conservative terms, could erode the party’s support with black and Hispanic voters as well as liberal young people.

At the same time, almost everyone agrees that something needs to change.

“You can’t look at the next occupant of the White House and say, ‘Let’s just do everything again the way it was done,’” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who is also a columnist for The Hill. “There aren’t many people making that argument.”

Mellman argued that the party needed to have a more coherent and relevant economic message, while also finding a way to respond to the cultural anxieties of Rust Belt voters “without in any shape or form compromising on our principles.”

Trippi, meanwhile, worried that Democrats could move too sharply in almost any direction.

“I don’t have a specific fear but I do think it’s possible that the party overcorrects,” he said, “Parties tend to overcorrect or go further over the edge, and I think that both those things are possible.”


SOURCE: http://www.thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309483-dems-grapple-with-lessons-from-clinton-disaster


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
“We did great with the African American community,” he said, during the rally
in Hershey, Pa. “So good. Remember — remember the famous line, because I
talk about crime, I talk about lack of education, I talk about no jobs. And I'd
say, what the hell do you have to lose? Right? It's true. And they're smart and
they picked up on it like you wouldn't believe. And you know what else? They
didn't come out to vote for Hillary. They didn't come out. And that was a big —
so thank you to the African American community.”


The crowd applauded.

Trump offered similar praise
last week in Michigan — another of the states that
he wasn't expected to win, but did. The black community “came through big
league,” he said then. “If they had any doubt, they didn't vote. And that was
almost as good,” he added.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-lower-black-turnout/?utm_term=.21a6b05e4753
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
As of now December 18th 2016, the Democratic party on a National level is in dire straits.
Why?
Is it ideology and what the party says it stands for?
No.
Most Americans when polled agree by a wide margin with the principals and issue-by-issue positions of the Democratic Party.
Six out of the last seven Presidential elections, the Democratic party has won the popular vote.
What is the problem then?
The problem is the National leadership of the Democratic Party.

We know why Hillary didn't win easily.
See the quote box below

Hillary lost because she had NO compelling message; all she did was point at Trump and say, I'm not him, vote for me.
She also had the baggage of all the 25 years of Billary drama. Bill's sexual escapades, the self-enriching machinations of the Clinton Foundation, her duplicitous neo-liberal Wall St. friendly financial policies, her extremely late opposition to the TPP and acknowledgement that NAFTA destroyed millions of peoples lives. Voter suppression of Black & brown votes also hurt her; in North Carolina the Black vote was down 8% from 2012 levels. All of the above was not enough to cause her to lose the POTUS if she had carried the white blue collar vote in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan that Obama won twice.

The voters that the Hillary made NO attempt to reach, rejecting the advice of her husband (total stupidity) were the white male voters (so-called blue collar) who have lost their manufacturing jobs over the past 20 years due to corporate greed and globalization. You have $$$$$ profitable companies sending factories overseas for one reason only — they can make even more money because the foreign workers make $10 dollars per day instead of $20 bucks an hour.



The Democrats have to reach these blue collar white male voters. Obama won a plurality of their vote in 2008 and 2012.
Hillary lost them anywhere from 12% to 34% to Trump. In Michigan 90,000 voters voted for everyone except Hillary. They left her box blank and they DID NOT vote for Trump.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/watch-michael-moore-drops-some-hard-truths-about-how-democrats-have-ignored-the-midwest/

The blue-collar "Bubba" vote DID NOT majority vote for McCain or RMoney, they went for a Black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. Bill Clinton also won the "Bubba" vote in 1992 and 1996. Jesse Jackson won the "Bubba" vote when he ran in the Democratic party primaries in the 1980's. Guys making base hourly pay of $15 to $50 an hour should not be voting 66% for RepubliKlans as they do when a Democratic candidate literally ignores them as Hillary did. "Bubba's" are called Reagan democrats for a reason; they are traditionally Democratic voters from union households. They got conned by RayGun in 1980 and voted for him, who then decimated unions nationwide. Then reich-wing RepubliKlan talk radio & FOX FAKE news started in the 1990's (Rush, Savage, Levine, Hannity, O'Really, etc.) and the 24/7 Joseph Goebbels style propaganda broadcast began. The Democratic party had no effective response to the 24/7 digital brownshirts that the RepubliKlan unleashed. They had no spine, no backbone; they were afraid to even call the digital brownshits like Rush, O'Really, etc. the fucking liars that they were. Remember when on FAKE it used to be Hannity & Colmes and Colmes who was supposed to be the Democrat surrogate just sat there like an idiot as Hannity spewed out demonstrably false lie after lie. That whole thing was a premeditated set up by FAKE boss Roger Ailes to make Liberals look like buffoons. Colmes made millions. When they didn't need him anymore they cut him from the program. So to sum up, Democrats should compete for the "Bubba" vote, not just give it to the RepubliKlans. If Bernie Sanders was the Democratic candidate, he would of carried the "Bubba" vote in a landslide.

In 2008 Obama received 43% of the total white vote. Obama got the highest percentage of ALL white votes--43%--of any Democrat candidate since Bill Clinton managed to get 44% in 1996. John Kerry (2004) and Al Gore (2000) managed just 41% and 42% respectively. Obama won 39% of ALL the white vote in 2012

Below from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html

The truth was that Democrats were far more dependent on white working-class ("Bubba") voters than many believed.

In the end, the bastions of industrial-era Democratic strength among white working-class voters fell to Mr. Trump. So did many of the areas where Mr. Obama fared best in 2008 and 2012. In the end, the linchpin of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition broke hard to the Republicans.

The Wyoming River Valley of Pennsylvania — which includes Scranton and Wilkes-Barre — voted for Mr. Trump. It had voted for Mr. Obama by double digits.

Youngstown, Ohio, where Mr. Obama won by more than 20 points in 2012, was basically a draw. Mr. Trump swept the string of traditionally Democratic and old industrial towns along Lake Erie. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points.

Hillary also COULD NOT generate the excitement and buzz that Obama created with voters in 2008 and 2012.

Obama_Oct_2012_Crowd_Reelection_Wisconson.jpg

Obama Re-Election rally, Sept. 2012, Madison WI


The RepubliKlans including their top leaders, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell were all very clear from the 2009 inauguration day of President Obama about what their plan was to slander, lie & destroy the Democrats. They called it a Taliban-style Insurgency, See #1 below

What was the response of President Obama's White House & Nancy Pelosi's House Democrats to the bully-boy RepubliKlan insurgents and "the teabag party" useful idiots?? Nothing! Harry Reid in the Senate was the only Democratic leader who understood and tried to respond to the RepubliKlan insurgency. Harry Reid just retired.



Watch the video above
Nancy Pelosi at this critical time, facing a Donald Trump neo-facist regime, is uniquely unqualified to lead U.S. Congressional Democrats as a potent opposition force against Trump and his bully boys. She doesn't understand much less know how to employ the tactics necessary to even bloody his nose much less take him down. Listen to her in this video of her just a days ago on a Face The Nation interview, she has no clue, she is hapless and lost, she is pathetic; Trump will roll over her like a tractor plowing a field.

In the U.S. Senate we now have Chuck Schumer the New York senator "from Wall Street" & "Israel's Likud party" as the Democratic minority leader.
Donald Trump and the bully-boys will also roll over him like a tractor plowing a field.

READ: Charles Schumer Is Leading Democrats to Their Doom

As of now the leaders of the National Democratic party have no clue how to take on the neo-fascist Trump & his bully-boys. In less than two years they are facing the prospect of a 60 seat filibusterer proof RepubliKlan U.S. Senate and a gerrymandered RepubliKlan House continuing it's stranglehold on the
$3,800,000,000,000 ($3.8 Trillion) U.S. budget.







#1
Pete Sessions solution is create GOP Taliban-style Insurgency:

In 2009, Pete Sessions declared he wanted the GOP to model the Taliban in creating a GOP Insurgency and Kevin McCarthy demanded an "unyielding opposition" to every single economic policy presented even if the policy is a GOP policy.

In February 2, 2009, Politico reported:

NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) repeated the request during his own briefing for members Friday — telling Republicans that they need to get over the idea that they’re participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as “an insurgency” instead. Just get over it! You're not in DC to legislate! You're in DC to create an "insurgency."
Hal Rogers (R-KY) was disgusted by Session's comment and told Politico it was the most offensive-minded proposal he’s seen during his 28 years in the House.

A few days later, Pete Sessions underscored his desire to create a Taliban-style GOP Insurgency in an interview with the National Journal Hotline:

"PETE SESSIONS: Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- [is] an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."
~Rep Pete Sessions, March 2009 to National Journal Hotline

Sessions went further and explained that he wants the GOP to use the Taliban as the GOP model to create a GOP insurgency PETE SESSION: "I simply said one can see that there's a model out there for insurgency,"Sheesh ... Pete Sessions did not want to legislate, he wanted a God Damn 'insurgency.'

The United States Department of Defense defines "Insurgency"

INSURGENCY: The organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.
~ Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

As a summary, here's a reminder of the actual Taliban Insurgency:
The Taliban insurgency destroyed bridges & buildings to ensure that goods provided to the people by the government of Afghanistan did not reach the people. Also, the Taliban insurgency threatened and murdered government officials to ensure the government did not provide services to the People of Afghanistan.

Then, to gain control:
The Taliban Insurgency recruited new members by complaining that goods & services are not being provided by the government while, all along, the Taliban was the reason the goods & services were not reaching the people.

Since 2009 the GOP voting record shows the GOP seems to have carried out the Taliban-style GOP insurgency.
The GOP have voted against: infrastructure, FEMA, SNAP, Nutrition Bills, Anti-Outsourcing, Consumer Protection, Seniors Protection, Minimum Wage Increase, and a host of other legislation geared to actually help the People.

And then, in perfect Taliban Insurgency style, the GOP complain that the economy is not growing as fast as it should be.

Kevin McCarthy
On January 20, 2009, Kevin McCarthy attended a secret meeting where he explain one way to sabotage the US economy.

KEVIN McCARTHY: "We've gotta challenge them on every single bill. Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies."
~Kevin McCarthy January 20, 2009 in Secret Meeting

Pete Sessions:SESSIONS: Republicans .. "need to get over the idea that they’re participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as “an insurgency” instead ... Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. ... we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the Democratic House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with"

Wow! - American Facism
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-model-the-Taliban-to-create-a-GOP-Insurgency
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz



KKK_for_Trump.jpg


CoIgiQJUsAEzynG.jpg:large
 
Last edited:

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator

We visited Middletown, Ohio on Matter of Fact to talk with folks about the economic and educational challenges facing community members. Like many across the country, Middletown residents are fighting back against job losses suffered during the most recent economic downturn.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Tom Perez elected as first Latino leader of Democratic Party


ATLANTA — Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected as the first Latino chair of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, defeating Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) at a contentious party meeting in Atlanta.

“With hard work and a hell of a lot of organizing, we will turn this party around,” Perez said before he had locked up enough votes to win 235 to 200 votes on a second ballot.

As Perez’s victory was announced, nine Ellison supporters chanted “power of the people, not big money,” then stormed out of the room.

“Someday they’re going to study this era of American history,” Perez said after his victory. “They’re going to ask the question of all of us: Where were you in 2017, when we had the worst president in the history of the United States? We will be able to say that the Democratic Party led the resistance, and made sure this was a one-term president.”

Onstage, Perez gave Ellison the symbolic role of deputy chair, and the Minnesota congressman gave a short speech asking his supporters to stay with the party and avoid recriminations. “We don’t have the luxury to walk out of this room divided,” said Ellison.

Former president Barack Obama congratulated “my friend” in a statement: “I know that Tom Perez will unite us under that banner of opportunity, and lay the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leadership for this big, bold, inclusive, dynamic America we love so much.”

Ellison’s defeat was a blow to the party’s liberal wing, personified by activists, labor leaders, and organizers who had come to Atlanta to cheer him on. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who had lobbied hard for Ellison, worried that the party was alienating the growing “resistance” that has organized against President Trump.

“If you polled Democrats outside of this room, Keith would win,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’s campaign manager during his 2016 presidential bid. “Keith’s support is from the people on the street.”

FULL STORY: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...76c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.99cd616a84cf



.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
161226182723-president-barack-obama-exlarge-169.jpg


This is why they lost, he tried to push the TPP and other garbage in his last term after remaining silent during his previous two elections. He ran the ACA into the ground.

He was calculating another free trading fool from the Republican side would win the nomination and it wouldn't be an issue, but Trump got the nomination. He created doubt or uncertainty about Democrats being a true progressive.

170128173223-president-trump-executive-orders-jan-28-2017-large-169.jpg


Finally their fundraising strategy is highly flawed.
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
What is wrong with his supporters.? What is wrong with the republican senators.?



Christine J. Shah - What is wrong with his supporters.? What is wrong withe the republican senators.? How can anyone with any common sense keep on letting him just destroy this country on every level. Maybe the reason trump wants to build a wall not to keep Mexicans out but to keep us from leaving.



FOX FAKE News was conceived by the now departed Roger Ailes during the Nixon administration as the “Republican Channel” http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news


The misogynistic lecherous 76 year old Ailes was forced out as the head of FOX FAKE News after more than two dozen women came forward providing sordid details of Ailes of persistent sexual harassment at FAKE. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/how-fox-news-women-took-down-roger-ailes.html

FOX FAKE News had to pay Gretchen Carlson $20,000,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against them due to Ailes obstinate lewd contact toward her at the office. The $20 Million is in addition to the $13,000,000 FOX FAKE News had to pay to female plaintiffs for the persistent sexual harassment they received from FAKE News’ Bill O’Reilly https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment-fox-news.html

FOX FAKE News is propaganda. If you don’t know that, then you are as stupid as the target audience who gullibly only watch FAKE as their sole source of television information.

FAKE’s audience is the oldest and whitest audience (only 1% of Black people watch FAKE) in cable news (CNN, MSNBC, HLN)

The 99% white audience that views FAKE is dying. They are killing themselves.

This is the “STORY” that almost all Americans are not aware of!! These dying whites are the ones who provided Trump with his electoral college victory.

FAKE bullshit stories like the one that started this thread http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?...trying-to-dis-obama-and-glorify-trump.943922/
are designed for their consumption.

People in the “Reality Based” world know what FAKE is….Total Bullshit!!


American_Whites_Killing_Themselves_2015.jpg


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html
White_People_Killing_Themselves.jpg




Why Are White Americans Dying Off? Check These Charts
- March 23, 2017
https://psmag.com/why-are-white-americans-dying-off-check-these-charts-4863da7c74e1


The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair' - March 23, 2017
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...g-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair

'Deaths of despair' on the rise among blue-collar whites - March 25, 2017
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-despair-on-the-rise-among-blue-collar-whites




LuckovichCanaryCoalMine_1000.jpg


https://nyti.ms/2nBM2r4



Trump is now our so-called President because
he won the electoral college NOT the popular vote.

Look at the three states below which gave Trump the electoral college victory.
In each State Trump won the vote by less than 1%


How stupid do you have to feel if you wasted your vote on the Green party or Libertarian party because you "didn't like" Hillary??????:smh::smh:



Pennsylvania_2016.jpg


Michigan_2016.jpg


Wisconsin_2016.jpg


Trump got a total of 62,985,106 votes nationwide 45.9%
Hillary got a total of 65,953,625 votes nationwide 48.1%


Barack Obama in 2008 when the U.S. population was smaller got 69,498,516 votes 52.9%


Too many voters are just stupid.
Trump exploited their ignorance





dae476f070d6576a964375e807ed1911.jpg

imrs.php

Drumpf's Moronic "They-Killing-Themselves-With-Opioids & Meth" Voters



 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost


AAk9ffs.img

© Provided by AFP "We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead," said Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton (C) at a concession speech, after being defeated by Republican presidential-elect Donald Trump


WASHINGTON — A group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year's presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they're right.

Many Democrats have a shorthand explanation for Clinton's defeat: Her base didn't turn out, Donald Trump's did and the difference was too much to overcome.

But new information shows that Clinton had a much bigger problem with voters who had supported President Barack Obama in 2012 but backed Trump four years later.

Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group's analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton's failure to reach Obama's vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

Canter and other members of Global Strategy Group have delivered a detailed report of their findings to senators, congressmen, fellow operatives and think tank wonks — all part of an effort to educate party leaders about what the data say really happened in last year's election.

"We have to make sure we learn the right lesson from 2016, that we don't just draw the lesson that makes us feel good at night, make us sleep well at night," Canter said.

His firm's conclusion is shared broadly by other Democrats who have examined the data, including senior members of Clinton's campaign and officials at the Democratic data and analytics firm Catalist. (The New York Times, in its own analysis, reached a similar conclusion.)

Each group made its assessment by analyzing voter files –– reports that show who voted in every state, and matching them to existing data about the voters, including demographic information and voting history. The groups determined how people voted — in what amounts to the most comprehensive way to analyze the electorate short of a full census.

The findings are significant for a Democratic Party, at a historic low point, that's trying to figure out how it can win back power. Much of the debate over how to proceed has centered on whether the party should try to win back working-class white voters — who make up most of the Obama-Trump voters — or focus instead on mobilizing its base.

Turning out the base is not good enough, the data suggest.

"This idea that Democrats can somehow ignore this constituency and just turn out more of our voters, the math doesn't work," Canter said. "We have to do both."

Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton's biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. For example, she could have won if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012's.

They also emphasize the need for the party to continue finding ways to stoke its base. Democrats can do both, said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a super PAC that backed Clinton last year and now is trying to help Democrats return to power.

"I really do believe that we should reject this idea that if we just focus on turnout and the Democratic base that that will be enough," he said. "If that really is our approach, we're going to lose six or seven Senate seats in this election. But, I also believe that just talking about persuasion means we are not capitalizing on an enormous opportunity."

Priorities USA released a poll last week, conducted in part by Cantor's firm, that found the Democratic base — including voters who usually sit out midterm elections —unusually motivated to participate in the next election. The group have said in recent months that Democrats can both reach out to white working-class voters and their base with a strong message rooted in economic populism.

Still, the data say turnout was less of a problem for Clinton than defections were. Even the oft-predicted surge of new voters backing Trump was more myth than reality. Global Strategy Group's review of Ohio, with Catalist, found that Clinton won a majority of new voters in the state. (Global Strategy Group examined North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada as part of its analysis).

Belief that turnout was the main reason Clinton lost, however, remains a prominent theory among Democrats.

"There's an active conversation within the party about whether persuasion was the problem or turnout," said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way, a center-left Democratic think tank.

That debate is complicated because some Democrats think winning over voters is already a lost cause, Hatalsky said.

"There's still a real concern that persuasion is harder and costs more than mobilization, so let's just triple down on getting out the people who already agree with us," she said. "And I think there's a lot of worry that we don't actually know how to persuade anymore, and so maybe we should just go talk to the people we agree with."

A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by Sen Bernie Sanders, or move instead to the political middle.

Canter argued that Trump's president's "special sauce" combines his economic populism with a political populism that vilifies both parties.

But he rejected the notion that his firm's report suggests the party should pursue either direction. Rather, he said he and his partners were simply trying to explain to party leaders exactly why Clinton lost.

Without understanding how the party lost, it's hard to figure out how it can win again.

"We don't need to be Republican lite," Canter said. "All we're saying is this is the electoral challenge. In order to win, this is the challenge we have to solve. And there are a lot of good arguments for how we can solve it."

———

(c)2017 McClatchy Washington Bureau

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau at www.mcclatchydc.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


SOURCE: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...on-lost/ar-BBAyW55?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
How to Win

The Kind of Democrat Who Can
Win in the South—or Anywhere


It’s how I won in Columbus, Georgia.
People want progress.
They just want it to be implemented in a pragmatic way.

ttomlinson2013.jpeg

Teresa Tomlinson
Mayor, Columbus, Georgia

06.11.17 12:00 AM ET

In Columbus, Georgia, we believe in good government, and we have a long history of it. At the local level, we do not care for the partisan hooey - a technical term – that may impede the delivery of that good government.

Columbus is a city of 200,000 people, ninety-miles southwest of Atlanta. Columbus is a highly diverse, minority-majority community, and home to the international headquarters of Aflac and TSYS. It also is home to one of the world’s largest military training bases, the Ft. Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence.

As a longtime Democrat, I’ve had the privilege of being elected twice to the non-partisan position of Mayor of Columbus. There, I learned something useful to our current national dialogue: people embrace progressive ideals, they simply want them pragmatically implemented.


Sure, this pragmatism is more work because the elected leaders cannot rely on either the partisan appeal or moral objective of the proposed policy, but must provide a transparent assessment of how the policy and its process impacts all citizens. The resulting information touches everyone and presents an opportunity for broader consensus.


It turns out that citizens like progress. They are excited by the future, and they embrace leaders who can take them there. Citizens want a government that works and to which they feel connected. Basically, citizens want pragmatic progressive leadership.

All of this made me think: In this Trumpian alternate universe we are enduring, are we ready to re-commit to the better governing policies of the Democrats, if pragmatically applied?

As voters in the 6th Congressional District of Georgia begin voting in the June 20 Jon Ossoff/Karen Handel run-off, politicos and uber-engaged voters around the country are wondering if this election will signal a new dawn in our long partisan darkness. It could be that a new pragmatic leadership style is emerging: one that is easier on the eyes and ears of independents, suburban moderates, blue-collar workers, and millennials.

The Pragmatic Progressive is a strong Democrat in economic
and social/civic policy, but understands these policies benefit
many beyond their base and are not afraid to go into the lion’s
den, if need be, to let them know so.


A Pragmatic Progressive – and Ossoff sure seems like one - can explain to you why Democratic policies are not special-interest politics but are sound economic strategies for citizens at every economic level. A Pragmatic Progressive believes government is meant to be a partnership with you, your business, and your community. It is government’s role to create a framework within which a citizen can prosper.

A Pragmatic Progressive believes -- that there is no special or privileged group that is entitled to better or more advantageous government than another. Every citizen is entitled to government respect and access. Every person is an economic and community asset. A Pragmatic Progressive believes the worker is as important and as valuable as the investor, and our governmental policies should reflect that.

A Pragmatic Progressive knows -- that our common prosperity lies in the strength of the middle class. Expanding the middle class through economic principles of fair (not favored) taxation stimulates the economy, increases investment, creates growth and opportunity, lowers unemployment and improves workforce quality. The expenditure of government funds should not be justified as an entitlement, but rather as an investment that can be defended with an articulable return.

Such a progressive accepts science, technology and fact. She understands that global markets and policies are essential to innovation and the free market at home. He wants the United States to be an economic leader in the world and appreciates that global political and economic stability is in our best interest. That stability requires that the United States be a major, but measured, participant in world affairs, on both national security and economic matters. A Pragmatic Progressive knows that immigration is essential to our economic growth.

The red/blue dichotomy has become an oversimplified, lazy way to talk about what we actually believe, and that is one of the reasons we are having such difficulty in American political discourse today. A Pragmatic Progressive does not reject reasoned, well-targeted Republican policies out of hand. Yet, a Pragmatic Progressive recognizes that many policies urged by conservatives are not conservative policies at all, but rather are highly invasive government-expanding ideas based on using government as a weapon of individual power, such as the so-called Religious Freedom Bills.

A Pragmatic Progressive does not believe in the conservative adage, coined by William F. Buckley, that we should “stand athwart history and yell stop.” The human condition is to move forward, to embrace progress and to shape our future, not hide from it or deny it or fight it. We cannot simultaneously hate our government and love the United States of America that it comprises. We cannot simultaneously hate our government and proclaim to love the men and women who give their lives for it. A Pragmatic Progressive cannot be a member of a party that believes our government – the United States of America - is so potentially “tyrannical” that citizens must preemptively stockpile weapons against it.

Government is important.

Our government is us.

Our form of government is the greatest civic experiment of mankind, and to this point it has been a successful experiment. We need policies that reflect that and leaders who understand it. We need more Pragmatic Progressive Democrats.


Jon Ossoff’s unlikely success thus far has signaled that the dawn is coming. The only question is: Will it arrive on June 20?



http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-kind-of-democrat-who-can-win-in-the-southor-anywhere



.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
'We have to make this change:'
Dems ponder disavowing Pelosi after Lamb’s Win


AP_18046619243956

Conor Lamb’s apparent victory in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District has reignited a debate inside the Democratic
Party over whether candidates should disavow House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to win independent and moderate
voters. Pablo Martinez MonsivaisAP

McClatchyDC
By Alex Roarty And Katie Glueck
March 16, 2018 12:57 PM


When the elderly man who had just opened his door to Conor Lamb launched into a tirade about Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic candidate was ready with an answer.

“We need a new generation of leadership,” he said one afternoon last month, part of a well-rehearsed response in which Lamb reiterated he wouldn’t support Pelosi as a Congressional leader (or Paul Ryan, for that matter).

His apparent victory in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District — the Associated Press had not called it but most election analysts consider Lamb’s tiny lead insurmountable — has reignited the deep and divisive debate inside the Democratic Party over whether candidates should disavow Pelosi to win independent and moderate voters, and whether party leaders should let them.


“We have got to realize she is unpopular, even if there are many people who like her," said Linda Andrews, chairwoman of a local Democratic committee inside the 18th District. "So we have to make this change. If we expect to win, we have to be flexible. We have to be willing to change.”


Only a few Democratic candidates, such as Ken Harbaugh in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District or Clarke Tucker in Arkansas’s 2nd Congressional District, have said they wouldn’t back the longtime party leader and fundraising powerhouse. Most of them, including many of the party’s top recruits, have declined to say whether they would support her.

But party insiders say that could change, especially for those running in conservative areas.

“I don’t think the party has a choice to permit it or not,” said Chris Reeves, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Kansas. “That’s what the candidates are going to do.”

Reeves would know: Paul Davis, in Kansas’s 2nd Congressional District, is one of the handful of candidates to publicly oppose Pelosi, saying that Congress is “broken.”

Ditching Pelosi, however, is fraught. She’s unpopular among voters but retains a loyal base of support among some liberals and — most importantly — many of the party’s top donors. Issuing a statement of opposition could hurt a candidate in a Democratic primary, or make fundraising more difficult.

Plus, just disavowing her won’t stop Republicans from using Pelosi against Democratic candidates. The GOP tried to hang Pelosi around Lamb’s neck, but in that race, he was able to credibly claim distance from the party leadership because his strong fundraising meant national Democrats didn’t have to run a lot of ads on his behalf.


The more ads there are from national Democratic committees, the harder it is to claim independence from Pelosi.

“I would encourage Democratic candidates to game this out,” said one party strategist. “The second the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] or House Majority PAC spends a dime on you, the ads will come asking why the Nancy Pelosi political operation is spending money to help you win.”

That is the exact message that came from the National Republican Congressional Committee on Thursday.

"Candidates will not be able to, on one hand, say, 'I don't support Nancy Pelosi,' and on the other hand, benefit from her financially," said NRCC spokesman Jesse Hunt, referencing Pelosi's fundraising prowess for her party and previewing a point the committee plans to make repeatedly down the road.

While Lamb deftly gave the impression that he was more conservative on issues such as abortion than his policy positions actually indicate, Republicans say it will be very difficult for other Democrats to do the same, especially as many confront crowded primaries fueled by a progressive base. And not everyone can go on the airwaves to distance themselves from her, direct-to-camera, as Lamb did.


"The problem for them is, they align with her ideologically, they support her agenda, they parrot the same talking points she does, they're incapable of distancing themselves from her policy agenda because they align with her, because they benefit from the money she's raising," Hunt said.

Alex Roarty: 202-383-6173, @Alex_Roarty

Katie Glueck: 202-383-6078, @katieglueck


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...49.html#cardLink=tallRow1_card1#storylink=cpy


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Is Cynthia Nixon the future of the Democratic Party — for good and ill


RTS1OH17.jpg

REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton


Politico
March 27, 2018


Thanks to President Trump, we all know what right-wing populism looks and sounds like. It's a billionaire businessman who combines race-baiting white nationalism with anti-immigration fervor, anti-Muslim discrimination, tax breaks for big business, economic protectionism, and flagrantly demagogic attacks on "the media."

But what does the left-wing version of populism look and sound like?

Because Bernie Sanders won 22 states in the 2016 primaries by running an anti-establishment campaign against a candidate strongly endorsed by the institutional Democratic Party, most people have tended to assume that left-wing populism looks and sounds like a septuagenarian senator from Vermont (by way of Brooklyn).

But that's not quite right. Sanders is first and foremost a democratic socialist who rails against inequality and resists any form of identity politics other than one that emphasizes class. He's also served in public office for most of his adult life. That makes him a quintessential left-wing politician — but an imperfect populist for the present moment.


If you want to know what an authentic left-wing populist looks and sounds like — and you want to think through the electoral advantages and disadvantages of the Democratic Party embracing the approach going forward — pay close attention to former actress and activist Cynthia Nixon's recently launched campaign to unseat Andrew Cuomo as governor of New York.

Like Bernie Sanders, Nixon makes class-based appeals, rails against politicians who kowtow to big business, emphasizes her own (early) success in raising small donations from ordinary voters, and supports economic policies that place her firmly on the left side of her party. All of this sounds like what one might expect from a left-wing populist agenda: standing up for the people against the powerful, opposing the political and economic establishment, and promising to purge a corrupt system.

But what makes Nixon even more purely populist than Sanders is that she combines these class-based positions with the outright appeals to ethnic, gender, and racial identity politics favored by grassroots Democratic Party activists. As she argues in a wide-ranging interview with Glamourmagazine, "the fact of the matter is, our working class doesn't look like the working class of 1955. Our working class is largely women and people of color."

That may well be true in New York City, where Nixon lives, but it's not true in the country as a whole and most likely not true in New York state as a whole either.Only if black, Latino, and Asian members of the working class are lumped together into a single non-white category do they begin to come close to rivaling the size of the white working class, just as men make up a greater share than women of the working class in general. Yet Democratic activists are convinced that the surest (and morally purest) path to victory for the left runs through such racial and gendered appeals — and Nixon is speaking to those who believe this in a way that Sanders has so far refused to do. That Nixon is an outspoken lesbian and has long dabbled in activism for gay rights and women's reproductive rights only strengthens this dimension of her populist bona fides.

The final aspect of Nixon's populism follows from her line of work. She's an actress who fights for causes she believes in, but she's never served in or run for public office. That lack of experience is one mark of populism, but her notoriety as a TV and movie star is another. If Republicans look for populist saviors among businessmen and trash-talking reality-show stars, Democrats have a soft spot for glamorous, well-meaning celebrities. That's what was behind the recent Oprah boomlet, and it's a large part of what, at this early date, is fueling Nixon's run against Cuomo.

The question is whether it will work for the Democratic Party — in New York state, and beyond.

It just might. Cuomo is widely disliked among left-wing activists, and he's very much a poster boy for the Democratic establishment who has tried to balance selective gestures toward the Sanders agenda with the high-profile cultivation of Wall Street money. He's also presided over the breakdown of the New York City subway system, which has softened his support downstate (the state's most liberal region). All of this makes him vulnerable to a left-wing populist challenge, which is what Nixon promises to mount, with all the charisma, charm, and free publicity that one would expect from a celebrity candidate.

That's how Nixon could win her contest with Cuomo for the Democratic nomination for governor. But what about in the November vote against a Republican opponent? If the anti-Trump blue wave is sufficiently enormous, it could certainly carry her across the finish line. But at what cost to her party's long-term competitiveness?

When Cuomo first ran for governor, he won 63 percent of the vote and carried the overwhelming majority of the state's counties. Four years later, his share of the vote had shrunk to 54.2 percent, with the overwhelming majority of the state's counties going to his Republican opponent. Cuomo was saved by winning by a huge margin in New York City, and by somewhat smaller margins in other cities (Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Binghamton) and college towns.

MORE PERSPECTIVES

JEFF SPROSS
So much for Trump's trade war?


MATTHEW WALTHER
Stormy Daniels, American hero

Would Nixon's populist campaign improve on that result, reversing the Democratic Party's transformation into a party that appeals primarily to upper-middle-class and wealthy urbanites and working-class minority groups? Or would she instead solidify the widespread impression that Democrats increasingly view the problems afflicting small town and rural America, along with the struggles of the white working class, with contempt?

The unique awfulness of President Trump may provide enough momentum to allow Nixon and other Democratic populists to prevail in 2018. But that shouldn't be interpreted as a sign of the party's long-term electoral health. As Republicans are currently in the process of learning, a party whose populist passions actively alienate large swaths of the electorate is not a party poised to command majority support.

Democrats can learn that lesson now, or they can learn it later. But they will need to learn it eventually.


http://theweek.com/articles/763195/cynthia-nixon-future-democratic-party--good-ill


.
 
Top