Dems Rebuild

TGHusker

TGHusker

New member
Well, I think most of us thought we'd be talking about the rebuild of the Repub party after the election. However, it is the Dem party that is doing some deep soul searching now.

Starting wt Party Chairman. Howard Dean volunteers again. So where should the party go (I have a suggestion but won't say it
default_ohmy.png
- just kidding my Dem friends), how should they 're-invent' themselves after this defeat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/10/liberal-democrats-lash-out-at-dnc-say-overhaul-needed-to-woo-back-working-class-voters/

Donna Brazile has created some enemies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

The party leaders are all old.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922902/Leaderless-Democratic-Party-dire-straits-GOP-sweeps.html

Clinton leaves leaderless, rudderless and talentless Democratic Party in crisis - with only pensioners Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to turn to
  • Defeated Democrats are in crisis after humiliating defeat of Hillary Clinton and a Republican clean sweep in both houses
  • Senior figures admit they have no shining new talent to step into the breach
  • Only stars are Elizabeth Warren, 67, and Bernie Sanders, 75, while leaders in Senate and House of Representatives are both pensioners too
  • Chairs of the Democratic National Committee have either quit in disgrace or been branded 'disgusting' for unethical conduct
  • Hawaii senator Brian Schatz warns navel-gazing got party into mess and says: 'We need to open our minds and expand our Rolodexes.'
By Associated Press and Dailymail.com Reporter

Published: 03:42 EST, 10 November 2016 | Updated: 14:46 EST, 10 November 2016

President Barack Obama hands over the White House to Republican Donald Trump in 71 days, leaving the Democratic Party leaderless and with few up-and-coming stars among its aging cast of stalwarts.

In what appeared to be a wave election, Republicans also secured majorities they already enjoyed in the Senate and the House and in governor's mansions and state legislatures across the country.

Democrats were all but wiped out in places like Iowa and Kentucky.

The defeat of Hillary Clinton, an experienced Washington politician who sought common ground with Republicans, could make it more likely that the party will turn to its liberal wing as it grapples with its future.

That's best represented by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whom Clinton defeated in a long primary, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a pull-no-punches progressive darling.
 
Talentless isn't quite right, but yeah, there's definitely going to need to be a rebuild.

There are talented, bright young stars in the Democratic party, they're just very under the radar right now. Tammy Duckworth is a good one, newly elected Jr Senator from Illinois. War vet who lost both her legs, tremendous character... very cool story. I'm glad we could at least send a good one to Congress to try to help the country. I thought it was pretty cool the Dems held onto Reid's seat in Nevada too. Catherine Cortez-Masto won there.

I am one who thinks that in addition to Clinton being a flawed candidate, sexism had something to do with her defeat. A country that is getting browner and more open and accepting of all people and ways of life threatens the hierarchy white males have sat on top of forever, and they responded. As a white male myself, I do think this played into it. I am curious how long it will take for a woman to ascend to that highest seat. Clinton was too flawed and faced too many challenges, but it can't be that far off.

The future of the Democratic party may well like in someone in the Sanders mold. Hell, if you look outside America, the broad political landscape right now is a lot like Trump v. Sanders. Nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration v. progressive, open, accepting, far left parties. Like it or not, that may be the future here too.

Not sure who fits that mold in the party right now outside of Bernie and Warren... I kind of doubt she will want to run in 2020. She'd be 71. Maybe? I think she'd be an excellent conduit for the progressive angst and ideals on a national stage. Heck, maybe an old as dirt Bernie would run again-- not likely but you never know! He'd be 79, but with his huge success, coupled with the belief the DNC shafted him, could catapult a great second campaign against a President Trump in 2020.

Outside of that, some other YOUNGER stars (that don't have the inherent disadvantages that come with being a woman running for president right now) would be Cory Booker from NJ, Julian Castro from TX (Obama's Secretary of HUD), and Sherrod Brown from Ohio. Brown in particular is a very progressive dude who would appeal very strongly to working class voters ala Bernie. I don't know much about Castro's political ideology, and I've heard Booker is fantastic but leans more centrist. He's a personal favorite of mine-- crazy likable guy with a very colorful background. Kind of like a young Obama. He could very well be it if he plays his cards right.

Here's an article about a few of those people.

A few things that Dems need to do to be competitive:

  • Learn to appeal to working class voters again. These folks were much more strongly driven to Bernie than Clinton. Trump simply murdered her with working class whites w/o degrees. Dems need the unions in their corner again, especially with a reckless demagogue like Trump willing to say whatever to garner votes.
  • Retool their message on the whole. Obviously Clinton adopted some Bernie policies, but his further left ones appealed to younger people-- the future-- no matter how untenable they may have been politically. It's what they wanted. This is where a shift leftward could serve them well with an eye to the future.
  • They need to continue to make inroads at local and state levels. They get their butts kicked here as a matter of habit. GOP is much more effective by telling people they'll save them money and massive amounts of cash flowing in from GOP donors. It's a damn shame Trump's SC appointee will likely piledrive the chance to overturn Citizens United any time soon. It makes me so sick the way the GOP sat on Garland forever and now get to fill that seat. Disgusting bunch of cowards, the Senate GOP. (Clinton's infrastructure can help them with this one, actually. Her campaign wound up being a big wet fart on E-day but all the data and contacts they gathered won't go to waste for the future of the party.)
  • Find a way to end unfair redistricting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. We need an objective, third-party redrawing district lines in 2020. I'm sure Rvepubs will sit pat and turn it over to largely Republican state gov'ts, and that's really too bad. An abdication of democracy if it happens-- that just becomes a vicious cycle there with whose side can cheat to help themselves hold onto power longer. Also, what the NC GOP did this election (and in places like Arizona) to suppress minorities should be f***ing criminal. I'll rant about suppression if anyone wants me to, but that too is a crime against democracy.
Sorry for my long list, TGH. I know you're always good for some good conversation and I hope I could help you learn a thing or two! Kind of how I feel right now. Down but not out. If Trump wrecks the country with stupid decisions or gutting social benefits or ballooning debt over the next few years, the Dems should be poised very well to kick his butt to the curb.

But my last point in particular is crucial to them gaining more equal representation in Congress and in lower level governments around the nation. As of right now, Congressional representation is quite literally rigged.

 
dudeguyy said:
Talentless isn't quite right, but yeah, there's definitely going to need to be a rebuild.

There are talented, bright young stars in the Democratic party, they're just very under the radar right now. Tammy Duckworth is a good one, newly elected Jr Senator from Illinois. War vet who lost both her legs, tremendous character... very cool story. TG: I need to ck her story out. I salute her for her perseverance and excelling after a personal set back due to her injuries. She is to be commended regardless of her politics. She shows the strength of the human spirit. I'm glad we could at least send a good one to Congress to try to help the country. I thought it was pretty cool the Dems held onto Reid's seat in Nevada too. Catherine Cortez-Masto won there. TG: The Repub was leading until he distanced himself from Trump. Then he lost support is what I heard. However, Clinton took the state so that may have been a forgone conclusion anyway.

I am one who thinks that in addition to Clinton being a flawed candidate, sexism TG: Disagree wt the sexism - she was the wrong first female candidate due to the other adjective- 'flawed' (as in greatly) had something to do with her defeat. A country that is getting browner and more open and accepting of all people and ways of life threatens the hierarchy white males have sat on top of forever, and they responded. As a white male myself, I do think this played into it. I am curious how long it will take for a woman to ascend to that highest seat. TG: I thought Elizabeth Dole might be the 1st one back years ago. Clinton was a 'forced choice'. I see Susan Martinez of NM as having appeal, the SC governor Nikki Haley plus a few more on the rep side as having great potential & promise. On the Dem side the is always talk of Warren. But because Clinton was 'entitled' since 2001 to be the 1st female, it keep the lid on all candidates except Obama from rising and that includes all female candidates. Warren would have been more acceptable to voters - even though more radical than Clinton. Clinton was too flawed and faced too many challenges, but it can't be that far off.

The future of the Democratic party may well like in someone in the Sanders mold. Hell, if you look outside America, the broad political landscape right now is a lot like Trump v. Sanders. Nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration v. progressive, open, accepting, far left parties. Like it or not, that may be the future here too.

Not sure who fits that mold in the party right now outside of Bernie and Warren... I kind of doubt she will want to run in 2020. She'd be 71. Maybe? I think she'd be an excellent conduit for the progressive angst and ideals on a national stage. Heck, maybe an old as dirt Bernie would run again-- not likely but you never know! He'd be 79, but with his huge success, coupled with the belief the DNC shafted him, could catapult a great second campaign against a President Trump in 2020.

Outside of that, some other YOUNGER stars (that don't have the inherent disadvantages that come with being a woman running for president right now) would be Cory Booker from NJ, TG: I agree - I think Cory is the Dem's future. Bright, likeable, integrity and not wild leftist- thus a broader appeal. Regardless of politics, it is difficult not to like him. Julian Castro from TX (Obama's Secretary of HUD), and Sherrod Brown from Ohio. Brown in particular is a very progressive dude who would appeal very strongly to working class voters ala Bernie. I don't know much about Castro's political ideology, and I've heard Booker is fantastic but leans more centrist. He's a personal favorite of mine-- crazy likable guy with a very colorful background. Kind of like a young Obama. He could very well be it if he plays his cards right.

Here's an article about a few of those people.

A few things that Dems need to do to be competitive:

  • Learn to appeal to working class voters again. These folks were much more strongly driven to Bernie than Clinton. Trump simply murdered her with working class whites w/o degrees. TG: You know that is the media's mantra that it was only whites wtout an education that beat Clinton. Suburban females showed up in droves as well as many white collar types. He did better than Romney wt Hispanics and not nearly the # of AA voters showed up for Clinton as they did in 2012. The media wants to turn this into a race thing. One demographic doesn't produce a change election like this. Dems need the unions in their corner again TG: UAW Union bosses said he wants to work wt Trump to reform NAFTA , especially with a reckless demagogue like Trump willing to say whatever to garner votes.
  • Retool their message on the whole. Obviously Clinton adopted some Bernie policies, but his further left ones appealed to younger people-- the future-- no matter how untenable they may have been politically. It's what they wanted. This is where a shift leftward could serve them well with an eye to the future.
  • They need to continue to make inroads at local and state levels. They get their butts kicked here as a matter of habit. GOP is much more effective by telling people they'll save them money and massive amounts of cash flowing in from GOP donors. It's a damn shame Trump's SC appointee will likely pile drive the chance to overturn Citizens United any time soon. It makes me so sick the way the GOP sat on Garland forever and now get to fill that seat. Disgusting bunch of cowards, the Senate GOP. (Clinton's infrastructure can help them with this one, actually. Her campaign wound up being a big wet fart on E-day but all the data and contacts they gathered won't go to waste for the future of the party.)
  • Find a way to end unfair redistricting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. TG: How do you think the Dems held control of house of reps from 1952-1994? Spoils goes to the party in power - unfortunately - especially on those census decade years. I too agree, it isn't right but do you think anyone will be statesman like to voluntarily give up their party's right to draw lines when they are in power. It won't happen either under Dems or Repubs. It will have to be hard wired in the constitution. Right now the balance of power is in the repub side. They have 33 governorships and most legislatures (see link below). It is sh*t to be living through that period of history if you are a Dem. I'm much older and I lived through most of the 1952-94 stretch (born in 1955). One day the Reps will totally over play their hand (as Bill Clinton did in 1992) and the Dems will start to reverse the process. Its a cycle thing - life is filled wt cycles. The challenge is to appreciate the ride. We need an objective, third-party redrawing district lines in 2020 (TG: Wont happen wtout a constitutional amendment IMHO.) I'm sure Repubs will sit pat and turn it over to largely Republican state gov'ts, and that's really too bad. An abdication of democracy if it happens-- that just becomes a vicious cycle there with whose side can cheat to help themselves hold onto power longer. Also, what the NC GOP did this election (and in places like Arizona) to suppress minorities should be f***ing criminal. TG: Key to good ranting is to remember - Breath in, Breath out!
    default_ohmy.png
    I'll rant about suppression if anyone wants me to, but that too is a crime against democracy.
Sorry for my long list, TGH. TG: No problem - I've been known to rant as well. I know you're always good for some good conversation and I hope I could help you learn a thing or two! Kind of how I feel right now. Down but not out. If Trump wrecks the country with stupid decisions or gutting social benefits or ballooning debt over the next few years, the Dems should be poised very well to kick his butt to the curb.

But my last point in particular is crucial to them gaining more equal representation in Congress and in lower level governments around the nation. As of right now, Congressional representation is quite literally rigged.
Click to expand...
Good post as always.

See my comments in red above. This link below pertains to my comment and your statement: Find a way to end unfair redistricting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression.

http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It wouldn't be that hard to end gerrymandering but the will has to be there.

There are ways to do it using math, and math doesn't care what your political affiliation is.

 
I agree Moiraine. Do you have any expertise in how it could be applied? And how do we get pols to take it seriously for the health of our democracy, even if it disadvantages their team?

Elliason would be a solid choice. Don't know much about his history in a leadership role like that, but I think he could be a good fit. First Muslim to be elected US Senator, IIRC. Heard him on some Sunday morning news shows. Pretty intelligent guy.

Howard Dean does seem like an odd fit after accusing the president elect of being on coke. Might his foot naturally gravitate towards his mouth, in a Biden kind of way?

SNIFF

 
dudeguyy said:
I agree Moiraine. Do you have any expertise in how it could be applied? And how do we get pols to take it seriously for the health of our democracy, even if it disadvantages their team?

Elliason would be a solid choice. Don't know much about his history in a leadership role like that, but I think he could be a good fit. First Muslim to be elected US Senator, IIRC. Heard him on some Sunday morning news shows. Pretty intelligent guy.

Howard Dean does seem like an odd fit after accusing the president elect of being on coke. Might his foot naturally gravitate towards his mouth, in a Biden kind of way?

SNIFF
Click to expand...

I don't have any expertise on it but I found this site. They used a computer program. It has every state, there's a link at the top with an explanation. One issue (maybe?) is districts use county lines sometimes. Right? I could be wrong there. But even if they do use county lines there are still mathematical ways to do it. They're just more complicated.

It looks like the max number of sides per shape is 4 (unless it hits a state border). They could increase that to make it more flexible. Right now there are districts that have over 100 sides, just by eyeballing some of the snake-shaped districts.

http://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

AL.gif
alRS.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Citizens, United: How the loyal opposition will work in Trump's America

Interesting opinion piece on how to respond to a Trump administration. Offered some counterintuitive bits to things I had previously considered conventional knowledge-- for example, perhaps controlling the entire government will lead to reinvigorate efforts to win government races in 2018 and 2020 to help try an implement a more fair redistricting effort in 2020. I know Obama and Eric Holder plan to make that a major initiative leading to a more democratic redistricting process in the coming years.

I had previously thought that the GOP being in the driver's seat and a poor 2018 reelection map would be a hindrance for opposition to Trump. Perhaps this offers a silver lining.

The parallels in how W turned off an entire generation of young voters from the GOP and Trump possibly doing so seem hopeful as well.

 
Just because a man with an R beside his name won the Whitehouse doesn't mean the Republicans aren't in disarray. Behind the smoke and mirrors, it's a total mess and nobody knows how to handle it.

Personally, I think both parties are sitting back and saying.....WTF???

The one that is the most honest with themselves is the one that's going to come out the strongest in in the next 4-8 years.

In reality, both parties need to actually start talking about real problems instead of pandering to crap from both sides and putting out crap information about the other side just to gain more power.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am one who thinks that in addition to Clinton being a flawed candidate, sexism had something to do with her defeat.
Click to expand...
I really don't think this is the case. I think she was looked at as any other politician, regardless of sex. In fact, I'd say the fact that her gender very rarely made a dent in the national coverage of the race shows that gender was almost a non-factor.

The biggest factor in Hillary losing was the simple fact that people do not like her. That dislike has nothing to do with her gender.

 
knapplc said:
I am one who thinks that in addition to Clinton being a flawed candidate, sexism had something to do with her defeat.
Click to expand...
I really don't think this is the case. I think she was looked at as any other politician, regardless of sex. In fact, I'd say the fact that her gender very rarely made a dent in the national coverage of the race shows that gender was almost a non-factor.

The biggest factor in Hillary losing was the simple fact that people do not like her. That dislike has nothing to do with her gender.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with this.

Her sex had very little...if anything...to do with her losing.

It fell squarely in the fact that she totally stunk as a candidate and the dirty laundry that she soiled herself was piled too high.

 
Plenty of scientific studies have shown that gender bias is a real thing in the way people perceive actions/behavior/words from men and women, particularly in high-achieving roles, and also particularly towards women who act assertively. Women are judged more harshly when doing the same things as men, per good scientific data.

Part of the reason for this is just straight up biology/evolution. Women don't interrupt as much, and are interrupted much more, because outside of civilization, our brains look for height, shoulder width and depth of voice to assess strength (ie, if you interrupt that person you might die), and women generally lack those things. Unfortunately, that's been reinforced in our cultural contexts historically by rewarding and valuing women for being compliant and submissive and shunned if they're assertive.

Anyways, all of these things are implicit associations and biases that we don't really know we're actually believing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I agree. It's not overt sexism or outright misogyny for the most part, but we can't help but take politics as it is handed down to us -- a heavily gendered institution that was built to reward charismatic men.

It's not that Hillary, or Sarah Palin, or Carly "Look at that face!" Fiorina, et. al. didn't have quite legitimate weaknesses of their own (to different degrees). But they all suffered for not fitting into a politician's archetype that is much narrower for women than it is for men. To the extent that they'll try to conform to the mold, they'll be further punished for not being authentic.

Regarding that narrow mold, look at the range of what's possible in a male politician (Exhibit A!) before we think of them as dishonest to the core. "Yes, every politician lies" but Hillary is a corrupt, lying c--- (we scream, in hysterics). Every politician is full of ambition, but Hillary was regarded with deep suspicion for hers. Every politician doesn't smile warmly all the time, but she was the one newscasters were questioning about it -- indeed, she's a cold, calculating b----. Many politicians running for the highest office are extremely unqualified these days, but by far the most qualified and capable of them in the field, she was the one punished for probably just riding her husband's coattails. Every politician will get loud and shout, but better to do that if you're a man, lest you be another shrill woman in her hysterics.

Gender was very visible. We can hardly help that. The only way we'll be better about how we see female politicians is if we get more of them. This will happen with time and so too will our evolving, unconscious norms about the people who run for office.

I'm not saying there weren't a host of other reasons why she lost. It's just still a world where comparatively few women go into and make it in politics, and none yet has reached the office of POTUS. That context is impossible to ignore.

Meanwhile, the guy who was the source of that "look at that face!" quote about a political rival, boasted about sexually assaulting women and refused to acknowledge it as such, and has a lengthy repugnant history of demeaning and devaluing women -- on top of being a serial liar with little control over his temperament -- that guy was elected. Enthusiastically, by many of his supporters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top