The Democratic Party is in a deeper ditch than the Republican Party

[cali]

This bears discussing. Even if the Democratic Party continues to hold onto the Presidency, the way things have been going for years, presage some bad things- for the party and for the country. Consider some statistics:

Democrats hold only 188 seats in the House of Representatives. That's out of 435. That's why talks of taking back the House in 2016 are so ridiculous; well, the numbers themselves and what they reflect: The control of most state legislatures and the redrawing of the map pursuant to the 2010 elections. Control of state legislatures gives much more opportunity to build a bench than being in the minority does. How many governors are Democrats? 18.

What does this auger for the future? I'd argue that it foreshadows a scenario where even if a democrat is elected to the Presidency, that person has to deal with republican control of the House, perhaps the Senate and most statehouses and governorships. And that means bending toward republican philosophies of governing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/the-great-democratic-crack-up-of-2016.html?_r=0

[HooptieWagon]

1. 2020 is the next census and re districting...

And it's a presidential election year, when Dems do rather better.
Of course R's are going to control state legs in fly-over states, and in Fla where the State Dem Party is so dysfunctional despite registered Dems outnumbering RS by nearly a million. I don't see that changing.

[bananas]

2. Pretty horrifying. nt

[yuiyoshida]

34. it scares me

totally!

[sendero]

3. The Democratic party..

... has triangulated and third way'd itself into near irrelevance. Their message has become "not quite as crazy and billionaire-owned as Republicans".

It's not the kind of message that wins elections.

[RiverLover]

6. + a million!!! ^^^

[Cosmocat]

25. That pretty much sums it up

nm

[daleanime]

27. Painful truth.

[bigwillq]

28. Yup.

Not quite as crazy and the lesser of two evils is just not working anymore.

Good post.

[truebluegreen]

61. Who would have thought

that "Not Quite as Crazy" would be less than inspiring?

[AgingAmerican]

62. Bingo

nt

[MohRokTah]

69. BULLSHIT!!!!

Democratic voters have ignored the local elections and local elections are where the district drawing is defined. Idiots sat out 2010 because they didn't get a pony from Obama and then the Republicans won and controlled every aspect of redistricting, even in some true blue states.

[hifiguy]

70. Blammo.

Winner.

100% correct. Abandoning populist economic policy has been a complete disaster.

[joshcryer]

4. Yeah. No. Fuck Robert Draper.

He did a good job humanizing a war criminal, I'll give him that.

[cali]

5. what facts would you contest?

[joshcryer]

7. It lacks any conception of a 50 state strategy.

Which the Democrats will employ in 2016.

It is a shallow, right wing sympathizing, crude analysis of the future political landscape.

[n2doc]

8. Got a link for that assertion?

I have yet to hear anything about a "50 state Strategy" from the Democratic Party Leadership. DWS specifically has said no to this in the past. What has changed?

[cali]

9. OK. You're not contesting facts. Got it.

It is an accurate reflection of the political reality on the ground. duh. Facts, josh. I know you're a bit unfamiliar with them, but at least try.

the concept of a 50 state strategy in 2016 is just that, josh: A concept.

You don't seem to grasp the most basic political realities, josh.

[joshcryer]

11. WTF? Use a simple Google search.

It's a public strategy of at least one campaign. And it'd be silly if other campaigns don't adopt it. Silliness.

The article you link clearly does not even consider it in any way whatsoever. And yes, I read the entire drivel.

Have fun channeling Robert Draper.

[cali]

13. have fun avoiding facts, josh

a concept is not a fact, josh. but you are adept at wriggling away from facts, josh.

and the shallowness of thinking that the 50 state strategy in the current political climate, is one that will turn it all around, is breathtaking, josh.

I suppose YOU actually believe that it's possible for the dems to go from 188 seats in the House to the majority in 2016, josh. Pay no attention to reality, josh. Oh, that's right, you're already a champion at that.

[Agschmid]

14. You barely survived a jury apparently...

Maybe tone down the personal insults?

[joshcryer]

16. You know what I've noticed?

Ever since I implemented a CSS script to hide all DU usernames, I am getting called by my name a lot and lots of nasty shit flung my way, lots of attacks, lots of recrimination, it's really damn crazy how this is becoming apparent.

And yes, I genuinely don't know who the fuck I am responding to right now, go to Welcome & Help or my journal to see my CSS script. This new script I adopted I think is compelling me to not even post here anymore, because it's really highlighting the random vitriol I receive.

[Agschmid]

17. You'll get through it, it's an Internet board don't take it all that seriously.

Kind of a cool experiment, blind responses.

[joshcryer]

18. Try it out, the script works.

It's utterly liberating. I don't even care about the shitposts to me now.

[Orrex]

35. It's not random vitriol; you have a demonstrated history of intellectual dishonesty

Dubiously calling people out, quoting out of context and flat out misquoting to serve your own needs, etc.

You might want to dismiss it as "random vitriol," but it's in fact the kind of response that your posting style inspires.

[joshcryer]

42. No, it appears completely random to me.

Given the changes I have made to the way DU displays to me.

When I was posting without these CSS modifications I could easily point out the "haters" as they fit a certain group of people who never post anything of substance but live vicariously through hating on others and striving toward absolute negativity about every little absolutely trivial thing.

I'll note that you will be unable to substantiate one, one single post of "intellectual dishonesty" by me, because you've built that perception up in your mind about me, you likely don't remember such an instance, nor could you produce proof. I just tick you off in some way.

It is absolutely incredible how not knowing who is posting is liberating, because it used to bother me, now it doesn't. It makes it a lot easier to just shrug off the hateful, negative, nasty attitudes like the one displayed in your reply to me.

An attitude which will remain unsubstantiated.

[Orrex]

48. It appears random because you deny responsbility for your posts

Either that, or else you lack the capacity to understand how discussion works.

Also, there seems little point in citing specific examples of your intellectual dishonesty, because I know from previous interactions that you will simply jam your fingers in your ears and ignore reality. That's the benefit of seeing DU user names; it saves me from wasting a lot of effort on someone who frankly isn't worth it.

For that matter, bully for you if your name-blocker improves your enjoyment of DU, but no one else gives a shit.

[joshcryer]

51. It appears random because most people are kind.

Most people are sensible. Most people aren't hateful.

Except for those who want to throw out hateful insults, and then drop a paragraph of nonsense about how they won't even substantiate themselves.

I encourage anyone to use the script I wrote, it's like mini-reverse-ignore. I had a choice, start ignoring the hatemongers, which is against my sensibilities, or simply render their screen names and continued harassment irrelevant.

I'm happy with the outcome.

[Fumesucker]

53. Does your scrip also get rid of avatars?

Because if it doesn't you do know who I am.

[joshcryer]

55. Yep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125610074

Ignorance is bliss.

[Fumesucker]

57. If that were so more people would be happy

And Fox News watchers would be happiest of all.

[joshcryer]

58. For what it's worth...

...I just put my first person on ignore in my 13 years of coming to DU.

(Not you. And oops, I had to turn off the script to do it, so I now know who you are, dammit... oh well.)

[Orrex]

65. Most people aren't intellectually dishonest, either.

But when people are intellectually dishonest, as you are, it's worthwhile to call them out for it.

Except for those who want to throw out hateful insults, and then drop a paragraph of nonsense about how they won't even substantiate themselves.

I know for a fact that you won't admit your dishonesty, because when I've called you out for it before--with direct citations in the threads where it occurred--you simply refused to accept reality, and then you ran away from the thread.

You also like to paint yourself as a martyr, a victim of unjust persecution. What you dismiss as "harassment" is in fact an effort to address your nonsense. Coupled with your prior history of refusing to admit your errors, this reveals that you have no sense of self-awareness.

Add "intellectual cowardice" to "intellectual dishonesty."

[joshcryer]

67. Yeah, because not backing up a claim...

...is so intellectually honest and brave.

Link or slink.

My bet it is one of those numerous instances of pathetic semantic games.

[Orrex]

68. Dammit.

I was hoping that I was the person you put on Ignore.

Always a bridesmaid.


You need me to cite your own posts for you? Who do you expect to read your nonsense, if you don't read it yourself?

[cali]

32. maybe your chiding would seem more sincere if

you had also chided the poster who said this about me:

It is a shallow, right wing sympathizing, crude analysis of the future political landscape.

Gosh, that's not insulting is it? And my post was in response to this.

[Agschmid]

33. I was just letting you know.

I didn't serve on a jury for him, I served on one for you.

[joshcryer]

45. I said that about Robert Draper.

Not you. If you found it insulting then I apologize, but you're the one invoking Robert Draper's crap, so I can understand how you misattributed my criticism of Draper to yourself.

[joshcryer]

15. Here, let me Google that for you:

http://www.google.com/search?q=democrat+50+state+strategy+2016

It's not a "conception." One campaign is obviously, clearly, and openly is advocating a 50 state strategy. I will be shocked if other campaigns don't advocate it as well.

Possible, yes, likely, no, but the article you link doesn't even consider the approach.

Therefore on its face it is invalid. Nevermind it is from the right wing Robert Draper, and his analysis is completely shallow.

[cali]

20. seriously, what is there to say about the 50 state strategy in relation

to the facts on the ground? How can it be effective in light of redistricting? The facts are neither right wing or left wing. They're simply facts.

Facts aren't invalid. It is a fact that there are only 188 dems in the House. It is a fact that republicans control statehouses in a majority of states. It is a fact that there are only 18 dem governors. Advocating a 50 state campaign doesn't change those facts.

[joshcryer]

21. Failure is acceptable.

The Democratic party is building the effort for the 2020 redistricting fight, if the one campaign that wants to do a 50 state strategy fails to get back the House, it is acceptable.

The linked article is a shallow indictment on the Democrats that doesn't have any short term or long term analysis. If the one campaign exploring the 50 state strategy succeeds or other campaigns adopt the strategy (which is likely) then there is a good chance for gains, and there is a good chance that by 2020 more reasonable redistricting can happen.

The article in the OP is setting the Democrats up for failure, before anything even happens. As is par for the course, it gets repeated in left circles as sacrosanct. I've seen this time and time again. Some right winger says some BS negative crap about Democrats, and it gets swallowed.

The good thing is we have just over a year and a half for this to be tested. I love quick tests like this. We'll see, won't we?

And if the Democrats fail? Oh it's only another 4 years from then to see if they manage to turn it around. The demographics certainly will increasingly play into the Democrats favor. That's another thing lacking from the analysis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy brought in dozens of Blue Dog Democrats and "centrists"...

Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy brought in dozens of Blue Dog Democrats and "centrists" this board and other progressive boards absolutely loathed.

Folks on the left and right are myopic and insulated. They constantly talk to folks who think just like themselves, get their own views shouted back at them, and consequently think everybody thinks like them. There is no great left wing or right wing silent majority waiting to be tapped. Voters are complex, their political views are informed by their region, by their religion, by their race, by their income and a myriad of other factors.

What works in one district or state doesn't work in another.

[joshcryer]

39. So?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. We had a Fifty State Strategy and many people on the left weren't happy with it.../NT

[joshcryer]

44. That is irrelevant to the point.

The strategy is being employed by at least one campaign and likely others, and the Democrats have a roadmap to achieve a redistricting victory by 2020. This is in direct contrast to the shallow right wing criticism that is in the OP.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. My remarks aren't as much about the OP ...

My remarks aren't as much about the OP as they are about the agita that the Fifty State Strategy with its reliance on "centrist" Democrats to create a Democratic legislative majority created/creates among some on the left.

[joshcryer]

47. The OP is about whether the Democrats can win back congress.

Robert Draper left out the 50 state strategy and 2020 redistricting plans. His view is basically a short term bash on Democrats. And the so called left eats it up, apparently.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. We have a good shot with the next census...

But there are a lot of factors involved...

Folks need to wrap their heads around the fact that what works in Maxine Waters' district does not work in Darryl Issa's.

[davidn3600]

10. We're being routed on the state and local level

People keep dismissing it to simply poor turnout and whatnot. There is some truth to that, sure. The party in the white house traditionally does poorly in the state levels. But you start looking deeper, there are some trends in the numbers that may be problematic.

We can gloat about our stranglehold over presidential politics all we want. But the GOP right now has more control over the states and the localities than they have ever had since the 1940s.

So many people in here are thinking 2016 is going to be a repeat of 2008. No pollsters are seeing a 2008 wave at all. The chances of the Democrats retaking the Senate is less than 50%. And the chances of retaking the House is slim to none. Even if we win the White House, 2018 will be as devastating as 2010, erasing any gains we make in 2016.

In 2008, you had Bush in office who the public had grown to hate and despise. There was also an economic collapse. The Democratic party also employed the "50 state" strategy that better aligned candidates to local politics. In other words, you had Democrats winning in Republican districts because they were very moderate and sounded reasonable to independent voters in those districts. However, when these Democrats got to Congress, they were despised by the left-wing of the party. The party became dysfunctional through arm-twisting on the ACA and even abortion of all things. That ended up creating a GOP wave in 2010.

In 2016, there is no 50 state strategy. There is no George W. Bush to hate anymore. The stagnant economy we have now belongs to Obama. The youth are not as motivated as their debts and tuition have soared. Healthcare may be more accessible, but it's just as expensive. The Democrats are losing mid-western white middle class voters and don't seem to give a fuck about it.

There is no way 2016 will be like 2008. Hillary (assuming she is the nominee) may very well win. But that is only because her bullshit smells less than the GOP's. In any case, we are going to lose in the states again.

[cali]

12. ah but that's just shallow right wing crap- or so I'm told

Actually, you state a coherent analysis of things.

I've been informed that the dem party will employ a 50 state strategy in 2016, but even if they do, I don't see how it can be successful- due largely to repub stranglehold on so many state governments and redistricting.

I do wonder though about your claim regarding dems elected in 2008. What dems would you say were done in by arm-twisting on issues that were ostensibly "too liberal"? Or was it just the function of where they were from, such as Indiana? Is the wave of 2010 really attributable to what you claim? And should abortion rights be up for debate in the dem party? They sure aren't in the repub party anymore. that things have become so polarized is hardly solely the fault of liberal dems. And democrats lost white mid-western middle class voters long ago.

I actually do understand the need to tolerate conservative dems in places like Nebraska and give them some degree of latitude on votes, but I think blaming liberals for the dearth of such politicians is more a function of redistricting and increased polarization.

[davidn3600]

24. I don't remember the exact order of events,

...but for example, there was an amendment to the ACA concerning a ban for those funds to be used for abortions and it led to a big fight because some of the blue dogs were supporting it. And it was more of a dividing tactic by Republicans anyway to try to sabotage the bill's progress. I'm not suggesting there should be any debate on abortion at all. Im just using this an example of how there was some friction where there really shouldnt have been.

But in any case the whole debate and push of the bill angered many of those moderate districts. They may have lost their seats in anyway because of the tea party movement. But the Democrats did itself no favor during those 2 years it had control of both chambers. It just didnt seem to get an agenda off the ground and the ACA (success or not) rallied a broken GOP. The whole ACA thing was too complex for people to understand. And Obama did a poor job of explaining it.

Unfortunately I think many higher-ups in the party after 2008 got overconfident and bought into the idea that the GOP was finished and would be unable to retake the House...or at least not be able to for quite some time. So there was no sense of urgency. And they were not aggressive enough with many things.

[fredamae]

40. Because of the Fun Filibuster

exercises of McConnell...Dems only had a filibuster proof majority for about 70 or so Days out of that two years and even then....there was No guarantee that the slim majority would all get in line to get those 60 votes to overcome the "new 60 vote majority rule" imposed by the GOP, in support of anything.

Kennedy died...scott brown came in...and that was the end of the Sen getting Anything done.
The house produced a Lot while Dems had the majority only to watch those bills filibustered to death by the GOP Sen...that really has been "in control" through the abuse of the filibuster.
And then...we cannot ignore the effects of State's Gerrymandering Districts. The numbers don't lie. Dems get More votes and still Lose. Factor in the ongoing attacks on the VRA...and that, as well factors in.

There are a lots of problems behind the Dems demise but the one controllable factor: Dem candidates don't excite and inspire us to get noisy and fight this crap. Instead, many have been driven away, do continue to leave and Dems will continue to lose willing participants faster because of RW Conservative Lite Third Way Think Tank Policies than the GOP base is dying off from old age.
All in my opinion...of course.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. And because Harry Reid refused to simply 'Go Nuclear' from the very beginning.

That would have been the appropriate response to the meeting among Congressional Repubs to decide that they would do nothing but oppose Obama on absolutely everything.

[fredamae]

56. I understand

there are limits/restrictions on the number of times the Nuclear Option can be used. Is that correct?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. Maybe we mean different things by the term.

What I meant was simply to set the rules such that a simple majority passed legislation, so that any filibuster could be ended if 50 (plus the VP) or 51 Senators agreed to. Once it's done, it's done for that session of Congress. Now supposedly, you have to do it right at the start of the session, but somehow Reid managed to do a 'limited Nuclear' during a session, changing the rules to allow that on appointee nominations.

[fredamae]

60. Ahhh, I see - Yes

I agree...Reid failed there, imo too.

[joshcryer]

50. Obama had Congress for a mere 72 days.

But the Democrats did itself no favor during those 2 years it had control of both chambers.

An outright lie.

[Cosmocat]

22. I've laid this out countless times over the last 4 years here

When people have posted the "the republicans are in trouble" stuff.

Pretty much point for point what you posted.

2010 was a VERY, VERY sobering slap in my face.

No reason at all to give republicans any power, much less a bit mid terms blowout win.

That was very telling to me about where this country is.

In the absence of the democratic party actually standing for and fighting for anything, the country has very eagerly slid into buying republican bullshit in bucket fulls, with an increasingly corporate media greasing the wheels.

[daleanime]

30. Exactly my point for needing to change the game.....

Hillary is the choice only if you think that we are winning. We are not. Bernie gives us a chance to change that. The only way he wins is if the people get energized, which strangely enough is the only way we win too.

[Doctor_J]

19. We no longer have a message, and no longer serve the constituencies that made us the

greatest party in the greatest century a nation ever had. The dlc and the turd way have gotten their way, and their money, and killed the party in the meantime.

[Cosmocat]

23. On this we agree

100 percent ...

[cantbeserious]

26. A Result Of The DLC Third Way Policies - Common Folk No Longer Trust The Democrats To Fight For Them

eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Does anyone doubt if Hillary stepped aside so Elizabeth cud lead the Democratic Party, it would make HUGE gains based on principled progressive ideas?

[Scuba]

31. The party is also demoralizing the base by adopting right-wing economic policies. Or none at all.

[vi5]

36. "Bending toward republican philosophies of governing"

Yeah, too fucking late. Where has this guy been the past 20 some years.

[fredamae]

38. In many, many ways

the Democrats have almost Encouraged a lack-luster turnout, over the years - They don't/won't fight for "us" like they used to.......
Reagan Dems...Third Way, New Dem Coalition, Blue Dogs have taken they party down. Those that are still there...fighting the good fight are now Out numbered, Out ranked and definitely Out Moneyed.
The day Rahm said "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's verbal indiscretion -- referring to some liberal activists as "f**king retarded" -- has shined a spotlight on just how pervasive the R-word is in American conversation, and how offensive it can be for millions of Americans."
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/rahm-emanuel-retarded-comment-puts-offensiveness-spotlight/story?id=9738134

I began to understand a lot more about how the Dem Party regarded it's own base.
There is a River of Crap running beneath "our" party for freeking Years now and in spite of stunning losses, Dem leadership Still ignores that and us.

I no longer have faith and trust in my own party. They don't care.

[truebluegreen]

63. "Staunch defenders of the status quo"--at least on economic and foreign policy fronts.

That's how I think of the Democratic Party. We needed and still need transformational change, and we hoped to get that in '08. I thought and feared--not long after the first Obama inauguration--that his main legacy would turn out to be "Elected President While Black" and, sadly, I think now that I was correct. It goes without saying that the vast majority of national Democratic office holders bear a large share of the blame as well.

[fredamae]

64. Absolutely...... n/t

[dmosh42]

52. I understand the point, and I believe it has more to do with how we view the constitution....

in regards to proportional representation. It sort of comes down to some representatives are the voices for really large populations in the cities, while other, mostly Republican, are the voice for the more sparse rural areas, but as a result have a greater power over legislation. Maybe someone who understands constitutional law can explain why this isn't being challenged?

[seabeyond]

66. hence, waking up to importance of supreme court and the inroads of the state.