General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Democrats have a working class problem - and it's by no means confined to working class whites.
EDIT: I mean this sincerely as constructive criticism. The election results were clear on this one. We need to do better, regardless of what "better" looks like for you.The study, conducted by AFL-CIO affiliate Working America, analyzed why the black turnout in Ohio plummeted between 2012 and 2016, when election participation among African-American adults slipped from 72 percent to 62 percent. The drop — not just in Ohio but nationwide — was partially responsible for Hillary Clinton’s defeat to Donald Trump, especially in upper Midwest battlegrounds, such as Wisconsin and Michigan.
"If black voter turnout remains depressed in 2018, it will doom Democrats’ chances in Ohio’s upcoming elections for the U.S. Senate, governor and state legislature," the study said.
The outlook is even more dire when asked about the broader black community: 60 percent of respondents said they were worried about its economic future. Just 22 percent said they were confident.
"The conversations we had with working-class African-American voters in central Ohio are a wake-up call for Democrats," the study said. "Nearly a decade after the 2008 recession, many black voters say they’re still struggling economically."
More alarmingly for Democrats is nearly half of these voters, 48 percent, said it didn’t make a difference to their economic well-being if a Republican or Democrat was in office.
"Progressive politicians can distinguish themselves by fighting for a bold economic agenda that honestly addresses the deep anxieties of working-class voters of all races. Incremental solutions focused on narrow segments of the population are not compelling to workers worried about losing their jobs at any moment and experiencing community level distress," it said. "We must fight harder to win economic security for all working-class Americans."
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article175422761.html
Interesting article...sheds some light on some things that I find quite depressing and disturbing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Which part?
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)If you have something cogent to say on a complex issue that the OP has taken a bunch of time to assemble, then say.
To just say "NOPE" in response to their effort is simply disruptive. It certainly isn't useful or helpful.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
BannonsLiver
(20,595 posts)I think that poster gave the OP all the thought and attention it warranted. Short, and to the point.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And anti-Democrat left wing, capitalizing on the right's huge investments in propaganda, I'm sorry to say.
The nationwide Democratic Party alliance is dishonestly derided as "identity politics," when what truly reflects is a hugely wide and diverse coming together of We the People. And note that a third of 2016's white working class who did vote voted Democratic.
Yes, the "cultural anxiety" distressing some white people who only lately are finally realizing this isn't and never was Ozzie and Harriet land is real. Bill Clinton only got 41% of the white working class vote.
The black male candidate won by a large margin that made us proud, but the WWW vote dropped to 36%.
The first white woman for president, symbolic of all the women who never actually lived lives of upper middle class leisure and greeted their successful provider husbands at the door perfectly groomed with a martini, dropped to around 32%.
Both those latter drops are mostly measures of pushing social advances too hard for the comfort of resentful whites who didn't develop their skills sufficiently and are falling behind. But a surge of bigotry and misogyny arising from anxiety is just that.
On all issues, we, and only we, represent the interests and wishes of a vast majority of the American people, including most working class whites and most trumpsters, and that is a real and simple truth that had to be displaced by an equally giant lie if today's Republicans were to survive.
And I'll remind you, YoungDem, that a 4-million-voter majority voted Democrat for president, in spite of massive election tampering in many states.
This kind of hostile right-wing propaganda should only be posted to be refuted. So go to it, YoungDem. Declare your independence, pour that Kool-Aid down the sink, and engage your intellect and your ethics.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)This isn't propaganda, what is propaganda is what the right have been doing to make people believe there is no different economically to them whichever party wins. They paint that picture to move the debate onto social issues, where they can tap into the slower pace of progress in rural areas, and weaponize lingering prejudices.
If you just call this article a right wing lie, then you're missing the simple truth that the numbers show those right wing lies have been working. We need to accept that, and work hard to build a stronger, more coherent message that shines truth on the situation for people who are struggling and makes them realize that voting for us will tangibly improve their lives.
Attacking the poster for posting the article is really unhelpful. If we just close our eyes and stick our fingers in our ears, then we're going to lose again in 2020. Time to wake up and realize that we're not doing everything we can to win yet.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Look at yourself, Kentonio. Are YOU "OUT OF TOUCH" with what working people want?
Each of us has to decide whether we are going to be a resistance fighter or a useful idiot.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Sitting here pretending we're doing everything right isn't being a resistance fighter, its not even being useful. Huge numbers of Americans who previously voted Democrat (be it 8 years ago or a couple of decades ago) no longer believe that we are in touch with their concerns and their needs. That is not supposition, that is fact.
We just lost an election because a couple of states with large working class communities either didn't bother to come out and vote, or actively turned against us.
Why is this so goddamn hard for some of you to understand, we are not resonating properly with working class voters. Yes, we still win far more of their votes than the Republicans, but that does not mean that we're doing what we need to do. We don't need MORE we need MOST. We don't win any damn elections without them, and if we continue to tell them we know best instead of listening to their concerns, then we're not going to win next time either.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with what working Americans want?
Here's a copy of our 2016 platform. What part do you feel shows we are "out of touch"?
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Here's the PDF document in its entirety: http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/2016_DNC_Platform.pdf
Just read a little bit of a section that interests you and see if you aren't surprised and inspired. And hopefully, proud.
Please try to understand polls don't measure truth, they measure attitude. And lies are not the truth, no matter how many times you hear them.
And for all those who just swallowed this instead of KNOWING that it was ridiculously, obviously, completely wrong, what kind of Democrat were they in the first place? What kind of Democrat doesn't even know what his party was trying to accomplish in 2016 and what it stands for?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The problem isn't the platform, its about our abject failure to communicate that platform to busy working people, in a way that is easily digestible and easily understandable. We failed at that, and we paid the price for that failure. Blaming it on the Republicans for lying and cheating is like blaming the dog for barking, or the sun for coming up in the morning.
The last part is what really pisses me off though. What kind of Democrats were they? Do you even understand that 90% of the country don't give a rats ass about politics generally unless it has a clear and immediate effect on their lives? When people say they 'consider themselves a Democrat' or especially 'lean Democrat' it doesn't mean they've read a single word of our platform or had any kind of education into the party beyond watching the odd news segment or reading an occasional newspaper.
You think those people working several jobs and trying to raise their families are going to sit through a 3 hour speech on policy detail, or read a 50 page platform document? If you do, then I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
We need to inspire those voters, and show them what we stand for as simply and as clearly as possible. When polling shows they are saying they can't see a difference between the parties, then that is a DAMNING indictment of us, and we either have the courage to face that and learn from it, or we cry like cowards about how its all the voters and the GOPs fault, and we'll lose again next time too.
moda253
(615 posts)Where did you get your stat that 90% of American's don't care about politics?
PJMcK
(25,048 posts)This link details U.S. voting statistics:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p20-577.pdf
Less than 45% of registered voters turn out for off-year elections.
While 90% might be off, when people don't care about politics, they don't vote.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This was Jonathan Swift in 1710, and modern science verifies that every word is true today. Within 20 minutes of receipt lies settle into the mind and are hard to dislodge.
But back to each of us: We are Democrats, aren't we? What part of each of US is "out of touch" with what people like us want and worry about?
Get it? That lie is about US, both as working people and as Democrats. How stupid are some of us to not look at it and say, what?! I'm out of touch with myself?
Exactly when did that happen?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Your answer is to call it propaganda? Sorry but that's nothing more than echo chamber behavior, sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't like what you're hearing.
We're losing areas of the country that used to genuinely be a solid blue wall. We fight back by improving our messaging and ensuring we're genuinely dealing with the issues that people in those areas need us to deal with. Otherwise they will be lost for good.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"communicate that platform to busy working people, in a way that is easily digestible and easily understandable..."
Right... commercial branding to the lowest common denominator in the form of substance-less thirty second sound bites that mean little, yet sound meaningful and profound, predicated entirely on the idiocy of those half-witted enough to buy your little Alaskan bridge.
Not doing so isn't damning, any more than string theory is damned for being so garsh darn confusing. 
What is odd is that you imply the platform is as complicated as string theory. It's not.... it's got more than enough simplistic bumper-stickers in it to satisfy even you.
Glamrock
(12,003 posts)Come to Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois (outside the greater Chicago land area) and ask people what is in the Democratic platform. You would be shocked. You'd be lucky to find 2 out of 100 that could answer.
People here on DU seem to forget that the vast majority of American people are completely ignorant of politics and policy.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Or do you think that tens of millions of Americans genuinely understand the differences between the two party platforms and just choose to vote against their own best interests?
As for 30 second soundbites, you're damn right I want 30 second soudbites. Soundbites, slogans, simplistic bumper stickers, whatever it takes to get our vision and platform across to the public without requiring them to have to read a 50 page platform document or watch a 3 hour policy speech.
Seriously, do you really think that a majority of voters actually do either of those things?
KPN
(17,377 posts)blah, blah, blah ... while ignoring the outcomes, the results relative to what this OP is about. Platform statements without real follow through in the form of tangible results lead to "what have you done for me lately" thinking on the part of millions of potential Democratic voters who sadly either decide to stay home or get attracted to shiny new objects -- like Trump or the Green Party.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This PDF document is searchable. You can pick any issue that concerns you and search on it, KPN. And be inspired.
Here it is again -- if you dare. if you won't, if you deny it has meaning, ... ???????
http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/2016_DNC_Platform.pdf
And remember, not much more than 70,000 votes are the reason we are not "following through."
KPN
(17,377 posts)"but the platform!"
I don't deny it has meaning. But follow through and results are way more important. And in that regard, on economic issues that affect the working class, the Democratic Party has been failing for the past 35 years. There have been some bright points, but trendwise, we have failed the working class and labor.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Wow. That's...shocking. You apparently don't know that presidents usually achieve only on average about 71% of their intended goals, and of course few of those are achieved completely. How is it that you not only blame all our failures to achieve our goals on us alone but also have no idea of what we have achieved, and what we have prevented?
Here's the contents list for just part of our current platform:
RAISE INCOMES AND RESTORE ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS
Raising Workers’ Wages
Protecting Workers’ Fundamental Rights
Supporting Working Families
Helping More Workers Share in Near-Record Corporate Profits
Expanding Access to Affordable Housing and Homeownership
Protecting and Expanding Social Security
Ensuring a Secure and Dignified Retirement
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Postal Service
CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS
Building 21st Century Infrastructure
Fostering a Manufacturing Renaissance
Creating Good-Paying Clean Energy Jobs
Pursuing Our Innovation Agenda: Science, Research, Education, and Technology
Supporting America’s Small Businesses
Creating Jobs for America’s Young People
FIGHT FOR ECONOMIC FAIRNESS AND AGAINST INEQUALITY
Reining in Wall Street and Fixing our Financial System
Promoting Competition by Stopping Corporate Concentration
Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
Promoting Trade That is Fair and Benefits American Workers
And, again, here's where you read in detail about each of those Democratic Party goals:
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
Go. Open the file and blow open your mind! 
Wow! And if you won't and don't believe in any of this, what are you doing?
KPN
(17,377 posts)You are making a huge assumption and frankly being disingenuous. Not to mention offensive when you ridicule my understanding of political process and the past 35 years. The fact that you ridicule without really know anything about me speaks volumes.
BTW, I have read the party platform so get off your high frigging horse. Have you ever thought to question your own thinking when so many others point out a different perspective?
Your view on this topic is one of the things that I am working to change in the party -- and I will continue to do so.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!
KPN
(17,377 posts)and am going to react and respond here at DU when I hear it. In my view, we need to change. And people who maybe don't like the message need to hear it anyway. Afterall, this is DU.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)This is fucking madness, a traitor who is going to blow up the world got in the WH and some folks are still demanding purity in the only party able to stop him
fucking god damn madness
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The New Deal and Fair Deal were both miserable, "corrupt" disappointments to the self-proclaimed "progressives" of those days, who fought them and lost. They even formed the Progressive Party to fight them, and that also failed quickly. Today's successors only admit and admire FDR's and Truman's programs because they can pretend they were theirs. They were not.
These people hate liberal successes because they're not their successes. So they deny them.
They deny liberals have principles because they want liberal principles to be theirs alone.
There's more than a little wrong being so unable to share principles and goals that sacrificing them is preferable.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)avoid it happening again, is MADNESS!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And this madness has nothing to do with purity or principle. It's just an unfortunate compulsion that overrules all else.
The tea-partiers were like that too. Couldn't cooperate or compromise and it destroyed them as a movement, most now dysfunctioning on as part of the trumpster disaster, of course.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)single payer and education, I dont care what happens to women and minorities, etc, nothing PURE about that.
As a democrat, as a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, we get it all but we START with civil rights. You have to have civil rights before you can exercise any other rights.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Their European counterparts behave the same way. It's not the current issue being discussed that's most important to those who join these factions, it's who gets to own it. Anything seen as "owned" by the mainstream must be bad, and that includes proven answers.
That's why they must deny the Democratic Party's efforts and insist they must be replaced with theirs -- even when they claim the same principles and goals. Compulsion, not principle.
Lol, to bringing up civil rights. It was amusing in a tragicomedy way when they missed their chance to claim civil rights as their own -- which they absolutely are dying to, and to get to denounce liberals as opposing against civil rights -- because the black voting bloc insisted on cooperation with specific issues they felt they owned.
Oh well, nothing new with them this era, or any other.
KPN
(17,377 posts)personal ideas and goals at all. This is about being more open to others perspectives, and deliberate about and raising all boats when promoting and executing economic policy. It has nothing to do with my personal goals or needs or ego. Interesting that you can so easily define and disparage what drives these viewpoints without knowing me. Again, that alone speaks volumes. Who is the one unwilling to share principles and goals here?
George II
(67,782 posts)...Presidents and majorities in one house or the other or even both in many of those years.
The ACA was a failure?
Winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were failures?
Unprecedented economic growth during Clinton's and Obama's administrations were failures?
With failures like that, and many more, I wish we "failed" more often!
KPN
(17,377 posts)wages, jobs (good paying jobs), the right to organize/unions, job benefits and security.
I think you know what I mean.
By all means the Party has done many good things over the past 35 years. But on the economic front relative to the working class/labor, not so much, including Clinton and Obama.
George II
(67,782 posts)Toss in 7 years of economic growth and record stock market increases. I know it's not fashionable to speak positively about "Wall Street", but the companies on Wall Street and those whose stock is traded on Wall Street have tens of millions of employees.
I think you're unnecessarily bad mouthing or choosing to ignore the positive things done by our Presidents and representatives in Congress.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Some are eager to forget about them.
And my best guess is that people endorsing messages like this 35 years of failure thing really don't want anyone to read our platform and to know which party to belong to, and why, if they support:
PROVIDE QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE EDUCATION
Making Debt-Free College a Reality
Providing Relief from Crushing Student Debt
Supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions
Cracking Down on Predatory For-Profit Schools
Guaranteeing Universal Preschool and Good Schools for Every Child
ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL AMERICANS
Securing Universal Health Care
Supporting Community Health Centers
Reducing Prescription Drug Costs
Enabling Cutting-Edge Medical Research
Combating Drug and Alcohol Addiction
Treating Mental Health
Supporting Those Living with Autism and their Families
Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Ensuring Long-Term Care, Services, and Supports
Protecting and Promoting Public Health
Ending Violence Against Women
Preventing Gun Violence
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)like over FIVE FUCKING HUNDRED of Obama's
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
and it wont matter.
What I dont understand is why in the holy fuck is it allowed HERE, I thought this was the one place DEMOCRATS and liberals could come to and be safe from this stuff.
George, my friend, we are doomed, for real.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You certainly make many unsupported allegations.
KPN
(17,377 posts)... "The nationwide Democratic Party alliance is dishonestly derided as "identity politics," when what truly reflects is a hugely wide and diverse coming together of We the People. "
How about practicing some of that yourself instead of dividing (again).
This IS about unity.
Solidarity -- we need it if we hope to accomplish ANY of the goals to which we as individual Democrats adhere.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)KPN, how are YOU "out of touch" with what working people like you and your friends and family members want and need?
if you're anything approaching a typical Democrat, you're not. It's as simple as that.
KPN
(17,377 posts)I see it in my local County party organization alone. Too many Democrats are relatively complacent when it comes to structural economic issues and policy. Based on my own personal experience -- so this is just anecdotal for sure, I have to conclude that the Dems that I personally see being complacent about this issue are typically well off financially and highly educated. The structural economic issues have not directly affected their lives in a negative way, probably because they are professionals or employed at relatively high paying jobs that required a college education.
I think this dynamic also is the basis for the right-wing's successful labeling of Democrats as elitists. Unfortunately, many in the working class see what I see.
So I'm working to change this.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Bill, that is - in 1992.
Fortunately, his campaign retorted (correctly) that "It's the economy, stupid!" and he won not just one, but two terms.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)Bill went in full attack mode because he didn't have to defend an incumbent presidency. It was the smart thing to do.
When defending an incumbent who's part of your political party, how do you navigate both defending their legacy and stating your own ambitions, especially in an election year where discussing policy and informing voters were a low priority for some in MSM?
leftstreet
(40,681 posts)Good article, thanks for posting
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)
MFM008
(20,042 posts)you cant show people how they will vote against their own interests because Emails,
white males, "establishment", and a bunch of crock of crap people here used to vote against HRC and stick us with this maggot who is bust destroying everything most of us care about........
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Rather than AGAINST Trump, or any other Republican.
The decisive voters in this election - the tiny number of "decide-at-the-last-minute" voters in a small number of critical swing states - were people who disliked Trump, but disliked Clinton MORE. And she bled a lot to third-party voters, and was adversely affected by low turnout as well (and yes, voter suppression, Russian disinfo, the Comey letter, and such all played big roles in their own right. I'm not discounting that).
The simple truth is that we had two historically unpopular major party nominees with basically universal name recognition, and so voters in both parties were more compelled to vote AGAINST the other party's nominee than FOR their own party's nominee. Negative partisanship, however, tends to benefit Republicans - because they are much more likely to "hold their noses" (read: fall in line) for any asshole as long as they have an "R" next to their name, because the alternative is a Democrat (the horror!). And low turnout, misinformation and disinformation, and voter suppression tactics all hurt the Democrats much more than they hurt the Republicans (in fact, they help the Republicans).
What do we stand FOR? I'm serious. This is not a rhetorical question. It's not enough to be The Resistance or The Opposition. We need to drive up turnout among our own base, register a lot more voters, and organize politically - starting from the ground up. The clock is ticking; they're be no mercy shown for us from the neo-fascist Republican Right under Trump and those who will continue his sordid style of politics long after he's gone.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Clinton was ahead in polling before that, then dropped after that letter was leaked by Chavetz. Anecdotal evidence is the undecided people I talked to.
I don't think you are taking everything into acct. We had strong message of jobs, education, training, fair tax system where rich pay thier fair share, level the playing field so working people can get ahead. You may have biases that prevent you from seeing that, or it may simply be that media didn't cover our policies and goals. It was difficult to hear about them as media did not show or talk about them. When we had policy speeches the media cut them off in favor of gossip, fake scandals, or an empty podium where trump was to appear.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I definitely do agree we had the better platform. The problem, as you said, was communicating it - or getting it communicated to more voters.
Yes, the tabloid trash media who gave Trump billions of dollars in free coverage should be fucking ashamed of themselves, at the very least.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)if not in person, then on the phone. The media ducked us and anything beyond print media is completely unreliable twisted and full of it.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Oh wait.......
I mean "Bipartisanship! YAY!!!!"
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Don't stuff words into someone's mouth that weren't said.
vi5
(13,305 posts)...my point was that we can twist things around to place blame wherever.
A case could very well be made that if President Obama didn't have this obsessive need for "bipartisan cred" that caused him to buy into the beltway media narrative that says Republicans need to be in charge of security issues, that led hi to appoint Comey that we wouldn't be in this position.
I don't necessarily believe that, but it's just as plausible a spot for blame as "Someone said something mean about Hillary Clinton and that caused her to lose the election" that we see a lot of on here.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)If you get a chance to check it out. It's a pretty good and supported argument that Comey letter appears to be a "critical factor".
(As an aside Chavetz leaked the letter, not Comey.
The Comey effect
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/12/10/the-comey-effect/
Snip
Hillary Clinton’s narrow loss to Donald Trump was influenced by many causes in the home stretch: complacency driven by conventional wisdom and polls (and yes, poll aggregation), which led to the media assumption that she would win, which in turn was a likely driver of the tone of coverage. And of course there is so much to say about the candidates themselves.
In mid-October, I said I didn’t think Trump would clear 240 electoral votes, a statement I paid for later by eating a bug on CNN. My error seems to be accounted for by two events: (1) undecided Republican voters coming home, and (2) FBI Director Jim Comey’s letter to Congress about Clinton’s email.
From opinion data alone, it is possible to estimate when a change occurred. This can test between alternative explanations, which include not only the Comey letter (October 28th) but preceding events such as the announcement a hike in Affordable Care Act premiums (October 24th). However, it is not possible to see the shift using the averaging methods used by other aggregators. They tend to smear results out over time. For example, the Huffington Post does not allow a sudden shift to be seen.
<snip>
The above graph shows the result. After the Affordable Care Act premium hike announcement, opinion did not move for days, arguing against this as a main driver of the late swing in opinion. It could still be a factor, as is the case for many events. But such an effect would have to be gradual.
However, the big change does coincide well with the release of the Comey letter. Opinion swung toward Trump by 4 percentage points, and about half of this was a lasting change. This was larger than the victory margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin. Many factors went into this year’s Presidental race, but on the home stretch, Comey’s letter appears to have been a critical factor in the home stretch.
------
More at link
vi5
(13,305 posts)My biggest issue with President Obama was his naive (I'm being generous in attributing it to naivete) belief that being "bipartisan" and choosing Republicans for certain positions (especially ones involving national security) would be somehow appreciated by......anyone.
That not only fed into the false narrative of "big strong republican daddies", but opened his administration and the country up to political malfeasance. And that is exactly what we saw happen with Comey. So no, I don't think President Obama is "to blame". But there's just as much if not more of an actual case to be made that Comey had a bigger influence on the election, among more people who MAY have actually voted for Clinton, than a lot of the other people, places and things that get relentless blame on here.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)We had a strong platform on those issues, but that's not the same as a clear, coherent message that resonates with voters. From the slogan, to the speeches to the marketing, we really didn't hit the simple messaging that made voters understand who we are, what we're trying to achieve and most importantly how that will help them.
Obama got a huge amount of media attention for his message because it was uplifting, clear and powerful. We can hardly be surprised if we didn't get the same coverage for policy heavy, complex and detail driven speeches and slogans that were either self-directed or bland.
Which of these resonates with you more as voter?
"Yes we can!" and "Change We Can Believe In"
or
"I'm with her!" and "Stronger Together"
It might sound facile, but this stuff actually matters.
tblue37
(68,436 posts)KPN
(17,377 posts)the difference between the platform and actual results over the past 35 years. Results and outcomes carry far more weight than statements in platforms. The truth is the Democratic Party failed when it comes to adequately supporting the working class and labor over the past 35 years. Labor and the working class have been saying "what have you done fro me lately" for quite a long time now.
I think you should follow your own advice and take everything into account, including that. Had we been minding the ship in this regard, we probably never would have been confronted with a Trump candidacy in the first place, and maybe Hillary would have won by 12 or 15 million votes as opposed to 3 as well as the electoral college.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)No worries, I was a "the parties are just the same" person, until Reagan got elected, twice. Then I started paying more attention.
JHan
(10,173 posts)There was good journalism at WaPo and other traditional news publications, but the info trends were horrible.
Some are acting like it's November 9th 2016 and we don't have information since then about how issues were covered and not covered, the penetration of "fake news", and the fact millions of voters were unaware they were in a high-stakes information war.
brush
(61,033 posts)Comey, Putin, Assange, facebook and twitter bots, repug vote suppression and vote hacking and other repug cheating, bernie bros driving votes to Stein, and she still got more votes.
Give us a break with the fear preaching.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)But it doesn't, unfortunately.
The whining, the nitpicking, the woe-is-me posturing needs to stop. Hillary won the popular vote despite the Russian interference, the election hi-jinks, data hacking and voter suppression.
Trump will always be illegitimate from my perspective. Working class workers are worried? So is the majority of the frigging country; we have a lunatic at the helm.
Our eye needs to be on 2018 and reminding people what the Democratic Party stands for: all Americans and the continuance of our democratic Republic. Because that's what is on the line. Rick Wilson, dedicated conservative and anti-trumper, repeats this nugget of wisdom:
Everything Trump touches dies.
We need to listen to that, hear it then consider it carefully. Because we don't have the luxury of doing anything but.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Are you frikkin serious right now?! In case you slept through the last 12 months, we currently have a Republican house, Republican senate and Donald J Motherfucking Trump in the White House!
If you're not scared right now, then I don't know what exactly you're waiting for. Are we supposed to be happy to lose and just sit whining about how badly the other side cheated? Is that what this place is for now? Or do we pick ourselves up, fight the hell back, and do EVERYTHING in our power to make sure this diabolic shitshow never, ever happens again?
brush
(61,033 posts)repugs are not sitting pretty with a crazy orange a-hole in the WH alienating everyone, including many in his own party. McConnell and Ryan are both decidedly unpopular.
We have won several off-year elections against the repugs and Bannon and the Freedom Caucus are splitting the repugs so yeah, I'm not a fan of these fear-uncertainty-and-doubt OPS that signal we have no chance and we should all "just throw up our hands and give up".
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It's nothing to do with throwing our hands up, its about not sitting on our hands hoping that the GOP self-destruct for us. There are hugely positive and productive things we can do to improve our position, and if we don't do them then we may very well lose again. It's time we started to be for something again instead of just against the GOP.
brush
(61,033 posts)KPN
(17,377 posts)are you getting that from.
You are right that the Republicans are in a weak position. But that doesn't negate the fact that a large number (millions) of potentially Democratic voters don't come out to vote or are attracted to a shiny new object in the face of their own personal experiences related to structural economic issues that the Democratic Party has been weak and essentially non-responsive on.
We need to do far more than just what we've done in the past. That's essentially what I get from your posts above: no problem here, steady she goes.
In my experience (yeah, anecdotal but it's real), too many Democrats are complacent on working class/labor economic issues because they are well educated themselves, have good paying jobs providing them and their families personal financial security and either don't see the problem or actually believe some of what the right-wing preaches about individual responsibility. That's what needs to change.
brush
(61,033 posts)KPN
(17,377 posts)But you obviously missed my point. The OP was nothing like you characterized it ... as all FUD and "might as well throw up our hands and give up". You are making that stuff up; wasn't in the OP at all.
brush
(61,033 posts)KPN
(17,377 posts)Great. We need more of the same. But that doesn't mean we don't need to recruit and re-recruit past Democrats to the party by way of actually doing a better job of supporting and following through on working class/labor economic issues.
progressoid
(53,179 posts)
MFM008
(20,042 posts)Cajoled and explained into NOT voting republican should climb out of the gene pool.
Sometimes a voter has to do some homework.
I did not know the difference between the parties in 1984. By 1988..... I knew , and didn't care who the nominee was. It was like murder you KNOW it's wrong ( like voting gop). I have never voted republican since.
Like the kid in the commercial who calls his grandmother to bring him another soda across the room, my dad always told us Americans were stupid and lazy. ( this from someone who put in 44 years into the USAF and VA).
He has never been proved so right.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)
dawg
(10,777 posts)Which was, of course, the next most recent presidential election year without President Obama at the head of the ticket.
murielm99
(32,988 posts)voter suppression.
dawg
(10,777 posts)that Hispanics are now a larger minority in this country than blacks, just imagine what we could achieve electorally if we could hang on to our current share of their votes while increasing their turnout to levels comparable to those of blacks and whites.
murielm99
(32,988 posts)this summer. There were two tables of Hispanics sitting near us. They reserved a huge block of seats for themselves.
All the candidates made a point of visiting with them. They were right behind me, and I talked with several of them. The leader of their group said that he felt they had been taken for granted in the past. They wanted a voice and change in the party from now on. They were not angry, just visible and informed. It was great.
MichMan
(17,151 posts)Anyone who truly thought that black voters would turn out in 2012 with the same numbers like they did for Obama in 2008 & 2012 was delusional.
While the AA community is a very reliable Democratic voting block, Hillary was never going to generate as much enthusiasm as Obama did.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Trump won households making 78k and up.
I hope you aren't buying into the discredited "Trump won because 'economic anxiety' meme.
You are right we def need to do better w messaging and more coherent plans. There are lots of obstacles in our way to getting our message out, but we gotta persist.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Or have we all forgotten how many articles and topics in recent years - many of which have been posted here with hundreds of recs per thread - have described the hollowing out of the American working and middle classes (of all races - yes, it is true that racial and ethnic minorities have been hit even harder, but that doesn't negate the severe economic troubles that have been experienced across the board for a significant majority of Americans in recent years/decades).
I don't see how what you said really negates my point, sorry.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)"Economic anxiety" was not the reason Trump won. He played on identity politics: rapist Mexicans, Evil Muslims, even tweeted white nationalist imagery.
Check out the exit polling sometime.
The top issues for people who voted for Clinton were Jobs and The Economy.
The top issues for people who voted for Trump were Immigration (rapist Mexicans) and Terrorism (evil Muslims)
Those are the basic facts of the 2016 election.
"fighting for a bold economic agenda that honestly addresses the deep anxieties of working-class voters of all races"
Thats what we do as Dems. Republicans/Trump certainly did not do that.
From the exit polls Obviously our proposals and policies did resonate with people in 2016 who biggest concerns were the economy.
We need to take that into account as we learn lessons about our defeat, how to make the message come thru loud and clear.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)That doesn't mean that a majority of Trump voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (for example) didn't cite the economy/jobs as their #1 issue (they did, IIRC). It just means that a smaller majority of Trump's voters cited it than that of Clinton's voters - again, because Trump won most or all of those voters who cited those white identity politics grievances as their #1 issues. But those voters were a minority* In other words: Trump won overwhelmingly among what appears to have been a minority of his voters (and an even smaller minority of voters overall).
*All we have to go on for all of this is exit polls, so I'm sure that there were "shy racists" among Trump voters who cited the economy -
but that's impossible to quantify, isn't it? And a lot of Trump voters had both economic AND racist/white identity politics reasons for voting for him, so it's not as if these things are mutually exclusive...*
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)No
He made some noise and had zero actual policies. His behavior since proves he does not give a shit about anyone but the one percent. That is the republican way.
Dems had specific proposals to make the lives of working people and middle class better.
This whole thing may just boil down to charisma and telling people what they want to hear. That is what Trump did. Empty promises in an outrageous and entertaining package. We need to figure out how to over come that. We are not going to make empty promises though
Gotta run thanks for the thread and discussion!
delisen
(7,366 posts)right after passage of The Affordable Care Act and rise of the Tea Party.
I haven't checked other states yet but I believe several have a similar history. I don't think so many seat were lost because Democratic candidate, including, Russ Feingold, were just bad candidates, and unpopular.
Unions? After the 2010 election the private industry unions went all in with the supposedly unpopular new Republican governor in Wisconsin (who is now running for his third term) and they allied with him in working to destroy public sector unions.
The Democratic Party of 2008 was strong, the Democratic Party of 2016 was a shadow of its previous self.
2010 was a reapportionment year which gave further advantage to Republicans because they got to gerrymander voting districts.
Well now Republicans are in power nationally and their popularity is waning fast-just as Democratic popularity took a nose dive in 2010. The difference? Republicans don't believe in democracy and they cheat to achieve their goals.
Personal economics is always an issue in personal political decisions but it is useful to remember that Germany's economic well-being was well ascendant in the late 1930s when Germans went all in on racism, authoritarianism, and expansionist war-mongering.
Economic well-being did not quell the thirst for fascism, it fed it.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)Makes me scared, because these voters obviously don't even KNOW that when thuglicans run government, deficits go through the roof, and that they give huge tax cuts to the rich. They live in a state where Stan Brownback, a thuglican destroyed that state's economy, education system and they can't tell the difference between thuglicans and Dems? Lord have mercy.
Then there's this:
"the study showed that only 8 percent of African-Americans interviewed in the state thought Obama’s absence explained the lack of enthusiasm; 46 percent blamed a dislike of both Clinton and Trump."
8 percent African-Americans interviewed (Small percentage), couldn't tell the difference between tRumputin and Hillary Clinton? They didn't notice the scurrilous birthing allegations made against Pres. Obama or the blatant racism coming out of tRumputin's filthy, racist mouth? There's nothing mentioned about being able to vote in 2018 or 2020. There's nothing asked about ruSSia's interference in our elections. Nothing mentioned about gerrymandering, voter-crosschecking, voter-purging which went on in Michigan and Wisconsin, or even IF these folks trust our voting system.
I agree that Dems have to re-brand and retool their message because "A better Deal" won't cut it IMHO. However, to not see a difference between Hillary and that racist, sexist, ignorant, treasonous thing in office destroying our country, just wow. Those folks live in Kansas and have seen Brownback and thuglican legislature in action--up close and personal--and still they see no difference between thuglicans and Dems? Again, Lord Have Mercy
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Thanks, all! Let's keep it up. 
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)I am sure we can run right over to Congress and with our vast amount of power fix everything for all voters. easy peasy.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)...the problem is that too many want to wait to take a position on either walking or chewing gum until they get some poll numbers back, hear what Morning Joe has to say on the subject, wait for a David Brooks editorial to tell them what "regular people" think about walking and/or chewing gum, and then while Dems are still formulating their talking points RE: walking and chewing gum Republicans will have rammed their position on walking and chewing gum into the media narrative with loud and forceful talking heads on every single news channel. At that point Dems will have no choice but to play safe defense, and hide until a Republican hopefully gets caught choking on gum while tripping over their own feet. THEN.....by gosh THEN......we'll really own the issue!!
Willie Pep
(841 posts)You often hear stuff like "both parties stink" or "they are all crooks" or "politicians don't care about ordinary people." Apathy and alienation benefit the Republicans because their voters tend to be more highly motivated and likely to vote. Democrats have a much harder time getting their base out.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Yes. The election was quite clear.
Hillary won the popular vote (emphasis on popular). She did this despite an avalanche of dirty dealing that anyone paying attention knows about now. There were about a dozen (not one as you say) reasons that she lost the electoral vote. She had still overcome then all. She was cruising to an election until comey stepped on the constitution. She would have overcome that too if any one of the other crooked (or stupid) things not happened.
Maybe in the dorms at Berkeley or the streets of some parts of San Francisco, there is a call for a people's uprising, a roiling proletariate rife for revolution. All hundred or so strong. But that just ain't what we have here in the rest of the country.
I was a kid once too. I manned the rhetorical battlements of my college. I sat in the young bars and saw that all those around me wanted giant changes, wanted them right damn now. Or else.
Problem was the the next morning I had to go to work. Whether it was in the rows of desks or with the crews unloading the trucks, no one wanted a revolution. Those that wanted change, wanted it slow and easy to digest.
Something you need to find out. Just because a newspaper says something you agree with doesn't make it so. I can find a lot of anti-Hillary press. We know a lot of it was filled with russian propaganda at the time. A lot of it still is. That is one of things that Hillary had to overcome. Don't be one of those propagating the propaganda.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)In an electoral system, the popular vote is meaningless. The election was lost because in the locations where it mattered, she lost. She lost, as someone else suggested, because of a hard to explain perception that the result didn't matter. This is true for both people who voted (because Trump would be "funny" or something) and those that didn't (because it didn't matter). In an election as close as this, almost anything can be "blamed" for the loss. The point here is that people who should have voted for her (and other democratic candidates) basically didn't show up at all because they perceive no connection between their vote and the eventual outcome for themselves.
This perception is due to many different factors. 1) People don't necessarily pay close attention to things. They don't notice that an election that might have gone the other way could have been much worse. 2) Elections rarely result in the outcomes that are promised. The GOP is struggling with this right now, and we saw some of that with Obama. Promises are made that are never fulfilled, or that are fulfilled with results that are unsatisfying or unexpected. 3) They are honestly disappointed because this minority of voters is "left behind" by policies they didn't vote for, they don't understand, and that don't benefit them at all.
The article is really mostly about #3. In a close election we can discuss all manner of reasons for coming up short. That there is voter suppression and Russian interference doesn't change the reality that there was also a lack of turnout by the very people that needed to turn out the most.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Speaking of your #3, the reason that there was so little turnout was because of the russian intervention. People read the stories (like the one cited here) that were total bullshit, but that were repeated over and over. Now, even when we know that the Hillary memes were russian inventions, people who didn't vote because of them need to find some reason to excuse themselves and cannot be honest and reflective enough to admit that they were duped - had - pwned. So they write articles like this bullshit "news story" and then others who need to find solace for their bad decisions cling to them as a means of excusing themselves.
Better if they just own up and watch out because it has already started for the mid-terms. Even here on DU, you will find gullible people swallowing the shiny stories. Why? Because it is easier than the hard work of actually digging in and doing the work. When I was 20, I wanted everything in a minute too. I didn't see why I should have to wait to have utopia. But every good thing that we have going (the kind of stuff the gop want to destroy) came from slogging it out, bit by bit, small change by small change. There is no proletariat waiting to rise up. There are no magic wands to wave, no heroes to do the job for us. Just hard work. Getting out the vote. Registering the voters. Avoiding distractions. Finding the in-between moves that will result in a step left. Then doing it again.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)The turnout was comparable to 2004. Turnout has been an issue for decades which is why there are GOTV activities at all. It's what "rock the vote" is about for the youth issues. I know it is hard to realize, but she lost because she was a weak candidate. Comey, the Russians, Stein, etc., they all contributed. It was a very close race. So you can point to almost anything and the magnitude of effect was "just enough" to cause the loss. A strong candidate wouldn't have been vulnerable to these razor thin marginal effects. Trump beat all of the GOP candidates because of roughly the same issue. It was the year of the anti-establishment/outsider which is why his primary competition were people like Ben Carson. It's why Bernie did as well as he did.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 18, 2017, 11:37 PM - Edit history (1)
Besides a small group of deniers, most of the legit media and researchers tell us this election was unprecedented in the amount of social propaganda and electronic thuggery. So you compound the propaganda because it worked on you. You still buy the weak Hillary stuff, and the lie grows a little more every time it gets repeated. It becomes self-fulfilling.
This is why the ban on rehashing the primaries is a bad idea. People need to realize that they've been had. I know that victims of a scam often don't even report it because they don't want to admit it, but if the Democrats that spouted (and continue to spout) the "weak" or "crooked" or "corporate" Hillary lies don't come out and look at the reality of the situation, it will happen again and again.
Russia (with help from donnie's boys) rigged our election. They rigged the Brexit vote in Britain. They tried in Germany and France, but those countries saw what happened here and the populace (at least the ones who think) didn't fall for the lies. Now we are already seeing attacks on the leading liberals. Again, it comes from both sides.
(And not to rehash the primaries, but Bernie (God bless him. I started out as a supporter) did as well as he did because he benefited from the attacks on Hillary too. He knows it. He fell for it too, but seems to have figured that out. That and the media needed to let him go without scrutiny because they needed the competition in the primary to gin up the ratings. No one would tune in to watch the obvious nominee give another speech.
We have to realize that this was not just another election. We have to recognize that we were owned.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)A friend of mind canvassed extensively for Hillary in black working class neighborhoods of Detroit. He reported encountering significant hostility. Not towards him personally - he said quite a few people were willing to engage and he got the sense many wanted to be heard. The main problem (among the people he encountered) was what I guess you'd call guilt by association. People had specific grievances about Bill Clinton's presidency, primarily about policies around trade, the criminal justice system, and welfare. The people he talked to were pretty unhappy about the idea of Trump, but quite a few told him they wouldn't vote for Clinton, either.
Based on my friend's experience, I'd say the article is correct that economic policy matters a great deal, but so do issues related to criminal law, policing, and the courts.
delisen
(7,366 posts)voters I encountered in my neighborhood were few and were men who identified with Trump as a man.
No one brought up Bill Clinton, whose presidency was over at the end of the century. No one brought up Joe Biden, author of the 1990s crime bill. Most people just identified as democrats.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)My information is second-hand, but I consider the source trustworthy. I don't think he met many (if any?) Trump voters. He was running into people who said they wouldn't vote for either Clinton or Trump. Michigan had some 80,000 ballots that were blank at the top.
Were the men you encountered white?
delisen
(7,366 posts)Some liked the fact that he was outspoken and some thought he would shake things up.
My neighborhood votes reliably democratic and while there are undoubtedly white Trump voters they are not super-supporters and less likely to talk politics.
Response to PETRUS (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)just knowing what the country is like when Democrats are in charge vs. when Republicans are in charge. When Democrats are in charge, things are generally stable, people on the margins of society tend to do better economically and socially, and things are generally peaceful on the foreign policy front. Whenever Republicans are in charge, things in the country are unstable, only the rich prosper, and we're usually starting a war or major military conflict somewhere around the globe that sends a lot of American soldiers to the disability line and/or to their graves. President Obama may not have solved all of our problems or even put a massive dent in them but our country was nicely recovering on all fronts from the Bush II disaster and Hillary Clinton was communicating that she generally intended to stay the course and continue President Obama's policies. Meanwhile,you have Trump basically trashing all of Obama's accomplishments and made it sound to people that we were living in some kind of trash strewn hellhole and that electing him President would MAGA and a lot of people apparently decided to believe and buy into that narrative and vote for the grossly unqualified sexual predator and elevate him to POTUS for whatever reason(s) that are well beyond my powers of comprehension. With people that far gone, I'm not really sure what else Hillary Clinton could have done and/or said that would have changed anything, especially with other forces at work in that election. It was truly one of our worst hours as a country.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)WHY are the Dems always the ones with the "working class problems" when by every conceivable measure the GOP has been much, much worse for them economically?
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)The democrats need them to turn out in large numbers. The GOP just needs them to either peel off 10 - 15%, or equally as useful (and the point of this OP) not to turn out at all.
delisen
(7,366 posts)For some reason they seem to prefer either "middle class", or "poor."
delisen
(7,366 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)If they keep this shit up we will have a permanent GOP majority.
Well, we are all gonna die long before that happens in a nuclear war DIRECTLY because of the way some folks acted in the past, but were we to last, I mean.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)They are associated with government. When government does what it is supposed to do, there is no credit given, but when government fails for any reason, much blame is cast. Republicans are the party of "freedom" and "business" and "getting the government out of your way". Any intelligent person understands that what I just wrote about the Republicans is all bullshit. They are the party of using government to favor the wealthy and trying to control the behaviors of people they find undesirable. That other stuff just sounds a whole lot better.
People don't look at figures and charts. They don't look at historical trends. Americans "feel". We follow what our gut tells us, and what Republicans tell our gut to tell us is that they are better on national defense (bullshit), they are fiscally responsible (bullshit), and that they care about religious liberty (bullshit). They are just better at getting people to feel (mostly fear and anger).
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Republicans own margin for error because there are more self-identified conservatives than liberals -- 35% to 26% -- and they own the simplistic words and themes associated with each party.
I've asserted we need a pro-people slogan and reputation, like "Remarkable You." How could the other side possibly counter that? Everyone wants to believe they own some remarkable qualities.
The problem with Democratic campaigns and slogans is that they are short term and completely miss the big picture. Even Obama's "change" theme was fragile and dangerous because people eventually will find reasons to change away from you. It's very easy to twist in mocking terms.
Corporate themes are not designed to change every four years. Republicans basically don't change themes every four years. They rely on that crap from your second paragraph and merely alter the language and emphasis somewhat. Since Democrats indeed are primarily associated with government we have to hope everything is in great shape along those lines during election years, and we have to come up with a competent here-and-now theme. That is asinine. It's an unsustainable burden. Imagine if Apple were stupid enough to amend, "Think Different" every 2 or 4 years.
I would plaster "Remarkable You" in every Democratic campaign at every level. Eventually it would be associated with our party, even by first graders.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I mean, just not very bright LOL-
They don't follow politics day to day. They don't know the name of their Congressman. They don't know the name of the Secretary of State. They do follow the latest stupid meme on their fucking smartphone this morning while sitting at the red light then force me to hold the horn steady for five seconds till they decide to push on the go pedal 
JHan
(10,173 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)These are all people and communities who have historically been at odds with the US government. I'd personally be very wary of calling the Democratic Party "the party of government" in a country where "the government" is by and large, disliked - if not feared, hated, loathed, and utterly despised (which it is, by many, many people).
And FWIW, this anti-government worldview (or perhaps more accurately in many case, anti-US government as it exists and has existed in practice) thoroughly transcends any division of Left, Right, Center, liberal, conservative, whatever. This anti-government worldview is by no means limited to racist white male Republicans/Trump voters. It's not limited to racists, it's not limited to white people, it's not limited to men, it's not limited to to Republicans, it's not limited to Trump voters, and it's certainly not limited to voters. Not at all!
Perhaps if Democrats did more to cultivate an image of "outsiders", the "outs" of American society, culture, politics, economics, and so on, then they might do better. After all, so much of the Democratic Party's voter base are certainly on the "outs" in those senses; why not EMBRACE that, rather than run away from it?
If tens of millions of American voters and tens of millions of American non-voters already despise the US government on either some abstract meta-level and/or in terms of legitimate grievances against certain things that the US government does and has done, then how does embracing the "party of government" label do Democrats any good? Not a rhetorical question, BTW.
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Democrats believe that government, working with constituent groups can create a better society through sound public policy. It is a time consuming and arduous process since many constituent groups that may align at some point can be adversaries at another. Democrats are the party of the DMV, we are the party of the FDIC and other very "unsexy" but necessary systems that allow the country to run as smoothly as it does.
I am not defending the "government" and I know that governments around the world have done horrible things to marginalized groups. What I am telling you is that Democrats are by nature of their platform, linked inextricably with government. Republicans criticize government while they seek to dominate it and use its power for their own narrow purposes. They privatize "The Commons", create chaos, and enrich a very few, then the Democrats come in and restore a sense of order through use of good public policy. That has been the pattern through out the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am not talking about labels, I am talking about the reality of the situation when it comes to actually governing. Democratic party politicians want to govern and use government to help make people's lives better. Republicans want to use government power to protect property and wealth. In one scenario, a slow, complicated, and messy process in which different constituency groups do not get their needs met in a timely manner. In the other scenario, only those with sufficient wealth and capital get their needs met while everyone else suffers.
The Democratic Party should embrace Unions, and should continue to fight for equality for all marginalized groups. You cannot label yourself an outsider if you want to use the power of government as an insider, to help marginalized groups and serve all of the constituencies.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)The title is this
It’s also a Hillary and Trump are the same hit piece.
This was the methodology
Not sure how many people were interviewed.
It’s not a very good article as far as addressing the relationship between Democrats and the AA community either, although I agree Democrats need to improve outreach.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)You apparently have missed all the information that has come out recently.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The OP sounds like a "Bernie and only Bernie" type. According to that type, Bernie and only Bernie had the plan.
That argument ignores Russian moles dredging up Clinton era policy that was RIGHT for that time and making it seem evil. Clinton did a war on drugs because Black communities were seeing many murders each week with kids being shot dead while sitting on stoops in cities, Black and other Mayors at that time asked for the type of help that Clinton's policies provided. In addition to drug policy, Clinton did midnight basketball, which was a huge success that Russian moles ignored because it did not fit the Clinton is evil picture that they wanted to paint.
The far left is doing the same thing that it did in 2016, take grossly incomplete pictures and dress them up with what they call data.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)and would have taken action to help him.
Or are Bernie supporters really arguing that Russia would have been fine with Bernie instead of Trump? And if that's the case, that's not a good argument for Bernie.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Are many on the left coming up with argument "to explain" why Hillary lost and Bernie would not. I seriously doubt Russians would have backed Bernie since it seems many that were connected to Trump if not Trump himself were seriously in bed with the Russians. They would have gone after Bernie like he was raw meat.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)And if they DID back Bernie, or let him beat Trump, then it would have because they'd decided he fit better with their oligarch friends. Which of course would make no sense, unless Bernie were some kind of Russian mole. And no one's arguing that!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was not 'right for that time', it did huge harm to black communities, and any attempt to pretend it was something good and great is frankly offensive.
Damnit, even Bill Clinton said in June "I signed a bill that made the problem worse." "And I want to admit it.”.
ananda
(35,145 posts)The Dems do NOT have a working class problem.
The Reeps, the media, and Russian propaganda may have MANUFACTURED
a working class problem for Dems...
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)When 48 % of a demographic say there is no economic difference for them, then there is a message deficit.
Surely you believe there is an economic difference between the parties for that demographic?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Sorry, I see where you are headed. The poster explained how Democrats were attacked and you ignored those PROVEN causes to stay with a fantasy.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)If you had read my post you'd see that I said "messagING problem". I said nothing about the messenger(s). Any good messenger, of which the Democrats have many, could and did try to do that. Be it Hillary, Bernie, Franken, Harris, .... The headwinds are strong (horse-race obsessed media, foreign collusion, etc.) but it takes messaging to counteract them. The Democratic Party message itself is good.
If you had read my post you'd see that I acknowledged those "proven causes" by not disputing them.
The only fantasy is the one in your head as you respond to a fantasy post that you constructed instead of reading my post.
Then when you use underhanded debating tactics like you just did it shows you have nothing.
Read my post.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)...from another commentator on NPR this morning, who added that the real fall out from the economic meltdown of 2008 is still hitting them hard. Hope the Dems can hear and listen. Their historical base, of all enthnicities, are really hurting.
They said the Trump vote was also made of past Obama voters who were registering a protest vote in 2016, plus despair.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Look to the rise of the Tea Party - this was not only a well funded effort to rebuke healthcare reform, it was a strike by the Tea Party's wealthiest financiers against its most power regulatory foe - the U.S Government/Obama Administration.
Republicans got the message and anything having to do with increasing the minimum wage, fixing the ACA and infrastructure investment was met with Obstruction.
Obama faced 350 filibusters.
And the stuckism due to dysfunction in Congress resulted in voter discontent very easily exploited by the same Republicans who obstructed Obama and fomented rage through wage and service cuts.
Republicans are the problem and have been for decades.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)But Dems need to get a lot smarter, and braver. Fast.
If they were all more like Elizabeth Warren I think we'd be doing better. Her messaging is always so clear and authentic.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The problem is not the message, I've always known what Democrats stood for - how that message is received has been the problem. The time to go high when our opponents go low is over. George Lakoff also has some interesting ideas on how to frame our messaging.
I've also never understood the authenticity argument, especially in politics. We don't say every single thing that comes into our minds....
Politicians, especially, don't do this....
I like Elizabeth Warren, and right now she seems to be getting hillaried. (Another reason why we should never go high and never let our opponents frame our leaders)
coolsandy
(479 posts)"do away with the establishment" "the system is rigged" etc.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)O Yellar took office, if there are enough crazy aholes out there to not vote the GOP out of power no matter who runs against them next year,,,,,, we will need to just go ahead and buy our little brown uniforms and start practicing that niffy goosestepping.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)That includes the working class. I hear a lot of people on all sides and media blame the Democratic Party for this. If one looks at their policy, or even at the results of them holding office, it is clear the Democratic Party is the party for the working class. Including the white working class. And the white male working class.
It is not that the Democratic Party has an issue with this demographic. It is that so many are allowed to define the Democratic Party with lies.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Though many Hillary supporters wouldn't have noticed because the ads weren't targeted to us. Among the targeted groups -- black people and young people, who Russia/Trump wanted to discourage from voting.
Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)It concerns me, along with so much more.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)credibility, and look where we are today.
Where we are today isnt just the likelihood of the end of all life on the planet, but many of those who bought those lies, still believe them.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It will be a UBI - something I wish Hillary followed her heart and ran on, although I respect the fact she didn't want to promise something she couldn't deliver ( which is RARE in politics)
If she'd been elected, we may have seen the beginnings of it, a conversation about it, and at least some testing such as what's going on in the Scandinavian countries right now.
Reading the democratic platform, I know how much Democrats are invested in economic issues so people are misinformed.
There is a massive gap between what Democrats fight for and whether people know what Democrats fight for.
It's no point having a great message if you aren't controlling narratives and how that message is disseminated. You could have the most charismatic leader in the world, and we had a pretty Charismatic Leader in Obama, yet voter discontent remained very much real.
Economic anxiety is merely one subset of it: for some Americans, there's too much change, and for other Americans, not enough change.
It's all fine and good to say "We must work harder for all working-class Americans" - but this is a slogan, we have to come up with solutions and ideas.
More solutions and details, please.
We're also facing global propaganda pushed by the Murdoch Newscorp, the Mercers and Russian propaganda efforts. We have to find ways to counter it -so much for the "Liberal Media".
A bold economic agenda will involve massive redistribution of wealth through increasingly steep progressive taxation - but how to sell this? How do you counter "small government" narratives? How do you convince Americans that taxation is good - all my life I've heard Democrats say this, so it's not as though they haven't tried.
Right now, the very rich send their money outside the states to grow and spend little tax on that growth. They also benefit from major tax breaks through purchases e.g. buying buildings. On top of that, there are regressive tax systems which hit the poor hardest, The budget issues in some States is connected to regressive tax systems - like Illinois for example.
There is an opportunity cost incurred from not addressing wealth and income inequality aggressively but all these ideas I can think of that can address income disparity: simplifying tax codes, progressive taxation, access to new markets, support for burgeoning entrepreneurs, providing support for young black entrepreneurs, fixing k-12, infrastructure investment.. have been advocated for by Democrats.
Let's remember it is absolutely in the interests of Republicans to push false equivocations between the two parties, let's not fall into their trap.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the case of all of the Democratic primary opponents, but this is an area where I've been particularly disappointed in Sanders, who has said no more about it than that it is an idea among many ideas, worth considering.
It is absolutely what we need. We may as well start advocating for it, so that by the time its our only hope people are already familiar and have warmed to it.
As to how to change the narrative that makes it easy for people to say democrats and republicans are all the same, I advocate for making the rich the villain. It's an oversimplification but if people are looking for something to explain their fear and their pain, we should give it to them, since the GOP absolutely will. Also, it has a built in explanation for the media backlash that will result from that kind of campaign...because the corporate media is in fact the mouthpiece for the rich, and it is an easy-ass case to make(excepting for the fact that you have to do it with alternative outlets, since that corporate media will ensure that there's a reckoning).
Additionally, it takes aim at scapegoating as the divide-and-conquer strategy it is. I've been successful with people I know, shining a light on their preciously held bigotry not as a matter of them being bad people, but as a matter of them letting themselves be fooled and manipulated by a higher power into believing the bullshit they believe. Showing them that people are playing them for a fool. More importantly, this shifts alliances. It puts the middle class on the same side as the poor. It gives immigrants and people of color and the white poor and even white middle class common cause. Less reason to be distrustful of one another and more reason to work together.
You are right, there is a gap between what Americans know about and what Democrats are actually fighting for, but Democrats own that gap together with the media. They have played nice with the rich and the media for decades. They have tried consistently to be conciliatory with the rich...to seek some common ground that doesn't alienate them, and they have sadly, foolishly, become the apologists for the corporate media, ceding dissatisfaction with it to of all people, Donald Trump, who is in the White House by the very virtue of the media's "failure" to do its job.
Democrats have got to stop pretending that the media is a neutral dis-invested entity and they have to stop believing that just because they are getting some money from entrenched industries too, that those industries wouldn't still prefer a Republican. They have to realize that they are the safe back-up plan, should the favored choice find no favor with the public. To play the game as the game has been designed, one rigged so that the Democrats almost always come in second, is not, in my opinion, a winning strategy and it is no wonder that we've seen a steady attrition of seats over the years.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)For instance, as I wrote elsewhere, in Obama's statement on Weinstein, he said, "Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status." He should have followed that statement with something like, "Be that person a movie director or sitting President of the United States, he must face consequences for his deplorable actions." We all know damn well that Republicans would not miss an opportunity like that. And it's not even a matter of taking the high road. It's a matter of being the forceful, fact-based opposition we all need the Democratic Party to be.
Just as one example.
But any suggestion that a substantial number of people voted for Trump due to his economic policy proposals (or because of their economic anxiety) is ridiculous. "It's the bigotry, stupid!" Bigotry, particularly racism, is the tie that binds. It's the only thing keeping the Republican Party viable. Trump can fail to accomplish virtually every one of his campaign promises, or even shoot someone on 5th Avenue in broad daylight, and not lose a supporter (both his ceiling and his floor is in the 30s, in terms of approval rating). The one thing that would cause his base to wither is him doing a 180 on civil rights (support of BLM, path to citizenship, etc.).
farmbo
(3,153 posts)... in two cities in central Ohio. (They didn't even include Cleveland!)
It appears the participants self- selected their participation, so it was probably loaded with malcontents and people with extra time on their hands.
We should probably resist drawing the "Democrats Are In Serious Trouble" conclusion that the media loves to expound upon. There was little scientific validity to this "study".
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)will only exacerbate this problem. Could our party do more? Absolutely. But it won't help much. At least, there's no law that can be passed to make a whole community more prosperous. Those jobs that were once stepping stones to pay for college are drying up. The union jobs are all but gone.
We're nearing an era where you cannot better your socioeconomic standing with hard work and fairness laws. Programmers, some doctors and lawyers, and a few other professions will survive so long as they are difficult to automate. Everybody else is fucked. The black community has no plausible way back in the era of full automation, regardless of which party is in office.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Nurses are doing what Doctors used to do. One of my brothers was recently in the hospital, I never saw a doctor visit him, just a nurse that checked a computer before she worked with him. I saw a similar pattern with bank tellers and bank transactions start years ago, now banks have few tellers and loan officers, a lot of that is automated. Yes, Doctors and Attornies are much tougher to replace, but hospitals start with the simpler things they do and then use advances in AI to work up. I see that with complex machines today, the number of designers needed to design them has plunged, you are talking $100,000-$125,000 per year jobs for senior level people. AI has replaced people, one person can do the work that four used to do.
we can do it
(13,024 posts)L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)Take away those crimes and abuses of rights, and the Dems have a majority.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)If those aren't factored in the conclusions aren't worth a ding dang.
Freethinker65
(11,203 posts)The GOP has their soundbite messaging down. There is little deviation when members of the GOP are sent out to speak. We may ridicule the obvious parroting (and I hate that it dumbs down any real discussions) but it has been very effective for the GOP.
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Why vote when neither party cares about you? That's what makes it a Democratic party problem.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)...if they desire to win any more elections.
I think it is much more complicated than simple divisions, such as Bernie versus Hillary.
Response to kentuck (Reply #71)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Will Rogers. He died in a plane crash in Alaska.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)How about Michelle?
KPN
(17,377 posts)Thanks for posting.
Key words were "On the economy ..." and those were right in the title. Unfortunately, some here seem to have difficulty recognizing and understanding that distinction.
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)As a progressive party it's time we look past what defined people as useful back in the 1900's. Thus we should place "workers" values way down the list on our party platform.