What's wrong with the Democratic party ?

Fr Tod Umptious

So Trump won the White House and the analysis seems to be that Clinton was a terrible candidate in the first place that forced her way to the nomination, which is fair enough.

But why have the Democratic party lost so much ground all across the political landscape this decade ?

They have lost both houses, governorships and state legislatures all across America ?

Why ?

It can't be put down to Russian hacking or Clinton being a b**ch, or people buying into Trump's promises.

Can anyone explain ?

Wanderer78

The neoliberalial juggernaut has turned everything inside out, upside down and back to front, amongst a few other things of course. Prepare for war!

FreudianSlippers

I think there are a few things of which one of they key issues is that neither party really reflects their membership - the Republican party has been effectively hijacked by the social right, whereas the democratic party has lost the economic left.

So, you see more and more people on the right voting on emotive social issues, whereas the left has been fractured by the divide between the traditional democratic economics and the economic left.

It's their fiscal centrism that doesn't make the headlines. By remaining fairly reasonable and guiding with a steady hand, they come across as boring. They keep getting hammered in the news by (sometimes insane) comments from the right and the democrats keep a level head and take the punches.

Obama got elected by picking an issue, being vocal about it and gathering massive support. Then in office, he veered to the centre almost immediately.

If the two party system was not so deeply rooted in the US, I think there is a desire for a multi-party system there.

Manach

Off course the PC identity politics that seem to infest the Democratic party along with the cozy collusion between them and the entrenched bureaucratic interests (such as the IRS who have done them numerous favours such as blocking conservative grass root orgs. - see book Undemocratic by Jay Sekulow) has also done them no favours with the general populace.

Amerika

The Democratic Party is on life support. No one speaks for the party as a whole. Currently the party’s top leaders are old and fail to realize the future of the party shouldn’t be run by the smug cultural progressives with superiority complexes and an overemphasis on the social agenda. Until they recognize the economy is not working for most Americans, and find a message that speaks to middle America, their numbers will continue to diminish at the polls.

Overheal

A lot of how it responded to identity politics. It's opponents rallied against the BLM movement and got behind cops while the party largely ignored both or otherwise facilitated letting it just happen. At least that's how it's been portrayed.

Also, they shoved Hillary through their own process which would have been fine I guess but they let Bernie run on their platform and then gave him a bent deck of cards. Didn't really scream democracy.

It would be hard to distill all the reasons here but those are the big ones. Some will say "it was the media" but this was a pretty solidly covered 8 years in politics and little if anything escaped notice. So the media didn't give them a free pass or anything.

Either way it's a bit perplexing given that congress has had back to back years of impressively low approval ratings but people still keep voting for them. Neither party seems particularly focused on the correct issues.

feargale

When the parties that are supposed to represent the little people get old and tired and smug and comfortable their erstwhile supporters become alienated, and, blinded by anger, make ill-judged choices. They jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
Witness Germany 1933, Ireland 2011, Berlusconi 1994.

vetinari

The Democratic party lost the presidential election by about 60K votes spread over Pennslyvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
I think they unestimated but much the Republicans could run up the white vote.
4 years ago, the commonly held wisdom was that you couldn't win a presidential election by being white only. That was clearly wrong.

I think you'll for sure see the Democrats nominate a white male in 4 years time. Indeed I'll be surprised to see another woman being nominated in the next 20 years. An inanimate rod should have been able to beat Trump.

FreudianSlippers

Amerika wrote: »

Until they recognize the economy is not working for most Americans, and find a message that speaks to middle America, their numbers will continue to diminish at the polls.

That's the perception for some reason, however it doesn't match the reality of the situation. The US economy is incredibly strong at the moment - historic low unemployment rate, GDP per capita is still one of if not the highest in the world. Harvard Business School and Forbes have both released articles in late 2016 which discuss this issue; what it boils down to is that there is a decrease in the social progress index for the US, which is what makes the economy feel like it isn't working.

Unfortunately for "most Americans", social progress index measures things like personal rights, access to affordable healthcare, environmental and other social issues which aren't going to get better under Trump's administration.

Yes, there is a hollowing out of the lower-middle-class with reductions in jobs for traditionally blue collar workers, but this is not simple economics to blame here - there are hundreds of factors in play; to claim Trump can simply fix this (without resorting to, effective, communist policy in relation to these jobs) is over-simplistic and not so realistic either.

FreudianSlippers

vetinari wrote: »

I think you'll for sure see the Democrats nominate a white male in 4 years time. Indeed I'll be surprised to see another woman being nominated in the next 20 years. An inanimate rod should have been able to beat Trump.

I agree/disagree at the same time here. Nobody took Trump seriously (himself included) as a candidate; the Democratic and Republican establishment both believed an inanimate rod would beat Trump - where both parties failed (and Trump is not good for the traditional Republican party either) was over-reliance on this belief.

The Republican primaries contained some of the worst examples of the party that you could imagine; perhaps, if you were somehow able to mash them all together you'd get something approaching an electable human being, but Trump wiped the floor with them. Democrats made the mistake of not paying attention to that and made almost all the same mistakes.

InTheTrees

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Can anyone explain ?

Us politics is very cyclical.

The party that doesn't hold the presidency always seems rudderless because they don't really have leaders. It's not like a parliamentary system where there is a defined leader of the opposition.

It was the same when the gop lost to Clinton, when the dnc lost to bush, when Obama won. When Hillary lost. Etc etc.

Omg the losers are in disarray everyone cries. But then the campaigning for the next election begins.

Amerika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's the perception for some reason, however it doesn't match the reality of the situation. The US economy is incredibly strong at the moment - historic low unemployment rate, GDP per capita is still one of if not the highest in the world. Harvard Business School and Forbes have both released articles in late 2016 which discuss this issue; what it boils down to is that there is a decrease in the social progress index for the US, which is what makes the economy feel like it isn't working.

Unfortunately for "most Americans", social progress index measures things like personal rights, access to affordable healthcare, environmental and other social issues which aren't going to get better under Trump's administration.

Yes, there is a hollowing out of the lower-middle-class with reductions in jobs for traditionally blue collar workers, but this is not simple economics to blame here - there are hundreds of factors in play; to claim Trump can simply fix this (without resorting to, effective, communist policy in relation to these jobs) is over-simplistic and not so realistic either.

If only we’d vote based on statistics and figures rather than person experience, eh? What that ‘low’ unemployment doesn’t tell us is that 2.6 million of the roughly 92 million American adults who don't work want a job but aren't looking for one. Or those who have taken part time jobs, or lesser paying jobs, because that is all there is available to them. Or that wages aren't going up for many Americans, as the take home pay is about the same today as it was 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation. And middle class families are only getting by and not getting ahead.

Trump won because of his main issues... Improving the economy, bringing back jobs, lowering personal and corporate taxes, cutting excessive business and environmental regulations, ending illegal immigration and extreme vetting of immigrants from countries where terrorism is prevalent, repealing and replacing Obamacare, rebuilding the military, an America-first foreign policy, and a revived infrastructure. This is what won the hearts and minds of middle class Americans. It’s quite simple, which Democrats don’t seem to understand, or refuse to understand.

Overheal

Improving the economy, bringing back jobs, lowering personal and corporate taxes, cutting excessive business and environmental regulations, ending illegal immigration and extreme vetting of immigrants from countries where terrorism is prevalent, repealing and replacing Obamacare, rebuilding the military, an America-first foreign policy, and a revived infrastructure.

And I still can't wait to see the math on that.. how does one cut govt revenue while investing in infrastructure and military expansion and illegal immigration crackdown?

listermint

Amerika wrote: »

If only we’d vote based on statistics and figures rather than person experience, eh? What that ‘low’ unemployment doesn’t tell us is that 2.6 million of the roughly 92 million American adults who don't work want a job but aren't looking for one. Or those who have taken part time jobs, or lesser paying jobs, because that is all there is available to them. Or that wages aren't going up for many Americans, as the take home pay is about the same today as it was 20 years ago, adjusted for inflation. And middle class families are only getting by and not getting ahead.

Trump won because of his main issues... Improving the economy, bringing back jobs, lowering personal and corporate taxes, cutting excessive business and environmental regulations, ending illegal immigration and extreme vetting of immigrants from countries where terrorism is prevalent, repealing and replacing Obamacare, rebuilding the military, an America-first foreign policy, and a revived infrastructure. This is what won the hearts and minds of middle class Americans. It’s quite simple, which Democrats don’t seem to understand, or refuse to understand.

The jobs aren't gone the money is being reduced by wall streets constant yern for growth. How to get growth on profits? Grow the company or kill the wages.

Sure this new york billionaire and all his billionaire buddys will address that problem.



Don't ya know

Il Fascista

Stuff like this

PeadarCo

vetinari wrote:

The Democratic party lost the presidential election by about 60K votes spread over Pennslyvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. I think they unestimated but much the Republicans could run up the white vote. 4 years ago, the commonly held wisdom was that you couldn't win a presidential election by being white only. That was clearly wrong.

While I don't know the voting populations of those states 60k odd of votes sounds like winning by the skin of your teeth. There seems to be a complete over reaction in terms of the view that Trump represents America. More than any recent president Trump only represents a certain portion of the country. He represents a country that's deeply divided. You'd imagine if the Democrats get someone without the baggage of Clinton they should beat him next time around.

Calhoun

Didn't the left sand bag themselves by providing allot of free publicity in an attempt to knock out credible republican opponents as they misread Trumps chances?

As for the Democrats their identity politics has led them down the road to ruin, nobody wants to be labeled a sexist, racist ect and then be expected to vote for the party driving this agenda.

What is even worse is they double down on the message, all these millionaire celebs lecturing the public on how to vote, it didn't work in the UK and it didn't work for the US.

The worst part about it is they are actively driving more folk to the centre and right even after they lost the election. The likes of liberal media agenda like the MTV white guy resolution ect.

You would wonder if they will be able to recover in time in the next 4 years or if they will do a Jeremy Corbyn and go further down the rabbit hole of extreme left policies.

MayoSalmon

Social Justice and being told we have to accept the fact that there are now 64 different genders apparently....GTFO

Calhoun

America got off lightly it could have gotten a bill like C16 in Canada.

listermint

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Social Justice and being told we have to accept the fact that there are now 64 different genders apparently....GTFO

Yeah social justice is bad.


And the second part for your post is just pure drivel. Get that on Facebook?

lawred2

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Social Justice and being told we have to accept the fact that there are now 64 different genders apparently....GTFO

Yeah please do

Manic Moran

PeadarCo wrote: »

While I don't know the voting populations of those states 60k odd of votes sounds like winning by the skin of your teeth. There seems to be a complete over reaction in terms of the view that Trump represents America. More than any recent president Trump only represents a certain portion of the country. He represents a country that's deeply divided. You'd imagine if the Democrats get someone without the baggage of Clinton they should beat him next time around.

The issue isn't just the Presidential election, though. The Democrats are getting hammered in the State legislatures and governor's houses.

In 2009, the Democrats had the majority of the governor's mansions, 28. Today, it's 16. They had 28 State Senates, 33 State Houses. Today, it's 15 and 16. They controlled US Congress, they had 59 Senate seats, and 259 in the House. Today, they're the minority in both with 46 and 194.

The only place the Democrats are still holding their own are the coasts. They're dominating in places like California and New Jersey. (Even New York is split, with the Republicans holding the State Senate). This isn't something that happened with the Nov 2016 election, it's a trend which has been happening for the last six years. The only reason that the Democrats are still viable at the Presidential level is the size of those States which are solidly theirs.

Something is happening that the Democrats have moved away from being the party of the 'general American' to the party of the 'American who lives in a population center'. They have invested more heavily in policies which appeal to the high-concentration folks who vote for them in numbers, and while you can argue that their positions on gun control, or trans-gender bathrooms, or abortion, or whatever are actually the correct ones, that doesn't help much when it doesn't match with the folks casting votes. They simply are not representing general America very much.

There are those who believe that the Democrats should move further left, be more liberal with their economic and social policies. Given what's happening at the State level, I'm not sure that's the correct move. Where the Electoral College isn't an issue, it seems quite evident to me that the Democrats as a party have moved out of touch with a very substantial part of the population that used to support them.

vetinari

I'm not sure if the Democrats themselves have much influence over this. Have their policies changed that much over the last decade?
The main thing that's changed is that they've picked up more hispanic voters while losing white voters. They've had a large majority of black voters for decades.

Some posters on here will claim that the white voters left over "identity politics'. It's more logical to reason they left as there is now too many non white people in the Democratic party. It's going to be hard to accurately describe US politics without talking about race. It's on track to end up with a super majority white party on one side and everyone else on the other.

MayoSalmon

listermint wrote:

Yeah social justice is bad.

Yeah the worst

listermint wrote:

And the second part for your post is just pure drivel. Get that on Facebook?

Drivel?! If only do a bit of homework there

Calhoun

vetinari wrote: »

I'm not sure if the Democrats themselves have much influence over this. Have their policies changed that much over the last decade?
The main thing that's changed is that they've picked up more hispanic voters while losing white voters. They've had a large majority of black voters for decades.

Some posters on here will claim that the white voters left over "identity politics'. It's more logical to reason they left as there is not too many non white people in the Democratic party. It's going to be hard to accurately describe US politics without talking about race. It's on track to end up with a super majority white party on one side and everyone else on the other.

Not sure what your trying to say with the first part of the second paragraph, is what you have described not identity politics ? Are you trying to say all the whites in America are racists and want a white only party?

Fr Tod Umptious

InTheTrees wrote: »

Us politics is very cyclical.

The party that doesn't hold the presidency always seems rudderless because they don't really have leaders. It's not like a parliamentary system where there is a defined leader of the opposition.

It was the same when the gop lost to Clinton, when the dnc lost to bush, when Obama won. When Hillary lost. Etc etc.

Omg the losers are in disarray everyone cries. But then the campaigning for the next election begins.

But that makes no sense

In Jan 2009 the Dems held both houses, now the GOP hold both, and during all that time Obama was president.

So what did they do to lose them ?

ancapailldorcha

Calhoun wrote: »

America got off lightly it could have gotten a bill like C16 in Canada.

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah please do

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Yeah the worst

Drivel?! If only do a bit of homework there

Raise the standard please.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Off course the PC identity politics that seem to infest the Democratic party along with the cozy collusion between them and the entrenched bureaucratic interests (such as the IRS who have done them numerous favours such as blocking conservative grass root orgs. - see book Undemocratic by Jay Sekulow) has also done them no favours with the general populace.

Says the guy who throws a verbose strop when faced with a campaign for equal access to publicly-funded schools. :rolleyes:

Hank Scorpio

Do people think the obsession with identity politics will help or hinder their cause? Racism exists but running for chair putting down white people doesn't seem like a great strategy, it only fuels tensions further.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

The jobs aren't gone the money is being reduced by wall streets constant yern for growth. How to get growth on profits? Grow the company or kill the wages.

Sure this new york billionaire and all his billionaire buddys will address that problem.



Don't ya know

Unfortunately, the jobs are gone - it's a result of high GDP in the US; certain historic areas of work are no longer economically viable to occur in the United States unless the government heavily subsidises them.

Some areas have not been able to (or have not been given the opportunity to) evolve to meet the changing landscape. IMO anyone who is selling the idea that the US can genuinely be competitive in the lower end wage work with China and India (etc.) either either a liar or an idiot.

Fr Tod Umptious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do people think the obsession with identity politics will help or hinder their cause? Racism exists but running for chair putting down white people doesn't seem like a great strategy, it only fuels tensions further.

I think that they have lost sight of the fact that the majority ethnic group in the US are whites and ignoring them or stereotyping whites as having "privilege" has resulted in many whites deserting them.

It was mentioned here way way back in the first 2016 election thread that had Romney won more of the white vote he would have won in 2012.

Across the whole country the Dems seem to be allinatiang the majority ethnic group for the sake of being seen as progressive.