eire4 wrote: » That is correct they played a big role in places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee and many other urban areas. What worries me is that the Corporate Democrats who control the party will now start demonizing them in their own form of purity test. Plus on top of that they will do little of any note to fundamentally reform the police in the US and thus lose a good portion of the black vote which was very energized in this election following on from the protests against police brutalities and murders throughout much of 2020.
listermint wrote: » Perhaps if the rest of the party particularly the whingers that are going on about the lost seats connected with their voters the same way ? Because they're doing something wrong entirely and blaming half your own party for your complete ineptitude isn't going to win 2024.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I don’t see it as demonising progressives but it’s clear one wing of the party is annoyed at the other because of the seats lost which I suppose is understandable between now and January given democrats who lost their seats will still be in Congress. If it goes on past January then it won’t be a good look. But anyway I said I wouldn’t be commenting on progressives specifically.
eire4 wrote: » Well we can chose whatever words we want but the corporate Democrats who are constantly pointing fingers at progressives about purity tests are basically doing the same themselves instead of looking in the mirror and accepting that while they have some legitimate grips with progressives they have to accept that they have contributed to the problem as well. But the corporate Democrats never seem willing to look in the mirror and accept any blame themselves.
Itssoeasy wrote: » Democrats as a whole need to do be willing to accept blame. 2022 isn’t that far away and the republicans have increased their seats this time around and will be looking to take back control of the house. The democrats need to focus and try and work as one party, albeit with different groups in it because if the republicans take back the house and if they keep the senate this time around then whatever agenda progressives or as you call them corporate democrats won’t be getting any of it through.
eire4 wrote: » The bigger issue with 2022 is that redistricting will happen next year and it will happen again with Republicans in control of most of it because they control most state legislatures across the US. But even more serious the Republicans now all but own the supreme court as a backstop to allow them to rule even as a minority party. The supreme court will no doubt start stripping away whats left of the voting rights act and will no doubt allow Republicans to go on a gerrymandering spree that will make 2010 look like a warm up. That IMHO is the Democrats biggest hurdle in terms of 2022 and retaining control of the house.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Intriguing, and I'm glad I held fire on my weekend-warrior quip, because from what you describe it really sounds like the National Guard is a lot more capable as a fighting force than most people might realize. I would almost be concerned given the kind of regional affiliation you describe, but I presume from what you say and don't say, that the NG has, like the Army, a bit of a Republican lean in its membership. In any case, I appreciate the insights; you're an utter wellspring of knowledge on the topic. You know if you had the time, you should get yourself a YT channel, do some videos on this kinda stuff.
They won all but 1 seat. They are better at reaching out to their base than any other group in the dem party.
Manic Moran wrote: » I have a YT channel, 173K subscribers thus far.
Manic Moran wrote: » Yes, but 'where' is the question? Look at "The Squad," for example. Not to put a disservice to the others, but still. Saying that they won re-election is hardly a high bar. Omar's seat has been Democrat since 1963. Pressley's since 1923. There hasn't been a Republican in Tlaib's seat since 1929. AOC's is far more recent, the 1980s, but it's about as safe as a house now regardless. The names you want to look at are the folks who flipped Republican seats to Democrat. Carolyn Bourdeaux, Kathy Manning, Deborah Ross. Did they do so because they were progressive and drew out their base, or did they do so because they were less so, and didn't turn off the voters in Georgia and North Carolina where they won their seats? Keeping the seats they have is good. Turning the seats they don't have is better.
TomOnBoard wrote: » Democrats really need to work on the fact that, despite having larger numbers of registered voters than Republicans in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Michigan, they control none of those legislatures. A massive voter drive, and associated voting education , such as was led by Stacy Abrams in Georgia, has to be a huge priority now. Re-districting and gerrymandering that have been the hallmarks of the last decade have got to be managed and voter suppression and disenfranchisement battled at every turn. In addition, HONEST internal examination of why Dems did not convert a Biden win into Senate and House improvements is needed. Blaming one wing of the party or the other will just alienate and frustrate. Was a considerable amount of Biden's vote attributable to Reps who could no longer hold their nose(s) and vote for Trump? Failure to understand why those of Cuban and Venezuelan heritage voted for Trump, along with many of Mexican heritage in more rural areas of Texas will hold them back next time as well, and many other times thereafter. The GOP messaging that frightened folks in those areas away from Democratic policies needs attention. Clear education as to what elements of Democratic Socialism and other hot-button issues are supported by the Party needs to be simply explained. Their messaging has been all over the place on these, which allowed the GOP spin doctors to spin the confusion against Dems, as spin doctors are paid to do.
BluePlanet wrote: » FL passed a ballot initiative for a $15 minimum wage. That's a Bernie Sanders policy, why wasn't it a Democratic Party one? FL went for Trump. What lessons can one draw from this? Biden was another low energy, unpopular candidate and i think he was toxic to down ballot Dems.
CrabRevolution wrote: » That's a strange term to describe the man who just won the US Presidential election.
dwayneshintzy wrote: » Given their record, why would you trust Project Veritas or anybody involved with them? They have a proven record of fraudulent claims.
Unfortunately, Biden’s campaign may have a lot to do with that. The central theme of Biden’s campaign and of the Democratic National Convention was that Donald Trump is a uniquely malignant figure, that many Republican legislators would be happy to be rid of him to work with Democrats, that Biden himself is uniquely situated to work across the aisle with the opposition, and that Democrats need to come together with Republicans to compromise to solve problems. Whether made out of conviction or political convenience, that message is explicitly tailored to give conservative-leaning voters permission to abandon Trump at the top of the ticket, but to keep voting for Republicans down the ballot. Which appears to be exactly what happened.
eire4 wrote: » Yes the progressives in the Democratic party did well retaining almost all their seats.
Quin_Dub wrote: » It's a little more nuanced than that though. Yes , the progressive candidates did do well , but there is no question that the existence of those progressive candidates damaged the more moderate candidates in Red States. Granted, it was driven largely by an irrational "red under the bed" style fear , but the impact was real. They need to do a better job of breaking down that fear among Moderate/Slightly right voters that they are not going to ban religion etc. etc. etc. Yes , obviously and objectively they are not , but the GOP have done frankly a brilliant job of smearing the entire Democratic party with this "Radical left" brush.
The Raging Bile Duct wrote: » And one that got the most votes of any presidential candidate ever.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Granted, it was driven largely by an irrational "red under the bed" style fear , but the impact was real.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » That's the type of issues that they should be focusing on but they won't as they are becoming the party of the rich. Then they are shocked that they are losing votes to the Republicans. They have no policy to benefit normal people. The traditional voters of the democrats are leaving them. Same as Labour in the UK, become the party of the middle class and you loose a lot of voters as you aren't addressing their concerns anymore.
Christy42 wrote: » They need to be able to show that democrat candidates are more right wing in places where they are more right wing.
BlitzKrieg wrote: » You'd almost want to actually have them be different parties state by state who just form into a coalition on the federal level.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Absolutely a topic for another thread , but there is no coincidence that the countries with the most polarisation and the more right-wing governments are those with a FPTP electoral system. You don't need to win a majority , you just need a plurality or you just suppress the vote such that a small % of the actual populace are enough to sneak you over the line. FPTP is fundamentally detrimental to actual participative Democracy.
Christy42 wrote: » For the Dem side one side of their big tent is being slandered due to the other. Moderate dems are being linked with the left of center extremists like AOC.
