If the Democrats fail to re-take the House and Senate this year....

[Yavin4]

Last edited Fri May 11, 2018, 12:48 AM - Edit history (2)

then the entire Democratic leadership needs to hand in their retirement papers the very next day.

We can't keep blaming the media, the Republicans, corporate money, etc. for failure. The first step towards taking power is taking ownership and responsibility for failure. There's no excuse for failure in 2018. If the leadership cannot figure out a strategy for victory, then why are they there?

Sorry, gerrymandering is not a reason. If that's the issue, then figure out a strategy to defeat it. If you don't have an answer, then make way for someone that does.

--On Edit--

If anyone wants to see an example of the type of leadership that I am looking for from the Democrats, just watch Maxine Waters in the video in this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210601650

[lapfog_1]

1. Taking the Senate is still going to be hard

However the big "tax break" bill that they were going to run on (the success of it) doesn't appear to register with voters (surprise surprise surprise!!!)...

so they are back to Pelosi / Clinton / Warren bashing.

Remains to be seen if that will be enough to keep the Senate in their grimy little paws.

[Yavin4]

5. You want to know what's really hard?

Living under Trump without any congressional oversight. That's hard. Cannot put EVERYTHING on Mueller.

"so they are back to Pelosi / Clinton / Warren bashing"

This isn't personal. They may be great people, but are they what we need at this time?

[lapfog_1]

10. retake the House... no more Trump agenda...

probably gridlock in the Federal Government. Which isn't a bad thing.

I think we see EPA regulations turned into laws instead (to bypass Pruitt), and some other positive things.

Then we get everything, perhaps in a larger wave election, in 2020 (after all of the corruption of Trump is exposed).

Trump will have less popularity than Bush Jr.

[Demsrule86]

46. It is personal.

[Blue_Adept]

2. Gerrymandering's not an issue?

Sorry, how long have you been here?

If you write off one of the key reasons WHY it's an issue, then you've failed the party and yourself.

[Yavin4]

6. Then they need to figure out a way to defeat it. n/t

[Orangepeel]

20. National Democratic Redistricting Committee

https://ndrc.bsd.net/page/s/join-the-national-democratic-redistricting-committee?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs6O-1uP72gIVkoSzCh3QfgO2EAAYASAAEgL42PD_BwE

JOIN THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE

The most important turning point for the future of the Democratic Party will take place in 2021: when states redraw their Congressional and state legislative lines.

Chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee is building a targeted, state-by-state strategy that ensures Democrats can fight back and produce fairer maps in the 2021 redistricting process.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Just that easy huh?

[Blue_true]

58. Greenpartyvoter?

What does that mean relative to what we should stand for here?

[GreenPartyVoter]

61. Guess you are pretty new here, so here is my background: I was a Green when I started

coming here. Became a Dem so I could caucus for Bernie.

[Atman]

63. So you're not really a Dem on any level?

Or is it a six degrees of separation thing? Asking for a friend.

[Blue_true]

64. That is the issue that I tried to raise.

Some who have found their way here believe in NOTHING that we or this site stand for. So a person becomes a dem to cactus for Bernie, how about all the other things that we as dems are fighting for? They CLAIM that we are moving to the right when it has been ONLY us who have brought about progress for the last 40 years and counting. I am sick of that purity bullshit.

[GreenPartyVoter]

72. Is your friend being snarky, because if so, I don't want to waste my time

typing a serious answer.

[Atman]

91. When is it ever a waste of time to post a serious answer?

You're not a Democrat. You didn't vote for the Democratic candidate. Your support is with the Indi candidate who only used the Democratic Party in order to have a national party behind him. I'm not understanding why you are posting on a Democratic forum. Maybe there is a Bernie forum you can follow instead. They might be more sympathetic to your concerns.

[GreenPartyVoter]

92. I caucused for Bernie but voted for Hillary. I have been a DUer longer

than you have. If I was out of line for being here, EarlG or Skinner would have shown me to the door by now.

I have had a lot of respect for you the past decade and a half. Sorry it isn't reciprocated, but that's just how you feel. Do us both a favor and don't assume you know my thought processes or motivations. You could have said, "I'm not a Bernie fan, but I am so glad you are on board with us and helping in this fight for the survival of our nation, no matter how you got here." Or you could have said, "Welcome. We're a big tent with room for a lot of ideas and voices."

My point being that people here complain about purity tests, and then start applying them themselves. Irony aside, it's no way to build a party or a coalition. You have a right to defend your party. I defend mine, old and new, because I see them both as being valuable. But I also recognize that we need to all pull together to save this country. Do you?

[Atman]

93. I'll let you in on a little secret...

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I voted for Hillary in the general. I'm not talking about a purity test. Bernie is not a Democrat, and America will never, ever vote for an avowed Socialist, no matter with whom he caucuses. No matter what we concentrated Blue States feel. I'd bet that most America don't even know what "caucus" means.

I certainly agree that we all need to pull together. I just wish we'd pull together behind some winning ideas and winning candidates instead of chasing very old unicorns. I may be an ancient 59-year-old, but I'm ready for some new blood and fresh ideas. I'm not feeling it now, and Bernie sure as hell doesn't bring it.

Just my humble opinion. I do respect yours, and I'm sure we've more in common than we have differences.

[GreenPartyVoter]

94. I hear that. Much as I hate it, the "all politics is local" adage is true. We have to

run those folks who can win, and then do our best to get them to back progressive ideals as much as possible in DC.

Fwiw, I love Bernie, but I am also ready for some young folks to move up.

[GreenPartyVoter]

95. dupe. self-delete

[Demsrule86]

68. Right...such an easy task that...

[LanternWaste]

82. If something needs to be addressed and defeated, it is, by its very nature, an issue.

If something needs to be addressed and defeated, it is, by its very nature, an issue.

Your passion is denying you the ability to think critically on this thread. Your bumper-stickers and fortune-cookies are neither an analysis nor a review of concerns... they're simply visceral, knee-jerk reactions you;re throwing at the wall.

Try this again after the hysterics have passed.

[MichMan]

34. Not in the Senate

[crazycatlady]

39. Gerrymandering can be overcome if we work hard enough

See VA"s state house races 2017 and PA-18.

[Demsrule86]

45. They didn't get the legislature despite this big win...and thus no medicaid extension.

This shows the power of the gerrymander....not what you think it proves.

[Blue_true]

59. You really missed the news.

Retaking the Virginia house came down to 1 VOTE, 1 VOTE by 1 CITIZEN. Please don't try to minimize what happened. I bet there are democratic voters in that one house district (and a second one where the republican won by something like 90 votes) who wish the hell that they had shown up to vote instead of saying it didn't matter or putting it off until they ended up not getting to the polls. Republican voters show up to vote better than we do, if we don't fix that, fixing gerrymandering won't mean a fucking thing.

[Demsrule86]

69. We won by more than 10 points...without gerrymandering it would have been a walk

in the park...you miss the point. It shouldn't have come down to one seat...and if the same thing happened in the house we would still be shut out. We all need to get to the polls but realistic expectations are needed. Taking the house and the senate (which will be harder) is a tough slog. We have to overperform.

[Blue_true]

76. This is a hopeless loop argument.

I normally agree with you on a lot of stuff, but not how we need to solve this problem. The Courts won't solve it (except in Penn), we have to play by the rules that republicans rig, unfair, but that is the reality. So we vote, overperform if needed, win then change the rules so that every American get to vote. Wishing for some other outcome is futile, we need to beat republicans by using THEIR rules against them. It does matter when we lose by 1 vote because people on our side didn't bother to vote - that message need to be drummed loud and clear, mouthing anything else is a distraction.

[Demsrule86]

78. We do our best...but we have to realiz the odds...I think the house is doable...we don't need that

many seats...the Senate is still possible but even more difficult...the most important elections are at the state level...we have to take back governorships and legislature seats or we we will be screwed by the 2020 gerrymander. I notice that many not just you say well just fix gerrymandering...I would say that is very difficult. In 12 Obama won convincingly and we should have had the house back and we would have except for the gerrymander. Now there is a case before SCOTUS so I hope they will end the gerrymander...but who knows? The idea that we hold 'leaders' responsible while ignoring the true situation ....gerrymandering ....makes no sense is my point.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Agreed.

Thats how i felt about the last election but at this point we have no excuses. The right messaging in an environment like this is all that we need to win, and so far that doesnt seem to be something we have right now.

[Demsrule86]

44. That is completely false. we don't have to just win,

we have to win by huge margins due to the gerrymander...it is a difficult thing. Consider Virginia, we won by 10+ points and still didn't get the legislature due to the gerrymander. And the Senate favors the GOP ...we will be fortunate to win the house. it is not a done deal. As for the Senate,it would be a miracle.

[Tiggeroshii]

52. Huge margins should have been assumed in my post :)

[Demsrule86]

70. Sounds reasonable...but is it logical to assume huge margins in red states where we need to win?

[Tiggeroshii]

74. Common sense to me

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Bull

?itok=FA0aQsqs

[Yavin4]

8. If you want power, if you want to be a leader, the first step is taking ownership of

both success and failure. You cannot remain in power and push ownership of failure onto something else.

[lastlib]

24. (Repuglikans seem to do it....

...but then, that's why they're repuglikans........)

[Demsrule86]

79. Don't forget the give 150% meme...all talk...but how would you end the gerrymander?

[NCTraveler]

7. And if we do re-take them, we keep the exact same leadership!

Loving all of the preemptive strikes.

[Yavin4]

9. 100% fine with that.

You win. Leadership should get all the credit in the world.

[NCTraveler]

13. Let's work for the win.

If we aren't motivated now I don't know what will do it. Most progressive party platform in decades, winning solid elections, getting our message out, the train-wreck that is trump....

But the leadership.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. Why are these constant overt ATTACKS and BASHING of the Democratic party allowed?

[NCTraveler]

15. The shift to the left in the party platform pisses them off.

Just a guess.

Kidding of course. I'm not sure why we are seeing so many negative preemptive strikes.

[Demsrule86]

43. They think 16 meant..it is their time...but if we look at our revolution's results on Tuesday,

clearly it is not. If we run left, it will be McGovern all over again...field candidates that can win in their districts or states.

[Yavin4]

17. I'm not attacking the Democratic party. I'm questioning its Leadership.

We make politics personal. I don't have anything personal against any current leader. They may indeed be fine people, and they may be effective leaders in a different environment. If Clinton had won in 2016, I'm sure that things would be better off.

But we don't have the Obama environment to work in any more. That's gone. We're dealing in a very different, mean environment, and the people we have in leadership may not be up to the task. This November will show that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

21. Your comments remind me of nose holding, just cant trust her, etc.

Same results.

[Yavin4]

22. Quite the opposite actually. I'm holding ALL Democratic leaders responsible. nt

[Demsrule86]

41. Exactly right and such behavior will cause multiple losses...will some never learn?

[lastlib]

27. We're not attacking the party--we're calling it to ACTION!

Get. Out. The Damned. Vote!!
Get Quality candidates, and, ferf*cksakes, SUPPORT them!!
Come out with a message of Hope, Demonstrate the INTEGRITY that voters want, and a platform that serves PEOPLE, NOT billionaires and corporations!

[Demsrule86]

40. Sorry, it is an attack.

You all have a habit of demanding the impossible...the Senate is very tough and the house is still gerrymandered...and when you don't get it then off with their heads which leads to more losses and ultimatums and more off with their heads...and accomplishes nothing. Support the party and work to end the gerrymander and to educate the red states so we can get our Senator elected and denounce groups like our revolution who primary red state Democrats like Manchin...turn your 'weapons' on the GOP instead of your own party.

[lastlib]

54. Sorry, it's NOT an attack on the party.

No one is demanding anything except that we ALL get out and work our asses off to put Dems where repugs are now--to make the blue wave a historic tsunami. We are not calling for anyone's heads if we don't win every Senate seat up for grabs this year. But we want to make it as difficult as possible for repugs to win anything. We want to give Democrats every advantage possible in every campaign possible. No ideological purity--that's not only anti-democratic, it's anti-Democratic. Every state is different, every district is different. Do what it takes to elect the D that fits each one. Fight the good fight.

[Demsrule86]

42. And many saying this stuff (not you) were very unfair to Pres. Obama too.

Imagine if we had President Obama's back in 08...it would be a different world.

[Hoyt]

12. I'm tired of the excuses too. We lost in Nov because we didn't all vote. Senate is not a gerrymand-

ering issue. We beat ourselves in 2016.

Yes, the white wing racists proved to be a bigger bunch than we've experienced in the past, but we need to cram elections down their throat.

[Demsrule86]

38. Look at the states ...and consider there are more red states than blue states...it may not be

gerrymandered but it leans right.

[Hoyt]

51. There is only one way to change that -- VOTE.

[Demsrule86]

67. There are not enough Democratic votes in WVA to elect a truly progressive candidate ...not in

Missouri either...as well as other places. Unless we run (until this changes and we have won hearts and mindes) moderate candidates, we won't hold a majority much less the super majority needed to pass some of our proposals.

[Hoyt]

83. Then, Democrats need to elect moderates with a chance to win in primaries. Why vote in primaries

for someone with no chance in the general election?

[Demsrule86]

84. Agreed...whichis why I was furious with our revolution for primarying and possibly weakening Joe

Manchin who is the only Democrat in my opinion that stands a chance in the general.

[still_one]

14. It t wasn't gerrymandering, it was the self identified progressives who refused to vote for the

Democratic nominee.

In every swing state Hillary lost less than 1%, and Stein received 1%

I cannot express adequately the contempt I have for those folks

In addition, ever Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republicans, and most of those Democrats were liberals

Those self-identified progressives own trump, conned, and deceived a lot of folks with their bullshit false equivalency that there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats

Oh, and by the way gerrymandering was involved

It seems the OP has no idea what he or she is talking about

[ismnotwasm]

16. Most likely NOT going to take the Senate

The House is doable, but also very difficult. So what strategy do you wish to see? I live in Seattle, and one of our most liberal city council women is taking a lot of heat for.. not producing results..say, and I doubt she will get re-elected. On the other hand my Rep. Pramila Jayapal keeps a steady hand in, holds true to the core values that got her elected in the first place and I’m thinking she will.

Each is in a different situation. (One is actually not a Democrat, but a Socialist and she rejects the two party system. I voted for her, but we will see how this all plays out. She has to work smarter) which Democrats do you want to blame, and what specifically do you want them to do that they are not already doing?

[MariaCSR]

26. The senate convicts...we need to take the senate.

Thats paramount.

[madinmaryland]

30. If we won every senate race, we would still only have 57 seats.

We would be ten votes short of being able to convict tRump if he were to be impeached. Where would those ten come from. Turtleman?

[Demsrule86]

37. It is not mathematically possible.

[msongs]

18. the OP is an acceptable strategy - failed businesses frequently replace

top management who can't do the job well. not bashing at all.

[Yavin4]

19. Thank you for the support. n/t

[appalachiablue]

31. Yes and similar to the military, sports and more. The way it is.

[JI7]

49. This isn't a private business.

[appalachiablue]

25. In the OP part on blaming the media, GOP & corporate money

I was just about to add one you forgot--THE VOTERS-- but see it's been addressed, in the usual manner.
-------------
The MESSAGING has to get out better. With New Faces if that's what it takes for more effective strategies.

Many claim the MEDIA won't cover Dems. & issues, or invite them back if they focus on certain topics or offend mgmt.

We know the media relies on corporate advertising $$$ and profits. Money.

Because of this they will cover what attracts viewers/profits, even sensationalism as tawdry as that is to consider.

If a mud wrestling match among congress members/DNC is what it takes to get attention, at this point anything goes.

These are unprecedented, difficult times we're in.
--------------
PS: In the 2016 primary there was little to no coverage of Bernie Sanders, Until his donations reached a million or more.

Then doors opened, suddenly, for a while. It was like night and day. Because of $$.

[unblock]

28. can we hold off on the circular firing squad until someone actually yells "fire"?

really not helpful to point fingers and allocate blame for something that hasn't even happened yet, and may not at all.

chances are really good that if something bad does happens, any reasonable allocation of blame will depend on things that haven't happened yet, so best not to prejudge the situation.

hey, if i'm in a car accident on my way home from work, it will be the fault of the damn subaru that will run a red light 90 minutes from now!

[Yavin4]

29. I'm firing up not to the side. Leadership has to be held accountable.

I'm putting pressure on the LEADERSHIP, not Democratic voters, not the people, not the party. The LEADERSHIP. That's what they are there for. To fight for our values. To get over obstacles.

Without a win this fall, they need to be replaced. Period.

[unblock]

32. democrats fighting democrats is a circular firing squad

up, down, whatever, doesn't change that fact.

i won't prejudge the situation, though i will note that many of the challenges that we face in gaining a majority involve how some states conduct their election and how the media skews politics these days.

as a practical matter, minority leadership, particularly on the democratic side, rarely has much influence on electoral outcomes in terms of total seats in congress won or lost. the majority leadership and the president, regardless of party, have a lot more to do with that, along with things like the economy.

yes, there are things minority leadership can do, and sometimes the media even covers it when it's democrats (of course they always promote it when it's republicans). but i'd venture to say it's a small factor.

[Demsrule86]

36. Ah no...sorry, I don't agree at all. And the do not need to be replace Period!

[JI7]

47. Not the People ? The fucking people are the ones that decide through voting

Ther fact you dismiss voters as being responsible shows the problem with how you view politics .

[lark]

33. Think you are forgetting Russia.

Dems didn't lose the 2016 race, it was stolen thru partisan gerrymandering, fake ads, illegal voter purges, and tens of millions of dollars of Russian $$ and to ensure success Russia hacked the vote in key states. If Mueller doesn't get this highlighted soon, and nothing is done to stop it, the next election will be stolen as well. That's why drumpf is so optimistic, Putin has assured him that he will steal every election necessary for drumpf to stay in office and implement our country's destruction.

[Demsrule86]

35. Not true... we have a gerrymandered house...something people here seem to forget and the Senate

is very tough this year. We will be lucky not to lose conservadems. And it is not leadership's job to win elections...our leadership has been steller these last couple of years...in stopping Trump.

[kimbutgar]

48. Game over for this country if the rethugs keep both houses.

[Tatiana]

50. I certainly don't have confidence in Chuck Shumer.

Or any of the NY Senators, honestly. Shumer cares about himself -- a contrast to Pelosi, in my opinion. Pelosi actually does think about (and fight for) her constituents, as well as the less-fortunate residents of this country.

He has to go. He encouraged the junior Senator from NY to lead the charge against Franken (whose safe seat may be replaced by a Republican).

[Demsrule86]

80. I think Schumer has done very well.

Disparaging all New York Senators...why?

[Fresh_Start]

53. What are you personally doing to help re-take the House and Senate

it is not only the failure of the democratic leadership it is also the failure of people like us who moan on DU instead of being out there in the trenches fighting.

How many people have you personally persuaded to change their mind?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

56. This ..

[Yavin4]

60. Again, you are making this personal when it's not. That's our main problem.

This is about leadership. It's not about me, you, nor anyone else. Individual activism is great but without leadership from the top, it's futile.

[Fresh_Start]

65. The failure of leadership is that people like us aren't incited to take responsibillity

since that is the only way this battle is won

I volunteered for the 2016 election but I could have done more
I persuaded precisely two people to change their vote from Trump but maybe I could have done more

If you are waiting for leadership to make change happen, you will be waiting a long time

[Blue_true]

57. I agree on gerrymandering and voter suppression.

Both can quietly be beaten, too often on DU, I see them used as reasons why we fail at the polls. A bigger problem for us is people that allege they are on our side but can pass up a chance to talk down everything that we have accomplished while saying not one word about republicans.

I don't agree that leaders should resign, those I would be ok with new people, with the old leaders serving as mentors.

[Midwestern Democrat]

62. My own benchmark for what would be an acceptable performance in November

to justify the retention of the current Democratic leadership is less than taking control of the House and Senate. For the Senate - the map is very difficult - I don't really expect us to win the Senate this time; I'm not super impressed with Chuck Schumer, but as he just became Senate Minority Leader in 2017, I'm willing to give him more than one cycle before calling for his ouster.

For the House - well, frankly, I think changes in leadership should have been made long before now. For 2018, I want to see a substantial narrowing of the Republican majority in the House - at least a net gain of 10 seats. If we net gain fewer than 10 House seats in November and Pelosi sails through again to another term as Minority Leader, then that's the point where I just throw up my hands and say the hell with it.

[Demsrule86]

71. No one could have held the caucus together against Trump like Nancy... so no.

[Orsino]

66. If we can't take both houses this year, I think we never will.

Dems need to resist the siren song of easy money, clearly call out the GOP's corruption and lies, and just as clearly promise real leadership on concrete issues.

If we fail to win 2018 hard enough, there may not be any more chances.

[dawg]

75. The Senate is a heavy lift this year due to the skewed nature of the seats up for grabs.

It would be different if elections were being held for all 100 Senate seats, but that isn't the nature of the thing, and a substantial number of the seats that will be contested are seats that we already control.

The House is, obviously, another matter. If we don't win control of the House, the American people will have sent us a message that they are okay with Trump and his minions.

[NewJeffCT]

86. The Senate Map for Democrats is possibly the worst senate map ever for any party

I've heard several talking heads make that point - Senators have been elected for over 100 years now.

Republicans defending 8 seats (9 if McCain passes away) and Democrats 25, including 10 in Trump states.

In a normal year and with a normal president, Republicans could expect to pick up 5-10 seats with that sort of map.

[disillusioned73]

73. It is not looking good.. concerning

CNN poll: Democrats' 2018 advantage is nearly gone

[link:https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html|

[Demsrule86]

81. The poll is not good...it has been taken apart here before.

[vi5]

77. Nope....

Dem leadership can never fail. They can only be failed by know nothing plebs who simply don't see the brilliance of their political maneuvering.

Or something. I don't know.

I can't keep track of the spin and excuses any more as to why our failures are the fault of everyone BUT the people in charge of winning elections, spending money, approving ads, recruiting candidates, and.....well everything involved in politics.

[mvd]

85. Although this electorate should have been intelligent enough..

to know Trump is not normal and insanity, if the Repukes can fool them with lies, we can find a way to persuade them with truth. I feel a focus on how a progressive agenda can make their everyday lives better is a good start.

[appalachiablue]

90. The Dem. agenda to improve peoples lives MUST be messaged better & more.

Whatever it takes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

87. Let's hold off on making any grand pronouncements until AFTER the election

Mmmmm....kay?

[Yavin4]

88. If we don't set expectations and hold people accountable...

then where's the incentive for success?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

89. Getting rid of Trump/GOP should be plenty incentive, at least for us

and, hopefully, all of the people Trump/GOP has screwed over this past year and a half. However, there are so many different variables to account for, some within our control, some not. All I'm saying is that I think that it's a bit early for calling for heads to roll.

[Gothmog]

96. Maxine is great