One Thing Is Clear: Democrats can win elections without appealing to Republicans.

[qdouble]

Even after Trump did everything imaginable to show that he was unfit for the job and we ran Joe Biden, a person no honest person would consider as a radical leftists, republican support for Trump only dropped a few percentage points at best. Beyond that, most Republican policy positions that are not based on culture wars are so unpopular that they won't publicly acknowledge them.

I think the exit polls are off a bit when it comes to voting demographics... but out of the people who voted for Trump 71% said having a strong leader was the most important quality in a candidate..."cares about people like me": 49%..."good judgement": 27% and "can unite the country": 23%.

Let that sink in. Unity and good judgement are the most important things to Democrats, but are the least important to Republicans. The majority of them do not care about good governance, they just want endless culture wars and low taxes for rich people.

What we did see is that if Democrats simply energize the base and independents (real Independents, not the Republicans pretending to be independents), then Democrats can win.

Pushing popular policies like Medicare-for-All, switching to green energy to combat climate change, getting rid of student debt, increasing police accountability and things of that nature are good ideas.

We should stop trying to convince Republicans of obvious things like racism is bad or that getting sick shouldn't lead to bankruptcy, because they know but just don't care.

[My Pet Orangutan]

1. This round, Democrats simply did not have to energize the base,

the Trump administration did that for us.

Medicare for All? Our nominee ran on a promise not to bring in Medicare for All. That was what the big fight in the primaries was about. The best way to lose 2022 and 2024 is for the President to walk it back - "yeah, I did say that, but I've changed my mind".

"Read my lips. no new taxes" - Did wonders for GHWB.

[qdouble]

2. Passing something that's widely popular is not political suicide

Are you forgetting that Trump routinely broke his promises but didn’t lose an ounce of support?

You don’t have to push the brand name or the exact MC4A plan but pushing something that accomplishes a similar goal would be widely popular.

Not pushing popular policies because Republicans might attack doesn’t make any sense because the Republican party’s entire political strategy is based on lies and obstruction.

[JI7]

3. No, we don't have the Senate.

[qdouble]

4. The Senate race is not over

The GA Senate seats are still up for grabs.

Also, I’m not saying that every policy position needs to be accomplished before 2022/2024...but running away from popular policies doesn’t make sense.

It’s the Republican platform that is unpopular, not the Democratic platform. To be in a constant state of playing defense instead of offense just creates an enthusiasm gap.

[JI7]

5. Each state is different . There are states where candidates will have to appeal to Republicans like

in Georgia to win .

[qdouble]

7. The data doesn't suggest that.

While there was some minor cross over vote, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that Democrats can’t win Georgia by increasing voter turnout and appealing to independents.

Spending a ton of time trying to get 2 or 3% of Republicans to switch is not the only viable strategy and is probably the worst strategy...because it just pushes the party further and further away from what it really wants to do.

[JI7]

9. Independents are likely to vote for Republicans also like in Georgia . It's silly to say in fucking

georgia that one doesn't need to appeal to Republicans.

[qdouble]

10. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans

The main reason why more Independents vote Republican than Democrat, is that there are many people who will always vote for Republicans but just stay Independent.

Saying that “it’s silly to say you don’t need to appeal to Republicans” is nonsense because your argument isn’t based on data. There are clearly enough people who don’t regularly vote that can swing elections to the Democrats side if motivated to go to the polls. Constantly running away from popular positions is not the way to increase enthusiasm.

[JI7]

12. If you have to depend on non voters to win than you will lose . Nobody is running away from popular

positions. But those positions can be different for each state and district .

[qdouble]

13. The amount of people that vote fluctuates

You can’t say appealing to non-voters means you lose when:

1) The overall amount of people that vote fluctuates between elections
2) The main way to increase voter turnout is to increase enthusiasm
3) More people show up when they either really like one candidate or really hate the other candidate

Appealing to Republicans by saying that you’re not going to vigorously pursue the main goals of the Democratic Party is running away from popular positions.

[JI7]

14. Again, what is popular can change depending on the state and district

[onenote]

15. Outreach to Republicans helps with right leaning Independents.

The public stance of mainstream Republicans such as Cindy McCain, Kasich, Powell, etc. helps counter the portrait that Trumpers tried to paint of the Biden-Harris ticket as being extreme.

Given the narrow margins of victory in key locations, suggesting we can get by without presenting ourselves as being open to bi-partisan solutions to problems is not a path to success.

[qdouble]

17. This isn't binary.

That you can win elections by appealing to Republicans and that you can win elections by increasing enthusiasm can both be true.

I’m arguing that we can win elections by perusing popular positions, getting high approval ratings and getting more people to go to the polls. I’m not saying that we can’t pick off a few Republican votes... I just disagree with that being the only or best strategy...especially when only a very small amount of people who regularly vote for Republicans ever switch to voting for Democrats.

(Fixed typos)

[AkFemDem]

6. The exit polls are not accurate this time

Even Nate Silver cautioned reading much into them, because they went to in person voters who skewed heavily pro-Trump.

[qdouble]

8. I said in my initial post that the exit polls are not accurate in terms of overall demographics.

However, looking at what Trump voters specifically think is important is pretty clear even if it’s off as much as 10 or 20 percent.

[modrepub]

11. In PA

Preliminary votes indicate that in most of the rural Republican counties more people voted in 2020 than 2016. That happened even though most of these counties have declining populations so they had a higher voter participation rate than the large urban areas of Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. Like it or not, Trump connected with these people and motivated them to go out and vote in larger numbers than they did in 2016 even during a pandemic. This gave Republicans several state-wide offices this election cycle that they had been losing over the last decade (and bodes well for them to hold the Senate seat that is up for 2022 and pick up future state judge positions since PA elects those).

I worry that Democratic voter's enthusiasm will wane sooner than Republican voter enthusiasm in Pennsylvania. Even with a Democratic registration advantage, Pennsylvania can and does elect Republicans to state-wide offices and they control the Legislature (and have structural advantages to keep it). If the economy truly falters then Democratic voters in this state will stay home and Republicans are going to continue to hold power in Pennsylvania if not increase it.

Pennsylvania economic tax base, like much of this country, if powered by the suburban areas in SE PA (and to some extent Pittsburgh). I'd guess counties south and east of I-81/I-78 provide the bulk of the Comonwealth's tax revenue. This revenue is probably diverted to support the rest of the state since the tax base in the bulk of the rural areas is probably not enough to support its roads and public infrastructure. A classic example of this is how the state diverts tolls from the PA turnpike to other state road projects; the bulk of PA turnpike tolls probably come from the Philadelphia area. This funneling of tax revenue from Democratic leaning areas to Republican areas needs to be halted. I don't care if Republicans control the state as long as the tax revenues are kept more local. Don't complain about socialism if your area takes more than it contributes. Live by your principles and let others live by theirs.

[qdouble]

16. You hit the nail on the head

Trump was able to get over 70 million votes while having over a 50% disapproval rating because of enthusiasm.

When Trump is gone, if Democrats aren’t doing enough to motivate the base or independents that are open to good policy, the Republicans can easily regain ground in 2022/2024. I think if we come into this thinking we can just rest on having defeated Trump, turnout will start to decline fast.

[modrepub]

26. In A True Democracy

both parties will exchange control at the federal and state level. Local level is a different story since voters self segregate and reenforce their opinions (right or wrong). At some point the Republicans, forgetter or worse, will control the federal levels and most states. It's a cycle and how true democracies work.

What I don't approve of is how tax revenues are distributed such that a lot of Republican areas brag about how much they can pull from the Federal system then say urban areas (controlled by Democrats) are takers. This distorts how local tax revenues have to be generated. Are urban/suburban local taxes "so high" because they waste money on public services that they want or is it because they get so little return out of their state and federal allotments? To top it off, Republicans routinely bash these areas for "tax and spend" when the probable reason is they've filtered taxes away at the state and federal level and local taxes have to make up for the deficit.

Democrats need to make this point and put infrastructure "buy ins" in place to prevent shifting too much tax revenue to places that don't want to pay for anything. You want fast speed internet in the rural area? Well put up 50% of the money and figure out a way to maintain it using their own resources. Want a brand new interstate (I-99) through your backwoods just so you can get to a Penn State football game six times a year? Same deal, put up 50% of the money and figure out how to maintain it. It would be interesting to take the military budget and divide it up evenly and send the bill out to everyone.

[qdouble]

27. Yeah...

I mean ultimately, we should be Democrats because of policy and not for the sole purpose of trying to win elections (although winning elections is important of course).

Republicans routinely make arguments in bad faith, so just trying to play defense is problematic when they often intentionally distort reality. If we’re focusing more on pushing through policies that make people’s lives better then that’s going to pay more dividends than only looking to counter bad faith arguments.

[modrepub]

32. You'll Never Convince People In Rural Republican Areas

that you helped them. Sorry. They are beyond reach at this point. I've seen too many articles where farmers tout how Trump helped them when his trade policies with China are the reason farm commodity prices have collapsed. They can't (and won't) put 1 and 1 together. It's safer in my opinion to create back-stops against Republican tax transfers via "buy ins" than trying to help those that don't want it (or have some psychological predisposition to hate you without ever meeting you).

You are a bigger person than me for still insisting that we help them. I don't think they'll listen. A lot of them are too consumed with hate to be able to see or understand what's going on big picture. All they see is their young folks leaving their communities for better opportunities elsewhere or worse being stuck in low end service jobs and hooked on opiates. Every year they get older, more of their neighbors leave or pass away. It's depressing when you think about it but you can't help those that don't want it or can't figure it out. Peace.

[Demsrule86]

20. This isn't about logic and truth...there are certain things we can't say...'Defund the police is

one. Social Democrat is another. We win elections in the middle clearly. And honestly we always have. But we will get a $15 minimum wage, an improved ACA (if we take the Senate this year or in 22), judges, climate change, green jobs, justice reform and this is just fine with me. We may not get the most progressive version of our plans passed, but we will move forward. Consider that it was the imperfect ACA that convinced America healthcare is a right. I believe in getting what is possible. We must always remember that you must win elections to get any policy.

Progressives in blue states can and should pursue a more left leaning policy...they can go further and make progressive policy more acceptable in other places. We must employ a have a 50 state strategy. and try to win everywhere. The more we win, the more of our policies will become law.

[qdouble]

22. I said we should pursue "popular positions"

Defunding the police isn’t a popular position, so it shouldn’t be pursued. My argument isn’t about doing every single thing that people furthest to the left of the party want to do.

As far as the ACA...saying what they were able to pass, was the only bill that could have been passed seems baseless.

There are multiple strategies that can win elections. Making everything a choice between only two options just oversimplifies reality.

[modrepub]

28. Too Many Structural Disadvantages

The EC and Senate are perfect examples of structural impediments put in place to the general detriment of Democrats. Democrats have won the Presidential popular votes every time but once since 1996 but have only had 2 that held the Presidential office. Senate is the same. California has 2 representatives in the Senate but more population than probably a half a dozen Republican states. The system isn't set up to let the side with the most votes control the government (checks and balances).

Republicans have used this advantage, in my opinion, to divert Federal and State tax revenues to their areas. If we can't consistently win based on popular votes, then we should put "buy in" backstops to prevent tax revenue being diverted from suburban and urban areas to rural areas. You want rural high speed internet, then put up 50% of the money and figure out how to maintain it with your own resources. That way they can have control but not use it to pilfer our tax revenue (like how they used tariff moneys to help red state/county farmers).

[shrike3]

29. It's unfortunate, but you're right. "Socialist" is still a powerful word. If I had a dollar for

every Repub who told me Joe Biden (Joe Biden!) was going to turn us into a socialist hellhole I'd be able to replace my car with a new one and go ahead with every home improvement I can think of. Most Americans don't even know what socialism is, yet the word scares them.

[Demsrule86]

18. We won Republicans and moderate Democrats as well as some on the left who voted for

Stein last time. We absolutely need a big tent party. This is how we win. We need a 50 state strategy. I would make Stacey Abrams the new DNC chairman. She is amazing.

[qdouble]

19. Trump has over a 50% disapproval rating

Yet the margin of victory in battleground states was razor thin. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy about the win and I’m definitely not saying that the strategy they used was bad. Nor am I saying that we should be antagonistic.

My core argument is that there is more room for growing the base if you increase enthusiasm instead of focusing heavy on trying to bring over Republicans. The main reason why moderate Republicans abandoned Trump was because of Trump’s behavior.

Are we forgetting that it appears that a lot of the protest Trump voters still appeared to vote for the Republican candidate in the Senate or House?

If the Republicans run someone that people don’t hate and Democrats aren’t doing enough to increase enthusiasm, then that’s just problematic.

[Demsrule86]

21. Growing the base will not help us win nationally. We must win in moderate states. That is just a

fact. The base should be grown in left leaning states in order to show how progressive policy benefits everyone. But in order to win, we must have a 50 state strategy for presidential elections...and a statewide strategy for Senators. Also we need to win more state elections. We can lose elections if the some on the left abandon the party, but we won't win such elections. Thus we must all work together in a big tent to win. This is how our party always won.

[qdouble]

24. False dichotomy.

You’re trying to boil down political strategies that are multi-faceted and complex into just being a choice between two precise options even though there are several possible ways to run a campaign.

If candidate A beat C, it doesn’t mean candidate B can’t also beat C.

Saying that since A beat C, B can’t beat C isn’t logically sound.

[judeling]

23. The initial cut of the data argues the opposite

Our percentage of vote in the core (most democratic) cities declined. The increased turnout overwhelmed that, but it will play in the future.
We still need to secure the 2018 gains.

[qdouble]

25. The percentages did not decline

Judging by the initial cut of the data means you are judging the percentages before the mail-in votes were counted. Democratic support did not drop in democratic areas for the most part.

[judeling]

30. Precinct data is not available yet.

but in Wayne county (Detroit) for example Trump gained a full point. Will have to look after results come in. but I think we are likely to find that the gains we made will be much more outside of the city.

(data as of today)

[qdouble]

33. In comparison to 2016...

Joe Biden maintained or had a higher margin of the votes in counties that Hillary Clinton won as far as the data that is shown on NY Times. There may be some anomalies here and there, but the election came down to blue areas getting bluer or staying about the same.

[judeling]

36. I think we have to wait for a full analysis

But what seems to have happened is that the suburban shift is what carried this. Look at Erie in PA.

I am not going to make any firm statements yet. But I see some possible warning signs as well as some huge potential possibilities.

But we have to fight right now not to let our bias direct our thinking.

[qdouble]

40. I think some of you guys think that I'm mad at that strategy that was chosen, but I'm not

I'm happy with the results. My post is more so about what we need to be considering going forward.

To the extent that well known Republicans abandoned Trump, it was because of Trump being a horrible person and brazenly corrupt. However, there is no indication that these republicans had any issue with the polices republicans pushed through in the Senate or the judges that were put in the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, many within the group of republicans that voted for Biden must have then voted for a republican Senator or congressman.

So that poses the obvious question... what happens when Trump is no longer on the ticket? The answer is, most of them will likely vote for the republican party again.

So if these republicans that voted for a democrat the first time in their lives go back to voting for republicans and then the democrats do nothing to energize the base, what do you think the result might be?

[ooky]

31. The most interesting response in the exit poll you cited:

I think the exit polls are off a bit when it comes to voting demographics... but out of the people who voted for Trump 71% said having a strong leader was the most important quality in a candidate..."

I know this is a bit of straying from the central points of your OP, but I am astounded that this much of our country was fooled into believing that he was a "strong leader". Wow.

[qdouble]

34. Right wing media propaganda is a hell of a drug.

In the Trump-verse...they don't give Obama any credit for Trump inheriting a good economy and they don't blame him for his disastrous response to COVID. When you have a president that lies all the time and an echo chamber that promotes his lies, you start living in a totally different reality.

That's why I think it's not optimal for Democrats to base their political strategy around appealing to Republicans, when the Republican Party's primary strategy is lying, distortion and culture wars. The Republican Party's real positions of taking away pre-existing conditions coverage, destroying Medicare and Social Security, and basically just serving corporations instead of the American people are unpopular, so they drag us into having to defend nonsense while we try to explain what our position really is... all the while they have no intention of acknowledging that they are lying.

[ooky]

39. We see this all the time when we listen in to Fox News or Limbaugh

and other such propaganda spreading outlets on the right. And, we hear it in the comments of RW people. But this kind of metric brings it home, how serious and widespread the lies have become.
Truth matters. This exit poll is very significant and suggests to me that we need to be doing some serious thinking about an effective long term strategy to re-educate our public, that we just aren't doing nearly enough to push back on the propaganda. I don't know that it's realistic to believe that we are going to be able to keep turning out voters in the numbers we needed in order to win this election.

[uponit7771]

35. +1, cause smart people are strong to normal people dumb loud bullies are "strong" to others cause

... at least they know what to expect out of them

[qdouble]

41. There's definitely a lot of conditioning going on

The republican strategy is heavy on symbolism and propaganda and light on actual policy. That's why the RNC didn't even put out a new platform at their convention.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

37. "Strong Leader" is code for "Will quell protests in cities."

Pushing popular policies like Medicare-for-All, switching to green energy to combat climate change, getting rid of student debt, increasing police accountability and things of that nature are good ideas.

Are those popular policies? We lost ground in the House. A Senate we should have taken is still likely remaining in the hands of Mitch McConnell. In Nebraska, the overwhelming ballot winner - the three measures to legalize casino gambling at horse tracks, and ending payday lending. Even the measure to take slavery out of the state constitution got close to 40% "no" vote.

M4A is a good idea, but is easy to advertise against - " (Dem Candidate) wants to make it impossible for you to see your doctor by taking away your employer-provided medical insurance and replacing it with a government scheme." In short - Dems like to use government to solve problems - Republicans have based their entire pitch on distrust of government.

I'll tell you what I'd have done differently. I'd have had every Dem come out shouting at the top of their lungs that a Biden administration would fully support legal weed and that the taxes from legal weed would go toward healthcare.

[qdouble]

43. The candidates that lost those races weren't pushing medicare for all though

and neither was Joe Biden, so how could you blame any of those policies on their loss? Red States got redder because that was what happened nationwide... not because we had candidates that were too liberal.

Republicans are always going to create attack ads. They are always going to accuse the democrats of trying to turn the USA into Cuba... because their campaign tactics are fundamentally dishonest. The moderate candidates that ran in red states lost because those are red states. If we have to nearly turn into republicans to win in a certain area, then what's the point?

I'm happy with the results... I'm just talking about what we need to consider going forward.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

46. In NE-2, which went for Biden - Kara Eastman campaigned hard on M4A

She was demonized as a socialist and lost by about 5 points - which was pretty close for a Dem in this area. Other things factored in - protests in Omaha, for example. But contrast Eastman with Cindy Axne across the river in Iowa, who (for the 2nd time) beat David Young in a state that went for Trump and re-elected Joni Ernst by 7 points. Axne campaigned heavily on "work with both parties" and "health care for all Iowa families." She didn't emphasize M4A.

This was Eastman's second bite at that apple. I'm fine if she wants to run for other offices, but it's time to give someone else a shot at Don Bacon.

Good news: Over half of America wanted Joe Biden. Bad news: Dems failed to energize people to vote for us down-ballot, the way we did in '08. I think that;'s a complicated mix of issues: Americans are pandemic-weary, and are more terrified (economically) of another shut-down; they are more sympathetic to BLM, but middle-America doesn't like the protests (there are local variants on that issue that get more complex); many Americans accept that we need police reform, but the messaging of "defund the police" was awful and (frankly) played into Republican hands.

[qdouble]

48. Kara Eastman was never elected before.

Saying the only reason the incumbent won was because she supported M4A doesn't make much sense to me. You have an extra Libertarian candidate that took 3% of the votes that wasn't there the previous election and you have the national trend of red areas getting redder.

Regardless, M4A isn't really the main focus of my general argument. What I'm saying is:

If the popularity of policy X is high, we should pursue X.

Now if you think X is not really that popular, then we can sideline it for something else because policy X doesn't pass the test.

The tricky situation we're in going forward is trying to walk a tight-rope with republicans when their campaigns are mostly straight distortions. For example, very few democratic politicians ever publicly supported the "defund the police" movement... but the GOP ties anything BLM does to being part of the Democratic Party.

Constantly playing defense when the opponent doesn't care about the truth of the argument is not going to energize the base. What are we going to do if we're not facing someone vile like Donald Trump next time? The Republican Party surrogates sat there with a straight face telling everyone that the nightmare we've experienced in 2020 was Joe Biden's fault... they're not operating under any sense of having to acknowledge reality.

[grantcart]

38. You obviously live in a deep blue area

In Arizona both Sinema and Kelly appealed to independents and Republicans. Their ads specifically stated that while they are running as Democrats they have Republican friends, think independently and are happy to negotiate with Republicans.

We barely won (and still might lose) the state with the family of one previous Senator and the actual Retired Republican Senator endorsing our team.

You cannot win states like Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina without winning Independents and peeling off Republicans, especially suburban women

[qdouble]

42. You're misinterpreting my argument.

I'm not talking about being antagonistic or scorning bipartisanship or going far left... I'm saying that we shouldn't run away from popular positions when the Republicans are running us away from those positions with bad faith arguments and propaganda.

I understand that a person in a purple state may be in a different political climate than a person in a deep blue state, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[grantcart]

44. Didn't bother to read it because the title says it all.

To win in purple areas we have to openly appeal to Republicans, not to win a lot of Republicans but to win a lot of Independents.

But a lot of DUers will agree that we don't have to appeal to Republicans, just not a lot of DUers that live in red states.

We won this election by openly appealing to Republicans. We had Republican politicians at our convention.

[qdouble]

45. If you didn't read the post then you're not going to understand the context of my statement

Nowhere did I suggest that we become antagonistic towards Republicans or scorn bipartisanship... I'm specifically saying that we should prioritize promoting policies that have wide support among voters.

Secondly, those Republicans at our convention were mostly there because Trump is a horrible human being and they wanted to distance themselves from Trump. None of them gave any indication that they were crossing over because they wanted to help push forward the Democratic agenda.

[grantcart]

49. Didn't read your body because the title is obnoxious and should be scorned on its fsce

It is a common sentiment held by AOC and other safe seat Democrats who have no grasp how Fucking hard Democrats fighting in red states fight with outstanding candidates to win against terrible Republican candidates.

In a few months Senator Kelly will make a high profile move to reach across the aisle and there will be dozens of threads about how disappointed they are. Senator elect Kelly faces re election in 24 months.

When you are a Democrat working in deep red areas you have to bite your tongue all day long and try and engage people and hope that the party nominates a moderate so that you can put in hundreds of hours so we can turn out two red Senators and get two blue Senators, which we have done.

I am fed up with Democrats from safe blue areas giving advice on how we can just ignore the other side and believe we can magically grow the party.

[qdouble]

50. Okay so...

You didn't read the body, but you want to spend time arguing against positions I'm not taking. Sounds productive.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

47. This

"I'll work with both parties" and "I'll stand up to my party" messaging works.