'A huge catastrophe': Democrats grapple with congressional and state election losses

[brooklynite]

NBC News

In interviews with more than two dozen operatives and elected officials, Democrats said they are worried the 2020 results will hamstring the party and the progressive agenda, setting up a bleak next decade of uphill fights in which winning workable legislative majorities will be difficult at both the state and federal level.

Of special concern was the party's lackluster showing in state legislative races, not only because the GOP will once again have the upper-hand in drawing districts, but because it revealed a fundamental problem communicating the Democratic party's brand.

"We have to demonstrate that we are the party that's on the side of working families," said state Rep. Chris Turner, the Democratic leader in the state House in Texas.

In Washington, the plan for many Democrats was to capture the Senate and pass a lightning round of reforms, from voting rights to admitting new states to the union, that would help the party overcome structural limitations and set them up for not only sweeping policy wins, but further electoral gains down the line.

"2020 was the last best chance we had to have a real workable Senate majority. That's gone," said Sean McElwee, the founder of the left-wing think tank Data for Progress. "We have two more years where we can try to work within the structure and win these elections. And then I'm kind of at a loss."

[still_one]

1. The huge catastrophe is the what the madman in the WH is doing as a lame duck

[dem4decades]

2. The "defund the police" thing didn't help at all. Who ever thought that was a great slogan should

Just up.

[pat_k]

10. What "slogan" would you have? "Reboot the police"?

How do you capture the idea that policing needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up?

Reboot the police?

It is not the ideal example, but we need something akin to the "reboot" in Camden in jurisdictions across the nation. There is no other way the sort of reforms that are needed can get done.

[dem4decades]

15. How about Police the Police? Anything but defund.

I live in the suburbs, the police are generally respected, though some are bad cops, no one wants there to be no police.

Bad cops need to be policed, but people are generally happy they are there.

[pat_k]

30. Yes. "Defund" had a more nuanced goal behind it that wasn't captured.

The slogan "defund the police" completely failed to capture the more nuanced goal -- nuance you would only hear if you listened to interviews. Very poor messaging for sure.

The biggest barrier is the police unions and contracts that protect against disciplinary action and meaningful investigation.

The disbanding and reforming in Camden addressed some of these issues. Unfortunately, with pay cuts that went beyond getting rid of the obstructive parts of the contracts and rubbed pro-union (in general, not pro-police union) people the wrong way.

But they were only able to accomplish by building a coalition of "strange bedfellows."

My absolutely favorite part of the article I referenced is this:

Thomson says his highest priority was working to integrate officers into the fabric of the community.

“I don’t want you to write tickets, I don’t want you to lock anybody up. I’m dropping you off on this corner that has crime rates greater than that of Juárez, Mexico, and for the next 12 hours I don’t want you to make an arrest unless it’s for an extremely vile offense,” Thomson recalls telling his officers. “Don’t call us—we’re not coming back to get you until the end of your shift, so if you got to go to the bathroom, you need to make a friend out here. You want to get something to eat? You better find who the good cook is.”

This is the type of on the job training desperately needed.

I wish we had managed to get a competing message out advocating a comprehensive "ground up" approach, with more, not less, funding. But things were moving so fast with the protests, and leaders just came out against "defund" without building effective messaging making the case for a real "reboot" of some kind. (I wish I could come up with a better word, but so far haven’t.)

The problem is that all our efforts at reform have generally been extremely ineffective. Instead of, yet again, calling for "reform" I wish more leaders with a platform had gotten out there and pointed out the ineffectiveness of "reform" and called for a whole new approach akin to the Camden "model."

Failing a push in more jurisdictions for a “reboot,” we must at least address this problem.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement

I think would be tough for even those who have the most faith in the police to oppose aggressive efforts to purge racist, white supremacists, and far right militants.

[onetexan]

33. Reform the police, as Biden has said.

[pat_k]

46. As I note, "reforms" have been ineffective.

Barriers in existing police union contracts block the meaningful changes necessary

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14601901

[LanternWaste]

51. Are you arguing slogans or efficacy?

As each has at best, merely a tenuous connection to the other. However, upthread, you argued for sloganeering, and here, you're arguing for efficacy. "reforms" can be simply a better slogan than 'defund'.

As well, one reform need not be a cut-n-paste of another reform, so arguing reforms do not work is analogous to saying 'repairs do not work' after failing to successfully change the tire on a broken dishwasher.

[pat_k]

61. I'm arguing for messaging that captures desperately needed, effective, action.

Reform falls short.

Reboot isn't great.

Frankly, I don't have an answer on how best to convey the need to rebuild police forces that work for all communities from the ground up. Part of the message must convey the barriers to change within the current system. The problem must be defined before the solution -- a complete overhaul free of those barriers -- becomes obvious.

Unfortunately, on this, and on so many other meaningful changes, like universal health care, progress is blocked by immobilizing beliefs. Change requires a couple ingredients that too few of us have.

1. A belief that this is OUR government, and if we want something, we can make it happen.

2. A vision of what we can and should be grounded in moral principle and the aspirational values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. (Values we have allowed to be violated since those words were written. But, I do not believe that past is prolog. I think more of us can internalize the vision. And that’s the first step in the journey to ACTUALLY starting to build "a more perfect union." )

A vast majority believe political change is the responsibility of elected officials and "professionals." That is, “politics” is not for us "regular people." That sort of alienation from our own government sets things up for anger and resentment and apathy against this “alien” government thing that is failing us. It opens the door to the sort of demonization we are seeing. The truth, that WE are the real movers IF we choose, is the antidote.

It's not just about messaging on a specific topic. Whatever slogans we craft to capture a particular goal, the messages must also focus on building the foundation: a vision of what is possible and a belief in our power to acheive it.

[CrispyQ]

18. I would start with an ad campaign crafted around this tweet:

We need a marketing department, stat! What the hell is it going to take for the dems to take messaging seriously? We are 40 years behind the 8-ball on messaging & we sill don't take it seriously.

[pat_k]

34. Powerful indeed.

[Withywindle]

63. I wish I could rec this post

Police don't need more damn military gear to use against American citizens. Health care workers need more equipment to save lives, including their own. THAT is the message, and it's URGENT.

[CrispyQ]

20. That was a good article. Thanks for posting. -nt

[SoFlaBro]

84. "Repeal and Replace"

will allow us to co opt that narrative around a worthwhile goal.

Repeal and Replace Police Tactics

[pat_k]

85. That could work.

[Amishman]

13. Yup, the rioting this spring was very damaging I'm several ways

'Defund the Police' and general anti law enforcement messaging didn't find broad support.

Also the lack of clear distinction between the legitimate and peaceful BLM protests and the nighttime rioting and looting was very damaging. It allowed the two to be easily linked in the minds of voters.

[uponit7771]

16. There's no proof of this, poor polling in America doesn't help either

[cwydro]

26. It hurt us badly.

Stupid slogan.

[Mariana]

27. I don't know how the Democratic party can control the slogans that protesters use. nt.

[Ace Rothstein]

29. We get lumped in because Democratic mayors were seen as doing little or nothing to stop riots.

[pat_k]

65. We can't. But we can do a FAR better job responding.

We can do a better job of capturing the short comings of "reform" and the need for serious "reboot" from the ground up.

It is not the ideal example, but we need something akin to the "reboot" in Camden in jurisdictions across the nation. There is no other way the sort of meaningful changes that are needed can get done.

We had no leaders with a platform making an effective case. The response was limited to things like "I'm opposed to 'defunding'" or "we just need reform" (when 'reform' is utterly inadequate and has failed over, and over, and over, and over again).

More up thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14601901

[Dem4Life1102]

36. What democrat came up with that slogan?

Which democrats ran on it?

[Drunken Irishman]

52. How many Democrats run as socialists?

It's absolutely absurd to say that because Democrats didn't actively run on the idea that the GOP wasn't successful in painting the entire party as those who support defunding the police.

[Dem4Life1102]

56. That's a messaging problem

The same is true of things like open borders. Democrats need to get better at answering these BS attacks. But anything else is just blaming the victim.

[Drunken Irishman]

58. The point is that the messaging of defund the police became a problem.

So, you just kind of answered your own question posed in your original post.

Despite no Democrats running on it, clearly the messaging worked and tied them to the movement. Just as calling Biden a socialist likely hurt him in Florida despite the fact Biden is NOT a socialist and rain openly stating he wasn't one.

[Dem4Life1102]

69. Right

but I refuse to blame Democrats for Republican lies.

[Drunken Irishman]

71. If it sticks, they need to readjust.

If there is a messaging problem, it's important the party figure it out. The Republicans lie. That's what they do. How can we be effective in countering those lies?

I Think Joe Biden did a good job because he did not attempt to play it down the middle. He was adamant he didn't support defunding the police. He won.

Other Democrats weren't so lucky.

[Dem4Life1102]

73. Here's a thought

Let’s hold the media accountable for parroting RW talking points.

[Drunken Irishman]

74. Sure but how do you do that?

Here's the bigger thought: fix what you can control.

You said it first: it's about messaging.

[Dem4Life1102]

76. Call them out for it

Pelosi did so with Wolf Blitzer several weeks back.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. I wish that was enough.

[pat_k]

68. Yes.

As another poster pointed out, we can't control the proposals or messaging that catches on with any constituency within the party.

Saying "they shouldn't have" – which is what many seem to be saying – is insulting and misguided. In my book, the problem is that leaders with a platform did (and are still doing) a terrible job of responding/reframing. The response was limited to things like "I'm opposed to 'defunding'" or "we just need reform" (when 'reform' is utterly inadequate and has failed over, and over, and over, and over again).

There IS a solution. I don't have a great slogan, but a more effective response was/is desperately needed. Something that captures "The system is too broken to fix. Recreate. Reboot. Policing must work for ALL communities." Just as implementing "reform" within the existing system is inadequate (police unions and contracts block anything meaningful), I think the goals of "defund" were also inadequate. (That is, MOVING funds from the existing system to finance programs we KNOW work is only a partial, sort of "stop gap" solution.)

It is not the ideal example, but we need something akin to the "reboot" in Camden in jurisdictions across the nation. I don't think there is another way the sort of meaningful changes that are needed can get done.

----------------------
P.S. Failing a push in more jurisdictions for a “reboot,” we must at least address this problem.

Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement

I think would be tough for even those who have the most faith in the police to oppose aggressive efforts to purge racist, white supremacists, and far right militants.

[Blue_true]

37. People who were running around pushing that phrase will likely do anything

to avoid owning up to their significant part in handicapping our party. They always do, it is always some other issue than their poorly thought out language.

[Turin_C3PO]

42. How are

we supposed to control the signs that protesters hold? It's not as if the Democratic Party were handing them out.

[Blue_true]

48. Good point. I simply don't like street protest for the very reason that they

allow poorly considered logic to take center stage. But, from my experience, people that are drawn to street protests aren’t the type to sit in discussion groups with people that are actually on their side and discuss the best way to message needed societal change. The fact is, we need police officers working in society, what we don’t need are police officers that are racists, hotheads, or people that gets pleasure out of hurting another person - so we focus on how to get the right people in police forces and how to insure that they don’t develop bad habits or hatreds.

[pat_k]

70. A related post of mine up thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214601293#post68

[AmericanCanuck]

57. +1

Now those people's inexperienced queen has repackaged "defund the police" into "budgetary restrictions" and is tweeting it

[Blue_true]

64. One of the truisms of life is that greater wisdom comes with more experience.

Occasionally we get people like Lauren Underwood or Abigail Spanberger that display wisdom beyond their experience, but those people are rare. Speaker Pelosi came to Washington DC as an insurgent, how to you get some of the new blood to sit with her and quietly discuss what tactics and language works versus tactics and language that set the Democratic Party and the country back.

Republicans have a easy task. They are against everything that is new, even when it is clear that society needs to move toward those new states of being. Democrats have a much tougher job, they must convince a majority swath of voters that our party not only understands how to get to those new states, but that we can do it without massively disrupting society. So, an insurgent Democrat that is speaking language that is discordant with our plans can do damage that force us to lose ground and fight to retrace.

[JHB]

38. You know what didn't help at all?

Pervasive conservative media giving that phrase a bullhorn, and a complete absence of an equivalent for the center-liberal-left spectrum that makes up the Democratic party.

Without funding our own media that can thump our own drums, and putting it where people can come across it normally (not seek it out), every fight is up a cliff.

So while you're complaining about some street-level activist whose slogan RWers pounced on, can you spare some of the same vehemence for wealthy liberals who can't be bothered to fund media.

[Caliman73]

41. The problem is, "what is our own media"?

Democrats run the spectrum from very left leaning people who understand and embrace the idea of "defunding the police" in order to actually fund social programs that can address the actual problems police are sent in to deal with; to people who believe the right wing narrative that people in our party wanted to just do away with all police and allow rioters to run free creating lawlessness.

What does, "our own media" look like when we can't even get to an understanding of where we stand? You see the comments here.

There is a more left leaning presence on YouTube with people like David Pakman (who some here dislike) to The Damage Report (an affiliate of TYT, who are also disliked here), to Beau of the Fifth Column, etc...

I said in another thread where a DU member was asking where our "Billionaires" were in establishing a left media, that it is more difficult to fund a left leaning media like right wingers fund theirs because the goal of right wingers is not to make money off of the media, but to take the loss that funding that media to gain more money from the legislation that their blind followers will push. They lose 100 million a year in their media investment, but gain 3 billion in tax cuts.

What do "our Billionaires" gain from sinking that 100 million into the left wing media? Higher taxes on themselves and the satisfaction of living in a better world? That is great, but as an investment strategy, not great.

I agree that we need to combat the pervasive right wing narratives, but I am not sure that relying on wealthy liberals is a feasible idea.

[Blue_true]

50. All the media in the world won't undue the damage that thoughtless idiots who run

to the streets with poorly thought out logic can do. We need to forcefully step forward and point out why the hotheads are wrong and what is the best way forward, instead of avoiding confrontation with them.

[Caliman73]

54. Please explain what you mean. What thoughtless idiots and poorly thought out logic?

Not sure what you are referring to.

[Lotusflower70]

44. Agreed 100%

A district in Northern Minnesota lost because of that crappy slogan. He had the seat for 30 years. That slogan was the nail in the coffin. If you have to explain a slogan it's a losing slogan. My first association was with defund planned parenthood. Defund the police implied lawlessness and putting people out of work. Reform is needed but they are not going to get rid of the police. That is unreasonable and unrealistic.

[kentuck]

3. Under the circumstances, I think they are in pretty good shape.

They have won the White House.

They have held on to the House of Representatives.

They have a chance to control the Senate if they win the Georgia run-off election.

It could be worse.

[MineralMan]

4. That's water under the bridge at this point.

I'm focusing on what a Biden administration will be able to accomplish.

In 2022, we get another chance at the down-ballot offices.

Right now, we need to focus on our success in 2020, I believe.

Look forward, not back.

[pat_k]

72. Not "water under the bridge."

Action is still required and "reform" of the existing system (with all the barriers to real change erected by police unions and contracts) is inadequate.

More up thread if you are interested.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214601293#post68

[MacKasey]

5. I think with covid, democrats were not going door to door

But the repubs were

Which will not be the case in 2022, plus we need the 50 state strategy and be on the offensive all the time

Can not let the republicans define us, they used defund the police against us even though we said we are not for that

We must control our message

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Salesmanship

They've just admitted a major problem.
They don't sell ideas well.
Stupid ideas, some dripping with malice, and others just unfulfillable promises, keep beating good ideas, with workable plans.
The whole selling responsibility needs a reboot. Literally, everybody must go.

[BeyondGeography]

9. But they never do

Do they?

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Apparently, Not

Which is why everybody connected to messaging & branding needs to go.
They're not good at it.
I think we'd agree that there should have been nothing controversial about the ACA. Other than some people seeing higher premiums, because the policy had to actually cover them, (a tiny fraction of insured people), everything else should have been seen as an excellent step forward.
But, it was mishandled, the Rs labeled it obamacare to the point where some people didn't know they were the same thing. "I like the ACA, but I don't like Obamacare."
Couldn't sell a good idea, that actually was already law.
Reboot.

[uponit7771]

32. +1

[Blue_true]

40. The problem is, how do we keep a US Representative, of a democratic City Council

member from thoughtless yelling stuff like “defund the police” or “socialism is everywhere”. Maybe such people should stop and think about how to transmit needed messages, but my guess is they won’t do that. So we get “defund the police” when we should get “reform policing so that it makes police officers and the public safer”. The goal with policing should be to not have police officers dealing with every problem, including many that they are poorly trained to resolve, and we need to reform police hiring so that brutes, haters and adrenaline jockeys don’t get hired.

[Caliman73]

47. How does "reforming" police address the core issues that make communities "unsafe"?

You say, "The goal with policing should be to not have police officers dealing with every problem, including many that they are poorly trained to resolve..."

So how to we handle that problem with a "reforming the police" framework? Reforming implies making improvements without altering the fundamental structure of the issue. If the goal of policing is to limit police, to handling things police should handle, what is it that we need to do? Give the police the same amount of money or more to not handle things they should not be handling? OR perhaps, give some of the billions of dollars that police get for more guns, up armored vehicles, jails, ballistic vests, etc... to building homes for homeless people, hiring more social workers and therapists, hiring more community organizers, investing some of those billions of dollars the police get into funding jobs for people maybe? What does that kind of sound like when you use some of those billions of dollars police get to do things they aren't trained for and aren't supposed to be doing and you give those formerly police dollars to proven and effective alternative services. I mean we certainly can think of a better term than "defund", but taking money out of the budget of one community service (policing) and putting into different programs (mentioned above) is shifting funds away from (defunding) a program and funding different ones.

[Blue_true]

55. We start by hiring more people that have social services experience and experience

dealing with people that have mental illness problems or drug addiction problems. We don’t have to shift funds from the police to do that, we can insure that many patrol vehicle have a person that is highly trained in the area of dealing with mentally ill people, suicidal people or drug addicted people. If that means going back to the days of two officers in some cars, we do that. We can make SWAT units more specialized, units like that should not be involved in crowd control like many are today, also, do we need a Sheriff SWAT, a City SWAT, and FBI SWAT, a DEA SWAT, a State Police SWAT overlapping the same geographical area? Those are the ideas that require analysis and then planning, hotheads running around shouting and holding signs on streets never put in that type of time, IMO.

[Caliman73]

82. You seem to be focused on "hotheads running around with signs..."

I think that is a major simplification of the BLM protests and the other organizations that were out there bringing attention to this continuing situation.

Much of the rioting and looting that was actually investigated, was being perpetrated by people outside of the communities that were affected and a good chunk of the problem was attributed to right wing people wanting to instigate more problems or paint the protest movements in a bad light. Each and every politician on our side denounced the violence and looting while maintaining the importance of the protests bringing the issue to light.

Many of those protesters, especially the more organized ones like BLM absolutely have ideas about how to address the situations in their communities. They actually know what is meant by "defund the police" even though, as I have said many many times here already, it is a piss poor slogan.

Also, no amount of "social services" experience is going to change the fundamental differences between what police are obligated to do by the nature of their job, and what social workers and therapists do by nature of their jobs. I work with police very often. When we show up on the scene we are looking at things VERY differently even though what we might want is similar. When I show up at your door, I am looking at risk mitigation, resources, safety planning, what are the systemic, individual, and societal influences that lead to my coming to your door. How can I help you to break cycles of violence, access needed medications, get services to alleviate poverty, etc... When a police shows up at your door, they are looking to see whether people are physically safe, and whether laws have been broken that they need to enforced. I know some very good cops who go out of their way to maybe bring someone a bag of groceries if the person doesn't have food, but that is NOT their job, and that is NOT taught at the academies they are trained at. Police, Sheriffs, FBI, etc... are there to enforce the law and maintain order. That is their job. They are a reaction force, whereas social services is about treatment and prevention. Treat the drug addict before they get to stealing and prostituting to support their habit. Get homeless people off the streets before they start loitering and become either victims of crime or perpetrators. Having 20 people in a squad car is not going to change the approach differences between LAW ENFORCEMENT and SOCIAL SERVICES. Unless there is another pot of money out there to give to Social Services separately, then it will likely have to come from law enforcement because at the city and county levels where this situation plays out, Law enforcement is BY FAR the largest budget item. They get Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions and in the case of big cities like Los Angeles and New York, billions of dollars in their annual budgets whereas social services get much less of that budget.

[Blue_true]

83. Reasonable points you made.

I continue to believe that is street action, it is the loudest voices that take over, not the most thoughtful thinkers. I have seen enough that my view on that isn’t going to change. If only 40% of people that take to the streets vote, their street action amounts to nothing more than pudding into the wind. Voting brings about change, the most successful events of street action was immediately followed up by voter registration and voting.

[pat_k]

75. It doesn't. Reboot akin to Camden needed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214601293#post68

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Message Training

I know we're not lockstep on this side, but there should be, but hasn't been, messaging training.
A simple example that popped into my head:
ACA wasn't MFA. The message was "It's not MFA, but it's better than nothing."
Without damping enthusiasm for the more aggressive approach, why not, "The ACA is a great improvement, that hopefully is out first step toward Medicare for All."
Doesn't seem it should take a marketing genius to sustain a positive message about one's own party's achievements.

[Blue_true]

62. I don't want people alerting on me for singling out a person.

So those people need to consider the entirety of my point. Fresh blooded politicians like AOC or Omar reach office because they take on the “establishment”. They succeed because the person that held the office forgot Tip ONeill’s basics for a politician “all politics is local”. If a person is so enraptured by the trappings of Washington DC and don’t spend the sweat work at home, they get upset by people that have caused that voters can relate to, but who have not put much thought into how to message their causes to a broader audience that the voters that elect them. So those people come to Washington DC with language that endangers the election chances of their party colleagues that are in more difficult districts. There is simply no way early on to coordinate the language of the insurgents, they are convinced that the “system” is bad, so their basic instinct is to blow that system to hell, they are not going to easily listen to more experienced hands, people that have a broader view of the battlefield.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. I Get Your Point

I don't share your pessimism, however.

[bullimiami]

7. We need to grapple with gerrymandering and voter supression.

The rest will sort itself out.

[stopdiggin]

12. very true

And that message plays with large majorities. Lots of voters believe in fair elections (and representation). On the other hand -- you do both of these things at the state level -- which is why the recent election was -- a step back, and hugely disappointing.

[Caliman73]

53. Money needs to be out of politics as well. Right wing media also needs to be dealt with.

The money that goes into putting the conservative agenda into the public sphere, and the reliance of almost ALL politicians on money to win elected office, guarantees that 1. People will not hear the facts and truth and 2. That those with the most money will always have a greater influence on policy than the rest of us.

Ending gerrymandering is a political consideration that needs to be put on the ballot or considered by the legislatures (who benefited by gerrymandering). So, hoping that will "sort itself out" is a long shot, especially since the media and politicians can be used to convince many of us that the way things are, is "good enough". While Democrats typically benefit from more participation (since our policies actually help more people) the wealthiest among us, benefit from less participation and will continue to use their wealth to make many of us feel like nothing will change from their participation. It is said, that this election was the largest turnout in history, or maybe 2nd largest, but at least since the 1930's. What percentage of eligible voters came out? about 66%. That is still 34% (more than a third) of eligible voters who did not cast a ballot.

[pat_k]

77. Absolutely. (plus corrected link)

We need well funded, nationally coordinated, projects if we are to make progress against voter suppression and gerrymandering. Overarching projects with state-specific efforts.

I'm not sure about the rest sorting itself out. I think we face some other fundamental problems that desperately need attention too if we are to make progress on almost anything. Thoughts here.

[dameatball]

8. (Fire Chief): "Sorry maam. We saved your house but lost the curtains."

Not being a smart ass, it's just at this point I prefer that we got the biggest fire put out and we can redecorate later.

[EndlessWire]

31. I'm not a Dem.

I'm a nothing. But, I gotta say, I am so damned proud of this election victory. I agree with what you have said. It is a tremendous testament to We The People sticking together despite many problems.

The biggest mistake was Kentucky reelecting that slimeball McConnell. Kentucky, what were you thinking? He will be Biden's biggest obstacle, and not for the better. He's gonna get you NOTHING.

But, I agree with you. This Thanksgiving we can celebrate completely, despite Covid. We earned it.

[KentuckyWoman]

11. "progressive agenda" is total bullshit actually.

Why we ever let someone else put the brand on fighting for all the American people instead of only billionaires and mega corporations is beyond my understanding.

There's no "agenda" ...there is what is right for America. Period. At this point there are so many issues to be addressed that the Biden Admin and members of Congress and Senate will need to set the top priorities and go from there.

We let the bullies have the megaphone and set the tone....decades ago. The way back out, I'm not smart enough to say. But verbiage might be a good place to start.

[Klaralven]

21. Already the agenda is slipping towards "saving the world" instead of "what is right for America"

Already the narrative is trending towards saving the world from climate change rather than ensuring US economic recovery, distributing Covid vaccine globally rather than ensuring the epidemic is stopped as soon as possible in the US, and changing immigration policy to admit more refugees at the expense of US social programs and employment.

A little weltschmerz is a good thing - but too much, and the mid-terms won't go well.

[KentuckyWoman]

22. My idea may be wrong, but

it would seem that generally speaking, being a responsible partner in the world is also good for America.

[Klaralven]

25. That's OK, so long as it isn't being a sucker taken advantage of by other countries

That was a main line of attack by Trump and the populist wing of the Republican Party, and it was fairly successful.

[Moostache]

43. Can't fix stupid with more stupid

Take the pandemic ... Can't stop it in America first or alone. If people don't know that, they must be made to understand...if they refuse we ALL remain at risk.

Midterms and the least of humanity's problems for the 2020s and if we cannot make people see and understand it, them in reality its game over.

[Klaralven]

60. Covid could be stopped in the United States. China, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and Japan have done

What is required is a disciplined public health approach to identify, trace, test and isolate, along with disciplined mask wearing, sanitation, and social distancing.

Unless we want to admit that we're too dumb and disorganized to be anything but a second-rate country.

[Moostache]

66. Stopping spread is NOT stopping the virus

No travel, no trade is not same as eradicated virus...any way point is the world as people want to go back to is interdependent to a degree 'Muricans refuse to accept.

Doesn't matter...virus or climate or wars for resources, without cooperation the world is not going to return to 'normal'.

[Klaralven]

67. Trade, travel is back to normal within/between those countries

Trade doesn't actually require much travel. Most aspects of international trading can be done without travel.

Internal travel has resumed in those countries since the incidence of Covid is so low and other precautions are being taken to control it.

International travel is returning among countries that have been successful in controlling Covid.

[Turbineguy]

14. The republicans are better liars

that's all.

Who wants the truth anyway?

[uponit7771]

17. InOtherWords: "...please forget how horrific polling was so we can use it again in Jan 21"

[KPN]

23. While Trump and the GOP have focused all of

America on fraud, illegal votes and stealing in the Presidential race, we Dems are silent about the results in down ticket races except in terms of what we did wrong, what we screwed up or missed. ... There is clearly a vast gap between how we and the R’s operate. Have we validated the results of all those down ticket races that went awry, or are we simply accepting them? Just a question.

[moondust]

24. Seems suspicious.

Given the pervasive lockstep tribalism and toadyism on the right as well as the Republican history of voter suppression, I'm not sure I buy into the idea that so many Republican voters split their ticket and rejected Trump but supported all the other Republican candidates.

[DeminPennswoods]

28. This is a ridiculous premise

because whatever your personal feelings, Trump has a strong hold on his cultist followers and they came out in droves to vote for him and for Rs down ballot.

Further, you had "never Trumpers" vote for Biden, but vote R down ballot. Getting out the never Trumper Rs was always a double-edged sword because it would help elect Biden, but probability help down ballot Rs, too.

Dems shouldn't spend a lot of time overthinking the 2020 results. They were a unique circumstance because of Trump and his cultists.

[onetexan]

35. Agree. That headline is ridiculous. Catastrophe would have been if the Con won the election,

of course due to the massive rigging and voter suppression efforts.

[Mariana]

39. Cultist followers is right.

Trump had thousands of preachers in thousands of churches, and on TV and radio and online, explicitly telling their flocks that Trump was God's choice and they had to vote for him. This interference is a real problem that has to be dealt with.

[Yavin4]

59. Thank you for this post! The article overlooks massive demographic changes.

The overall U.S. electorate changes every cycle. Trump got crushed with younger voters. As they age, they won't have fond memories of the GOP.

Also, as you said, the GOP doesn't have another Trump. Hard to replace the cult leader.

[BainsBane]

45. I think the problem is getting Democrats to understand

that they need to vote all down the ballot, not just for President.

[pat_k]

80. The right-wing has long been VERY focused on. . .

. . . winning at the state level. When they run into roadblocks on the Federal level, they double down on the state level.

They've been hellbent on making it all but impossible for women to have an abortion wherever they can. They've focused efforts on putting Republican governors and secretary's of state in place (focus on SOS's is for obvious reasons -- voter suppression). Their efforts are not just state-by-state. They are coordinated at the national level.

Efforts by Democratic organizations on the state-level have been more piecemeal and ineffective. I'm not sure why. Perhaps we tend to focus too much on bringing about sweeping changes at the federal level and fail to attend to the inroads on the issues we can make at the state level.

At least we have made some comebacks on the number of governorships
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198486/number-of-governors-in-the-us-by-political-party-affiliation/

But the partisan composition of state legislatures over time is pretty grim.

State Legislatures

1978 to 1988
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_1978_1988.pdf

1990 to 2000
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_1990_2000.pdf

2002 to 2014
https://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_2002_2014.pdf

Today
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx

[krispos42]

81. You can't reach working-class people when they have chosen to slit their economic throats

Remember, they enthusiastically voted for people that destroyed unions and shifted our manufacturing overseas, as recently as three weeks ago.

They claim they're all unhappy about it and that's why they voted for Dolt45 but they refuse to link cause and effect.

Remember, they think that a strong middle class is something that comes from bootstraps and personal responsibility, not a combination of unionization, protective tariffs, dissolving and preventing monopolies, and high taxes on the rich.



And quite frankly when Democrats keep coming out strongly for fundamentally-flawed gun-control laws, well, that tarnishes the brand. Surprise surprise, Republicans know a lot about guns, and when a Democrat earnestly looks into the camera and says that the real problem is rifles that have pistol grips... that Democrat drops to zero credibility. It's just as bad as saying the Earth is flat.

You know that if a person comes up to you and says "hey, the Earth is flat", you know to dismiss them as disconnected from reality. Same thing with Democrats and their showpiece of gun laws, the assault weapon ban. "An AR-15 with a pistol grip is an assault weapon, but one with a traditional straight grip isn't" gets immediate dismissal as a sign of the speaker's ignorance.

And it's in the damn DNC party platform and has been for a couple of decades now.