Democrats must own their values, Tea Party-style, not shift even more toward the mushy middle

[workinclasszero]

Democrats must own their values, Tea Party-style, not shift even more toward the mushy middle
Polls suggest the public supports Democratic policies, and Hillary Clinton got more votes. So forget moderation!
BOB CESCA WEDNESDAY, DEC 7, 2016 06:58 AM CST

That said, Democrats have one task moving forward if they want to roll back the orange tide. The Democratic Party has to own its platform, once and for all, and sell its progressive economic message with much more gusto than we’ve seen so far. Even the Obama White House has failed to ballyhoo its own self-evident economic successes, not to mention its signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Party activists and leadership alike need to grow some spine and pitch their message in all 50 states, with a specific eye on winning back state legislatures and congressional seats. Given the relentless onslaught of propaganda and fake news, the only viable option now is to get louder. And quickly.

Along those lines, you might recall how the GOP went full Tea Party at the outset of the Obama administration. There wasn’t any serious consideration given to becoming more moderate. The lockstep mission was to thwart Obama and make him a one-term president. While the one-term thing didn’t quite work out, the Tea Party launched primary challenges against moderate Republicans at all levels — mainly incumbent congressional moderates — and ended up sweeping the midterms in 2010. That was fueled by the rough launch of the Affordable Care Act, but only after the GOP establishment fully embraced the Tea Party and used it as rocket fuel.

There’s absolutely a way for the Democrats to launch a parallel movement not unlike the Tea Party. That’s not to suggest that Democrats need to elevate an army of loonies or empty suits, as the GOP did. But the Tea Party owned its conservative values and never apologized. The Democrats can do the same thing, especially since they now understand that the Trump White House will provide a common enemy around which most factions of the left can gather.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/07/democrats-must-own-their-values-tea-party-style-not-shift-even-more-toward-the-mushy-middle/

[dembotoz]

1. K and r

[sfwriter]

2. yup

[ZoomBubba]

3. Moving left sounds good to ideologues ...

It's tempting, considering the amount of anger over the election, but the important question is "is it a winning strategy for Democrats?" Is it something pragmatic? The important thing is winning, not going down in another righteous defeat. Sometimes, retreat and de-empathization are just better strategies when it comes to the long term. If you don't win, you don't accomplish anything.

The contempt for moderates is self-defeating considering that moderates are the second-biggest self-described voting bloc in the U.S., just behind Conservatives and far ahead of liberals. Liberals alone just can't win elections outside a few geographic areas. The 2018 election is already a potential disaster for Democrats, entrenching ourselves further in liberal talking points isn't going to win the states that are up for grabs in the Senate, which are mostly in states that voted solidly Trump.

Remember, the goal is winning, not being right.

[MADem]

4. Welcome to DU--you make some fair points.

Particularly with regard to the moderate bloc.

However, as to the Senate, if Trump doesn't give the people of those states what they want, and instead, screws them over as it seems he is doing with his bait-and-switch Carrier "deal," then it may become very attractive to vote against incumbency. That article was postulating that Clinton would prevail in the election, and we're in a different situation entirely today.

[ZoomBubba]

5. That's true ...

... but I think there are a couple of things that need to be taken into account as well. Many of those districts saw their seated legislators outperform Trump. That's a concerning sign because it shows that they are able to separate themselves from him if necessity calls for it. I mean, the incumbent president does usually lose seats, especially if they're unpopular, but this election threw predictability out the window. It's difficult to tell if Clinton was a drag on the party or if Trump motivated a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise voted. It's also hard to tell that not having Obama on the ballot caused many minority and young voters to stop paying attention. Just so much that we'll never really know.

I can see two directions. Trump maintains his cult of personality and manages to pull off a lot of deals that can boost jobs and the economy for the short term ... say long enough to make it look like things are going good in 2018. That'll make things difficult.

On the other hand, he may wind up fighting with his party so much that the two do not communicated ... he could even go independent. If his voters perceive the GOP working against Trump ... his voters may not turn out. But then again, it's hard to tell whether they understand the importance of turning out in midterm elections anyway.

Plus, there are also unpredictable social factors like riots, which may have also played a larger role in Clinton's defeat that we realize, and terrorism.

I think the thing about the next four years is pretty much that it's going to be unpredictable, which many people will find unsettling.

[MADem]

7. Clinton's numbers keep going up, so that "underperformed Obama"

thing isn't holding water. She's one of the biggest popular vote winners in the history of the nation, ever--that's hardly a "drag" even if she was fighting sexism, fake news lies, and media poison every step of the way.

Here--read, it completely obviates that thesis:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/06/clinton_s_popular_vote_total_edges_closer_to_obama_s_in_2012.html


The "election hack" theory holds more water than the "Clinton was a bad candiate" shit that is being shopped by far-left fascists playing at being liberals.

[ZoomBubba]

8. Clinton did underperform ...

... in my opinion because she lost states that Democrats almost always win and lost other states that Obama had won just four years ago. Plus Trump also outperformed Romney in many other Democratic leaning states. I mean, we can nitpick about the popular vote because she won big there ... but she didn't win in the right places. A lot of it can probably be blamed on her campaign not even bothering to campaign in the upper-midwest and instead shifting a Quixotic focus on states like Texas and Arizona, which were not states she needed to win anyway.

Looking back, the 2016 campaign should be used as a lesson in trying to have your cake and eating it too. It's not saying she was a bad candidate, she just ran a bad campaign.

[MADem]

10. Did she actually LOSE those states, though?

It's looking more and more like something stinky went on with the count.

A few undervotes are one thing--when they're turning up by the tens of thousands, something is WRONG. No wonder Trump's legal humpers wanted to shut down these recounts.

And FL is looking bogus, too.

Say hello to President Putin--he "won" this election, I suspect...and in time, that's the truth we'll learn.

Assange's snarky comments make a lot more sense in hindsight.

[ZoomBubba]

13. I'm more inclined to accept ...

... that she did lose those states because no solid evidence has been produced otherwise. Without evidence, we just have belief, which is what religious people and conspiracy theorists rely on and can thus be turned against us in order to dismiss us. It's not saying that it didn't happen, but we just got to be careful to accept the results of the recount if no smoking gun is found. If we don't, then they can keep hammering the "look at the Democrats going from crybabies to crazies" attacks.

We just have to approach it as if he won, fair and square (with the help of a lot of fake news), going from there.

They also won the Senate and the House, thanks to a lot of those same Blue states that flipped for Trump. It seems like we should start looking at what went wrong there ... especially since several of those elections were supposed to be definite wins for us. Not having the two big GOP boogey people, Clinton and Obama, does provide an opportunity to start fresh in a way, though Democrats steal defeat from the jaws of victory like no one else.

[MADem]

24. You haven't noticed what's happening in Detroit? nt

[ZoomBubba]

25. I haven't been paying attention ...

... if there's an actual smoking gun, it'll pop up in my news alerts. Last I heard, there was some mismatch between votes received and votes counted and thus the count was halted or something like that.

[MADem]

30. I'd urge you to do some digging.

Also, check to see what's happening in FL.

There are problems with the integrity of the vote.

[ZoomBubba]

31. Again, there's no smoking guns ...

... just speculation. You need hard evidence to prove that there was both voter fraud and that it influenced the outcome of the election. Even if there is issues with the vote, it would have to be proven that there was enough of one to throw the vote. I just don't see it happening.

I do think that this is more of a distraction than it needs to be though. The shift of focus has allowed the Democrats to choose the same old leadership that has been losing since 2010 and for Trump and Republicans to undermine the markets and the government.

[pnwmom]

34. In Detroit, Michigan there appear to be discrepancies in the majority of vote counts

and they're acknowledging now that most of the machines were broken. And their state law says when there is a discrepancy they can't recount -- they are just supposed to use the original number.

What a racket.

https://mic.com/articles/161347/michigan-2016-recount-day-5-broken-machines-raise-questions-in-detroit-wayne-county#.EN5yvcY8c

[pnwmom]

33. It's not fair to compare her to Obama because the courts

dismantled the voting rights act in 2013 -- a year after Obama's second run.

In the meantime, millions of votes were lost to vote purging, new forms of voter ID, closing of polling stations, and cutbacks in voting hours.

Despite voter suppression at unprecedented levels, she has received more votes than Obama, according to the Cook Political Report and the National Archives.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016

It’s difficult to count uncast votes, but there were clearly thousands of them as a result of the voter-suppression measures. In 2014, according to a Wisconsin federal court, three hundred thousand registered voters in that state lacked the forms of identification that Republican legislators deemed necessary to cast their ballots. (The G.O.P. likes some forms of I.D. better than others. In Texas, a gun permit works; student identification does not.) In Milwaukee County, which has a large African-American population, sixty thousand fewer votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012. To put it another way, Clinton received forty-three thousand fewer votes in that county than Barack Obama did—a number that is nearly double Trump’s margin of victory in all of Wisconsin. The North Carolina Republican Party actually sent out a press release boasting about how its efforts drove down African-American turnout in this election.

Current vote totals (and still counting)

Hillary 65,519,461

DT 62,846,550

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174

2012 Vote totals

Obama 65,446,032

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012/popular-vote.html

[Hortensis]

38. Agree with most of your posts, but disagree. We now know

that we were vastly underestimating the strength and organization of the coalition determined to keep control in the hands of hard-right conservatives. Considering that over 2.5 million more people voted for H, and climbing, it's hard to make a case that she failed to generate support. It was strategy where we failed.

This is the third election we've lost big by being strongly outmaneuvered by occult, highly sophisticated, dirty-as-needed, and extremely well funded operations hiding in the background.

We have a grave disadvantage in being unwilling to blanket the nation with vicious lies and other fake news for decades or arrange for people and organizations like the director of the FBI, the AP for god's sake!, Anonymous, Wikileaks, etc. to betray our nation and sabotage our opponents. But it is one we will somehow have to learn to turn into an advantage. With the help of our enemies. Deceit and betrayal will only carry them so long.

But first we need to work on depowering fake news. We need to make people ashamed to admit to seeking out those sites and reporting what they say by informing ourselves. Knowledge is power. This includes not just Infowars and Breitbart, etc., but also CNN and other dirty media when appropriate. (Yes, CNN and the others have been spreading fake news.)

[Bettie]

6. Acting like Republicans isn't working for us

the "middle" these days was the far right not too long ago.

[ZoomBubba]

11. Who said we had to act like Republicans?

The "middle" are un-ideological people who worry about things that immediately impact them ... crime, family and work. They are necessary to winning, especially when it comes to the Senate, House and state governments, which are at the lowest point for Democrats ever. We lose because people don't like us and we've got to figure out how to make them like us. Sitting around and waiting for Demographic change is just going to allow the GOP to change their game plan accordingly. After all, if they can win 15 percent of the black vote and 35-40 percent of the hispanic vote ... we're pretty much done, no matter how demographics change.

[MADem]

14. Where are you getting those figures?

15 percent of the black vote?

40 percent of the hispanic vote?

I've not heard percentages like those, anywhere.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-polarization-analysis-idUSKBN13I10B

[ZoomBubba]

20. They are hypothetical ...

... looking at what could happen and how little the Republicans need to gain with them to win, given the white vote stays the same.

The reason I'm saying this is that Romney in 2012 was when they hit bottom with blacks and Hispanics. That means, by the same token, we've probably hit the ceiling there. He did worse with Asian Americans though, which is a good sign considering they will replace blacks as the second largest minority in the coming decades.

But if they hit bottom in 2012, that means that relying solely on demographic changes isn't a reliable strategy because if they've hit bottom, then just a few percentage points of an increase to their side will keep them on top for the forseeable future. That potential is cause for concerns, especially as the GOP is replaced by younger, smarter members.

[MADem]

23. Come on, now--that's absurd.

The party of Build That Wall and Welfare Queens is going to grow their base with black and latino voters?

Look at the RNC leadership--they make our crew look like puppies. The only young'uns they have in their stable are NAZIS and flat-out pointy white sheet costumed racists. Sorry to be blunt, but that's what they are. Those sorts don't appeal to POC or "ethnics" as they might like to call some of us. They're intent on moving their crew to the right.

This election was a perverse storm of confusion and horse shit fake news/nonsense media coverage that was aided and abetted by Russia. We know this. That's what we have to fix, along with making it "not OK" to be a fucking bigot again.

[ZoomBubba]

35. Numbers don't lie.

That's the statistics. You can go on about GOP racism all you want, but at the end of the day, they gained ground with blacks and latinos over their 2012 numbers. If they can do this with Trump, think of what they can do with a boring white dude. It is not unthinkable that they may gain 5-10 percent gains of each voting for them over the next couple of decades. You might not like it, but this is seems to be a definite possibility.

[MADem]

39. Excuse me, you gave me hypothetical numbers, then you say "Numbers don't lie?"

Your numbers bore no resemblance to the ACTUAL numbers that I provided to you.

They did NOT gain ground--please read the damn link I provided. Here, let me make it easy for you and cut/paste the part you ignored:


Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions

Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.

Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.

I think you'd do well to stop trying to pass off "hypothetical" numbers as real ones here--and/or taking figures from right wing sources.

I provided you with the link to this excerpt upthread.

It's kinda obvious you didn't click and even glance at it. You need to regroup and retract.

[StevieM]

46. Trump absolutely did not get 28 percent of the Latino vote. That article sites the exit polls,

which were clearly wrong.

The precinct-by-precinct data makes it clear that Trump did much worse. So do other polls taken after the election.

The actual numbers were more like 79-18.

http://www.latinovote2016.com/app/

[MADem]

47. Many right wing websites are pushing these numbers, and they're nonsense.

It's "fake news." But hell, our Orange Anus - Elect is touting these lies, too, so it's not surprising that people might repeat them.

[ZoomBubba]

49. I take that poll with a spoonful of salt ...

... it's from an activist group and the poll was done by Latino Decisions, a group that has yet to be given a rating as far as accuracy of their polls. I'm inclined to believe the mainstream media on this one as they use a wider selection of polls.

[StevieM]

50. Fine, but the numbers we are talking about are the exit polls, which we know weren't right.

First of all, they showed Hillary winning.

Second, they had all sorts of incorrect conclusions, like saying that Trump came within 3 points of her with Millennial voters in Wisconsin. (Not possible, given the national numbers for Millennials, especially considering how unpopular Scott Walker is).

Most importantly, the precinct-by-precinct data makes it clear that Trump did extremely badly in heavily Latino communities.

The exit polls were clearly wrong on this one. Latino voters are the one group that HRC did better than Obama with.

Welcome to DU!!

[guillaumeb]

54. The goal is not winning by moving to the right!

In my view, President Obama's biggest failure was the failure to recognize that the GOP had no interest in compromise. He wasted much time and effort looking for non-existent GOP moderates. And the compromises that he proposed and made only served to move the terms of the debate farther to the right.

Welcome to DU.

[ZoomBubba]

63. I wouldn't call moving to the middle the same as moving to the right.

But there are things we need to be flexible on if we want to win outside of the coasts. Guns are probably the most obvious, though it will be a hard sell for some. But there are other things we can say "do what you need to" and still remain the progressive party. We got to approach it like we're in a war of attrition, moving maybe a foot a year, instead of trying to launch one grand attack.

Thanks for the welcome.

[backscatter712]

62. Being Republican Lite is a bad strategy.

It makes us look wishy-washy, it makes it look like we're trying to hide our values, and when your low-information voter is given the choice between Republican and Republican Lite, he picks full-flavor.

[LAS14]

9. Owning one's values and subscribing to gridlock are not the same.

[PatsFan87]

12. The message should be catered to the region a candidate is running in.

A Democrat in Missouri is not going to be running on the same message as a Democrat in Massachusetts. Jason Kander ran as a moderate in Missouri and did extremely well (he lost by 3%, Hillary lost in Missouri by 19%). We should be running progressives in our deep blue districts and moderates in our swing or Lean Republican districts- and moderate does not equal corporate stooge or war hawk. It might mean a candidate who's more lax on gun control though. These candidates are important if we want majorities in Congress.

[ZoomBubba]

15. That' the best thing ...

... and it's what the GOP does. But Democrats haven't been very good at it in the last few years. There were virtual celebrations online when Midwest and Southern members of the Blue Dog coalition, like Blanche Lincoln, fell to Republicans because so many claimed it would purify the party and allow them to go more progressive. So, we got that and now have a lot of districts that Democrats don't bother to run in because they have no chance of winning. Decent candidates who could win, wind up running as Republicans, getting crushed in those primaries because the primary voters in many places don't like moderates. Just an all-around losing situation for us.

[Squinch]

16. This, exactly! When the fallout from their actions hits the marginal Twitler voter

and they finally wake up, we'd better be offering a clear alternative and we'd better not have become some GOP "mini me."

[brooklynite]

18. Are you under the impression that the "angry at the Establishment" crowd really wants Single-Payer?

Do you think they really want a guaranteed annual wage?

Bottom line, they voted for Trump because they conflated "establishment" and "Government" (existing policies and spending don't make my life better), and Trump gave them easy answers (Trade wars, Kick out immigrants etc.). While they may respond to a clear alternative when trumps plan doesn't work, I don't see any sign they're prepared to trust a heavier Government role.

[Squinch]

19. I'm under the impression that when the angry at the establishment crowd can't get

birth control and certainly can't get an abortion, when they can't feed their family, when their grandma is starving though their taxes have increased by half, when their children are fighting another senseless war and we can't trade with China any more, when the unions are all busted and the rust belt is a lot rustier, and when they have gone bankrupt because of a simple appendectomy, I'm under the impression that our ideas will look pretty good to them.

[brooklynite]

22. If you were right, I'd say most of those factors applied this year...who'd they pick?

I'm not relying on "all we need is a REALLY BAD Republican to convince people to vote liberal" arguments.

[Squinch]

27. I am. Check this article out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028328917

In terms of the cycles of American presidents, Trump is right on time. And the next one is ours, and a historically strong one of ours at that.

[ZoomBubba]

21. Nobody is offering a GOP mini-me ...

... if they are, I'd like to see how. Democrats nor Republicans are based on ideology, they're based on getting people elected. You can only bend the voters so far before you break enough off to where you will lose.

[Squinch]

40. Those who say we need to ditch social issues, concentrate on economics only and/or appeal

to the mythical "rust belt white working class voter" are all offering a GOP mini-me.

And gosh. Thanks for letting me know that political parties are about on getting people elected.

[ZoomBubba]

48. It's not a GOP mini-me move ...

... it's a pragmatic one. No one is saying issues should be ditched, but party members must be allowed flexibility to de-emphasize them or step out of line if that's what is necessary to win. A caucus member is a caucus member. If you don't think winning is the most important thing, then there's always the option of the Greens.

[Squinch]

57. Yes, people ARE saying that social issues and "identity politics" - which translates to social

issues - should be ditched.

No one is saying party members shouldn't have flexibility. They always HAVE had flexibility, and nothing is changing that. Yes, I suspect everyone already knows that a caucus member is a caucus member.

And really, I don't need you to tell me which party to vote for.

[ZoomBubba]

58. Identity politics and social issues are two different things ...

... that sometimes overlap. Identity politics is defined as politics that favors people based on identity or background. They may exist in the spectrum of social issues, which are made up of things that overlap several groups instead of certain ones.

Getting away from identity politics for many is just taking a broader approach instead of a specific, for many. For critics, Democrats entrenching themselves in politics of identity has distracted them from developing politics that appeal to all. I'd have to agree because the natural route of identity politics leads to eventual division as different groups of people have different interests. We need a big net that can catch more of different types of people, not little boxes that we shove them in and stack on shelves in hoping they stay contained.

[Squinch]

59. Social issues are the source of identity politics. I don't need you to define identity politics for

me.

Are you capable of answering without some condescending explanation of something that doesn't need explaining? If you are, it would really be appreciated if you would show it.

Getting away from identity politics is getting away from the politics of identity. The politics of race, gender, sexual orientation. poverty, age. Get away from that and you lose the Democratic party's most loyal base. Good luck with your wider net.

[ZoomBubba]

60. No it's not ...

... nobody said that we ought to try the stupid color-blind approach. You have offered no unifying theme, just a system where you offer a lot of little things to a lot of different groups. How is that stable? How can you have a coherent policy with that? If you try to fix a whole in the dam with a lot of little pebbles, it's not going to work. You need a big brick to seal the thing.

Winning is the priority, not being right. Being right can come at another time.

[jack_krass]

64. Big ideas and broad appeal are whats needed. We should not target any groups except working people

[ZoomBubba]

65. You can be broad ...

... on only a handful of things. That's where you need some flexibility on things. There are things the rural redneck and affluent urbanite can agree on, but for the rest, there's a need for some flexibility. For the middle of the country, that mostly means gun policy.

[Skittles]

44. bs

we need to work more on alleviating gerrymandering and voter suppression and fake news, and showing rural workers how wrong the GOP is for them....actually, Trump Inc may do enough damage where the truth will be unavoidable, even to people stupid enough to be fooled by him

[brooklynite]

17. The key is not to be mushy REGARLESS of the policies

...one can strongly invoke moderate positions on issues, and one can give lip service to progressive ones.

[TeamPooka]

26. Democrats need to start fighting Republicans the way Republicans fight Democrats.

[ZoomBubba]

28. By demagoguery and misinformation?

May work short term ... long term, usually winds up destroying a country, the party that "won" and the morale of the people.

[TeamPooka]

36. The GOP has taught America that 100% obstruction over ideals and values is the right thing to do.

Now it's our turn.
America will never give "credit" to Democrats for co-operating with Republicans.
They will give Republicans credit for breaking the gridlock.

[JudyM]

32. One core thing we need to change is to use graphic, pithy tag lines to get our points across.

Our statements aren't heard when they don't have snap.

[TeamPooka]

37. That's part of it.

[Squinch]

43. Sadly this is true. Which is why I hope "Twitler" catches on.

[Bear Creek]

42. It's War

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/05/pizzagate-lie-what-it-says-about-society-real

The republicans have been spewing hate and lies. They do act like it is a war. They have fake news sites, and the garbage tabloids. They use shell companies to hide black money. They have an all's fairs attitude. The democrats need to get with it. Use twitter, we need a propaganda group and go after Trump. If SNL gets under his skin attacks on all sides should it. I think the idiot will tweet national security secrets before it is done. Dumb as a Trump.

[Skittles]

45. through gerrymandering, voter suppression, fake news, and help from Russia and the FBI?

NO FUCKING WAY

[malaise]

29. It's that simple

Rec

[Bear Creek]

41. Move Left

But they will have to grow a backbone and quit apologizing for calling out the truth.

[moda253]

51. This is all a bunch of horseshit.

We won the popular vote by near 3 million votes and lost the electoral vote by a mere thousands. And we are supposed to fall for the trap of remaking our entire party? Fuck that shit.

While it's true the Democrats need to be getting younger to motivate their base and that the republicans grew their base with a bunch of baby boomers getting older and being more republican minded (exactly what the hell happens to old people?) I think it is ridiculous that there are all these calls for drastic measure when we ARE THE DAMNED MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY!

[treestar]

52. Yes, I think some are forgetting that

We do have to fight harder, though. Republicans have done it and they get what they want. Well actually they get little of what they say they want, but they make progress harder than it has to be.

[ZoomBubba]

53. All the talk about younger voters ...

... yet the guy who was supposed to be turning them out to the Democratic Primary in droves, Bernie Sanders, got soundly trounced by Clinton. The under 30 crowd might be enthusiastic, but there's just not enough of them that care enough to turn out. They usually don't start turning out until after they start paying taxes, having kids or rediscover their religion ... things that tend to shift people away from far-left positions, which appeal to the under 30 people. I think spending to much time with them will not reap as great an award as re-emphasizing our position to the base that got overlooked in 2016 ... white midwestern voters who are economically insecure. That's not a change in policy, it's just reminding them why we're the better choice. If we had done that this campaign instead of Quixotic Hillary visits to Texas and Arizona, we might've won that less than 10,000 votes in each that put Trump over the top.

[moda253]

55. Agree

Although I mean we have to start grooming strong candidates for positions that are getting on in age.

[ZoomBubba]

56. Yeah, we have great candidates and future candidates in the under 30 crowd ...

... and the Young Democrats is a great place for them to get on that road. I just hope they don't keep losing because too many losses will cause people interested in public service to drift toward Republicans ... just because having a (D) by your name means an automatic loss and then you won't be able to accomplish anything at all. It's what ultimately happened to the Federalists ... they kept losing until everybody found it easier to just run as Democrats against other Democrats.

[loyalsister]

67. The early 50s and 40s crowd are a problem

Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and the up and coming legislators in my state. They are wealth worshiping, Reagan disciples. They are also the children of people who got involved in prosperity theology and became hard core fundamentalists. Those are the Gen Xers who decided to be part of a RW movement. I knew them in college - the business majors, finance major, economics majors, communications, etc.
I'm always fascinated when I go to Democratic events and the majority is made up of still liberal boomers and millenniels with a few gen Xers.
There are some on our side, but the politicians who are poised to do the most damage are gaining strength. The liberal office holders in that age group need to be mentored and encouraged and as you said the 30s and under are awesome.

[ZoomBubba]

61. Yeah ...

... we also need to make sure they're diversified so we can have a candidate for each part of the country. Right now there are some parts of the country where people who'd be Democrats otherwise run as Republicans because you'll never get elected with a "D" by your name. That's not good as it cost us a lot at the younger end of the spectrum.

[Cosmocat]

66. Yeah, except not

Republicans had full power at the congressional and state level LONG before the jackass won this election.

This didn't start with him ... He just is the cherry on top of what is now a full on authoritarian, fascist state.

And, a big part of why republicans are where they are now is that our politics have been a Harlem Globtrotters exhibition for a quarter century now - and team D is the Washington Generals.

[loyalsister]

68. Tea-party style is nauseating no matter the cause

Making up stories and using stereotypes to other an office holder, stopping them just for the sake of wanting to see them fail even if they manage to try to do something good. Thwarting what is good for the country just to take someone down.

That's tea party style.