So how exactly did things get THIS bad for Democrats?

[Calculating]

In my entire life I've never seen the party in such a weak, demoralized, and fragmented state. Extremely low overall influence throughout the nation after having lost all branches of govt. A SCOTUS seat shamelessly stolen and there's nothing they could do about it. A presidency basically stolen and nothing could be done about it. Gerrymandered districts which are hurting Dems at all levels of govt. And instead of doing anything about this, it seems like everyone just wants to go back and fight about whether they were for Hillary or Bernie. Hillary vs Bernie is over. Both candidates are too old/damaged to run again IMO and people need to quit blaming, get over it, and focus on the future and stopping the Republicans from destroying everything good in this country.

[leftstreet]

1. What differences did you see when you the party was strong?

[larry budwell]

3. Obama

We had President Obama for 8 years.

[NewJeffCT]

42. While he did a good job as president

Democrats lost bigly at the state level and in Congress while he was president. I think his willingness keep trying to compromise with Republicans energized their side and sometimes deflated our side, hence low turnout in 2010 and 2014.

They had a ton of good accomplishments those first two years he was in office, however.

[clu]

130. well said nt

[FLPanhandle]

8. We used to be the party of American Workers

Trump, to give him some credit, did a great job of filling the Democratic Party void with his bring back American Jobs slogan.

He became the Jobs candidate. The Democrats became the party of open immigration and BLM.

People always vote for their pocketbooks first.

[still_one]

14. Exactly what jobs did trump bring back?

[FLPanhandle]

16. Oh none

However, many people believed him and continue to believe him.

Doesn't matter though, during the campaign he was the candidate for American Jobs.

The Democrats need to regain that title and talk about American jobs 10 times as much as any other topic or they will lose again.

[Lunabell]

31. Yep

People vote their pocket book.

[Plucketeer]

55. That's it in a nutshell

Trump talked about ALL the jobs he was going to bring back to this country - all the while KNOWING that promise was pure bullshit. There were (during the primaries) promises of jobs that are already here and waiting, but that message (while it was truly viable) was ditched and forgotten. Trump (or his handlers) saw that picking up the populist banner might well work for him. Hell, promise those blue collar strugglers anything that'll impact them directly an' you've got 'em!

Sure, there's those 3 million votes to point at. Thing is, one aspirant is writing books and the other's cranking out executive orders.

[NastyRiffraff]

18. Slogans are easy

I can come up with about 10 good jobs-related slogans just from the top of my head. So, I assume, can the DNC, or any Democratic candidate. Having real policies, such as Hillary Clinton did and clearly explained on her website and on the campaign trail, is quite a bit harder. Implementing them is still harder.

Note the plural: "policies." A real leader isn't a one-note candidate. Yes, it's more complicated, but many people can actually multitask.

Trump consistently lied to his own supporters; he wouldn't know a policy if it bit his tiny fingers. I hope the Democratic Party never descends to that level.

[FLPanhandle]

26. Slogans work

Yes, they should have some substance behind them, but, as any advertising firm will attest, slogan work and have always been part of elections.

From "A Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage", JFK's "A time for greatness", "A Full Dinner Pail", Peace and Prosperity, to Obama's "Change We Can Believe In".

Hillary had a jobs policy but unless people researched it, it wasn't the primary message of her campaign. Trump had no policy but got people to believe he would bring back American jobs. Some voters have wised up, some voters still believe him.

People vote first and foremost for their pocketbook. Every other topic is noise.

[procon]

32. Truth. It's an intrical part of product branding and successful marketing.

Ever hear the marketing advice, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak"? Look at all the top tier products on the market, they all have short and catchy, easy to remember, slogans.

Here in California, dairy producers came up: "Got Milk?" Now it's linked nationwide to milk.

Even cops would agree, "America Runs on Dunkin", the Dunkin' Donuts slogan.

My spoiled kittehs don't, but Meow Mix says: "Tastes So Good, Cats Ask for It by Name".


The Dems need a permanent slogan, something that will endure and by relevant to candidates across the country. I don't understand why thy is so difficult, the DNC could hold a contest, or hire a Manhattan ad agency to come up with a selection of of snappy slogans that would up our branhd recognition.

[hadEnuf]

41. Lets not kid ourselves. Despite the hacking, vote tampering and everything else, HRC still won.

The Electoral College system was manipulated and tampered with to hand the White House to the filthy fascist scum that occupies it now. This past election was a bloodless coup. Think December 2000 on steroids.

The Democrats had the right message.

[chwaliszewski]

43. I completely agree with you. However...

the Democrats 'right message' did not work and if they try it again, expect the same outcome in the next election.

[hadEnuf]

44. How did it not work? How could have anything worked under the circumstances?

Messages were not the problem.

[chwaliszewski]

46. How did it not work? Seriously?

President Donald J. Trump. That's how it didn't work.

[hadEnuf]

137. If we had a non-hackable, verifiable voting system then I'd consider Clinton had a bad message.

However given the circumstances that took place right before and on election night, I'm not buying the "Trump had the better message" answer.

The exit polls were wrong, once again, and voting anomalies popped up all over the place, once again, and then evidence of outside hacking started showing up at election boards and such.

That was not the result of a bad message.

[chwaliszewski]

140. It's been brought to my attention that the 2018 midterms are coming up...

and I am focusing on that. Hillary lost. Trump won. There was all kinds of shenanigans going on with the voting system. Some voters were misguided, some were uninspired, some were lazy, and others were traitors. It sucks and it's not fair but the sun also rises.

2018 is just around the corner. Let's get ready.

[NewJeffCT]

48. I tend to agree with you

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but Trump has shown himself to be a master of projection as well - so I would not be shocked if the "millions of illegal votes" for HRC were really millions of illegal votes from Trump through hacked voting machines... without that, Clinton probably wins Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, NC and Florida and maybe Dems take the Senate (Toomey won very narrowly in PA, Feingold lost a close one in WI and Kander lost closely in Missouri after having a 4-5% edge in most of the final polls) and get closer in the House.

[hadEnuf]

139. Yes, it was too close. Too close when it should not have been close at all.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory.

And apparently neither does Robert Mueller.

[jmowreader]

56. Hillary won, and she didn't win

The problem we have - and it is huge - is the GOP owns the entire interior of the USA and everything south of Charlotte, NC. In order for a Democrat to win a presidential election, we have to be perfect on the West Coast and the Atlantic Northeast.

You know what fucked us in the 2016 election? Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. We didn't lose Pennsylvania because Hillary is a terrible person who wants to Destroy All Your Family Values. We lost it because Hillary spoke the truth about coal - we have to stop using it and find something else for the coal miners to do for a living. Trump came in and said he was going to "bring back coal." If your family has been mining coal for a hundred years and you never knew anything else, which sounds better - the life you always have known or a new life you can't imagine?

Hillary could have won the election easily with one statement: "Donald, you're a damn liar. Tell us how you're going to 'bring back' coal when no one wants to burn coal anymore. Coal isn't dying because of the government. It's not dying because of the Democrats. It's definitely not dying because of President Obama. It's dying because everyone who uses coal is getting the hell out of it as fast as they can because it's the most expensive and dirtiest fuel you can possibly use. What are you going to do? Go to a utility who dumped all their coal-fired generating capacity in favor of natural gas, biomass or wind and tell them, 'you have to tear all this new equipment out and go back to coal'? That's not happening and neither is anything else in your platform."

[white_wolf]

96. I agree.

The Democratic Party's biggest weakness is, like you said, it has to have a perfect showing on the west coast and Atlantic northeast. If it doesn't get that then it doesn't have anything really to fall back on. The party, in my opinion, has to start competing in every state.

[clu]

103. nice commentary

dems could have focused on clean coal and capitalized

[jmowreader]

113. Now hang on a minute

If a Democrat talks about clean coal, Fischer-Tropsch, or anything else that involves not leaving the coal in the ground, there is a contingent that starts screaming about how that Democrat has become worse than any Republican.

[brush]

33. Not so. If they voted for their pocketbooks they wouldn't vote against their economic...

interests.

By voting repug they voted for tax cuts for the rich, less healthcare preached by Ryan and trump, and dog whistle messages about race.

They didn't vote their pocketbook, they voted for a white guy saying Mexicans are rapists, a white cheering at his rallies when blacks were attacked, and a white guy shouting Muslims need to be banned from the country.

[jimmil]

37. Not so..

Everyone wants more money in their pocket and are desperate to believe anyone who tells them they can have it all. Trump lied and continues to lie but people WANT to have someone say tax cuts will be for them, universal health care is bad because your taxes pay for other people's care, climate people want to take their money and give it to billionaires like Al Gore. None of this is true but people want to believe it is true. Believing something in politics is much more important than truth.

[brush]

39. Nah, poor whites voting for repugs whose policies work against their...

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

pocketbooks and saying they're voting for their pocketbooks is whack.

Those echoing that talking point are in denial.

I mean come on, time after time poor whites vote for repugs and their pocketbook gets no fatter. You'd think they'd get wise to that. Maybe some of them even are but they'll still never admit that what they really voted for was to get the black guy out of the WH and replace him with a white guy, not a woman.

And get this, most of trump's other supporters averaged 72k in income so don't tell me they were voting

pocketbook issues.

They voted for the white guy who was going to make America white...er, ah...great again (dog whistle, dog whistle, dog whistle).

[Drunken Irishman]

60. Yes but that was an extension of the economic realities.

The GOP has been doing this for nearly a generation and it's paid off with MANY whites. They use buzz words talking about Welfare Queens and abusers or how illegal immigrants are taking all the jobs and, too, abusing welfare programs and healthcare. You see it on twitter all the time. Trump appealed to those voters. So has every GOPer since Eisenhower left office.

Thing is, there's no way for Democrats to win 'em over unless they REALLY talk tough on things that go against what the party believes. Absolutely immigration was a huge issue for these voters. But to them, it IS an economic issue. They believe their lot in life is solely because of some Mexican family that came over 10 years ago and lives here illegally.

That's the difference. I guess the Democrats can try to go all Pres. Shepherd from American President on the public, but that only seems to ever work in the movies.

It's economic anxiety brought on by race.

[FLPanhandle]

59. They still believed they were voting for their pocketbook

They voted for tax cuts for the rich because the republicans told them it would bring jobs and trickle down to them.

They voted against immigration because that does nothing to help keep their jobs especially in areas like construction, which used to pay well.

Bottom line: They voted for what they believed would help their pocketbook regardless of the facts. Good marketing by the GOP and one we should use.

[brush]

69. All that is well and good and sounds good, but IMO they voted even more to "make America...

white..er ah...great again.

They heard the dog whistle even louder than the lie that tax cuts would trickle down.

[jcmaine72]

38. We are still the party of the American worker. It's the American worker who has strayed, especially

white American workers. What are Democrats of good conscience supposed to do if the average white American worker stupidly kicks all manner of decency to the curb, including his own best economic interests, out of hate and fear and instead chooses to embrace white supremacy and Islamophobia? Frankly, I'd be ashamed to support any Democrat who pandered to their uneducated hate-drenched fears. Screw them.

[FLPanhandle]

64. That answer just makes you feel better because you don't have to change

If the people who used to vote Democrat now switched, then the issue isn't the voters it's we didn't give them a pocketbook reason.

How does immigration help workers? Why do they believe in the GOP promises that actually hurt their own economic interests.

If you call votes names and say they are just racists, that makes it easy for the Democrats because we don't have to change message/behavior/plans or anything. Of course, we will lose and lose and lose all the time calling the voters racists.

[AncientGeezer]

92. ".... calling the voters racists". Exactly. It's like "fighters to your corners"

One corner will come out loaded for bear...

[JI7]

98. Trump is the one that attacked non white people and the majority whites that voted for him

Agreed with it.

[liquid diamond]

79. To give him credit? Good job?

trump is a fucking liar and stupid people fell for his lies.

[FLPanhandle]

93. Yes, but he convinced a lot voters he was fighting for their jobs

Of course it was lies, but people vote for whomever is looking out for their pocketbook.

Everything else is noise.

I give him (or his handlers) credit for recognizing that. The Democrats were not the party of American Jobs in 2016.

[JI7]

99. Their support for trump exposes their bigotry.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

126. Senate and House leaders not from New York and San Francisco

It would have been pretty difficult to smear Tom Daschle or Dick Gephardt with the "coastal elitist" label.

[longship]

2. Too many people insist on fighting old intraparty battles,

Instead of fighting the opposition.

That's why!

[George II]

36. Or in extra-party battles. Many of us don't like or appreciate attacks from those on the outside.

[longship]

94. Do you mean the guy who has caucused with Democrats for decades?

Sheesh!

[George II]

104. Perhaps I mean the person who considers the Democratic Party "ideologically bankrupt".

[longship]

105. Well, if one is going to argue for infighting, maybe we are ideologically bankrupt! nt

Does any rational person think this is a good idea??

[NurseJackie]

107. He's not arguing in favor of infighting and you know it.

What good purpose does it serve to make accusations or insinuations like that? (Other than to serve as a cheap-shot and distraction... for obvious reasons.)

[longship]

109. One thing I will argue is that we unite or we lose.

It is that simple.

Whatever ones opinion, that conclusion remains operative.

[NurseJackie]

111. Tell that to ...

[NurseJackie]

112. PS: If you truly believed that...

... why resort to insults and accusations and insinuations to compensate? (Or over compensate?)

[longship]

114. I stand by my post.

Either one is part of the solution, uniting the party, or one is part of the problem, dividing the party.

I unequivocally choose the former.

[NurseJackie]

115. Your insults and insinuations betray your confidence.

You're arguing from a position of weakness ... the attacks and insults show it.

[longship]

116. Interesting response. nt

[NurseJackie]

117. As have been yours.

[longship]

119. I've made no personal attacks here.

I have taken a strong political position that we need to unite.

That some here have seemingly taken a contrary position is puzzling to me.

And no, that is not a personal attack either. The question is... Why would anybody consider such a statement as a personal attack?

But then again... Why would anybody argue against unity against the GOP?

This infighting must stop. That is my position. I do not understand what is to be gained by a contrary position.

Here. Have a hug, my friend.
My best to you. I apologize if my position has offended you personally. It certainly was not my intention.

[NurseJackie]

120. You've not insulted me. Only George...

... with absurd insinuations and feigning innocence so absurdly unconvincingly. Total farce.

[longship]

121. I will gladly apologize to George.

See above.

However, I stand firm against the infighting. We unite or we die.

[NurseJackie]

108. You and Hillary are both correct.

[longship]

122. I apologize, George, if I have offended you.

It was certainly not my intent.

Peace, man.


What can we do to bring us all together and win?

If we can collectively solve that issue, we could be gold in 2018.

[George II]

123. Thank you, I appreciate that. Yes, we're all in this together. Now let's nominate some kick-ass...

...candidates and destroy the republicans next year, that is the ones left after they destroy themselves.

[NurseJackie]

124. :-D

[longship]

125. Do what's right. Right?

Note that I have not changed my position.

[PDittie]

71. +1

Especially here, and strangely enough, it occurs several times daily despite being a clear violation of the TOS.

[DarthDem]

4. They're Not

Your outlook is unduly pessimistic. And thanks for your concern.

[bigtree]

5. it's bullshit

...designed to foster the very things you say are occurring.

It won't work.

[SecularMotion]

6. Some people will always see the glass as half-empty

[Phentex]

7. What do you think we did during the Bush years?

[frazzled]

9. People fighting here are NOT the Democratic Party.

The Party (that is, the DNC plus elected federal Representatives and Senators and supporting staff) is just fine and dandy, Jack. They are focused like a laser on legislating as a minority party (and doing pretty damn good at it too, either through Republican weakness in governing or cutting deals like they did this past week) and on upcoming elections.

It's the Republican Party that is in total chaos and weakness. I mean really: their elected officials are resigning, they can't pass anything, and the WH is Bedlam.

[Baitball Blogger]

10. It is complicated to lead a group with so many vast differences.

We are really small groups of interested parties and it isn't uncommon that some of us felt like we were being sold out when it came time to condense those interests into a platform. I could go on about how minority issues were pushed aside in order to appease conservative Democrats, but why open old wounds? The question should be, how do we bring everybody together now that the minority issues have broken through?

[NurseJackie]

11. In the real world, I'm not seeing this.

In the real world, I'm not seeing this. What happens at DU doesn't match what I'm seeing in real life. It's an interesting place to hang out. I enjoy reading and learning. Even though it's annoying I can tolerate the bickering and sniping. Some people are immature, infuriating and insulting... but seriously... to put it into perspective... it's not like this place has the same reach or importance as Huffington Post or Facebook. (I wonder how it compares with Myspace.)

[BannonsLiver]

12. Moldova, is that you?!

[Hamlette]

13. I've never been so proud of my party.

Nancy and Chuck have held us together brilliantly.

And politics is not a suicide pact. The party needs to stand up to Bernie supporters when they trash people like Kamala Harris or we die. Bernie seems like a nice old man but he is either unable or unwilling to lead. The only one that needs to "come to the aid of his party" is Bernie and he won't so he's gonna get some heat. And rightly so.

[Calculating]

15. I understand why Bernie supporters are mad though

I was one myself, and while I voted for Hillary in the GE I see why they hold a grudge. Hillary failed to extend much of an olive branch to them. Even picking a more progressive running mate would have probably motivated some of those who stayed home or voted 3rd party. Instead she chose possibly the most vanilla, bland, establishment running mate possible.

This is what I'm talking about though. Why are we still fighting about this bs? Enough of Bernie, Enough of Hillary. They don't matter now.

[NurseJackie]

34. "Hillary failed to extend much of an olive branch to them." That's total bullshit.

I was one myself, and while I voted for Hillary in the GE I see why they hold a grudge. Hillary failed to extend much of an olive branch to them.

Bullshit. Apparently you weren't watching the same election process that I was watching.

I have to let you know, your description of those voters isn't very flattering. What reason did they have to be mad? Are you saying that they were immature and needy? (Just asking, you know.)

Even picking a more progressive running mate would have probably motivated some of those who stayed home or voted 3rd party. Instead she chose possibly the most vanilla, bland, establishment running mate possible.

Oh good lord! Give me a break! Enough! What good purpose does that serve? (Feel better now that it's off your chest?)

This is what I'm talking about though. Why are we still fighting about this bs?

Actually, I was hoping that you'd tell me! I see what you're doing with your own attempts to rehash and fault-find and nitpick. Would you mind sharing what your particular motivations are? Are you still mad and holding a grudge too? (Again, just asking... it's unclear.)

Enough of Bernie, Enough of Hillary. They don't matter now.

Yes, they both matter. It's the elephant in the room. It's our party's history and it needs to be discussed. We need to know more about "What Happened". Ignoring it or pretending it didn't happen won't change the past, nor will it help us to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

All I'm saying is that I welcome the opportunity to hear Hillary's take on this. People shouldn't be looking to take re-bound shots at her in order to try and deflect from what she's saying... or in order to shut down the conversation about what she has to say.

What are they afraid of? Why try to shut down the conversation?

It does no good for anyone to be so disrespectful of Hillary and that's why I'm speaking out in her defense.

[Hamlette]

73. Bravo! Thank you Nurse Jackie,

Bernie's followers are difficult to reach but I'll try. I didn't support Bernie because:

1. His NYPost interview. One of his signature issues was breaking up the big banks. He was asked during the interview how he would do that. He said he would tell his Secretary of the Treasury to break them up. The follow up question was "Does the SofT have the authority to do that?" to which Bernie replied, "I don't know but if he doesn't, I'll do it myself as president". Or something like that. To have as one of your big issues breaking up the big banks and not knowing that neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the President (or anyone else) has the power to do that was alarming to me. He had not thought through a solution. Regulators can make some changes that might make the banks safer or divest but that is not the problem in the first place. If you followed the 2008 crisis you know it was investment banks that failed, not the big depository banks that Bernie talked about. So not only did he not have a solution he didn't even understand the problem.

2. Ours is a two party system. Third party candidates are just spoilers. The Democratic party pisses me off on a regular basis and I've held my nose to vote for some of them. But, I have knocked on doors, maned the phones, attended conventions, been a delegate, given at least my fair share of money to the party and candidates in my state and at least a dozen other states because that is the way it works. If you want to be on the outside, and say my party is not good enough for you, you can't expect the machinery to work for you. You want my support? Come knock on doors with me for 60 years (yes, I worked my first campaign at age 6) and I'll join you.

3. I have watched Hillary be maligned and mistreated for 30 heart breaking years. If you go back and look at the allegations against her and Bill, they are absolutely laughable. Whitewater? The Rose Law Firm? Her email? If any man had done any of those things there were be no mention of it and if you want proof, I can find examples for each one. This is a down and dirty business. I knew that it is difficult for one party to hold the WH for more than 8 consecutive years. I knew it would be a fight. We didn't need a bloody primary to divert our attention for the battle with the true forces of evil in this country, the GOP.

4. Bernie is good at planting flags and not much else. He has no significant legislation to his credit after all these years and he has no solution to the 1% problem. It is complicated. You raise taxes too high on the rich and they move. Yes, the tax code can be adjusted but it won't end the problem. The problem is that the middle class is vanishing and without it we become a 3rd world economy. Yes, we all agree with single payer. Hillary even wrote legislation to that end. Nothing happened. It might work now and we should keep trying but we also need to recognize what we can do (Obama care) and fix it around the edges and Bernie offers no solutions that might pass congress.

I'll stop now. There are more reasons but those are the biggies to me.

[NurseJackie]

118. ###

[clu]

110. i just read a bit about kaine

and without seeing is legislative record he seemed like a good guy. that's unfortunate.

[drray23]

17. On the ground, I am seeing the opposite.

I am right now sitting in an office downtown coordinating canvassing and phone banking efforts (I am in Virginia and we have elections this november 7 for gov, lt gov, attorney general as well as all the state representatives).

We had no problems getting volunteers to come help. When we canvas, people tell us how disgusted they are of Trump. I ran across people who told me they had voted for Gary Johnson but they will vote for the democratic candidate in Virginia no matter what because its a zero sum game and we have to stop Trump and his ilk at all costs.

[still_one]

19. Other than the FBI interference, which did have an impact as shown by the polls, the media reporting

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

that the FBI had reopened the email investigation, WHICH WAS A LIE, Bret Baer of fox news reporting that from HIS sources in the FBI, an indictment of the Clinton Foundation was imminent, which was also a LIE, and all the news outlet parading every right wing politician across their screen propagating these distortions and outright lies, worked their "wonderful" magic.

However, even with all that, Hillary and Democratic party still would have won were it not for those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, or the 47% who didn't either bother to vote, many which believed the double standard, false equivalency bullshit that pushed all over.

This was the most important election of most of our lives, and those who pushed the LIE that there was no difference between the two parties, knew it was a lie.

The Supreme Court, Women's rights, Civil Rights, the environment, workers rights, healthcare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. etc. etc. are a few of the issues that the negative the bullshit that there is no difference between the republicans and Democrats, and because of that, not only did we lose the WH, but every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent establishment, republican.

Anyone who identifies as a progressive who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee over trump is a fraud and a phony

[StevieM]

61. The worst part was when an otherwise great president decided that it would be a terrific idea

to appoint a Republican to be FBI director.

[Ligyron]

68. there's that.

[TeamPooka]

20. Third Wayers convincing Democrats to try to win over Republican voters instead of growing

the voter rolls with newly registered Democrats and new voters.

[leftstreet]

22. +1

[shanny]

23. That's definitely part of it

[brush]

35. We have to do that and more.

We need a permanent, well-funded DNC committee that hires sharp attorneys to take repug cheaters to court, private investigators to help get the ooods on the cheaters, publicists and social media experts to expose the cheating and spread the word on the anti-cheating campaign, media liaisons to do the same, volunteers — a robust organization that is parallel and just as important as the GOTV campaign because as hard as we work to get out new voters the repugs work just as hard to cheat and suppress our voters so we can't afford to just do what we've always done.

We've got to add a new, anti-cheating component to our party's arsenal as we know the repug will not stop trying to cheat. The more we blunt them the more votes we stop them from suppressing.

[chwaliszewski]

45. +1

[Drunken Irishman]

58. Third Wayers don't exist.

There is no Third Way anymore and the party hasn't advocated for a Third Way since the early 2000s. Stop spreading fake news. Thanks.

[Jim Lane]

70. Sure they do.

To take just one example that's ready to hand, here's a Breitbart piece happily reporting that Tim Ryan, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, has spoken disdainfully of the goal of redistribution of wealth. In keeping with that attitude, he says: "I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate."

There's a think tank that explicitly calls itself "Third Way". In the House, 46 Democrats belong to the New Democrat Coalition, broadly identified as Third Way ("centrist" may be a less controversial term).

The fact is that there are ideological divisions within the Democratic Party. "Third Way" isn't a clear-cut, objective status, but it is a reasonable shorthand for identifying the Democrats who are more conservative than the rest of the party.

[Drunken Irishman]

72. There is no Third Way.

Nothing you linked to proves any of this and certainly doesn't prove they dominate the party. In fact, your own links contradict your point. They don't even make up half of the party's coalition in either chambers.

Or are you suggesting Democrats should purge EVERY non-liberal from the party?

Yeah. Good luck with that. Fact is, the Third Way died in the 00s. Look at the list you sent me - members who are far from even being remotely influential in the party. What's also hilarious is that the chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, who only serves on two minor committees, has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, advocated for withdrawal in Afghanistan, backs a two-state solution, voted in favor of doubling the funding of Early Head Start Program, supports reforming NCLB, got a 100% rating from Environment America, has a 100% rating from the Brady Campaign, supported the ACA, received a 100% rating from the HRC and he received a 100% rating for his stance on the defense of immigrants in the U.S. But yes. Let's throw him out! We don't need guys like him because, gosh, he might be a bit too pro-business for the base.

If you truly believe people like Jim Himes are the reason the Democrats are losing, you're nutso.

[Jim Lane]

75. Yes, there IS a Third Way, and the links prove it.

Your post consists of asserting that the links don't prove a whole bunch of other things, things I didn't say: that they dominate the party, that the Democrats should purge them all, that the chairman of the New Democrat Coalition is wrong on all issues, and that people like Jim Himes are the reason the Democrats are losing. Go argue those points with someone who did say them.

The context here is your own post, #58, "Third Wayers don't exist." They do.

[Drunken Irishman]

142. No. It. Does. Not.

Stop. You can't even define Third Way because Third Way doesn't exist. I just showed you the head of a group you call Third Way and he's about as progressive as 90% of the party - yet you want to push him out. Do you really think HE'S the reason we lost last November? Get a grip.

[m-lekktor]

131. They are an actual official group of conservative DEMS run by Jonathan Cowan.

People post about them here, they are quoted.

[Drunken Irishman]

143. Jonathan Cowan is not an elected official.

There's a million organizations of liberal, moderate and conservative think tanks out there that push any type of agenda on any type of issue - doesn't mean they're all that influential.

[m-lekktor]

129. Yes they do.

http://www.thirdway.org/

[Drunken Irishman]

144. None of those people are elected officials.

How can a think tank be the reason Democrats lost an election?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. No, it was Susan Sarandon and Molly Ringwald!!!

[dflprincess]

134. Bingo!

And too many party leaders still think that way.

There is guy running for Congress in my district who is calling himself an "Eisenhower Democrat".

Granted, Ike was sane and probably further left than a lot of today's Democrats, but he was still a Republican. I suggested to the individual that he may want to consider trying to reform the Republican party or find a DFLer he could model himself after, perhaps Hubert Humphrey or Paul Wellstone.

Fortunately, I have a better choice in my district.

[Scurrilous]

21. Yawn...

[Madam45for2923]

24. Choice a. Be part of DEMS and help each other rise. Choice b. Demoralize.

Hmmmmm, what should I choose? Thinking. thinking.

[Cary]

81. Ain't it the truth?

Sheesh.

[jalan48]

25. We've become fragmented within the Party. It's all about our own identity group.

We are stepping on each other to move up the food chain to make sure our issue is front and center.

[oberliner]

27. The Democratic Party is as strong as its ever been

Pretty much in control of every major metropolitan area in the US.

[Downtown Hound]

28. Were you here after John Kerry's loss in 2004?

Now THAT was a bleak time. The Democrats had taken a brutal beating from a president that should have been easy to defeat. Now that was a dark time. And two years later they went on the take congress and four years later they won the presidency. In that election, the Democrats not only lost the presidency but lost seats in congress too.

In this last election, we won seats in congress and won the popular vote by a wide margin. Believe me, the party is in much better shape than it was in the dark days of 2004-2005.

[samnsara]

29. i dont feel weak or demoralized as a dem.. i never have...

...im proud I belong to an inclusive group. Actually any dem I have met i would be happy to have a beer with. I feel proud when I see such people as Garrison Keeler, Stephen King and Alec Baldwin are on the same side I am. Sometimes being a Dem is just a state of mind....

[ismnotwasm]

30. Whitelash.

[athenasatanjesus]

40. The Democrats have won 6 out of the last 7 popular votes.

This despite all of the voter suppression that targets democratic voters and the media is mostly on the side of the right.

[HughBeaumont]

136. That and 50 cents bought us the Fascism that now controls the country.

Voter suppression and a right-leaning media played a huge part in that.

But this party is hardly blameless.

[groundloop]

47. BULLSHIT..... We're more determined than ever !!!!

I've had it with some of these posts claiming Democrats are fragmented blah blah blah, kind of makes me wonder about the motivation of the authors. We won the presidential election by 3 million votes, it took a perfect storm of Russian interference, voter suppression, and an ill-timed Comey memo to keep us out of the White House.

QUIT TRYING TO DIVIDE US.

[TomCADem]

49. How Putin Played the Far Left

The Kremlin didn’t just rely on the alt-right to help Trump win. Bernie Bros, Greens, and ‘anti-imperialists’ got had, too.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-putin-played-the-far-left

n the aftermath of the U.S. intelligence community’s recent report on the Russian-directed hacking of the Democratic National Committee, it’s easy but misleading to conclude that the Russian government’s propaganda strategy lies solely in advancing the careers of conservative Republicans in the United States. Backing Donald Trump’s candidacy, via steady leaks of stolen communiques to organizations like WikiLeaks, was but one prong of the Kremlin’s assault on American liberal democracy. Part of its campaign to vilify Hillary Clinton involved catering to her rivals on the far-left and pushing any number of crankish conspiracy theories that appeal as much to “anti-imperialists” as to neo-Nazis.

There’s nothing new in that, really.

Moscow’s attempts to cultivate America’s far-left long predate the presidency of Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin, according to available evidence, donated more funds per capita to the U.S. Communist Party than any other communist claque during the Soviet period, when Moscow’s intelligence operations against the “main adversary” involved recruiting agents of influence and spies of a progressive background who were sympathetic to the Soviet cause. But the past 18 months have seen a noted spike in information warfare aimed at gulling the Bernie Bros and Occupy-besotted alternative-media set, which saw Clinton as more of a political danger than it did Trump.

Perhaps the starkest case in point is Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her constituency. In December 2015, the Kremlin feted Stein by inviting her to the gala celebrating the 10-year anniversary of Kremlin-funded propaganda network RT. Over a year later, it remains unclear who paid for Stein’s trip to Moscow and her accommodations there. Her campaign ignored multiple questions on this score. We do know, however, that Stein sat at the same table as both Putin and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s soon-to-be national security adviser. She further spoke at an RT-sponsored panel, using her presence to criticize the U.S.’s “disastrous militarism.” Afterward, straddling Moscow’s Red Square, Stein described the panel as “inspiring,” going on to claim that Putin, whom she painted as a political novice, told her he “agree[d]” with her “on many issues.”

[Volaris]

50. I think you partially answered your own question..

GERRYMANDERING.
That, plus 30 years of Hate Radio has convinced the self-identifed Republican voter of 3 falsehoods:
There's nobility in being uneducated (and educated liberals look down on you for that).
If you were non-white, they wouldn't look down on you for that, they would give you everything you ever fucking wanted.
The people who control money that you don't have, are all Liberal.

That's the summation of White Grievance, and it's the summation and bedrock of the Republican Party BASE post-Regan, even IF there a elected Republicans who ARE educated and don't believe a fucking word of it because they know better.

[CrispyQ]

51. Corporate cash and hate radio.

When the dems hopped on the corporate gravy train, they lost their "party of the people" image. While the right was funding think tanks to craft their message - trickle down, Cadillac queens, government is the enemy - and buying up all the radio stations they could, the dems were running as fast as they could from the word liberal. We've made the progress we have with social justice because the people demand it. We're losing ground economically because too many of the people are still drinking the trickle down koolaid. I also think the party has focused more on national politics. They lost 1,000 state seats/governorships during Obama's term. WTF? I thought the dems were the smart team. But they've been outplayed over & over.

Having a black president really threw a wrench into the works. This current mess is on the GOP. They should have shut Palin down when she started stoking the racists at their rallies but they wanted the votes. Same with the fundies - the GOP wanted the votes & now the the wackos & dregs are in charge.

A good read: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016192851

[Raggaemon]

52. It's the O B S T R U C T I O N stupid !

To their (DIS)credit, republicans chose unyielding obstruction as the way to deal with president Obama, and it worked out quite well for them in the last election.

There's this to consider, ... there are lots & lots of low information voters, folks want their information ( if any ) fed to them in barks and snippets, Yeah I know that's pretty cynical, but its easy to see how true it is.

I encountered plenty of frustrated people who wanted president Obama to do SOMETHING, as though he had powers to legally circumvent congress.

What are the limits on presidential powers, any? ... when president Obama faced "just say no" the do-nothings would complain that " he's not serious", "the proposals he sends us are terrible", as John Boehner said about the freedom caucus, "they like blowing things up", so when the president applied the power of Executive Orders/Actions, the do-nothings screamed bloody murder that he was lawless.

In time people grew increasingly frustrated, congress approval ratings scrapped the bottom, but if you ask most people they believe it's those OTHER congressman/women, their reps are the good ones.

Even though republicans blocked president Obama/democrats from passing legislation that offered help to economically hard-hit areas, through the use of the giant megaphone focks nuus and the complete dominance of right-wing talk radio, republicans were able to drown out any counter narratives to the extent that liberals APPEARED weak and lacking any cohesive messaging.

For folks in Rust-Belt states, in coal country, and in areas that were once major manufacturing hubs, all they knew was frustration, many of them also knew that republicans got in the way, many of them actually supported the obstructionists who blocked them from getting the help they claimed to need, yet by the time voting started they had been so swept up by the intensity of emotions, all of which was intentionally orchestrated by the GOP, voters that Hillary allegedly didn't connect with, the one's complaining loudest about feeling left out of the Obama recovery, did it to themselves by choosing to align with all-out, anti-Obama republicans !

Maybe it's time to factor in the role that media dominance plays, like it or not, focks nuus is still the number one rated cable faux news outlet, until liberal voices are able to have anything resembling comparable reach with right-wing noise, the general public will continue to believe we have no voice!

[unitedwethrive]

53. What is demoralizing is that the dems have been playing by the rules, but the repugs have not...

...and like you say, they are getting away with it, no questions asked. Our system of government was designed under the assumption that those in government were patriots at heart. While they may have always had personal political views and wants, the founders seem to believe that the good of the country would always be at the forefront. By proving them wrong, the current repugs have taken a huge step toward the downfall of our experiment in democracy.

[emulatorloo]

54. Important to remember DU doesn't represent real world Democrats

We are political junkies here, obsessed

[Drunken Irishman]

57. How old are you - ten? It's been far darker for the Democrats.

The 1970s and 80s saw the party radically bleed out support and lose, often very badly, presidential elections. Only Jimmy Carter's win in 1976, which was a very narrow victory over Gerald Ford, proved to be a bright spot for the Democrats in a span of 20 years.

And even that election the Democrats nearly blew it, despite the GOP having a candidate who pardoned one of the most corrupt presidents in American history.

Sure, the Democrats were stronger at the local level, often holding the Senate & the House, but they were impotent in regards to national politics. Moreover, many of those who made up the backbone of the party in the 70s and 80s were instrumental in supporting Reagan's push to undo everything that had to deal with the New Deal.

On top of that, Republicans were able to take control of the Senate throughout a bulk of the 80s, helping advance the Reagan Agenda, a president who, mind you, won so badly in 1984 Democrats wondered if they'd ever see the White House again. And then there was 1988, a winnable election for the Democrats that turned into a blood bath.

It wasn't until the 90s that the Democrats regained any semblance of being a national party.

But even then, do you not remember what it was like in the early 00s? The 2002 midterm elections were brutal for Democrats. They got obliterated during an election cycle where the president's party generally loses seats (midterms).

Democrats will be fine. I remember the consensus that the GOP was dead after the 2008 election. And then the 2012 election. Politics in America changes on a dime. In 2018, the Democrats might not win back the House, maybe not even the Senate, but they'll make sizable gains and 2020 will be a nail-biter election with a great chance of the Democrats winning the White House again.

[Mike Nelson]

62. I believe it was...

...bigotry during the Obama years. I knew it was there, but did not know how strong... also, it wasn't Hillary or Bernie's fault. In fact, they did a good job - with Hillary even winning the vote. But, they were still a Woman and a Jew running to replace a Black President. Republicans welcomed the bigots - and cheated.

[sharedvalues]

63. No way. Dems are doing GREAT.

Just because Dem enemies like GOP and Russia are using talking points to divide Dems doesn't mean Dem morale is affected.


Democratic ideas on inequality are ascendent
New young smart Dems are emerging - Harris, Schiff, Kander
Center for American progress, Vox, and the New Republic are doing great intellectual work
Thousands of Dem candidates want to run for office

And young people are majority Dem - they embrace ideas of economic and social equality.

This is the best time in three decades to be a progressive and a Democrat. Embrace it.

[sarisataka]

90. So true

All the branches of government gemzar control of and the gains we've made at the state level lately

[G_j]

100. young people are majority Dem

Last edited Sat Sep 9, 2017, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)

true, though I wonder how many of them would stick around here. Things can get a bit hostile towards the idealistic.

[StevieM]

65. I believe it started when the GOP destroyed ACORN. (eom)

[haveahart]

66. You are watching the wrong people. They want you to feel depressed. I am not about to allow anyone

to dictate how I feel about the Democratic party, or any other party for that matter. Especially not paying attention to those who were not, are not, and never will be a true (not pure) Democrat. As of now, clicking trash for all those posts that rant on, trash, smear, taunt, and lie about the Democratic party and HRC. Indifference to this shit is the best medicine. If there is nothing positive, constructive, or honest being discussed about the Democratic party and our past candidates, Presidents, and current party leaders...the IGNORE button is my friend.

[Ligyron]

78. Except then you don't know what's being pulled by who toward what.

[MrsCoffee]

67. And yet Trump has been able to get very little of what he wants.

So much for the weak argument.

Thanks to a plethora of strong competent Democrats who are working their asses off to block everything they can.

[Willie Pep]

76. The Democratic Party dropped the ball and became complacent after 2008.

I think there was a feeling after 2008 that the Republicans and conservative ideology were going down the drain. This coupled with demographic trends would make the Democrats the majority party of the future. Fast forward to 2017 and we are the weakest we have been since the 1920s and control no branches of the federal government and have been blown out in the majority of states.

The Democrats failed to see how the Republicans were regrouping after 2008 and the recession gave the conservative movement a new opportunity to perfect their own form of right-wing populism. This started with the Tea Party and led all the way to Trump. Trump is not an aberration but is the result of years of Republicans and conservatives using populist rhetoric to attack traditional Democratic-leaning groups. The Right has managed to turn popular anger away from the wealthy interests that dominate the country and shift blame toward minorities, city-dwellers, unions (especially public sector unions), government workers, immigrants, Muslims, and academia. The Democrats didn't do enough to counter this narrative and just went along with the same technocratic style that might have worked in the 1990s but was becoming obsolete in a country that was angry over declining economic prospects for the majority of working people. Also the assumption that the coalition of white liberals and racial minorities was unbeatable also fueled into this complacency as did the writing off of large portions of the country as unwinnable.

The result is that we have a party that is now reduced to coastal areas and large metro areas, a bad sign in a federal republic where rural areas are disproportionately represented in politics. The current Democratic coalition is packed into certain regions of the county and this has reduced our ability to win at the state level which then results in gerrymandering and voter suppression which further worsens our position. The Republicans and their allies like the Koch brothers know that winning state races is just as important as federal ones and this has given them immense power. The Democrats were asleep at the wheel and were caught flat-footed as the Republicans put forward their state-based strategy.

Democrats have a bad habit of focusing on the presidency too much and not coming out to vote for mid-term elections and for state and local elections. I think we are going to be in big trouble unless we can reverse this trend and start rebuilding the party in all 50 states and get people out to vote in state elections as well as federal ones. We are going to have to reach out beyond the blue metro areas and try to win over more rural and small town voters. It won't be easy but I don't see how we can succeed otherwise.

[Calculating]

89. Agreed

We can bitch and moan about the EC and other undemocratic stuff in our system, but until we get power back it's impossible to even attempt changing it. Until then, Dems need a viable approach to win over rural and small town voters. It's not enough to just win the big metro areas.

[jodymarie aimee]

77. Try living in Wisconsin

Those R fucks have burned our state to the ground. We have no voice. Walker's crap won't be undone until after I am dead. I resigned from the Exec Bd as all they do is gossip and plan bake sales. We put dopes up against Walker.

[Warpy]

80. The Koch boys funded what would become the DLC

and party conservatives took over.

While there were still many liberals in the party, after 1969, they were out of power within the party.

Having 2 conservative parties (conservative light and conservative rabid) has not worked. The leadership doesn't seem to care much as long as their cash flow is positive.

And the rich have gotten unimaginably richer every year, while the rest of us are wondering what happened to our country.

[njhoneybadger]

82. Fox News,talk radio,Kochsuckers,Heritage foundation,ALEC,gerrymandering,internet propaganda

And Citizens United

[Warpy]

83. yes, all of those plus Reagan killing the Fairness Doctrine

combined with the increasing conservatism in the halls of our party's power structure.

[njhoneybadger]

84. I agree

[njhoneybadger]

101. Of course there is also massive voter suppression.

If it wasn't for the Right's lying,corruption,and cheating we would win every time.

[Ccarmona]

85. I Don't Get the DU's Rules

I broached the exact same topic early this week and was censured by The Jury. I just added that the Party needs younger leadership. WTF DU!

[zentrum]

86. Agree

But, actually, honestly, examining what went wrong and what we need to change is fraught with alerts. I've never seen such an aversion to self-examination.

The rule seems to be: Even though the Democratic Party is losing more and more elections, they should keep doing more of what they've already been doing. The only problem is the critique, the examination. If the critique would just stop---the party would start winning! Change nothing---quell the examination.That really does seem to be the rule.

[Jakes Progress]

87. That's the situation the russian bots would like to to believe.

[sarisataka]

88. Overconfidence

Supported with confirmation bias

[democratisphere]

91. Dealing with self serving dividers, not uniters.

[L. Coyote]

95. Wrong. What happened is Republicans took the vote away from millions of us.

Even so, we still won the Presidential vote by 3 million.

[Baconator]

97. Lack of introspection...

[ImpeachTheGOP]

102. Ignoring statehouse races, getting gerrymandered out by not showing up in midterms.....

Voter suppression, letting the Republicans set the narrative and frame the arguments, cheating, not lying enough....the list is long.

We've been trying to play a game on the up and up when the opponent is willing to literally do anything to win.

People who say things like "I'd rather lose honestly than cheat to win" are doomed to always lose. Тяцмр got enoUgh votes to steal it because people like "straight talk". They loved that he wasn't afraid to speak the way they do at home, like a "regular" guy instead of measuring every word or sounding like a professor. They loved the wholesale lies he was selling, he was telling them what they wanted to hear. You have to lie to people, you have to have easy sound bites. Win the election and then govern the way you want. Most people aren't educated enough to understand the nuances of issues so just 9/11 them to death and do what needs to be done.

It's not rocket science.

[njhoneybadger]

106. We keep bringing knives to a gunfight

[doc03]

127. It is all an ingenious plan that started in 1980 with RR. The air traffic controllers

went on strike and the unions did nothing. That signaled to the companies that they had a free hand to break the unions.
They eliminated the Defined Benefit pension plans when they were designated an asset rather than a liability. Then we had corporate
raiders like Wilber Ross that took over troubled companies to raid their pension plans. With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine
it allowed the Republicans to take over talk radio and create their own TV propaganda network. They started with local offices and as of now control more states than any time in history. Then they were able to gerrymander the congressional districts where
they have taken control of congress now. With the Citizens United decision that gave the billionaires total control. I don't see us getting back in unless there is another Great Depression.

[clu]

128. nice howard zinn impression nt

[doc03]

141. Had to google Howard Zinn never heard of him nt

[delisen]

132. Neither Sanders nor Clinton are too old and too

damaged to run again. I think they are both very vibrant people who maintain a pace that most people would find difficult to match.

Attempts to tear them down or demands that either of them not continue to participate in public life as they see fit are absurd and totally undemocratic and a gift to the worst elements in the Republican Party.

I expect both Sanders and Clinton to be active participants in public life, aside from whether or not they run, or are are even interested in running again.

The "Imperial Presidency" of the post World War II era is being cut down to size now and there will be more centers of power than we are used to seeing---so let's stop looking at the Oval Office as the only prize.

Our general election candidates have not been "losers." They are people of accomplishment, wisdom , and daring.

Telling them to go away and hide so we can turn our sights onto whatever new and too often inexperienced and untested candidates may be waiting in the wings is short sighted.

It does the bidding of our opponents. Successful political parties do not dump on their statesman. If we do, it makes us weaker, not stronger.

Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton are high quality, accomplished candidate-ambitious for our democracy and for our entire world.

The Republican Party has not run people of their quality in many decades.

So the first step in building our party is to acknowledge our strengths as well as our faults.

[m-lekktor]

133. Read "Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank. nt

[marlakay]

135. The republicans played a long game

They slowly did more and more gerrymandering, changing laws. They took over city, state offices, then changd state laws.

Then they got rich backers to pay for senate and congress elections.

Then they paid for trolls to stir us up and split us.

They sat back fighting Obama on healthcare knowing prices if they didn't help would be so high everyone would hate it.

They used abortion as a great wedge issue to get the Christians to go against everything just for that.

Then they brought in a liar who promised jobs jobs and a bunch of stuff he never had a clue to actually do.

And they always promise to lower taxes and for all of us paycheck to paycheck that means another bill paid. Hard for people to think about roads, police, firemen, etc when you can't afford food.

There's more but you get my point.

[Blue_true]

138. We focused on national elections and forgot about locals.

Democrats are strong when they dominate locally. My region is an example, 259,000 voters, 102,000 republican, 157,000 Dems or other, yet republicans dominate government because their voters vote in local races and they build a bench.