2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocratic strategist: Party 'in decline'
"One of the Democrats most veteran strategists warns that the party is in decline and at considerable risk when President Barack Obama is no longer on the scene.'
Since Obama was elected President, the Democrats have lost nine governorships, 56 members of the House and two Senate seats, Doug Sosnik, the political director in Bill Clintons White House, writes in a new memo.
Obama not only got elected by running against the party establishment, but he has governed as a President who does not emphasize his party label, writes Sosnik. Its hard to be a change agent if you are lugging around a party label in an era where voters are so strongly disaffected from our institutions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/dem-strategist-warns-party-in-decline-91172.html
Skittles
(153,150 posts)has begun to really sink in
Response to Skittles (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Nite Owl
(11,303 posts)a decline is for the Democrats to actually govern as Democrats and take a solid stand for what people want not corporations.
msongs
(67,395 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)What have you accomplished??
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)President Obama roped the dopes again, and Team Obama and Team Clinton together will keep the agenda going forever. and. a. day. plus. one.
movonne
(9,623 posts)we both in decline??? with many of the hispanics voting for dems I can't see how this is true...unless they are registering independent...any ideas...
bemildred
(90,061 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)And the overall thrust of the memo is in re: Congress, not Pres. Obama.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but it means progressives will fill the vacuum as a result. Not many DLC types left that will run for political positions in the coming years as the pool is shrinking.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)DFW
(54,349 posts)They were sort of monolithic in the Cheneybush years, but that only came together again in 2010, and then only when given a two year infusion of a billion dollars from the Kochs, Adelson, the Texas billionaires and Murdoch's free propaganda media. They're trying again in 2014, but they'll have to spend even more if they want to buy the White House again in 2016. At some point, paying their taxes will turn out to be the cheaper option.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)but we had a bad election in 1994 too and we eventually recovered from it. I would think that, politically and demographically, the Republicans are at much more significant risk of decline, if not near-extinction, in the not so distant future, hence their attempts to gerrymander themselves into safe seats and lock as much of the opposition out of the voting booth as possible so as to be able to maintain their electoral viability. Of course, it goes without saying that when you have to resort to cheating to "win", you're already losing.
dsc
(52,155 posts)One, 2010 was a much worse loss if only because of it being a redistricting year and redistricting has become so scientific. Two, we will see if we recover in 2014. If we can win back governorships in VA (this year) and in PA, WI, OH, FL and hold on in IL and MD then I can see us having recovered.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)The census was completed in late 2010 and the states used that information starting in 2011 to redraw districts for the 2012 elections. 2010 was the last year for districts that were redrawn after the 2000 census.
dsc
(52,155 posts)not that the election was run after redistricting. By winning 2010, they won many state legislatures and probably Congress for 10 years. In my state where redistricting is a solely legislative affair they have likely won the legislature for literally decades.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)BluegrassDem
(1,693 posts)He should be equally as critical of his former boss. After all, his tenure led us to Bush for 8 year which brought the country to its knees pretty much.