Coriolanus
Banned
Register as a democrat?
If Sanders threatens to run as an independent, hillary will have to move to the left to appease him and get his support, or yes, possible hello gop president.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Register as a democrat?
If Sanders threatens to run as an independent, hillary will have to move to the left to appease him and get his support, or yes, possible hello gop president.
Avon Barksdale
Member
I hope Jerry Brown runs, fuck it.
speculawyer
Member
If for no other reason than to make Jello Biafra prescient.
I'm almost certain Sanders would run as a Democrat. It would be pointless for him to run as an Independent. Hopefully he would make it at least far enough in the race to get past the "15 randos talking on a stage" portion of the primary to the point where he'd be able to be a significant participant in a debate. He just needs to take strong stands on certain issues (social security, unemployment ect.) to at least force Hillary to commit one way or the other on them. It might actually help Hillary in the long run, should she win the primary.
jamesinclair
Banned
White and old means trustworthy
They would go mad? Seriously how much worse could they get? Call him a socialist communist most-liberal-ever Muslim president?
Yoda
Member
It isn't a perception on the hard right, they actually believe he has a socialist agenda. For Bernie it'd actually lessen the blow because the talking points for the right-wing talking heads wouldn't actually change much.
I'd love to see that. Their reaction would be the same and Bernie would actually go out there and say "hell yeah I believe in universal healthcare" or "fuck yeah tax the rich".
Overuse of the term socialist as a slur has probably watered it down some over the years. If a government regulated private insurance marketplace based on a plan introduced by the most recent Republican nominee for president is socialism, it is a little hard to ratchet up the rhetoric even further for the genuine article.
Plus, it would be awkward to explain why popular programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialist and therefore bad.
Then again, "socialist" could be just be a codeword for "black". I'm not really sure how that shakes out.
Plus, it would be awkward to explain why popular programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialist and therefore bad.
Then again, "socialist" could be just be a codeword for "black". I'm not really sure how that shakes out.
jamesinclair
Banned
When the dems had super majority they should have renamed it socialist security.
Check mate gop
He also sells a "my socialist slave number is - XXX-XX-XXX" Livestrong-esque bracelets which really sounds like a phenomenal idea all around.
benjipwns
Banned
Certainly explains its use against Kerry.
How exactly would this happen?
benjipwns
Banned
Unskewed ballots.
neurosisxeno
Member
He just has to do something Democrats haven't been able to do for the past few years--run a fucking campaign.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
is this the official democratic reason why we lost last week?
sounds a lot like "if he were more conservative" stuff that came from the right after romney's loss
benjipwns
Banned
I remember eons ago when Obama's lack of experience wasn't a negative because he was the "CEO" of the largest and best run campaign in history meaning he actually had more relevant experience than Hillary or McCain.
Shame he ran such a poor campaign in 2012 as evidenced by Gary Johnson's 1%.
Shame he ran such a poor campaign in 2012 as evidenced by Gary Johnson's 1%.
neurosisxeno
Member
It was a combination of things, but I think the core of it is just that Democrats are really bad at campaigning. Almost every Democratic candidate ignored the parties laundry list of accomplishments and instead just ran as "Not Obama". Democratic voters had no real incentive to go out and vote since their prospective candidates basically were pretending they weren't Democrats. I'm surprised some of them didn't just pretended not to even know who Obama was. It's not just the 2014 midterms that they lost, it's been almost every set of midterms since Clinton was in office, and is getting worse. They tend to win big on years with Presidential Elections because then voters will at least go out to vote for the President and just vote along party lines, but once you remove Obama\Clinton\Kerry\Gore\etc from the top of the ballot most of them couldn't care less.
Romney lost because he was out of touch and was--in terms of stances--whatever was adventageous for him. At the time Obama was still pretty damn popular too. Not being conservative enough was the least of his problems.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
but amazing in 2012? when donnelly, heitkamp, mcaskill, manchin all ran away from obama? what about shaheen this year?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
It clearly is. I can't imagine any other reason for it. Just look at the data.
People may feel good about Republican mantras, like low wasteful spending and low taxes, but that's about it. Every time an actual bill comes up to a vote, Democrats are on the popular side of the issue.
And it's clear the problem isn't that the democrats lost the swing voters. That became clear when we got the lowest turnout since people were too busy fighting in WW2 to vote. The problem is democratic voters didn't show up. I don't see how those democratic voters are going to show up any other way.
There's really no other explanation that fits the data. It's possible they don't need to take up new policy positions, but they do need to back them with a stronger conviction.
The only thing I would add is that I believe this needed to be done on a national level, not an individual campaign level, because there's a fundamental lack of trust in the party as a whole right now all across the country.
Sure, turnout is basically free right now in presidential years, but that doesn't allow democrats to give up on turnout on midterm years. And you can't tell me advertising is the answer when democrats almost matched republicans in advertising money.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I agree turn out sucks, that's not the campaign's fault. Dem voters just don't show up, they haven't and won't in midterms.
I just find it funny that we whipsaw back and forth between dems are amazing campaigners to dems are lousy campaigners.
the voters aren't there for dems to win and if you think that 'owning accomplishments' (2010 says hey!) or running farther to the left I don't know what to tell you. Your pushing what you want onto what happened. Like I said, its a mirror of the 'we need a more conservative candidate" on the right Its the go to reason because its solution is what you already want and have wanted and you fit the data to that (our base didn't turn out so we need to double down on them!)
Republicans in the south and much of the midwest have become the democratic party of the 20th century. The only choice, with the debates happening inside the party, not between dems and republicans (rubio vs. cruz on immigration, cotton vs paul on fp). Its become cultural and its solidifying and dems are letting it by retreating to their costal enclaves when they lose. GOTV isn't working by any large stretch (though I think there have flaws in my interaction with dem campaigns on how they're running this)
I think the best thing is outreach to middle america and a shift by the party away from focusing on cultural issues, there's no need for the candidate to make such a big issue out of them like udall did. We won the gay marriage debate, we're going to win the pot debate, people understand the war on women and by and large we have their vote. We're alienating white suburban voters who don't really care much on these issues and feel that we have no plan, because we don't. We don't need them in presidential years but we sure as hell do in midterms and much of the liberal blogosphere is really ignorant of why they vote they way they do and why they're voting republican.
benjipwns
Banned
The problem is, like on the GOP side, a lot of the consistent money and even more importantly foot soldiers come from the social issue camps.
The big money donors play both sides and even though it's always the number one issue voters aren't motivated much by the details of economy policy outside of "taxes going up or down?"/"benefits going up or down?" and the people who are and vote because of them are an insignificant bloc.
The Tea Party had an economic plank in the early going but it was really more anger at the GOP Establishment over all sorts of stuff. OWS couldn't even settle on an economic plank let alone bother to go after the Democrats.
The big money donors play both sides and even though it's always the number one issue voters aren't motivated much by the details of economy policy outside of "taxes going up or down?"/"benefits going up or down?" and the people who are and vote because of them are an insignificant bloc.
The Tea Party had an economic plank in the early going but it was really more anger at the GOP Establishment over all sorts of stuff. OWS couldn't even settle on an economic plank let alone bother to go after the Democrats.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I just read a paper on this.
Dems are sending out white 20 somethings who want to change the world to NC to convince old republicans to vote for them. No wonder it isn't working. They need to have more soccer moms, retired teachers, blue collar workers etc.
edit: story on the paper
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot/the-trouble-with-campaign-volunteers.html
paid canvassers are probably better at persuasion, Obama's campaigns really just masked that with enthusiasm for the candidate.
I've worked with both and shipping in east coast liberals isn't how you win kentucky
Hey look, conservatives have a good opinion on something for once:
http://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/
http://time.com/3578255/conservatives-net-neutrality-poll/
[
Well, I haven't thought that the Democrats have run an effective campaign overall since 2008. The failure is connected to their overall failure regarding messaging. I also certainly wouldn't say that Democrats "owned their accomplishments in 2010". Instead, I remember an even more extreme version of the disappearing act the Democrats performed this year.
I agree with this if what you are saying is that the Democrats should focus on economic issues. I think a lot of Democratic politicians and operatives project the concerns of their own sociocultural group (college educated upper-middle class to wealthy urbanites) onto the voting public. I also think it is somewhat easier for them to focus on these issues because addressing them doesn't involve fighting entrenched economic interests (unless churches and the prison industry count I guess).
Well, I haven't thought that the Democrats have run an effective campaign overall since 2008. The failure is connected to their overall failure regarding messaging. I also certainly wouldn't say that Democrats "owned their accomplishments in 2010". Instead, I remember an even more extreme version of the disappearing act the Democrats performed this year.
I agree with this if what you are saying is that the Democrats should focus on economic issues. I think a lot of Democratic politicians and operatives project the concerns of their own sociocultural group (college educated upper-middle class to wealthy urbanites) onto the voting public. I also think it is somewhat easier for them to focus on these issues because addressing them doesn't involve fighting entrenched economic interests (unless churches and the prison industry count I guess).
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And they'll oppose Obama's plan.
We keep seeing this repeat but you guys act shocked every time, on most issues (baring racial and social issues) most voters are concerned with the same basic things, stagnating wages, failing schools, increased power by corporations, the environment, etc, etc.
but when the issue becomes politicized the tribalism comes out, this happens to liberals too.
baring rape/racist gaffes, campaigns really don't matter and don't really change things
the make up of the electorate and economic conditions do (incumbency and sometimes general candidate quality do too)
benjipwns
Banned
The "atypical issues" mentioned is a key one.
You had people like Mitch Daniels and Rand Paul saying "let's cool it on the cultural issues a bit" and they got savaged as being sell outs to the lieberal agenda. That's one reason Paul's been trying to make those little steps and straddle because he's going to need those people on the ground in Iowa, etc.
You get the same thing when you point out how the Democratic Party has regularly tried to purge pro-life or pro-gun members in favor of much more extreme positions on these issues.
Even on economics there's a distancing, from the paper:
I'd argue these campaign workers views are in line and support those of the pundit/wonks of similar age, which is why they so often get blindsided by the results of Congressional action and elections.
You had people like Mitch Daniels and Rand Paul saying "let's cool it on the cultural issues a bit" and they got savaged as being sell outs to the lieberal agenda. That's one reason Paul's been trying to make those little steps and straddle because he's going to need those people on the ground in Iowa, etc.
You get the same thing when you point out how the Democratic Party has regularly tried to purge pro-life or pro-gun members in favor of much more extreme positions on these issues.
Even on economics there's a distancing, from the paper:
I'd argue these campaign workers views are in line and support those of the pundit/wonks of similar age, which is why they so often get blindsided by the results of Congressional action and elections.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
We agree on the bolded. A plan on issues of today rather than arguments that were settled a decade ago are what the democrats need. I guess I'm just against the idea that they need to move to the center to have a plan. They can basically stay where they are right now and still present a better plan than they did in 2014.
So tell me what specifically would they have to move to the center on? What democrat policy position is so unpopular that they need to give it up in order to succeed? Because as far as I can tell, they're on the popular side of practically everything. For anything that they're not on the popular side of, they're already on the same side as the republicans, like marijuana. Please, give me examples.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm not necessary calling for a centering but I have no problem with distancing from the party or president. They doesn't have to be towards the right like pyor did but can be moves in certain areas like heitkamps and manchins reluctance on EPA (while still largely letting obama do his thing).
and examples on what the dems need to cool it on?
Abortion and gun control. There will never be a decisive winner on those issues, there is no ''right side of history.'' Let the courts and/or ballot measures (non-partisian avenues) work and don't exclude candidates who differ from the party line on those two issues, forcefully. The war on women thing is starting to backfire, you can microtarget those issues or use PAC funding to highlight them but the candidates need to stop being so focused on that. Voters don't think the GOP has radical views on those issues.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Well. It seems to me we're probably all basically in agreement here then. Democrats need to cool it on the social issues and push a bit harder on the economic ones.
However, I kind of have to agree with benji here. When you have politicians that are rich, surround themselves with rich friends, and require donations from the rich to keep running, they're going to gravitate toward social issues over economic ones. Especially 2010-2014 when the rich are already doing fine economically while the poor aren't.
benjipwns
Banned
Abortion, guns and other issues that get heated and never change (and generally won't at the federal level outside the courts) so the fights can always continue are probably more turn offs for outsiders than anything. It's that kind of thing that I think people are talking about when they complain about how the parties just fight all the time. When it comes to things like the Iraq War or Health Care or Tax Cuts or Social Security there is much more leeway from the public about battles on those issues, indeed they'd prefer those to be a "choice, not an echo."
It's not the rich, but like APK and that study said, the campaign footsoldiers. The small donors too. Most big donors donate because it's routine and they have an audience anytime they want, small donors/campaign workers tend to be fired up about a particular issue and election season is when they come out of hibernation. (And it's when they get any time with the actual people with power.)
I guess I see choices regarding focus/positioning on the issues and candidate quality as tied to the overall effectiveness of a campaign. Otherwise, why are we even having this discussion? I guess you could separate them out, but then it starts to become a matter of semantics and I am not sure what we are really discussing.
From my perspective, I have never in my lifetime seen the Democrats run an effective campaign with a unifying theme with the exception of 2008, and even that was more style than substance. At the Presidential level, the closest I can remember was Clinton's "New Covenant" in 1992, but that was when I was very young and I get the feeling it was quickly abandoned after Clinton's effort at healthcare reform went down in flames. Compare that with the 1994 "Contract with America" and Bush II's "Compassionate Conservatism" (two radically different GOP philosophies), and the messaging gap becomes apparent.
What the Democrats need now is a unifying theme that shows that they will address voters' fears and insecurities regarding the economy.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, I missed APK's edit. Yes that's a big part of it too.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They don't need a 'theme' and the GOP hasn't won because of one. They need policies.
Yet the Republicans seem to be much better at developing themes to describe their ideas. I guess you could even include the "Tea Party" as a unifying theme of sorts, although that is closer to the sea of vague signifiers that Obama's 2008 campaign amounted to than something like the "Contract for America".
Democrats used to be good at developing overriding themes. FDR had the New Deal; Kennedy had the New Frontier; and Johnson had the Great Society.
Edit to reply to ApKmetsfan: I agree that the Democrats need policies that will appeal to speak to the voter concerns you articulated, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Democrats don't need an overarching framework, or theme, with which to sell those ideas to voters. At some level, the idea that such a framework is not needed goes against much of what is known about advertising, persuasion and human psychology/cognition.
Democrats used to be good at developing overriding themes. FDR had the New Deal; Kennedy had the New Frontier; and Johnson had the Great Society.
Edit to reply to ApKmetsfan: I agree that the Democrats need policies that will appeal to speak to the voter concerns you articulated, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Democrats don't need an overarching framework, or theme, with which to sell those ideas to voters. At some level, the idea that such a framework is not needed goes against much of what is known about advertising, persuasion and human psychology/cognition.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
you're describing policy as mere themes.
All of those came with concrete ideas and a governing coalition in place.
also the contracts place in history is overblown
I certainly I am not describing policy as themes. To be more specific: Democrats need a unifying framework with which to sell their policies to voters.
I don't know how else to express myself without writing a novel, but it it is getting late and I feel as if I am being misunderstood.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bernie Sanders might win if his opponent is Sarah Palin
I mean like, maybe
I mean like, maybe
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
That dude clearly knows a winner when he sees one.
It's like a slot machine, he's due eventually. The guy's just got it all warmed up.
The Democrats are still the party of the New Deal and the Great Society, whether they want to be or not, with a little bit of the New Frontier thrown in for the tech nerds
As for accuracy, I think that is somewhat of a loaded question. As FDR found out, it is not important that the things a President does actually have the desired effect of helping people, it is important that people think a politician is fighting for them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked