Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

With his Goldman Sachs wife?

I can 100% guarantee you that would have had zero influence on these rural voters. These people waved away scandal after scandal with Trump. It would have done nothing. They would have justified it somehow.

Earlier, some in the thread were talking about the DNC coming up with different types of candidates for different areas of the country, and I wholeheartedly agree.

When I was in Michigan, a democratic candidate named Bart Stupak won northern Michigan's (district 1) Congressional race many times in a row (from 1993-2011). He was an extremely popular democrat in a VERY rural area (northern Michigan from Traverse City northward to the bridge plus the Upper Peninsula).

I talked to many in those areas about what made him appealing. First and foremost? He was pro-life. By far, that was the response I heard the most. He never once said he'd repeal Roe V. Wade--just that he was against federal funding going for abortion.

There are many pro-life democrats out there, and I think the DNC would be wise to start building up a few of these to run in these rural areas. That will not be a popular opinion around here, but they don't have to say they'll push to repeal Roe V. Wade to do it. Stupak didn't, and he won in an extremely right-wing area of the state. If democrats want to start getting a foothold in these rural areas again, it might be the best course of action.

Quoting for new page. Curious to hear people's reaction to this idea.

 

[Pixieking]

Tried to start a conversation about this in here a week or so ago and it didn't pick up any traction.

This is absolutely huge because of redistricting.

Yes, the focus on the next "rising star" has to stop, unless we can run him/her for every position available.

BTW SC nominee should be stalled until SC has a decision on gerrymandering.

Yeah, it seems every time we get somewhere with talk about grassroots activism and real talk of 2018, people just kinda mumble and don't do anything, or it swings back to Bernie v Hillary/Hillary sucked/2020 talk.

Case in point:

....wow. You guys still pretend Clinton wasn't an abnormally flawed candidate. Amazing.

She wouldn't have been "abnormally flawed" if the media had actually made a choice to just straight-out ignore emails until something newsworthy happened. The NYT (and WaPo to a lesser extent) framing the Comey letter as "Hillary campaign screwed by new email scandal" instead of "FBI Break Hatch Act/FBI is Trumpland" is the most egregious.

But now I'm part of the problem.

Interesting.

Of note is the possibility that if Hillary had won, we would have still likely been hit with a recession and no way to stop it due to gridlock. 2018 would have been a bloodbath for Democrats, meaning we would have been fucked for redistricting.

Now we get to run as the opposition party in 2018.

Yeah, it's the coldest of cold-comforts, but a Hillary win would be a somewhat Pyrrhic Victory.

 

[royalan]

I honestly think Cruz would have done just as well as Trump.

Hillary was in a terrible situation. Followed an extremely charismatic 8-year democratic president, had Benghazi and the email situation along with the FBI clearly against her, Russia pushing fake news stories about her, and an enraged rural voter group against her. Trump was pretty inflammatory and his statements got many minorities to the polls. I'm not sure minority turnout would have been as high if Cruz was the candidate, and she may have lost by even more.

I don't think so. Because, in my honest opinion, with any other Republican candidate, Russia doesn't intervene.

Russia intervened because Trump is a pro-Russian moron who Putin knows he'd be able to easily manipulate. But Republicans traditionally are not pro-Russia.

 

[JP_]

She wouldn't have been "abnormally flawed" if the media had actually made a choice to just straight-out ignore emails until something newsworthy happened. The NYT (and WaPo to a lesser extent) framing the Comey letter as "Hillary campaign screwed by new email scandal" instead of "FBI Break Hatch Act/FBI is Trumpland" is the most egregious.

But now I'm part of the problem.

Sure. Same thing could be said if republicans hadn't been building up these scandals for years specifically to help them in 2016. But the flaws were known, regardless of origin, and the party chose to ignore them.

 

[Plinko]

I don't think so. Because, in my honest opinion, with any other Republican candidate, Russia doesn't intervene.

Russia intervened because Trump is a pro-Russian moron who Putin knows he'd be able to easily manipulate. But Republicans traditionally are not pro-Russia.

That's an interesting point. I just don't think Russia is what put Trump over the edge.

On a side note, LOL at Jill Stein now saying she won't guarantee all that money is going to a recount. Scam city.

 

[JP_]

Earlier, some in the thread were talking about the DNC coming up with different types of candidates for different areas of the country, and I wholeheartedly agree.

When I was in Michigan, a democratic candidate named Bart Stupak won northern Michigan's (district 1) Congressional race many times in a row (from 1993-2011). He was an extremely popular democrat in a VERY rural area (northern Michigan from Traverse City northward to the bridge plus the Upper Peninsula).

I talked to many in those areas about what made him appealing. First and foremost? He was pro-life. By far, that was the response I heard the most. He never once said he'd repeal Roe V. Wade--just that he was against federal funding going for abortion.

There are many pro-life democrats out there, and I think the DNC would be wise to start building up a few of these to run in these rural areas. That will not be a popular opinion around here, but they don't have to say they'll push to repeal Roe V. Wade to do it. Stupak didn't, and he won in an extremely right-wing area of the state. If democrats want to start getting a foothold in these rural areas again, it might be the best course of action.

I think there's some merit to it -- "baby killers" is a strong motivator for a lot of the republican base. But it's also a total compromise of the dem platform. We're in a climate where abortion rights are already losing ground -- if we go along with that -- anything less than fighting to restore what's been lost over the past few cycles -- we lose the trust of a lot of our base. When we lose the trust, we lose the excitement and engagement.

We're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to abortion -- at least until technological breakthroughs make it less of an issue. I think the left also needs to do a better job educating the public here. Needs to be a push to normalize it in media etc.

 

[kirblar]

I think there's some merit to it -- "baby killers" is a strong motivator for a lot of the republican base. But it's also a total compromise of the dem platform. We're in a climate where abortion rights are already losing ground -- if we go along with that -- anything less than fighting to restore what's been lost over the past few cycles -- we lose the trust of a lot of our base. When we lose the trust, we lose the excitement and engagement.

We're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to abortion -- at least until technological breakthroughs make it less of an issue. I think the left also needs to do a better job educating the public here. Needs to be a push to normalize it in media etc.

You don't understand the nuance. "I am pro life but won't impose it on others" is the stance.

Were still at 5050 decades after roe. Opinion isn't changing.

 

[JP_]

You don't understand the nuance. "I am pro life but won't impose it on others" is the stance.

Were still at 5050 decades after roe. Opinion isn't changing.

Yeah that's basically Tim Kaine, but do you really think that's going far enough to win over anti-abortion people that think dems are literal baby killers? That crowd doesn't operate with a lot of nuance.

edit: to clarify, the bar Plinko set was "he was against federal funding going to abortion" -- aren't there already a lot of dems that accept that limit? Afaik, that's been a pretty accepted compromise for decades but it hasn't stopped the dems from being painted as baby killers.

Here's 2012 exit polling:

People that lean pro-choice are willing to vote for Republicans. People leaning pro-life much less so. Would be interesting to see 2016 voting data with respect to abortion but I haven't found any. Dem platform was more pro-choice than in the past, could see how that might have affected things if any. But we do know that Trump did better with evangelicals than Romney.

 

[TestOfTide]

You're still acting like this was a normal election. It wasn't.

LOL

Yeah. Hillary lost this election as early as 2013 when the GOP made sure to focus their efforts on attacking the woman that everyone knew was going to be the nominee in 2016.

But the flip side to this is that without someone like Hillary to run against, the focus will be squarely on Trump and his failures to live up to his campaign promises.

And if the 2020 Democratic primaries are competitive enough, the GOP will have no way of doing to the Democratic nominee what they did to Hillary. Part of the reason Obama was so successful was because he caught the GOP by surprise, so the GOP had to quickly try and figure out what angle to attack Obama on. They best that the GOP was able to come up with was some "guilt by association" bullshit that even a lot of conservatives weren't buying. And they won't have much time to create that narrative because they won't be able to focus on any one candidate until they know for sure that candidate is going to become the nominee, which means that the only consistent narrative voters will hear about is Trump fucking up on his promises.

I think there's some merit to it -- "baby killers" is a strong motivator for a lot of the republican base. But it's also a total compromise of the dem platform. We're in a climate where abortion rights are already losing ground -- if we go along with that -- anything less than fighting to restore what's been lost over the past few cycles -- we lose the trust of a lot of our base. When we lose the trust, we lose the excitement and engagement.

We're basically stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to abortion -- at least until technological breakthroughs make it less of an issue. I think the left also needs to do a better job educating the public here. Needs to be a push to normalize it in media etc.

You're assuming one of two things (neither of which necessarily need to be true):

- That the entire Democratic Party has to move to be more pro-life.

- That every Blue Dog has to be pro-life.

You don't even have to have every blue dog as a pro-life blue dog, because I very much doubt that EVERY red district/state/area has abortion as their driving conservative issue. If that were the case, then Todd Akin wouldn't have lost.

What it will actually look like (ideally) is:

- some blue dogs will be about appealing to religious regions by being pro-life

- some blue dogs will be about appealing to farmers and hunters by being pro-guns-rights

- some blue dogs will have won because they focused on local issues of their area, such as new jobs for the rust belt.

- some blue dogs will be about appealing to an older aged area by running on a pro-retirement platform (which would obviously include issues like Medicare and SS)

And then when you combine having all those blue dogs with having progressives for blue parts, you have a situation like what Speaker Pelosi had where she got a shitload done because she only needed some of the blue dogs to pass each bill.

 

[Taiser]

I honestly think Cruz would have done just as well as Trump.

 

[JP_]

You're assuming one of two things (neither of which necessarily need to be true):

- That the entire Democratic Party has to move to be more pro-life.

- That every Blue Dog has to be pro-life.

Abortion is more of a federal issue, no? We're talking federal laws like hyde amendment, supreme court picks, etc. If dems get in control and don't restore abortion rights by preventing states from passing these crazy laws, you don't think that'd piss off dem voters? Again, we're not at a point where things are stable -- over the last few cycles, abortion rights have been under heavy attack.

This was only 2013-2014. If dems accept this sort of lost ground as the new norm, I think we'll lose a lot of enthusiasm. Supreme Court helped a bit, but now that's at stake and these red states sure as hell won't be giving up.

The second point is basically outside the scope of the convo -- I was addressing abortion stances, not blue dogs in general.

 

[Wilsongt]

60mil Americans have decided to turn the country into a billionaire's paradise.

If those people thought they were going to get decent paying, secure jobs...

Lol.

 

[dramatis]

It was just another reason for my husband to go on about how Wall Street and the establishment were the only things that mattered in this election.

There's a bit of data here to send to him.

This kind of cultural explanation would make sense — it’s Trump’s white identity politics, and not his economic message, that most clearly distinguished him from previous Republicans like Romney. Studies from the GOP primary, and pre-election polls, found high racial resentment was a far better predictor of a voter’s likelihood of supporting Trump than any economic variable.

Clarke and Tomlinson’s research can’t resolve this question one way or another. County-level data isn’t specific enough to tell us how individuals in those counties behaved. It could be that wealthy people who live in low-education counties were less likely to vote for Trump than their working-class neighbors. Or it could be the other way around.

Regardless, it suggests that the push among some liberals, like Bernie Sanders, to respond to this election with a “populist” economic message may not be the right approach. If the swing toward Trump among whites really was about racial and cultural anxieties — as some good research suggests — then they will have misdiagnosed the problem.

 

[TestOfTide]

Abortion is more of a federal issue, no? We're talking federal laws like hyde amendment, supreme court picks, etc. If dems get in control and don't restore abortion rights by preventing states from passing these crazy laws, you don't think that'd piss off dem voters? Again, we're not at a point where things are stable -- over the last few cycles, abortion rights have been under heavy attack.

This was only 2013-2014. If dems accept this sort of lost ground as the new norm, I think we'll lose a lot of enthusiasm. Supreme Court helped a bit, but now that's at stake and these red states sure as hell won't be giving up.

The second point is basically outside the scope of the convo -- I was addressing abortion stances, not blue dogs in general.

Accept that stuff is what will drive democrats to vote for state and local races. All your examples are things that can be undone for each state simply by having democrats regain control of each of those states. Yes I know that is nearly impossible for Texas, but my point is that actually it's not being run on a federal level. Just the opposite in fact.

In fact I would go so far as to say that SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade would drastically hurt the GOP, because suddenly people in red states would see first hand what it means to force a rape victim to go through child birth, and they absolutely will not be happy about it.

Remember, Mississippi had a ballot initiative a few years ago on whether or not to ban ALL abortions and it failed to pass because even in red states like Mississippi most people aren't comfortable with banning ALL abortions.

 

[B-Dubs]

I can 100% guarantee you that would have had zero influence on these rural voters. These people waved away scandal after scandal with Trump. It would have done nothing. They would have justified it somehow.

Cruz is also a more traditional politician, Trump got the benefit of the doubt due to his outsider status. Cruz is the guy everyone in the GOP hates for making them look bad. He'd have had all of the downside to Trump but without any of the benefits. As shitty as Trump is you can very easily see the appeal, he talks word salad but knows how to play a crowd, Cruz doesn't. Cruz is a charisma vacuum and plays into existing Democratic attacks far more easily thank Trump did. Plus he wouldn't have been able to overload the media with scandals so none of his policies get any real coverage.

To be completely honest, I think this was something only Trump could have pulled off. Anyone else would have had this looking more like a traditional election.

Quoting for new page. Curious to hear people's reaction to this idea.

It's basically the answer Joe Biden and Tim Kaine give on abortion and it's fine. So long as they aren't restricting access and vote with us it's whatever. Besides, federal money already doesn't go towards abortion so it's not like saying that actually matters.

 

[Frank the Great]

People in rural areas vote based on either guns or abortion. These are extremely important issues to them.

In the rust belt, throw anti-trade into the mix.

Democrats need to run pro-life, pro-gun candidates in rural areas. Anti-trade populists in the rust belt. It is a no brainer. What's the point of running liberal candidates that lose every time?

Democrats have always been a big tent party and they need to start fucking acting like it. There's no room for purity tests in this party. Keep the progressive national platform but for fuck's sake, start winning some local races.

 

[whyamihere]

I don't think the Russians would've given a shit if there was another Republican nominee.

 

[Kai Dracon]

People in rural areas vote based on either guns or abortion. These are extremely important issues to them.

In the rust belt, throw anti-trade into the mix.

Democrats need to run pro-life, pro-gun candidates in rural areas. Anti-trade populists in the rust belt. It is a no brainer. What's the point of running liberal candidates that lose every time?

Democrats have always been a big tent party and they need to start fucking acting like it. There's no room for purity tests in this party. Keep the progressive national platform but for fuck's sake, start winning some local races.

"Pro-gun" candidate is more a matter of fielding an anti-propaganda candidate. The lie rural America has absorbed is that democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment and take all guns away, full stop. So sure, you could in theory unwrap that and put forward people who won't be instantly rejected by NRA America.

"Pro-life" though, is the real problem. For too many people that vote R downticket, the crusade is for a full abortion ban, period. I'm not sure someone like Kaine, who stresses he's pro-life personally but wants to let women choose, will work. As long as democrats want to protect women's rights as part of the party's official platform, a whole lot of people will see them as the devil and baby killers.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Democrats need to give up on Guns.

 

[Wilsongt]

Democrats need to give up on Guns.

Democrats need to give up. We're in a right wing controlled country for while...

 

[neurosisxeno]

Democrats need to give up. We're in a right wing controlled country for while...

I think people--especially on here--underestimate how many people vote Republican exclusively for the second amendment. Do they really expect they're going to win on a vehemently anti-gun platform in a country with 300+ million guns and a constitution that explicitly enforces the right to bear arms? Obama literally did nothing but expand gun rights, and he's still widely viewed as an anti-gun President. Just let it take a back seat until there's enough Democrats in office to actually do something about it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Democrats need to give up on Guns.

The party as a whole? No thank you. If it will help an individual candidate then let them stake out their own position, but I'd rather not drop important issues wholesale in the name of political expediency. We need to at least be talking about it and besides, dropping it won't do a damn thing to help. When's the last time the NRA let the truth get in the way of a good attack ad?

I think people--especially on here--underestimate how many people vote Republican exclusively for the second amendment. Do they really expect they're going to win on a vehemently anti-gun platform in a country with 300+ million guns and a constitution that explicitly enforces the right to bear arms? Obama literally did nothing but expand gun rights, and he's still widely viewed as an anti-gun President.

Again, when's the last time the NRA let the truth get in the way of a good attack? Dropping it won't end the attacks. May as well just own it as a party and let individual candidates run from it if needed.

 

[Plinko]

I think people--especially on here--underestimate how many people vote Republican exclusively for the second amendment. Do they really expect they're going to win on a vehemently anti-gun platform in a country with 300+ million guns and a constitution that explicitly enforces the right to bear arms? Obama literally did nothing but expand gun rights, and he's still widely viewed as an anti-gun President.

Yep. This and abortion. Doesn't matter what else they do.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Again, when's the last time the NRA let the truth get in the way of a good attack? Dropping it won't end the attacks. May as well just own it as a party and let individual candidates run from it if needed.

Then the left needs its own groups attacking the NRA, since the NRA doesn't even support the things most American citizens actually want. They claim they stand up most for rural gun owners, but if you ask any gun owner from a small state/community almost all of them think requiring people to at least take Hunters Safety before being able to buy a gun is a legitimately good idea. The problem is a lot of them are holdovers from when the NRA did represent the average person, not manufacturers and sellers of guns.

Yep. This and abortion.

I think Abortion is a harder one to justify backing down on, as we saw it didn't work that great for Tim Kaine, and I think the Democratic Party absolutely needs to stand up for women's rights. But Guns is something they can let slide until they have the ability to pass meaningful legislation on the issue. Making it a establishment/party stance to support increased restrictions is literally helping nobody. It's just costing them votes--especially on the state level.

 

[whyamihere]

Instead of "giving up" on guns, why not run candidates like Jason Kander that can deliver our message in a better way?

 

[thepotatoman]

We've tried running progressives, we've tried running pro-gun democrats, we've tried running pro-life democrats, and none of it has worked.

Maybe it's all just futile, and the opposing party will always win every election but the second term presidential election until the party in power switches sides and the cycle begins anew. I don't know anymore.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Instead of "giving up" on guns, why not run candidates like Jason Kander that can deliver our message in a better way?

That's the alternative. The problem is most Democrats aren't ex-military with a boat load of charisma and southern charm to boot.

 

[Plinko]

It's basically the answer Joe Biden and Tim Kaine give on abortion and it's fine. So long as they aren't restricting access and vote with us it's whatever. Besides, federal money already doesn't go towards abortion so it's not like saying that actually matters.

I've talked to voters who said Hillary's answer to the question about partial birth abortion during the debates is what shifted their vote from her to Trump.

We've tried running progressives, we've tried running pro-gun democrats, we've tried running pro-life democrats, and none of it has worked.

Maybe it's all just futile, and the opposing party will always win every election but the second term presidential election. I don't know anymore.

But we are talking about Congressional races at this point, and those candidates you listed have absolutely won--even in rural areas.

 

[TestOfTide]

Yep. This and abortion. Doesn't matter what else they do.

Bullshit. Only something like 18% of Americans think that abortion should be banned for all cases.

If so many were about hating abortion, then why didn't that anti-abortion ballot measure pass in Mississippi that one year?

And sorry, but pro-life blue dog doesn't mean Tim Kaine. It means a blue dog that has similar views on abortion as people like John McCain.

But the point is that you don't need EVERY blue dog to be pro-life and pro-NRA. Different areas have different values.

We've tried running progressives, we've tried running pro-gun democrats, we've tried running pro-life democrats, and none of it has worked.

Maybe it's all just futile, and the opposing party will always win every election but the second term presidential election until the party in power switches sides and the cycle begins anew. I don't know anymore.

Wrong. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy worked so damn well that you literally had numerous districts 2008 that voted for John McCain but also voted for the blue dog for house rep. In fact that was what Sarah Palin's map with the crosshairs was all about: targeting blue dogs from districts that Obama lost in 2008.

 

[whyamihere]

We've tried running progressives, we've tried running pro-gun democrats, we've tried running pro-life democrats, and none of it has worked.

Maybe it's all just futile, and the opposing party will always win every election but the second term presidential election until the party in power switches sides and the cycle begins anew. I don't know anymore.

That too. Some of this is, unfortunately, cyclical.

 

[Kusagari]

I'm confident Hillary wins FL against anyone that isn't Trump.

No other candidate is making those 500k+ in the Panhandle turn out.

 

[JP_]

Accept that stuff is what will drive democrats to vote for state and local races. All your examples are things that can be undone for each state simply by having democrats regain control of each of those states. Yes I know that is nearly impossible for Texas, but my point is that actually it's not being run on a federal level. Just the opposite in fact.

In fact I would go so far as to say that SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade would drastically hurt the GOP, because suddenly people in red states would see first hand what it means to force a rape victim to go through child birth, and they absolutely will not be happy about it.

Remember, Mississippi had a ballot initiative a few years ago on whether or not to ban ALL abortions and it failed to pass because even in red states like Mississippi most people aren't comfortable with banning ALL abortions.

Federal laws could absolutely restrict states' ability to implement these restrictions. Polls show Texans aren't comfortable with banning all abortions either, but that didn't stop local governments from ramrodding these laws in. Red states are already seeing the effects of abortion clinics being far less available, but it's probably not going to have this blowback effect you're describing even if there's an outright ban. This isn't something people talk about in casual conversations. Many of them might know somebody that has had an abortion, but they don't know that they know somebody that has had an abortion -- it feels like abortion is something that only affects irresponsible people that sleep around and don't take care of themselves -- it doesn't feel like it's an issue that affects people in their social circles. People think abortions are how Trump painted them where a woman randomly chooses to abort at 9 months pregnant and has no respect for life. The issue is a big black box where barely anybody knows the facts and even fewer hold their local representatives responsible for going against their views, except those that are strictly against it. Leaving it up to the states has proven to be disastrous.

 

[TestOfTide]

Federal laws could absolutely restrict states' ability to implement these restrictions. Polls show Texans aren't comfortable with banning all abortions either, but that didn't stop local governments from ramrodding these laws in. Red states are already seeing the effects of abortion clinics being far less available, but it's probably not going to have this blowback effect you're describing even if there's an outright ban. This isn't something people talk about in casual conversations. Many of them might know somebody that has had an abortion, but they don't know that they know somebody that has had an abortion -- it feels like abortion is something that only affects irresponsible people that sleep around and don't take care of themselves -- it doesn't feel like it's an issue that affects people in their social circles. People think abortions are how Trump painted them where a woman randomly chooses to abort at 9 months pregnant and has no respect for life. The issue is a big black box where barely anybody knows the facts and even fewer hold their local representatives responsible for going against their views, except those that are strictly against it. Leaving it up to the states has proven to be disastrous.

If abortion becomes outright banned, then a lot of people suddenly WILL learn which of their friends and family have had abortions.

 

[B-Dubs]

I've talked to voters who said Hillary's answer to the question about partial birth abortion during the debates is what shifted their vote from her to Trump.

Where did I mention Hillary? I mentioned Joe Biden and Tim Kaine.

 

[JP_]

If abortion becomes outright banned, then a lot of people suddenly WILL learn which of their friends and family have had abortions.

...no, it'll go back to black market back alley abortions. They'll be even more secretive because it's now literally illegal and telling people could lead to jail time.

But we are talking about Congressional races at this point, and those candidates you listed have absolutely won--even in rural areas.

It's getting harder and harder as the nation becomes more partisan. Banning earmarks seems to have accelerated this affect further.

 

[Plinko]

Where did I mention Hillary? I mentioned Joe Biden and Tim Kaine.

You didn't. I was just adding a general statement to the discussion about abortion and voters. Sorry about the confusion.

Bullshit. Only something like 18% of Americans think that abortion should be banned for all cases.

If so many were about hating abortion, then why didn't that anti-abortion ballot measure pass in Mississippi that one year?

And sorry, but pro-life blue dog doesn't mean Tim Kaine. It means a blue dog that has similar views on abortion as people like John McCain.

But the point is that you don't need EVERY blue dog to be pro-life and pro-NRA. Different areas have different values.

Except I didn't say about it being in all cases. Just that abortion is a colossal cause of one-issue voters. I was just saying a pro-life democrat would be a good idea to run in these areas.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Clinton had terrible baggage and isn't a good politician. I wouldn't indict all female candidates based on her. IMO Harris is the best democrat talent since Obama. Does that mean I think she can beat Trump in four years, specifically in the rust belt? No. But I don't know who can beat him at this point. We'll see.

She's a great politician. She's not a great campaigner

 

[TestOfTide]

She's a great politician. She's not a great campaigner

I should add one thing that Hillaru could still be useful for with Democrats: Fundraising.

Democrats will need Hillary's fundraising power to counter all the SuperPACs.

But obviously we don't need the candidates themselves being the fundraisers. Have people like Hillary working secretly to help fundraisers for Democrats.

 

[thepotatoman]

But we are talking about Congressional races at this point, and those candidates you listed have absolutely won--even in rural areas.

Name one seat between 2010 and 2016 that was changed from republican to democrat through those tactics.

Wrong. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy worked so damn well that you literally had numerous districts 2008 that voted for John McCain but also voted for the blue dog for house rep. In fact that was what Sarah Palin's map with the crosshairs was all about: targeting blue dogs from districts that Obama lost in 2008.

Howard Dean was a part of the opposition party at the time, which as I said, is the only way to possibly win.

 

[Ecotic]

Democrats need Dean's 50 state strategy on the Congressional level and a better candidate on the national level.

Let's not over correct on the national level, Hillary just needed literally 1% more in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. We also had the "time for a change" third term curse dragging us down, though Trump complicates a clean analysis.

 

[TestOfTide]

Name one seat between 2010 and 2016 that was changed from republican to democrat through those tactics.

The whole reason democrats lost in 2010 and beyond is because they stopped doing Dean's 50 state strategy.

Remember that map Sarah Palin posted with the crosshairs? That was a list of districts that Obama lost in 2008, but the democrat won for the house rep seat.

Democrats need Dean's 50 state strategy on the Congressional level and a better candidate on the national level.

Let's not over correct on the national level, Hillary just needed literally 1% more in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. We also had the "time for a change" third term curse dragging us down, though Trump complicates a clean analysis.

For national level it's all about New Blood Democrats. Have Harris or Masto as the nominee with Sheldon Whitehouse or Chuck Schumer as VP.

 

[mo60]

One thing in future elections democrats will have to worry about are the voter suppression methods republicans are using to prevent some of the democrats demograhics from voting. It worked pretty well in NC this election. It's likely they use some of the voter suppression tactics used in NC this election in other states like AZ.

 

[TestOfTide]

One thing in future elections democrats will have to worry about are the voter suppression methods republicans are using to prevent some of the democrats demograhics from voting. It worked pretty well in NC this election. It's likely they use some of the voter suppression tactics used in NC this election in other states like AZ.

That will have an effect, but let's be honest with ourselves: The Democrats' biggest hurdle is Voter Apathy not Voter Suppression.

 

[Grief.exe]

One thing in future elections democrats will have to worry about are the voter suppression methods republicans are using to prevent some of the democrats demograhics from voting. It worked pretty well in NC this election. It's likely they use some of the voter suppression tactics used in NC this election in other states like AZ.

Live in Wisconsin as well https://twitter.com/WI_Elections/status/796143999719473152

Anywhere with a Republican Governor are likely to get pressured to implement these measures, which, unfortunately, is the majority of states.

 

[mo60]

Live in Wisconsin as well https://twitter.com/WI_Elections/status/796143999719473152

Anywhere with a Republican Governor are likely to get pressured to implement these measures, which, unfortunately, is the majority of states.

I don't see republican governors like Charles Baker and Phill Scott trying to implement voter suppression measures.

 

[Grief.exe]

I don't see republican governors like Charles Baker and Phill Scott trying to implement voter suppression measures.

I can see them getting pressure from PACs and the RNC to implement these measures from the top to put those fingers on the scale.

 

[mo60]

I can see them getting pressure from PACs and the RNC to implement these measures from the top to put those fingers on the scale.

Wouldn't they need the support of the state legislature in both states to pass these measures? If both state legislatures are filled with democrats none of these measures will pass. Governors like those two are probably screwed if they tried to pass any voter suppression measures.

 

[TestOfTide]

I can see them getting pressure from PACs and the RNC to implement these measures from the top to put those fingers on the scale.

No. If Charlie Baker tries to undermine voting rights he will get slaughtered in 2018.

 

[Plinko]

Name one seat between 2010 and 2016 that was changed from republican to democrat through those tactics.



Howard Dean was a part of the opposition party at the time, which as I said, is the only way to possibly win.

I'm not going to go through the list to check, but I think it's fair to say that democrats have strengthened in their beliefs while republicans have strengthened in theirs over the past few years. I don't know how many blue dogs we have left.

 

[Wilsongt]

Maybe Dems will get their heads out of their asses next year and start trying to drum up as much "EXCITEMENT" and support for Dems up for the house and senate in 2018.

But, I have no faith in the DNC's ability to mobilize voters without Obama.