Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ia-special-election/59497f2fe9b69b2fb981ddc6/

But wouldn't this also be the case if you asked a heavily Democratic district about Paul Ryan?

And all this is besides the point. So Pelosi motivates Republicans to vote? Who's bringing out our people to vote?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But wouldn't this also be the case if you asked a heavily Democratic district about Paul Ryan?

And all this is besides the point. So Pelosi motivates Republicans to vote? Who's bringing out our people to vote?

...not Pelosi?

 

[RastaMentality]

But wouldn't this also be the case if you asked a heavily Democratic district about Paul Ryan?

And all this is besides the point. So Pelosi motivates Republicans to vote? Who's bringing out our people to vote?

If a minority party leader is driving Republicans out in droves while we have Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald fucking Trump to oppose then well, shit.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'm really torn on the Pelosi thing. Need more data.

On the one hand, she's a strong liberal voice and extremely effective. You don't throw that kind of political operative aside casually. On the other hand, the right has been demonizing her for nearly as long as Hillary, and she does seem to be a motivating factor for the GOP voter base. But how much of that is because of the sheer weight of coverage? 2018 candidates won't get that kind of media blitz, and without that (and all the money), is it really an effective attack? How much of last night is down to black swan events like the rain and the shooting and the immense national spotlight, and how much of it is the result of the actual messaging?

I dunno.

 

[Mac_Lane]

Why are we saying loss by 4? Handel had 52.7% and Ossoff had 47.3% 52.7 - 47.3 = 5.4. It was a 5 point loss, and closer to 6 than it was 4.

I don't know where you get your numbers from but it was actually 51,9% for Handel and 48,1% for Ossof, so a 3,8 percentage point spread.

 

[PBY]

I'm really torn on the Pelosi thing. Need more data.

On the one hand, she's a strong liberal voice and extremely effective. You don't throw that kind of political operative aside casually. On the other hand, the right has been demonizing her for nearly as long as Hillary, and she does seem to be a motivating factor for the GOP voter base. But how much of that is because of the sheer weight of coverage? 2018 candidates won't get that kind of media blitz, and without that (and all the money), is it really an effective attack? How much of last night is down to black swan events like the rain and the shooting and the immense national spotlight, and how much of it is the result of the actual messaging?

I dunno.

We may never know.

I just wonder how long Dems can go on like this without changing anything? (Not just Pelosi - but messaging, etc).

 

[royalan]

If a minority party leader is driving Republicans out in droves while we have Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Donald fucking Trump to oppose then well, shit.

But that's kind of the point.

Nancy Pelosi hasn't been responsible for much more than whipping votes in close to a decade. If the GOP are this successful in turning her into Queen Bitch, don't downplay their ability to do that to almost anyone. It's not that Pelosi ISNT toxic to the right, it's that this won't end by sacrificing her. We'll just be monumentally stupid for going down this path of sacrificing our leadership to appease the right.

Also, there are plenty of figures on the right Democrats could attack. Problem is we don't.

If I hear one more Dem Congressman go on TV and talk about their GOP gym buddy, golfing partner, dinner pal, and how they have "minor differences on issues...But gee golly they're just so swell and I don't know why they're doing this." I'll fucking scream.

 

[Poodlestrike]

We may never know.

I just wonder how long Dems can go on like this without changing anything?

False premise. We just replaced basically the entire DNC upper management and are pivoting to the left on a number of fronts.

 

[PBY]

If I hear one more Dem Congressman go on TV and talk about their GOP gym buddy, golfing partner, dinner pal, and how they have "minor differences on issues...But gee golly they're just so swell and I don't know why they're doing this." I'll fucking scream.

+1

 

[PBY]

False premise. We just replaced basically the entire DNC upper management and are pivoting to the left on a number of fronts.

Where has the party pivoted left?

 

[Poodlestrike]

Also, there are plenty of figures on the right Democrats could attack. Problem is we don't.

If I hear one more Dem Congressman go on TV and talk about their GOP gym buddy, golfing partner, dinner pal, and how they have "minor differences on issues...But gee golly they're just so swell and I don't know why they're doing this." I'll fucking scream.

Quote for TRUTH. There's a massive intensity gap. When you have Republicans telling their base that their opponents want to take their guns, kill their babies, and impose sharia law, and the Deems tell their base that they believe both sides are basically good but they just disagree on some issues... Is there any surprise that the GOP is easier to activate? They're ACTUALLY an existential threat to democracy. Labeling them as such isn't fear mongering.

Dems should definitely start standing up and decrying bipartisanship as the folly it is.

Where has the party pivoted left?

Minimum wage, college affordability, renewed support for the public option, a TON of social justice issues (this happened more during the election than since I'll admit).

 

[Zolo]

But that's kind of the point.

Nancy Pelosi hasn't been responsible for much more than whipping votes in close to a decade. If the GOP are this successful in turning her into Queen Bitch, don't downplay their ability to do that to almost anyone. It's not that Pelosi ISNT toxic to the right, it's that this won't end by sacrificing her. We'll just be monumentally stupid for going down this path of sacrificing our leadership to appease the right.

This is my main issue with saying she should step down. I guess it may take a bit of time, but the GOP will find a target to paint if they need one.

 

[WaffleTaco]

I'm honestly a little surprised that people were this upset that Ossoff lost. It was always going to be a tight race, especially after the runoff where Republicans could concentrate on only one candidate. We tried our best, and it just wasn't good enough.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm really torn on the Pelosi thing. Need more data.

On the one hand, she's a strong liberal voice and extremely effective. You don't throw that kind of political operative aside casually. On the other hand, the right has been demonizing her for nearly as long as Hillary, and she does seem to be a motivating factor for the GOP voter base. But how much of that is because of the sheer weight of coverage? 2018 candidates won't get that kind of media blitz, and without that (and all the money), is it really an effective attack? How much of last night is down to black swan events like the rain and the shooting and the immense national spotlight, and how much of it is the result of the actual messaging?

I dunno.

they do in every other political system.

shes lost multiple races, legislation is partisan. I have no problem kicked out a person who can't get us back to power and is against out most popular proposals

 

[Plinko]

But that's kind of the point.

Nancy Pelosi hasn't been responsible for much more than whipping votes in close to a decade. If the GOP are this successful in turning her into Queen Bitch, don't downplay their ability to do that to almost anyone. It's not that Pelosi ISNT toxic to the right, it's that this won't end by sacrificing her. We'll just be monumentally stupid for going down this path of sacrificing our leadership to appease the right.

Also, there are plenty of figures on the right Democrats could attack. Problem is we don't.

If I hear one more Dem Congressman go on TV and talk about their GOP gym buddy, golfing partner, dinner pal, and how they have "minor differences on issues...But gee golly they're just so swell and I don't know why they're doing this." I'll fucking scream.

This is my main issue with saying she should step down. I guess it may take a bit of time, but the GOP will find a target to paint if they need one.

Here's the issue, though--it won't be nearly as effective for the GOP until years down the road. It took nearly a decade to demonize her, and it would take that long for someone new, especially if they have a clean background.

Again, not saying it should happen, but it is something that needs to be analyzed.

The point about democrats being soft is right on the money. The "we go high" crap does not work in today's society. Republicans have given zero reason why democrats should be keeping that paradigm.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Special elections are almost always won by the incumbent party. That's one reason it's dumb to try to extrapolate from them.

It is what it is though. Had Democrats won, then you know the narrative they (leadership) were going to try to push. All part of the political game.

 

[PBY]

I'm honestly a little surprised that people were this upset that Ossoff lost. It was always going to be a tight race, especially after the runoff where Republicans could concentrate on only one candidate. We tried our best, and it just wasn't good enough.

It wasn't a 1 pt loss tho. "We tried our best" is meaningless.

 

[Plinko]

The main concern I have for 2018 is that republican voters are most unhappy with the party's inaction on healthcare and taxes. They're going to ram those through before the election, which means they'll now be less likely to be unhappy with their candidate. Those people are not switching votes, which means democrats have to mobilize new swaths of voters everywhere, and I'm not sure how they do that because they've done a poor job of it recently.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm honestly a little surprised that people were this upset that Ossoff lost. It was always going to be a tight race, especially after the runoff where Republicans could concentrate on only one candidate. We tried our best, and it just wasn't good enough.

People expect things to be too easy.

The running gag leading up to this was "well if Ossoff wins the GOP might get cold feet on AHCA!" Hell no, they had a laundry list of excuses ready for if Handel lost. No loss has ever convinced them to stop being shitheads.

I'm reminded of when Franken was on Bill Maher and Maher asked him if they were going to impeach Trump. Franken was like "ok he's been president for like two months and the election was four months ago, if liberals didn't want him to be president that badly they should have voted, or they can vote next time."

Or right after Trump won and people were asking me if there was any way to prevent him from being president. Fake articles about how the Electoral College could just install Bernie Sanders as president because why not.

So people pinned their hopes and dreams on Ossoff winning as if flipping this one red district would convince McConnell to take AHCA off the docket and Ryan to take the investigation proceedings seriously. Try 24 red districts. Winning Ossoff's race would have made that marginally easier but we'd still have to defend it alongside 194 other seats next November.

I think this election just proved what people were saying, and this isn't just retroactive spin because we discussed this possibility in this very thread - districts that moved away from Trump might not necessarily have moved away from the GOP. Conversely, like we saw in SC-5 (remember this district was held by a Democrat until 2010), movement towards Trump last year might not be a permanent lurch to the right. There are Trump districts and states that might not be so far gone; conversely, there are Romney districts that might still just be a tad out of reach for now.

Trump still has a year and a half to keep shoving his foot in his mouth and for his unfavorables to grow higher and higher. We just have to fight. The Virginia gubernatorial election should be our next focus. The party was not hinging on Ossoff.

To wade into the Pelosi question, I'm starting to think it's time for her to go. I don't think this would have even swung GA-6 but 98% awareness is startling if true. I say that with utmost respect to her tenure as Speaker and effectiveness as Minority Leader, and I acknowledge anyone who takes her place will be just as vilified (I've made this argument many times before in favor of keeping her!). But that takes time, and more importantly I think the person needs to become Speaker before anyone gives a shit. I don't know who should replace her if anyone so I'm not calling for her head right now, I just hope the caucus is having a sincere dialogue over this.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But that's kind of the point.

Nancy Pelosi hasn't been responsible for much more than whipping votes in close to a decade. If the GOP are this successful in turning her into Queen Bitch, don't downplay their ability to do that to almost anyone. It's not that Pelosi ISNT toxic to the right, it's that this won't end by sacrificing her. We'll just be monumentally stupid for going down this path of sacrificing our leadership to appease the right.

Also, there are plenty of figures on the right Democrats could attack. Problem is we don't.

If I hear one more Dem Congressman go on TV and talk about their GOP gym buddy, golfing partner, dinner pal, and how they have "minor differences on issues...But gee golly they're just so swell and I don't know why they're doing this." I'll fucking scream.

shouldn't the fact that she's not been whipping votes show how much of a failure she is?

and everything pelosi isn't sexism. sure it's a large part in the GOP base but pelosi has far lager issues with moderates and non voters and those on the left they see her as a establishment figure who's not interested in fundamentally making their lives better. she shouldn't be leader not because of the GOPs dog whistle but because she's been doing a horrible job.

She's the epitome of the status quo as others have taken up a an actually substantative progressive platform. If she doesn't want to run on a platform that has move past her she should quit leadership. The progressive caucus should be in charge. Pelosi was great 10 years ago, she's not built for this moment.

The issue isn't only civility towards the GOP it's also the fact the Dems have an inability to articulate criticisms of their own party and only seem to win when their opponents have catastrophic policy failures.

And your solution is doubling down on attack politics? did you not see 2016? It doesn't motivate the Dem base. We don't vote on fear. Our best candidates that win have always been either run on failures of the GOP (Carter, 2006) or hope and the promise of change (Clinton, Obama) that gives people a reason to vote besides "that other guy is worse"

 

[Crocodile]

-Improving the Quality of Healthcare and pushing towards UHC
-Progressive Taxation (rich pay more)
-Green Jobs and Protecting the Environment
-Higher Wages and Worker Protections
-Criminal Justice Reform
-Defending Civil Rights
-Defending/Expanding Voting Rights
-Pro-Choice (with some flexibility?)
-Gun-Control (with some flexibility)
-Real Infrastructure
-Handling Student Debt and expanding access to Colleges
-etc.

Like I continue to not understand what people mean when they ask "What do the Democrats stand for"? Obviously I make an effort to be more informed than average voter but its seems really obvious to me what the generic Democratic platform is. There are different ways to achieve all of the above goals but that non-exhaustive list is what basically every Democrat wants across the country. What is hard to understand about that for the lay man and how do you fix that?

That's also putting aside being "anti-Obama" worked well for the GOP but I can understand arguments that we shouldn't mimic it.

The main concern I have for 2018 is that republican voters are most unhappy with the party's inaction on healthcare and taxes. They're going to ram those through before the election, which means they'll now be less likely to be unhappy with their candidate.

I don't understand why if you want your representative to do "something" about healthcare you'd reward them if they took it away. Then again, its more and more clear many GOP voters don't vote on issues as much as tribalism.

 

[Ogodei]

I'm honestly a little surprised that people were this upset that Ossoff lost. It was always going to be a tight race, especially after the runoff where Republicans could concentrate on only one candidate. We tried our best, and it just wasn't good enough.

I'm only upset because it lets Trump brag like the fucking dicknose that he is. The laughter of the fascist class made me punch my work monitor several times this morning.

These listless Democrats we run aren't helping anything. I want to see people get mean.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Here's your hottake, stop expecting shit.

Oh, also Dems just suck at voting.

 

[Diablos]

Pelosi is awesome but I think it might be time that she steps aside...

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

All I'm gonna say is we better damn well hope if Nancy goes, whoever replaces her got at least half as much skill she showed in her best days.

 

[nature boy]

If it wasn't Pelosi, would've been "liberal tears" or some other BS

Might as well blame it on Kathy Griffin

 

[Blader]

Well, in 6 months of the worst President in history, Democrats still don't have a win.

It's not defeatism, it's translating the shittrain of this presidency into something relevant.

GA-6 is barely a Trump district. Trump won by 1.5 points, but Price won by like 20. These voters prefer generic Republican to Donald Trump.

Those numbers are staggering. I'm still stunned we have people on here saying it doesn't matter.

I'm stunned that any Dem thinks that dumping Pelosi is going to have any practical effect, as if her replacement or Schumer or literally any Democratic leader ever isn't also going to attract a ton of toxic attention from the conservative news machine.

Here's the issue, though--it won't be nearly as effective for the GOP until years down the road. It took nearly a decade to demonize her, and it would take that long for someone new, especially if they have a clean background.

It did not take nearly a decade, she was being demonized by the GOP as early as 2009/10. She was in the speaker role for only a couple years before the tarring and feathering started.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

-Improving the Quality of Healthcare and pushing towards UHC
-Progressive Taxation (rich pay more)
-Green Jobs and Protecting the Environment
-Higher Wages and Worker Protections
-Criminal Justice Reform
-Defending Civil Rights
-Defending/Expanding Voting Rights
-Pro-Choice (with some flexibility?)
-Gun-Control (with some flexibility)
-Real Infrastructure
-Handling Student Debt and expanding access to Colleges
-etc.

Like I continue to not understand what people mean when they ask "What do the Democrats stand for"? Obviously I make an effort to be more informed than average voter but its seems really obvious to me what the generic Democratic platform is. There are different ways to achieve all of the above goals but that non-exhaustive list is what basically every Democrat wants across the country. What is hard to understand about that for the lay man and how do you fix that?

That's also putting aside being "anti-Obama" worked well for the GOP but I can understand arguments that we shouldn't mimic it.



I don't understand why if you want your representative to do "something" about healthcare you'd reward them if they took it away. Then again, its more and more clear many GOP voters don't vote on issues as much as tribalism.

Because their elected dont believe or fight for those things. Ossoff explicitly ran against raising taxes on the wealthy and UHC. He preached fiscal conservatism aka austerity and cuts to public services

There are a lot of ossoff's in the party and we shouldn't purge them we should push them left and replace those we can with people who will help us make popular progressive policy.

Maybe the problem isn't just messaging, it's that voters are smart that their party isn't fighting for them and their desired policies. This is especially evident with the youth vote. Save for sanders and maybe warren they realize the party isn't trying to ensure them good jobs, helping them with debt/college costs and taking global warming seriously as much as it should be.

Yes, you and I might value the status quo van worse policies but we can't just try to change minds. We should change policies and electoral strategies to go for these voters

 

[Aaron Strife]

-Improving the Quality of Healthcare and pushing towards UHC
-Progressive Taxation (rich pay more)
-Green Jobs and Protecting the Environment
-Higher Wages and Worker Protections
-Criminal Justice Reform
-Defending Civil Rights
-Defending/Expanding Voting Rights
-Pro-Choice (with some flexibility?)
-Gun-Control (with some flexibility)
-Real Infrastructure
-Handling Student Debt and expanding access to Colleges
-etc.

Like I continue to not understand what people mean when they ask "What do the Democrats stand for"? Obviously I make an effort to be more informed than average voter but its seems really obvious to me what the generic Democratic platform is. There are different ways to achieve all of the above goals but that non-exhaustive list is what basically every Democrat wants across the country. What is hard to understand about that for the lay man and how do you fix that?

That's also putting aside being "anti-Obama" worked well for the GOP but I can understand arguments that we shouldn't mimic it.



I don't understand why if you want your representative to do "something" about healthcare you'd reward them if they took it away. Then again, its more and more clear many GOP voters don't vote on issues as much as tribalism.

I think you have to nationalize the platform and market the shit out of it. Contract with America, First 100 Hours. Get every congressional candidate to stump on these issues and say they support it.

Republicans won in 94 on a very nationalized platform. Democrats did in 06 to a lesser extent. The way you mobilize progressives to vote (and this is important because this will be a base election) is by making it less about voting for John Doe in District 3 and by voting for free universal healthcare and college and a $15 minimum wage.

I could be completely wrong though.

 

[dramatis]

There's a strange feeling with regards about how reluctant the Republicans or far right are ever to toss Paul Ryan or Trump or McConnell, but the left is always

always

always

Clamoring for the removal of leadership.

For who to fill in? "Anybody but ____" is not a specific answer. Nor is there a guarantee that new leadership is going to be better than Pelosi.

If there was someone better, he or she would have taken Pelosi's job already. She didn't become speaker of the house because she lazed or bought her way up there. In turn, that means someone ambitious who has the chops can expend some effort to knock her out rather than sitting around moaning about "establishment" and "rigged" and hoping the environment would just turn bad enough to force Pelosi to resign.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Here's your hottake, stop expecting shit.

Oh, also Dems just suck at voting.

your posts aren't low energy, they're no energy

 

[Ogodei]

Trouble is there's no-one young remotely in line for Democratic leadership. The only people jockeying to upset the system so far are midwesterners who are itching to throw minorities under the bus like Tim Ryan.

 

[Vixdean]

Don't worry folks, Pelosi isn't going to step down because a bunch of Bernie-bros on a video game forum are clamoring for it. There is literally zero momentum from the people who actually make these decisions to push her out.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Hey, at least I capitalise. I'll save energy to react, rather than overreact.
People pinning all their idiotic hopes on one race to wash away this shittastic reality, and inflating their expectations, had those expectations dashed.
For Bison, it was Tuesday.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hey, at least I capitalise. I'll save energy to react, rather than overreact.

I can never decide if you're secretly Jeb or Hillary

unless

:O

 

[Blader]

-Improving the Quality of Healthcare and pushing towards UHC
-Progressive Taxation (rich pay more)
-Green Jobs and Protecting the Environment
-Higher Wages and Worker Protections
-Criminal Justice Reform
-Defending Civil Rights
-Defending/Expanding Voting Rights
-Pro-Choice (with some flexibility?)
-Gun-Control (with some flexibility)
-Real Infrastructure
-Handling Student Debt and expanding access to Colleges
-etc.

Like I continue to not understand what people mean when they ask "What do the Democrats stand for"? Obviously I make an effort to be more informed than average voter but its seems really obvious to me what the generic Democratic platform is. There are different ways to achieve all of the above goals but that non-exhaustive list is what basically every Democrat wants across the country. What is hard to understand about that for the lay man and how do you fix that?

That's also putting aside being "anti-Obama" worked well for the GOP but I can understand arguments that we shouldn't mimic it.

This is why I'm so fucking sick about "messaging" complaints. "The message" is a vague catch-all for literally anything and everything. The problem isn't the message, it's the messenger, and I think more Dems need to be honest about the fact that a significant part of our base + the independents we're trying to reach are extremely superficial and fickle people who need someone to just utterly charm them into voting. And that's all it takes. Obama voters weren't going to not vote for him because he advocated for a $12 minimum wage vs. a $15 one.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm the Lizard Queen. So either.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If I work a 40-hour week 52 weeks a year, that's 2080 hours per year. An extra $3 an hour is $6,240. That's a lot of money to most people! Maybe not this thread, but certainly to someone on the minimum wage.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Lately I've done a complete reversal on gun control. I don't care about military weapons because those are constitutionally protected and mass shootings with big guns are really rare but I care a lot about handgun bans because it's the number one cause of juvenile incarceration, which is something I care about.

 

[Blader]

I think you have to nationalize the platform and market the shit out of it. Contract with America, First 100 Hours. Get every congressional candidate to stump on these issues and say they support it.

Nationalizing races arguably did more to hurt Quist and Ossoff than help.

If we want to run a 50-state strategy, with candidates and campaigns unique to their districts/states, then a nationalized platform can end up being an anchor on some of these people.

There's a strange feeling with regards about how reluctant the Republicans or far right are ever to toss Paul Ryan or Trump or McConnell, but the left is always

always

always

Clamoring for the removal of leadership.

For who to fill in? "Anybody but ____" is not a specific answer. Nor is there a guarantee that new leadership is going to be better than Pelosi.

Paul Ryan and John Boehner before him have constantly faced threats, if not from Hill Republicans then from the far-right media machine. McConnell's support has been much more consistent, but he also gets more done for the party.

 

[Abinash117]

Why are you attacking me about this? I just answered the question. I said yesterday I don't want her to go but thought it was an interesting conversation.

Also, it took GOP years to vilify Pelosi through right-wing media. YEARS. Everyone on here saying "they'll just do it to a new leader" are conveniently ignoring that it will take years and years to do so.



Why are you so extreme? Any time someone criticizes a female candidate, you scream "sexism." Any time someone criticizes a minority candidate, you scream "racism." Any time someone mentions the idea of running a pro-life candidate, it is "you want the democrats to throw women's rights away forever!!!" People can be criticized for their faults and it actually doesn't have to be about stereotypes. That's how adult conversations work. I'm not getting why this board is headed in that direction. I mean, just yesterday I used Biden as my main example for democrats to get fresh faces in, and still got accused of sexism. Makes no sense at all.

It isn't necessary directed at you exclusively, but the point still stands really.

Dismissing a woman from her position who has nothing to do with a race and only because the opposing party doesn't like her and use her against candidates is pretty cowardly and a very, very poor look. Plus, it is likely damage the party because many would be upset.

The GOP will jump from her to some else like Schumer. It isn't that hard.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

There's a strange feeling with regards about how reluctant the Republicans or far right are ever to toss Paul Ryan or Trump or McConnell, but the left is always

always

always

Clamoring for the removal of leadership.

For who to fill in? "Anybody but ____" is not a specific answer. Nor is there a guarantee that new leadership is going to be better than Pelosi.

If Ryan put the AHCA up to a vote and it failed the first time, he would have lost his job. The right was asking for his head right after he pulled the vote. It was only after it passed the House did they stop wanting him gone.

If there was someone better, he or she would have taken Pelosi's job already. She didn't become speaker of the house because she lazed or bought her way up there. In turn, that means someone ambitious who has the chops can expend some effort to knock her out rather than sitting around moaning about "establishment" and "rigged" and hoping the environment would just turn bad enough to force Pelosi to resign.

Ehh... doubt it. She basically ran unopposed this year for minority leader. I don't think anyone wants to run against Pelosi for minority leader.

 

[Crocodile]

Because their elected dont believe or fight for those things. Ossoff explicitly ran against raising taxes on the wealthy and UHC. He preached fiscal conservatism aka austerity and cuts to public services

There are a lot of ossoff's in the party and we shouldn't purge them we should push them left and replace those we can with people who will help us make popular progressive policy.

Maybe the problem isn't just messaging, it's that voters are smart that their party isn't fighting for them and their desired policies. This is especially evident with the youth vote. Save for sanders and maybe warren they realize the party isn't trying to ensure them good jobs, helping them with debt/college costs and taking global warming seriously as much as it should be.

Yes, you and I might value the status quo van worse policies but we can't just try to change minds. We should change policies and electoral strategies to go for these voters

A) Running as a Sanders style candidate in a rich, suburban, red district seems like a tough sell? Not to say you can't try in the future but doesn't seem obvious at all that would be successful.

B) But like I don't even agree with the bolded? Raising the Minimum Wage is something all Democrats want to do. However it's not clear to me that $15 is a good idea for the entire country right now (its a very good idea for some parts of it though). I want UHC and all Democrats want to push towards there. However, I get the hesitation for saying Single-Payer given how taxphobic many voters are and I'm scared of making that promise but then when we have control not have enough votes for it. Jobs is part of every Democrat's platform. I don't know Ossoff's position on student debt but generic D does care about issue. Like it still seems super obvious to me what each party stands for. This didn't seem to be an issue for Obama. Candidate matters most of all?

I think you have to nationalize the platform and market the shit out of it. Contract with America, First 100 Hours. Get every congressional candidate to stump on these issues and say they support it.

Republicans won in 94 on a very nationalized platform. Democrats did in 06 to a lesser extent. The way you mobilize progressives to vote (and this is important because this will be a base election) is by making it less about voting for John Doe in District 3 and by voting for free universal healthcare and college and a $15 minimum wage.

I could be completely wrong though.

So if we nationalize the platform, the 50 State plan isn't about tailoring messages and candidates to the district so much as just competing everywhere? I just want to be clear. Can't that backfire? GOP isn't the same in every state but we should be?

 

[The Technomancer]

Lately I've done a complete reversal on gun control. I don't care about military weapons because those are constitutionally protected and mass shootings with big guns are really rare but I care a lot about handgun bans because it's the number one cause of juvenile incarceration, which is something I care about.

Gun control is a microcosm of a deep seated political issue in America I've been harping about recently: priorities in voting. You look back after every tragedy and there's always those polls "80% of Americans support common sense gun reform, why doesn't anything happen about it!". Well because they support it but don't really care enough to let it change how they vote. Same is true for education (until you cut to the bone like Brownback), public services, labor rights, etc. Probably even healthcare, although the AHCA might be a bridge too far

 

[Plinko]

I'm stunned that any Dem thinks that dumping Pelosi is going to have any practical effect, as if her replacement or Schumer or literally any Democratic leader ever isn't also going to attract a ton of toxic attention from the conservative news machine.

I honestly feel that it is willful ignorance to deny that she is a driving force for republicans to vote at this point. In northern Michigan I knew several people that voted purely because they hated her. It was a rural area, and that's to be expected, but it's happening.

It did not take nearly a decade, she was being demonized by the GOP as early as 2009/10. She was in the speaker role for only a couple years before the tarring and feathering started.

She was minority leader way back in 2002 and that's when it started.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Gun control is a microcosm of a deep seated political issue in America I've been harping about recently: priorities in voting. You look back after every tragedy and there's always those polls "80% of Americans support common sense gun reform, why doesn't anything happen about it!". Well because they support it but don't really care enough to let it change how they vote. Same is true for education (until you cut to the bone like Brownback), public services, labor rights, etc. Probably even healthcare, although the AHCA might be a bridge too far

I think it's basically race and religion that dictate someone's vote. Overall, many people have other priorities (I vote almost entirely based on social justice), but for the most part religion and race are the defining reasons people vote.

Everything else is just kind of extra.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Like I said, I'm not sure. That may be something you'd have to decide on a district-by-district basis. I don't think Newt's contract with America was that popular with the overall electorate either, it just got the base to show up. In any election that's half the battle - in a midterm I'd argue it's considerably more.

Also the GOP did get rid of Boehner and prevented McCarthy from becoming Speaker so it's not like they've stood by their leaders 100% of the time. If the GOP lost the House next year I imagine there'd be calls for Ryan to step down too.

Gun control is a microcosm of a deep seated political issue in America I've been harping about recently: priorities in voting. You look back after every tragedy and there's always those polls "80% of Americans support common sense gun reform, why doesn't anything happen about it!". Well because they support it but don't really care enough to let it change how they vote. Same is true for education (until you cut to the bone like Brownback), public services, labor rights, etc. Probably even healthcare, although the AHCA might be a bridge too far

Yeah this is the problem with just about any issue. There are absolutely single issue voters who will vote against anyone who supports gun control. I don't think the reverse is even remotely true to be statistically significant.

I think it still comes down to abortion above all else. That guarantees a floor for both parties.

 

[RumbleHumble]

While I get being disappointed over what happened last night, we all knew fighting the Republican party right now is an uphill battle. I thought that was the whole idea behind the "resist" slogan, we recognize the impossible odds and keep working against them. Last night may not have turned out how any of us hoped, but it is a learning opportunity. SC demonstrated there are plenty of cracks on the Republican's hold on the electorate if we just take the time to understand how to expose them.

 

[Ogodei]

Now i'm curious, because i know Pelosi, Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn (who would be whip if Pelosi was speaker) are all in their 70s, let's look at Democratic ranking members:

Agriculture: Collin Peterson - 73 years old
Appropriations: Nita Lowey - 80 years old (!)
Armed Services: Adam Smith (WA) - 52
Budget: John Yarmuth (KY) - 70
Education: Bobby Scott (VA) - 70
Energy/Commerce: Frank Pallone (NJ) - 65
Ethics: Linda Sanchez (CA) - 48
Financial Services: Maxine Waters (CA) - 79
Foreign Affairs: Elliot Engel (NY) - 70
Homeland Security: Bennie Thompson (MS) - 69
House Admin: Bob Brady (PA) - 72
Judiciary: John Conyers (MI) - 88 (!)
Natural Resources: Raul Grijava (AZ) - 69
Oversight: Elijah Cummings (MD) - 66
Rules: Louise Slaughter (NY) - 87 (!)
Science: Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX) - 82
Small Business: Nydia Velazquez (NY) - 64
Transit/Infrastructure: Peter DeFazio (OR) - 70
Veterans Affairs: Tim Walz (MN) - 63 (but he's running for Governor so this is likely his last term)
Ways and Means: Richard Neal (MA) - 68
Intelligence: Adam Schiff (CA) - 56
Joint Economic Committee: Carolyn Maloney (NY) - 71

So only four people in their entire leadership are under retirement age, and one of those is bailing later next year (albeit for bigger and better things, hopefully)

 

[nintendoman58]

God, it's the same inane BS we heard before Nov 8.

Bu, bu, bu the data, the reality, the demographics.

Watch ACHA pass, watch Trump not getting impeached, watch Trump maybe even doing a second term.

Holy shit, it's like people are literally advocating for more stupidity in there.

People are losing their minds and going insane.

It's like a zombie outbreak.