Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

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.

Except you also have to take into account the complete disaster that has been the democratic party outside of Obama since 2010. If any reputable organization operated this way and had such a lengthy streak of failure, the leadership would have been changed years ago. It's not just about "GOP is using her as a boogeyman."

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.

Well, I think it really comes back to what somebody brought up last night (sorry I forgot your name, whoever this was): We need charismatic candidates who can draw voters. We just aren't finding them to run.

I won't even joke this time: Maybe a celebrity like Winfrey would be the best person to run at this point because clearly the regular candidates aren't doing it with the voter base. If you get someone like that onboard who can then encourage people to vote in the other races, it might be the boost they need to get young people to the booth and get democrats in Congress. Getting Trump out of the White House needs to be the prime mission, and if it takes a celebrity, fine by me.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

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

I wonder what Republican-approved person the Dems should pick, then.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Rules: Louise Slaughter (NY) - 87

There's been calls for her to retire for a few cycles now. She almost lost in 2014 (she did fine in 2016, though). Her age is becoming a real problem for her campaign, it was a big sticking point against her the last few elections.

She seriously should consider it, there's a few local politicians around here (Republicans) I know are chomping at the bit for her seat. They likely wouldn't win it (wayyyy too minority heavy of a district for that nonsense), but she really needs to pick a good time (2018 is probably a good time) to retire during a good Democrat wave. 2014 was pretty scary.

She's awesome... but eventually she's going to have to let go.

 

[Blader]

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.

And if Nancy Pelosi were replaced by another pro-choice liberal woman, do you think those voters are more likely, less likely, or as likely to vote D?

I know people hate Nancy Pelosi. I grew up in a very Republican household, and heard all the toxic AM radio I could handle for many many years. But I'm not convinced that the woman named Nancy Pelosi is the actual problem. Republicans have always hated Democratic leaders like poison, and as long as so many of them are laser-focused on single-issue voting for something like abortion, I do not think any replacement is going to serve any better in their eyes.

 

[dramatis]

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.

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.

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.

Ryan's position has a slightly different problem from Pelosi's, which is that nobody actually wants the job. Otherwise John Boehner wouldn't have had to cry hard and beg Ryan to take it so Boehner could get the hell out of there.

Saying that nobody wants to run against Pelosi for minority leader is excusing the weakness of the people who want her gone but aren't good enough to take her place. If those people have a vision, a strategy, a goal, an idea of how to command the times, and a willingness to share those thoughts, then why not challenge Pelosi? Isn't everyone complaining that Pelosi isn't capable or good or ideal and she doesn't know shit about doing anything? Then push forward your candidate for leadership, who fulfills ALL of those requirements, can whip votes, and is absolute perfection to the point where the GOP can't attack him/her.

 

[jtb]

I've changed my mind on this. I think it's probably time for the party to get new leadership. For purely figurehead reasons.

Too bad Becerra resigned, would have been a great bridge for the new Democratic coalition.

It's less of a Nancy Pelosi problem (though she's really old), and a "we have no natural leader of the party, so we might as well make sure they're a good communicator who can make the most of a wave election"

 

[benicillin]

As someone has pointed out, Nancy Pelosi is just a symptom of the greater problem the Dems have, which is that it's literally a party of old gods that have been around the party for centuries and have unfortunately high name recognition. Clinton had the same problem.

 

[Blader]

Saying that nobody wants to run against Pelosi for minority leader is excusing the weakness of the people who want her gone but aren't good enough to take her place. If those people have a vision, a strategy, a goal, an idea of how to command the times, and a willingness to share those thoughts, then why not challenge Pelosi? Isn't everyone complaining that Pelosi isn't capable or good or ideal and she doesn't know shit about doing anything? Then push forward your candidate for leadership, who fulfills ALL of those requirements, can whip votes, and is absolute perfection to the point where the GOP can't attack him/her.

I don't think Pelosi shouldn't be challenged. If there's a Dem waiting in the wings in the House with a vision, a strategy, a goal, an idea of how command to the times, and has the ability to whip votes, then yes, they should challenge Pelosi! Pelosi getting credible challengers would either make her a better leader or replace her with a better leader. I like either of those outcomes.

What I don't think is that we should dump Nancy Pelosi solely because Republican voters don't like her. That's a losing prospect to me, as Republican voters are going to hate any Democratic leader, and particularly if they're women.

I've changed my mind on this. I think it's probably time for the party to get new leadership. For purely figurehead reasons.

Too bad Becerra resigned, would have been a great bridge for the new Democratic coalition.

It's less of a Nancy Pelosi problem (though she's really old), and a "we have no natural leader of the party, so we might as well make sure they're a good communicator who can make the most of a wave election"

I'm excited to see where Becerra's career goes from here. I think everyone knows California AG is just a stepping stone to something else (not that it isn't a great position for him to be holding right now), but governor? Senator? Curious to see what direction he goes in, he's a good talent.

 

[Abinash117]

Except you also have to take into account the complete disaster that has been the democratic party outside of Obama since 2010. If any reputable organization operated this way and had such a lengthy streak of failure, the leadership would have been changed years ago. It's not just about "GOP is using her as a boogeyman."



Well, I think it really comes back to what somebody brought up last night (sorry I forgot your name, whoever this was): We need charismatic candidates who can draw voters. We just aren't finding them to run.

I won't even joke this time: Maybe a celebrity like Winfrey would be the best person to run at this point because clearly the regular candidates aren't doing it with the voter base. If you get someone like that onboard who can then encourage people to vote in the other races, it might be the boost they need to get young people to the booth and get democrats in Congress. Getting Trump out of the White House needs to be the prime mission, and if it takes a celebrity, fine by me.

Would going after leadership that isn't responsible the best course of action or going after leadership that is the best way?

From I gather that responsibility has something to do with Debbie Schultz and Obama being negligent to the DNC. To the lesser extent the responsibility also rely on the shoulders of some of the Dems/Dem-leaners and how the politicians ran their campaigns. Going after the wrong people is sending the bad message.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The lack of new bodies for Democrats is kinda what happens when you don't make any major gains in a decade.

We're still using people whose hayday was in 2006-2008 because nobody new or relevant survived 2010 onward due to the insane GOP swings that happened during that time.

The only ones left with any clout are the ones that survived the Democrat apocalypse, and they're all old established politicians that won't ever lose an election, which is why they're still around and the new guys are not.

 

[RumbleHumble]

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.

I'm not entirely sure I agree as to religion. Organized religion's been hit hard here and it shows with the disconnect between major organized religion leaders and their political stances (I'm looking at you, Catholics) and the way the people identifying as a given religion actually vote.

What I tend to see more of is, as religion gets less organized in the US, politics replaces religion. It started when church leaders initially aligned themselves with the Republican party during the Reagon era in multiple attempts to create one religion to unite the US against the "secular" USSR. Over time, as organized religion became less popular, the Republican doctrines stayed with those people and became a unifying factor. As someone who grew up in an "ultra-religious" community, I see this literally every day.

"Jesus" as a person who taught things to people didn't matter. Plenty of "Christians" who vote Republican could care less what their church leaders think of a given politician, while voting Republican remains central to their identity. The Republican Party is a religion unto itself. Its in Republican focused media, which recruits soldiers for the "culture" war and preaches fire and brimstone for any "progressive" future. Its in their disdain for established "progressive" figures despite knowing really fuck-all about what they do. Its in their repeated desires to give Trump a chance despite the sexual assault tape.

The question is, what can we do to de-program this?

 

[jtb]

As someone has pointed out, Nancy Pelosi is just a symptom of the greater problem the Dems have, which is that it's literally a party of old gods that have been around the party for centuries and have unfortunately high name recognition. Clinton had the same problem.

All the Dems in safe seats have, by virtue of being in safe seats, stayed in power for decades. All the younger Dems have won in swing districts and keep getting wiped out.

I'm excited to see where Becerra's career goes from here. I think everyone knows California AG is just a stepping stone to something else (not that it isn't a great position for him to be holding right now), but governor? Senator? Curious to see what direction he goes in, he's a good talent.

Feinstein's running for re-election, right?

 

[nintendoman58]

Can we talk about the post I quoted last page?

I'm genuinely concerned for the sanity of OT Political Thread GAF. It's like people there think there's an invisible boogeyman out there that makes all facts meaningless.

 

[Plinko]

Would going after leadership that isn't responsible the best course of action or going after leadership that is the best way?

From I gather that responsibility has something to do with Debbie Schultz and Obama being negligent to the DNC. To the lesser extent the responsibility also rely on the shoulders of some of the Dems/Dem-leaners and how the politicians ran their campaigns Going after the wrong people is sending the bad message.

I think you almost have to at this point. Nearly everything has been a massive failure. Pelosi is great, but as others have said, she is representative of the old guard, and like it or not, she is tied to them whether she had a direct role or not. Look at that list posted above of democrat leaders--It's a massive problem for the future of the party. As balladofwindfishes said, they're still around because nobody new has won. That absolutely HAS to change.

 

[Blader]

Feinstein's running for re-election, right?

I don't think that's confirmed, but seems like she's leaning in that direction. Think next year would be too early for Becerra to run a Senate campaign anyway.

That said, if Kamala were on a winning ticket in 2020, there'd be an open seat for him to look at...

 

[RumbleHumble]

Can we talk about the post I quoted last page?

I'm genuinely concerned for the sanity of OT Political Thread GAF. It's like people there think there's an invisible boogeyman out there that makes all facts meaningless.

I'd like to think most people here agree with you and that's why we're not talking about it. Giving naysayers an opportunity to preach doom and gloom is not something any of us want right now.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

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.

Hello! This is the UK's wealthiest district.

 

[Blader]

Can we talk about the post I quoted last page?

I'm genuinely concerned for the sanity of OT Political Thread GAF. It's like people there think there's an invisible boogeyman out there that makes all facts meaningless.

A lot of people losing their shit in OT knew years of only winning via Obama (ignoring all the other seats lost in that time) and now feel like they know only losing over the past eight months.

Not that losing an election doesn't feel bad, but there's a serious lack of perspective about all of it.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Hello! This is the UK's wealthiest district.

Hello! This is not the UK.

 

[Plinko]

I'm fascinated by the thought of the democratic primaries for 2020. It is going to be insanity, especially if you throw in Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, etc.

 

[benicillin]

I'm fascinated by the thought of the democratic primaries for 2020. It is going to be insanity, especially if you throw in Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, etc.

I don't think Bernie or Warren will run - Biden is the only one I'm not sure about.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Hello! This is the UK's wealthiest district.

1. The majority of the wealthiest districts in the US are represented by Democrats. Which is pretty obvious once you realize the wealthiest areas are in solid blue states and are in major cities.

2. The US isn't the UK and there are major ideological differences between the two countries in regard to things like race and partisanship.

3. We're talking about suburbs not a neighborhood in London...

 

[Random Human]

Man, if Biden was a decade younger... Alas.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Hello! This is not the UK.

Who cares?

Attempt something different. Im sort of sick of people saying it won't work while trying the same strategy over and over again that doesn't work, continues to not work is apparently all we can do

 

[Abinash117]

I think you almost have to at this point. Nearly everything has been a massive failure. Pelosi is great, but as others have said, she is representative of the old guard, and like it or not, she is tied to them whether she had a direct role or not. Look at that list posted above of democrat leaders--It's a massive problem for the future of the party. As balladofwindfishes said, they're still around because nobody new has won. That absolutely HAS to change.

Losing 5 special federal elections from deep red seats is not huge defeat, that is setting your expectations very high. 2010 and 2014, I just refer to my last post. We didn't get anyone new or whatever because the people responsible failed.

Nancy may represent the old guard, but look at priorities. You have legislation battles that need be to won, new blood isn't going to win them most likely. If new blood is needed it would be in 2018 and I think Dems are trying to run more new people.

 

[Pixieking]

Already posted?

(�&#65533 رمضان‏ @FalafelDad 18h
Jon Ossoff came to my mosque Friday. He didnt try to win our vote, he just had a professional camera crew taking pics of him with hijabis.

Ossoff didn't really need to promise anything or work for our vote bc all the petty bourgeois Brown Muslim Americans were fawning over him.

He didn't explain his policies. Just that we should have our phones out already before we approach him for pics to expedite the process.

He also came into our mosque w two huge bodyguards who were very clear with mosque-goers about how we are allowed to approach ~��Jon Ossoff��~

He didn't promise that he'd stand against "anti-terrorism" legislation which surveils Muslim communities and entraps youth in terror plots

He didn't promise to stand against legislation which makes nonviolent resistance (Boycott/Divestment of Israeli goods and services) illegal.

He didn't promise to stand w grassroots working against gentrification. There's a mosque 5 minutes from turner field, set to be displaced.

Jon Ossoff basically told us 2 things.
1. Vote for me because "Trump"
2. Have your phones already out for pics, we only have 5 minutes left.

https://twitter.com/FalafelDad/status/877266093689253890

I mean, that's a pretty big failing - like, "Hillary not talking to the Rust Belt" big.

Also, getting rid of Nancy Pelosi only works if it's someone who can energise the Dem base and is a good legislator. Anything else is just caving to the GOP because they're using her as a boogeyman, and "it doesn't look good".

 

[Blader]

I don't think Bernie or Warren will run - Biden is the only one I'm not sure about.

I think just the opposite: Bernie and Warren will run because they believe their own hype, while Biden may publicly toy with it for a couple years but will ultimately not run. I'm not sure who he and Obama will get behind, but I do think they have a vested interest in seeing a fresh face become the party's standard bearer for 2020. At least I hope they do.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think just the opposite: Bernie and Warren will run because they believe their own hype, while Biden may publicly toy with it for a couple years but will ultimately not run. I'm not sure who he and Obama will get behind, but I do think they have a vested interest in seeing a fresh face become the party's standard bearer for 2020. At least I hope they do.

Warren never struck me as someone who cares at all about her own popularity.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I don't think Bernie or Warren will run - Biden is the only one I'm not sure about.

Bernie will run

He's too old but it isn't like the age police will come and stop him if he wants to

 

[Aaron Strife]

Already posted?


https://twitter.com/FalafelDad/status/877266093689253890

I mean, that's a pretty big failing - like, "Hillary not talking to the Rust Belt" big.

Also, getting rid of Nancy Pelosi only works if it's someone who can energise the Dem base and is a good legislator. Anything else is just caving to the GOP because they're using her as a boogeyman, and "it doesn't look good".

Oh cool so he thought he had it in the bag. Or he already gave up and just wanted to enjoy his 15 minutes, idk.

 

[Blader]

Warren never struck me as someone who cares at all about her own popularity.

I don't know, when you have that many people whispering in your ear/yelling at you in public about running for 2020 -- including Harry Reid, who is the also one who pushed Obama to run in '07 -- I think that becomes a little too hard not to buy into after enough time.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

1. The majority of the wealthiest districts in the US are represented by Democrats. Which is pretty obvious once you realize the wealthiest areas are in solid blue states and are in major cities.

Right, so why not try running convinced Democrats and not bland stand-ins?

2. The US isn't the UK and there are major ideological differences between the two countries in regard to things like race and partisanship.

There are of course differences, but there are also strong similarities, enough to be able to draw shared lessons. Thatcher and Reagan, Clinton and Blair, Corbyn and Sanders - the two countries often 'echo' each other, even if they're not straight analogues.

3. We're talking about suburbs not a neighborhood in London...

Okay, Labour also gained Warwick and Leamington, a very well-to-do wealthy suburban district not far from Birmingham.

 

[Plinko]

Losing 5 special federal elections from deep red seats is not huge defeat, that is setting your expectations very high. 2010 and 2014, I just refer to my last post. We didn't get anyone new or whatever because the people responsible failed.

Nancy may represent the old guard, but look at priorities. You have legislation battles that need be to won, new blood isn't going to win them most likely. If new blood is needed it would be in 2018 and I think Dems are trying to run more new people.

But 2010 and 2014 are part of those failures, and like I said above, Pelosi is tied to that. She isn't entirely responsible, but I wonder if there is such an issue with youth vote because there is nobody that appeals to them at this point. Having the old guard is a huge issue. I like Pelosi and would choose that she stays, but democrats need to somehow work around that and it just doesn't seem to be working at this very moment.

I think just the opposite: Bernie and Warren will run because they believe their own hype, while Biden may publicly toy with it for a couple years but will ultimately not run. I'm not sure who he and Obama will get behind, but I do think they have a vested interest in seeing a fresh face become the party's standard bearer for 2020. At least I hope they do.

If leadership is smart they're doing whatever they can to convince Harris and/or Franken to run.

 

[kess]

Man, if Biden was a decade younger... Alas.

It's not like it would make much difference, honestly. Voters respond to candidates regardless of age. This isn't just an American thing -- Macron thumped everybody but turnout was down across the board and a substantial chunk of the youth vote supported also-ran Le Pen

 

[VendettaRed07]

Oh cool so he thought he had it in the bag. Or he already gave up and just wanted to enjoy his 15 minutes, idk.

I think it's less that he thought he had it in the bag and more so he was a propped up bankrolled politician who wasn't really interested in doing anything other than selling him self and had nothing of value to communicate

But running someone who actually cares and is strong in their convictions and reaches out to people is a bad idea, I've been told

 

[Abinash117]

Already posted?


https://twitter.com/FalafelDad/status/877266093689253890

I mean, that's a pretty big failing - like, "Hillary not talking to the Rust Belt" big.

Also, getting rid of Nancy Pelosi only works if it's someone who can energise the Dem base and is a good legislator. Anything else is just caving to the GOP because they're using her as a boogeyman, and "it doesn't look good".

I think this is a problem with Democrats they keep expecting their reliable voters to vote for them just because and focus on non-reliable voters like moderate Republican voters. Ironically,it is the similar strategy left-wing economic populists or Bernie Sander supporters wants to do.

One of the biggest reasons Hillary lost.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Slotin would have won.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Did Georgia vote Leave or Remain?

 

[Pixieking]

I think this is a problem with Democrats they keep expecting their reliable voters to vote for them just because and focus on non-reliable voters like moderate Republican voters. Ironically,it is the similar strategy left-wing economic populists or Bernie Sander supporters wants to do.

One of the biggest reasons Hillary lost.

Yeah. It's not like those Muslims were going to vote for Handel, but disenfranchising voters because they feel you don't care, or don't have relevant policies, is a definite thing to watch out for. It's just letting easy votes fall through your fingers, for the want of a little of your time, and some personalised policy talk.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Did Georgia vote Leave or Remain?

Very definitely Leave.

 

[JP_]

How can we expect to make substantive gains without fixing the issues with the core of the party?

edit: and by substantive gains, I mean doing more than simply riding the anti-trump wave in 2018/2020. The democratic party needs to be viable in normal circumstances and not just when there's an incredibly unpopular republican president in office.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. GA-06 was a +8 Republican district. The Democrats reduced that to +5 in a special election under national level of attention and unprecedented spending for what is ultimately a single seat.

One note about PVI, since this consistently confuses people. When Cook says GA-6 is R+8, they are referring to the expected vote share in the district, not the expected margin. That is, they are saying the expected performance of a Republican candidate vs. a Democratic candidate in a 50/50 political environment is for the Republican to get 58% of the two-party vote, or a margin of about 16 points.

While vote shares are often used in academic papers, most people think about election results in terms of margin. So we can look at this in two ways.

R vote share predicted by PVI in a 50/50 environment: 58%
Actual R vote share: 52%
Relative result: D+6

Or:

R margin predicted by PVI in a 50/50 environment: 16 (may be slightly off due to rounding)
Actual R margin: 4
Relative result: D+12 (again, may be off due to rounding)

Either way is theoretically fine, but we should always be sure to make an apples-to-apples comparison. One can also make critiques of how well we should really expect PVI to predict elections, but that's a whole different issue.

 

[Frank the Great]

Two quick questions.

1. About how many historical examples of an openly leftist, pro-choice, liberal Democratic candidate winning an election in the South since, say, 2000?

2. About how many historical examples of moderate/conservative pro-life Democrats winning elections in the South since 2000?

 

[smokeymicpot]

So 21 States were targeted in the election by Russia.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

snip

You're quite right, that's very lazy of me. I should have put +5D rather than just +5 (or +6D, but to be fair I was using the Guardian's faulty numbers).

 

[BoogieWoogie]

This special election really taught me, as someone who was on the ground, that the only thing that will wake up Republicans is when they are directly affected by Trump and the GOP's policies, and even then its 50/50.

The AHCA is going to go through and the damage it will do will be unprecedented, and maybe that's the only fucking thing that will get through their thick skulls but who even knows at this point. They're a cult, plain and simple.

 

[NeoXChaos]

 

[PBY]

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.

To me, seeing Ossof under perform, stacking these moral victories (read: losses), and not learning from the most cataclysmic loss in recent political history is the definition of going insane.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Jeh Johnson says Obama admin waited months to disclose Russian meddling bc "one of the candidates was saying the election was rigged."

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/877532037627994112

 

[kirblar]

To me, seeing Ossof under perform, stacking these moral victories (read: losses), and not learning from the most cataclysmic loss in recent political history is the definition of going insane.

Is Reagan no longer recent political history?