We can't just be the anti-Trump party. That's not going to cut it all. When the Democrats were the anti-Nixon party, we got Jimmy Carter (a box of nothing) and then the Reagan revolution. I don't have any pure solutions. We just need to find charismatic people with the freshest relevent ideas.
RNC raises millions more than DNC in July
- Thread starter ponpo
- Start date
GoldenEye 007
Member
True. Dems should be getting brownie points here.
The first down the ticket you go, the more important the money advantage is to get elected.
Not as sexy as the top of the ticket, but conservatives understand this while liberals do not.
And unlike all other modern Presidents, Trump (and Pence) have already started up their reelection campaigns. So the RNC follows.
Hoping the Dems can flip the House in the midterms but outside of being Anti-Trump I don't think they have a cohesive message or cohesive leadership. Their "Better Deal" manifesto is going to be DOA because it's not saying anything new and has a shit name for marketing purposes.
excelsiorlef
Member
And by got killed by more than 5 you means got beat by less than 4...
At least know the numbers dude.
kitsunelaine
Banned
Didn't you get the memo? Anything the DNC does or doesn't do is bad, and should always be framed in such a way.
And The 'only read headlines effect doesn't help either.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I don't think "A Better Deal" is terrible, but it does seem aimed at disaffected Trump voters which is an incredibly dumb choice strategically.
The DNC is mess because there is no central message. Just like the Republican Party in 2009, the Dems have a vocal minority of angry white people who feel like they're not being listened to. For the DNC to organize itself, it needs to take control of the media narrative the same way the GOP did.
He also manages to be simultaneously boring AND corny.
excelsiorlef
Member
VendettaRed07
Member
Because a wave will only happen in the levels we've seen when historically, the base of the party in power is depressed where the base of the other is energized.
Two opposing energized bases won't lead to the sort of 64 house seat type gain in 2010, or the Dems 2006 wave. The opposition needs to be depressed.
I don't think the GOP will be. So being able to win the majorities they will need will require more than typical midterm strategy. They are going to have to be smart. Gains in my opinion, are absolutely NOT guaranteed like they normally would be if they don't plan correctly.
I remember hearing the same stuff said about obama for awhile too.
Receipts? Because Obama was always well received and considered "cool."
And this comment is a mess. Comparing apples and oranges. the DNC isn't analogous to the GOP, that would be the RNC.
That's a sure fire way to give the country to the GOP for a few decades.
That said, I think we should considering rebranding ourselves. New logos, maybe a new nickname. We call Republicans the GOP these days and many keep mistaking the DNC as the main Democratic Party.
Before we do that can you please explain what the DNC does?
VendettaRed07
Member
I bowed out that night when he fell back by 5 points
I guess the final numbers turned in a bit better. But still not a good result when, like I said, that special house election cost more than the entire UK election.
I stand by thinking that he would have done better than those numbers or even possibly won rejecting super pac money and making the race about that
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
2018 mid terms are going to be très intéressant.
VendettaRed07
Member
No they did not lol. The first thing anyone thought about Obama when he made a name for himself in 04 was that he was the coolest fucking dude on earth. Joe doesn't have that in him.
excelsiorlef
Member
In suburban Georgia? They don't care about money in politics...
GA-6 is supposed to be a GOP stronghold and it was lost by under 4 points...
I think considering the current climate it's super lame as anything is better than what we currently have. Which goes to my point of the Democratic message seeming to be "We don't like Trump vote for us!" What's actually in the manifesto is also really typical things that don't really stand out. Nothing about it stands out or makes an impression. It's the same talking points they have been spewing with the addition of getting rid of monopolies (lol!).
There is a reason why it hasn't been in the news cycle much and it's because it's predictable and has a super lame name that doesn't really stand for anything.
And tech professionals and business professionals. The money is there.
I think the person you were quoting was talking about possible donors for liberals/leftists.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Unfortunate that Obama was so worried about losing some minor power that it was more important to install an incompetent chair than one from a different wing of the party.
Sure it is. Bernie stans are exactly like Tea Party Republicans of 2009. The created themselves through a foundation of conspiracy theories (created by Russia and Bannon) and political ignorance.
The tea party was created by a bunch of people who believed in birtherism and political ignorance.
The parallels are clear.
There's more Democratic voters than GOP ones. That's why a high turnout overall favors the Dems country wide.
Yeah, the President's cult following is like a pyramid scheme at this point. All that money funneling upwards.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yes in the seat once held by Newt Gengrich and by no Democrats in recent memory - if ever. The fact that the GOP had to spend just as much to keep the seat says a lot.
I mean, it's not a cult that's like a pyramid scheme, his campaign is a pyramid scheme. The whole "re-election campaign running in your first year" thing ain't normal at all.
KernelPanic
Member
The party that will lower taxes and give more money to rich people gets more money from rich people.
Shocking.
Shocking.
VendettaRed07
Member
I disagree. I think everyone cares. I think it's one of the only truly bi-partisan things that both people on the far left and right agree on. I don't think anyone in the country sees the amount of money injected into elections as a good thing.
The early polls before it became a national campaign showed the race being much closer so even if it was "supposed" to be a GOP stronghold, the final votes given the investment, if you believe that, tons of money=better results, were not good.
News that Dems were getting outrasied wouldn't matter to me if I thought that they were A) more capable of making the most of the money they did receive by investing it smarter rather than dumping it in expensive Cable TV ad buys that don't work or B) overall agreed to a clean, ethically sound party manifesto that deligitimized whatever financial advantage republicans have by successfully painting their opponents as too corporate friendly.
But they aren't doing that. Currently, they are just engaging in the same sort of arms race republicans are just doing worse at it. I think it would be smart over all for them to change their strategy, distance themselves from corporate investment in politics to create a better contrast between themselves and their opponents.
VendettaRed07
Member
It really doesn't say much of anything. We currently hold a Montana senate seat in a single district state. Why was a race, which we will need to win in 2018 anyway just to hold onto the senate seats we have, an unwinnable lost cost and not worth investing in, but a money dump into a GOP suburb that was still a multi point loss indicitive of anything.
All it says to me is that people in the Democratic party still are clinging to the concept that rural america is gone but affluent suburbs will swing to them because Trump is crazy and says bad words in front of their children. This notion failed in 2016 and will not work going forward either.
GameAddict411
Member
The reality is that the Democrats have to play dirty just like the Republicans to win. They should start propaganda news sources that relay on false information. Fight fire with fire, or be burnt. It's how it is. The Democrats have also been lacking a face, or unified message. The people on the further left are alienated , and the centrists prefer lower taxes. There has to be some compromise on social policy such as abortion. As awful as that sounds, the pro life movement have been making an impact on elections for democrats in many parts of the country. What I mean is that don't make abortion a platform policy, but make it on individual basis for anyone running for office. In more liberal parts of the country stick to pro choice, and where it's more conservative stick to pro life.
teruterubozu
Member
Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line, as the old saying goes.
A narrative/message doesn't mean shit, we need another charismatic leader.
A narrative/message doesn't mean shit, we need another charismatic leader.
eBay Huckster
Member
for the millionth time, why do people directly compare the DNC to the RNC
Hillary had one of the most out-of-touch media teams, just one cringeworthy attempt to relate with youth after another.
Donald had Cambridge Analytica, and put most of his money into it. Definitely money better spent.
VendettaRed07
Member
And this is what people say on Conservative forums.
We only have two major parties. And money is usually an accurate predictor of who will win electoral races.
VendettaRed07
Member
You mean to tell me you didn't Pokemon-go to the polls?