Democratic Party Strategies for 2018 and 2020

Post Reply New Topic

I would agree with you on that and probably that nationalism Trump conveyed did help him win the Primaries and later the election. I am not exactly pessimistic about the future, Trump likely won't be able to keep to allot his promises and in 2018 we could see a Democratic Congress.

Yes, I agree that nationalism probably played a big part in it. One could, pretty much, assume that the entire South is filled with what I call "Super Patriots" (I'm one, myself)----it's "God, country, family", in that order----and, anyone who speaks the same "language" gets BIG points; and, President-elect Trump did, just that (although, I must say his "God part", was a bit weak! LOL).

No, I'm not pessimistic about the future, either----no.1, there's not a thing anyone can do about Mr. Trump becoming President; and, no.2, who knows, he might turn-out to be one of the best presidents we ever had; I mean, after-all, no one thought he would get elected, and he did; and, so many think he'll be HORRIBLE, and he may NOT.

Here's the thing..... First-of-all, he's a businessman----that means he knows how to balance budgets, hire people and delegate, unite people in a common goal; and, read people and make a deal. He was told more than once, to stop saying some things----but, he did it HIS way, and got elected; so, he must have good instincts, as well.

Secondly, he's a narcissist----that means that although he's got an ego as big as Texas, he ALSO wants to be LIKED / do a good job, so people will think he's WONDERFUL; I feel that means that when the chips are down, he WILL listen (just like he finally listened, and didn't go "off-script", when speaking to crowds----and, in the end, it made him appear presidential, and he got BIG points for THAT, as well).

Yes, I also agree that he probably won't be able to keep alot of his promises----what U.S. President, ever does / HAS kept ALL of his promises----but, the fact remains, he WAS elected President; and, as President Lincoln said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand" ("house", can be defined as "government" AND "country"), and even though I, most definitely, defend people's rights to protest, I'm thinking we, Americans, will be better-off when people start remembering the "UNITED" part of "United States"----or else, we COULD, possibly, fall.

What Democrats lack is empathy, they wrote off a huge part of the electorate and actually waged a campaign demonizing these voters. It was very reminiscent of Romney's 47% remarks, except it was much more personally insulting to these voters. Remember she didn't just call half his supporters 'deplorable' but also 'irredeemable' and 'not American'. Characterizing your opponent's supporters as racist sexist illiterate rednecks 'who don't know what it's like to be poor' is the height of arrogance and elitism.

Democrats will need to batten down the hatches for 2018, they will lose seats in the senate as they have to defend 25 seats to the GOP's 8 and the GOP seats are almost all safe with only maybe Nevada and Arizona being possible to flip altho unlikely I think especially Arizona. Dean Heller might run for governor instead of reelection as Brian Sandoval is term limited, if Sandoval ran for senate then Democrats might not even bother as he's maybe the most popular governor in the country and a much stronger candidate.

Arizona I don't see happening unless they have the perfect candidate and Jeff Flake flubs it, I heard Kysten Sinema's name floated out there and I guarantee you that Dems would lose if they nominate someone so extreme. The Democratic nominee against Jeff Flake back in 2012 Richard Carmona was an independent, hispanic, served as Surgeon General under the Bush administration, Vice Admiral, decorated Green Baret combat veteran of Vietnam, and he still lost. I don't see as strong a candidate being nominated against a like stronger incumbent Flake, the Trump narrative doesn't work with him either since he's never supported him. Need to focus on the House and down ballot, Democrats have been destroyed on a state level during Obama's years in office.

The DNC needs to be burned to the ground, I don't see any way of salvaging the corrupted institution. They might give lip service but I don't see things really changing, are they really prepared to have a democratic Democratic primary? Superdelegates need to go. I think in 2020 someone like Cory Booker is probably the best they can do as he's very likable personable guy with a record bipartisanship, Tulsi Gabbard is someone else that should rise up thru the ranks of the party as she was one of the few that stood up to the corrupt DNC. Gabbard is Iraq War veteran and (not that it should matter but it doesn't hurt) is a very attractive woman on top of everything else. Both are minority candidates which is very attractive to Democrats obviously, I don't think that necessarily turns white voters off as long they feel respected and I don't think Booker or Gabbard would campaign that way. Otherwise it really is slim pickings, running another retread would be a horrible mistake, sticking with the status quo will keep them as a permanent minority party. Intolerant progressivism has been rejected by the voters. I see the Midwest to continue it's drift towards the Republican column, Democrats putting all their eggs in one basket which is radical demographic change and creating a coalition of voters against the biggest demographic grouping in this country is not going to work and that's part of the reason they lost this election.

You have to compete for all voters in all states, simple as that. You can make gains in 'enemy territory', incremental as they may be but it makes a difference in the short and long term. Trump, believe it or not, actually won a lower percentage of the white vote than Romney and a higher percentage of minorities. Democrats need to stop worrying about only winning elections but rather being a party that actually stands for something and to be a party people actually believe. The grassroots of the Democratic party should study the Tea Party, they need to put the screws to their establishment and to care about values rather than simply desperate trying to win with the most convenient candidate. If you don't stand for anything then you will fall for anything, Democrats need to define who they are as a party and I would suggest that they abandon corporatism(harder now that capital has concentrated themselves into Democratic Party) and divisive identity politics. SJWs are extremists who will sow the seeds of their own destruction, there isn't anything progressive or tolerant about them, getting in bed with them is a fatal mistake.

Obligatory gun related point: 100 million Americans own guns, making enemies out of them probably wasn't the best political strategy. If you were to grossly simplify my politics, I'm a liberal who loves guns and hates taxes, I should be persuadable, but I'm not so long as gun control (sorry, gun "safety) is a party plank of the Democrats, and I'm hardly alone in that.

I think that's the Democrat's version of "repeal Roe vs Wade" - you've got to support it to win the nomination but it makes it much harder to win the election, and it's not likely to make much difference either way.

There's a real sense of "something must be done" about mass shootings, and I think the world is heading in a "something must be done" direction, so the obvious alternative - promoting tolerance and reducing division so that people don't feel like it is worth shooting people they don't like - isn't likely to catch on.

There's probably room for a Sanders-style socialist to take the "war on drugs" logic and apply it to guns i.e. it will disproportionately affect the disenfranchised. There's also probably room for focusing on the causes of inner-city crime, although I suspect that's sadly more likely to be a Republican platform particularly if they want to challenge Democratic strangleholds on major cities. Although again, I suspect a Republican looking to crack down on gun crime would use the same failed strategies from the war on drugs... (but obviously only on the criminals)