We have to explain ALL the losses

[zipplewrath]

It would seem that any rational discussion of the presidential election has to be done in the larger context of the losses we have been experiencing over the last few election cycles. Any assertion that relies entirely on factors that ONLY affected the Presidential General Election would seem to be missing the larger forces at play.

[hueymahl]

1. Yes

The presidential election loss was more a symptom than the actual disease.

[Orsino]

2. Not without all the data, we don't.

Dark money, black boxes, virtual ballots...these are data unavailable to us. We have to understand why we don't have them, and we have to care enough to correct that lack.

[zipplewrath]

3. Evidence of their effect?

With so many races and so many elections, it would seem that some evidence would exist to support the assertions. Or are we passing into conspiracy space in which lack of evidence IS evidence.

[Orsino]

4. The evidence is in the roster of usual suspects who conspire to keep this information secret.

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2016, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not done for fun, but for partisan/class advantage.

But you know this already because you joined DU.

[zipplewrath]

5. Where is the effect

You're speaking to the assertion, without speaking to the evidence that this secret information accomplishes anything.

[Orsino]

8. The effect is as stated.

Allegedly representative democracy in which the best-funded candidates keep taking office, and laws that prevent our knowing exactly who is running our representatives. Judicial appointees who find contorted pseudo-justification to continue exacerbating the effect.

But you knew this already because you joined DU.

[zipplewrath]

9. So you have nothing but suspicions

You can't actually show what voters were influenced by any specific action.

[Orsino]

13. No one will ever be able to...

...until the day it's legal to kidnap and imprison voters before an election cycle, monitor all influences and read their diaries as well as their ballots. And know the workings of dark money and black-box voting machines.

But you already knew this, because you're on DU.

[zipplewrath]

14. So instead

So instead you'll just work with unsubstantiated suspicions.

[Orsino]

16. The key word is work.

Lobbying to get the information we need to make good decisions ought to be a top priority, and yes, imagining the worst that can happen is an important motivator. So is tracking the people and money invested in hiding that data from us.

What information would you advocate our working to obtain?

[zipplewrath]

17. I'd start with turn out data

It's probably publicly available. The other thing to focus upon is a specific precinct where one thinks it is most effective/likely. Again, there should be publicly available data on turn out and results.

[Yo_Mama]

28. But the Republicans had less and spent less this cycle, at least on a national level.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

RNC raised and spent less than DNC. Far more outside money to Clinton. Read the article.

Trump spent far less than Clinton on his campaign. Clinton spent nearly 1,198 million vs Trump 646 million.

In 2014, I read here that the Dems had trouble getting people out in midterms, but that 2016 would be great for us. That didn't happen.

[Orsino]

29. (If we don't count the billions in free airtime for Trump.)

[Yo_Mama]

30. Yeah, he was good at getting publicity, but Hillary had awesome name recognition.

Against a less known candidate, I would think Trump's ability to trot out there and babble would mean more. But Hillary?

She could have given press conferences too. She could have done much more of this.

The fact remains that Republicans did not win this election on money.

[Orsino]

32. (If we don't count the billions in free airtime for Trump.)

[Yo_Mama]

33. It can't be counted. If Hillary wanted to go out on those shows

she would have gotten it too. She could have given a press conference a week, instead of not talking to the press for months on end.

Trump did, she didn't. Same thing with all those rural rallies.

Hillary is news and was huge news. She could have gotten press and didn't.

[Orsino]

36. It was counted. It was over US$ 3 bn.

It wasn't a matter of Trump "going on shows," but of shows publicizing his activities uncritically because that practice meant ratings.

Boring old Hillary Clinton, with her mere qualifications and real-world issues, was not puffed up beyond her competencies.

[NCTraveler]

20. I dislike myself for reading your post and thinking conspiracy theory.

I think many people have been conditioned like that. Fact is, your post doesn't put forward any theory outside of it being a necessity in a democracy that the vote must be completely above board. It is not currently. What you have stated truly should be the top priority.

I've always lobbied for a more transparent election process. As I get older I seem to be grasping its importance more and more.

[Yo_Mama]

25. Dark money? The Clinton campaign spent a lot more than the Trump campaign.

Maybe after next week, but at some time we are going to have to sit down and deal with things.

Part of this may just be a natural political flux - after all, in 2008 we had the House, Senate and Presidency, and we got the House in 2006. So it may be partly a cycle, but looking at the state returns convinces me that we should not take this for granted.

Also, in 2018 the Democratic party has to defend many seats in the Senate compared to the Republicans, so it is time to get serious.

Conspiracy theories won't help us at all.

[Orsino]

31. It's okay to count swings of the pendulum...

...but amplitude is as significant as polarity.

Should the two parties be taking turns in power just because? Isn't it true that the party consistently offering the best ideas and most progressive accomplishments ought to be entrusted with more power more often?

It's not working that way. Sixty days the Democrats had in 2010, sixty days with the presidency and Republican-proof majorities in Congress. We got the ACA out of it, barely. What has happened in every other month of every other year? Republicans simply say no rather than even having to compromise. Dark money has twisted them ever further toward fascism, and it keeps Dems from getting too liberal, too.

When Citizens United's world has reduced two allegedly-competing parties into mere brands, the swings of the pendulum are less significant. Corporations and hereditary wealth are stealing power, and in that context waiting for the next leftward swing is ultimately a losing proposition.

Ask North Carolina's next governor. Watch the next Supreme Court Justice for hints as to how the next decades will go. Watch the next Democratic president, and see if s/he is allowed to do much more than pardon a goddamned turkey.

[Yo_Mama]

35. I agree utterly with your points here, and I think this was one of the main issues in 2016

It was that kind of year. Many have lost faith that the top people in either party care about the fate of the average resident/citizen/voter.

[Willie Pep]

6. I think the loses at the state level are in some ways even more worrying than the presidential loss.

The state and local level is where you build your organizations and grassroots ties with the electorate and where you have the greatest chance at shaping the political culture of a state. It is shocking to see states like Wisconsin looking redder every year. The Republicans seem to understand this better than we do.

[Yo_Mama]

27. Yes. Time to panic early so we can turn this around - not since 1920 have we seen this.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/after-winning-7-more-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all

Republicans added to their historic 2014 gains in the nation’s state legislatures with the addition of five state House chambers and two state Senate chambers in last week’s election, while Democratic control was reduced to levels not seen since the Civil War.

Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

Refighting the primary or the last election will get us nowhere - it's time to go for a fifty state strategy and focus on the state level, then let the 2020 primary candidates emerge out of this.

[philosslayer]

7. The losses can almost entirely be attributed to rigging elections

Between gerrymandering, purging voter roles, establishing voter ID requirements, roll-back of Voting Rights provisions and outright fraud, is it any wonder Democrats have been losing ground? This isn't about changing our message. This is about fighting back harder to make sure Democrats stop being disenfranchised on a massive scale.

THAT is the larger force at play you are alluding to.

[zipplewrath]

10. Evidence?

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election directly. Do you have evidence that voter ID requirements caused a change in outcome in any particular race? Ditto for Voting Rights provisions. And what fraud do you allude? The GOP has been asserting voter fraud as the reason for the need for voter ID laws. But they can't actually show any significant evidence in court of voter fraud. You know something they don't?

[philosslayer]

11. Read the original post

The OP was referring to down ballot results. And yes, gerrymandering has a huge influence there.

[zipplewrath]

18. But not the presidential or senate

The point is that we're losing in essence "across the board" and if one is looking for universal factors, you have to include those races in the analysis. And gerrymandering is meaningless to those races.

[philosslayer]

19. DOWN BALLOT

EVERYWHERE except the Senate. House of Representatives, statehouses..... Gerrymandering has had a huge influence. Its a smaller part of a much larger puzzle. Sheeeeeesh.

[zipplewrath]

23. yes, but

It is reasonable to suggest that there are common themes to all the races. Those themes can't include gerrymandering because it is meaningless in senate, gubernatorial, and presidential races. That's not to say that there aren't gerrymandering problems, but they aren't a universal issue.

[Yo_Mama]

26. Gerrymandering may have an effect, but first the Republicans have to gain state control.

The gerrymandering occurs AFTER we lose on the state level. It may make it more difficult to rebound, but it is not the cause.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/after-winning-7-more-seats-gop-dominance-state-legislatures-all

Republicans added to their historic 2014 gains in the nation’s state legislatures with the addition of five state House chambers and two state Senate chambers in last week’s election, while Democratic control was reduced to levels not seen since the Civil War.

Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

This is the reality which must be confronted by the Democratic party. Simply blaming the Russians or gerrymandering won't help AT ALL.

[mythology]

24. I wouldn't argue it is meaningless

I would wager that if you live in a district that is heavily one party or the other on all the down ticket races, you would be less likely to turn out to vote. For example I had 4 "races" on my ballot this year. I put races in quotation marks because 3 of them were Democrats running unopposed. If I were a Republican and looked at my ballot ahead of time and saw I effectively didn't have any choices, I might not vote. It's not like Trump was going to win my state.

Put that in the context of a red state where it combines with not just gerrymandering, but also reductions in polling places where minority (read Democratic) voters vote and reducing early voting, it adds up. Trump won by less than 1% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Those states have pretty consistently voted Democratic in the presidential races while Republicans have gerrymandered state districts to their advantage. Which in turn means when somebody is running for say state Senate, a Republican candidate is more likely to be running after having been in the state House and thus have a built in edge in terms of name recognition and fundraising apparatus. That effect would inherently be delayed and hard to measure, but over time would lend itself to more Republican candidates winning.

I don't have numbers to back those up, and could be completely off my rocker, but when our elections are trending to be closer and closer, coming down to a handful of states and we are now better able to predict based on demographics how somebody will vote, it only takes a small edge to win. Trump won by less than 100,000 votes spread over 3 states. Bush by 500 in one state and then a bit over 100,000 votes in Ohio.

[LaydeeBug]

12. It would seem any rational discussion that does not include Russian hacking is letting

them frame the fucking narrative.

No thanks.

[Captain Stern]

15. You're spot on.

Bottom line is...we're getting our asses kicked.

As far as social issues go, our nation is trending in our direction. Yet...we are still losing at the ballot box. And, no, the elections aren't being 'stolen' or 'hacked'...we're just losing. We need to figure out why, and fix it.

[Arazi]

21. Agreed 100%. Kick and rec

[LanternWaste]

22. Collate the data as you instruct others to do, analyze it and please let us know what you find out..

Collate the data and the objective evidence as you are instructing others to do, analyze it, and please let us know what you find out...

[oberliner]

34. Starting with Russ Feingold

I had high hopes for him winning that election.

What the heck happened there?