Please stop with this b***shit that the Democrats are out of touch with the voting population

[DetlefK]

Trump lost the popular vote.
During an election with record-low voter-participation.
An election where some people voted for him not because they support his ideas, but simply because they "want to watch the world burn".
Trump's victory is no indicator whatsoever that his ideas are more popular than democratic ideas.

So, the Democrats are supposed to be the ones out of touch?
* Some Trump-voters are all surprised that the GOP wants to destroy Medicare despite promising to do so for years. But it's the Democrats who are out of touch.
* Some Trump-voters think that letting billionaires run the show is the right way to drain the swamp. But it's the Democrats who are out of touch.
* Some Trump-voters believe that Trump can bring back an economy where coal is in demand and coal-jobs are coming back. An economy driven by the honored and valued work of ordinary people, not by cost-cutting and obscene profits for Trump and his billionaire-buddies. But it's the Democrats who are out of touch.




If the Democrats are the ones "out of touch" with what the people want, what is this thing the people want and that the Democrats failed to offer?

What did Trump promise the ordinary working-class people that the Democrats should have promised?

Should the Democrats have stayed in touch with working-class people by making the fantastical and nonsensical promises these people obviously wanted to hear?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Sheer Gaslighting

I'm not adopting the narrative that democrats failed.

[yuiyoshida]

29. Its pure FOX NEWS

hogwash! All of this crap comes from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

[lastlib]

30. Joe the Intern Killer was peddling it this morning.

. .

[yuiyoshida]

42. Morning Joe on MSNBC?

gag... I can't stand him either, and no, he is not a liberal, but then MSNBC is no longer on our side, they have turned to the dark side.

[still_one]

33. You are referring to the movie Gaslight, right?

[no_hypocrisy]

43. Oh yes. That movie

I finally understood the mind fucking my father put me through when I first saw that movie.

[still_one]

44. That isa great analogy, thanks

[no_hypocrisy]

52. One further reference to the Cinema

A quote from Dr. Zhivago

Gen. Yevgraf Zhivago to Tonya (his niece): Don't you want to believe (Yuri Zhivago) was your father?
Tonya: Not if it isn't true . . . . .

That sums up my sentiment.

[still_one]

53. TWO THUMBS UP

[duffyduff]

60. I am not, either.

Too many Sanders/Moore types are peddling this nonsense it is the Dems' fault for what others have done.

The purpose is not to help but to destroy the Democratic Party.

[uponit7771]

109. +1

[tecelote]

2. Most of America agrees with most of the views Democrats hold. Many by large majorities.

For some reason, the messaging screws it all up.

[BainsBane]

64. People don't vote based on issues and policy

And that goes for many Democrats as well as Republicans. To this day, many of Clinton's progressive critics still have not read her policy positions. They disliked HER. That has nothing to do with policy or issues. People will make excuses, but ultimately issues matter less than cultural signifiers. I was called elitist yesterday, just like Clinton, the poster said. I'm not rich. I couldn't imagine what was so elitist about me. But them I realized the comment was about being an uppity woman. People vote based more on that kind of thing than policies, which is evident when they vote against candidates with positions they claim to support.

There is a social science research that shows this. It's also born out in election results.

[CrispyQ]

69. A couple of things.

Why don't the dems hire someone to frame the debate - a counter to the right's Frank Luntz? George Lakoff is a natural choice, but I'm sure there are others. The repubs come up with the death tax, healthy skies, healthy forests - a complete up-is-down & down-is-up type of linguistic foolery & the dems are silent. Why don't we see more dems on the Sunday morning shows? If they're not invited, maybe they should demand to be invited. Or maybe they are happy being the good cop in the good cop/bad cop routine?

The other issue is hate/lie radio, that covers huge swaths of our country. Certainot put it much better than I could in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028370975#post77

snip...

when reagan killed the fairness doctrine in 87 the right bought up 1000 radio stations and they didn't even need media deregulation 10 years later - they just put guys like limbaugh and hannity on 500 radio stations each spewing the exact same messaging, reinforced with local blowhards coordinated by state.

It's a spot on observation, worth the click.

[OhioBlue]

97. You make great points. It seems the Dems are always fighting the

current battle or election cycle while the Repubs are changing the narrative, changing the democratic infrastructure (gerrymandering, ALEC, think tanks, talk radio, FOX, and voter suppression strategies) to fight the next battle/election cycle.

[uponit7771]

110. Yeap, the GOP has to lie about their positions

[Ace Rothstein]

3. We lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate and have gotten killed at the state level.

Something with our messaging isn't resonating with a large part of the country.

[boston bean]

4. yeah, people voted based on fear of "others" rather than hope.

You want the democratic party to be the party of fear, bigotry, hate?

[Ace Rothstein]

15. I never said that.

If this is the case though we should all pack it up and go home as Republicans will keep winning with the same playbook.

[brush]

21. You do know they cheat, hack, suppress and tamper, right?

[lastlib]

32. ...AND gerrymander!

And twist truth & facts into six-dimensional pretzels.

[Yurovsky]

89. You can't Gerrymander governor races...

if we're going to sit around and make excuses, let's at least ensure they apply.

The GOP has 33 governorships... we have to do better as a party. Whatever we achieve at the Federal or local level can be undermined by conservatives in the Governor 's mansion...

[IronLionZion]

105. Can't gerrymander statewide Senate races

The excuses are falling short

[DetlefK]

5. Either that... or Electoral College, partisan gerrymandering and suppression of the black vote.

Please tell me, if the democratic message isn't resonating with a large part of the country, what part of Trump's message is resonating with a large part of the country?

[Ace Rothstein]

16. Those issues play into it.

But the Republicans did better overall in the House race than in the Presidential. The party might as well not exist in a number of states in the South.

I still can't put my finger on why exactly we lost but I think it is fairly complex as issues play differently around the country.

[uponit7771]

111. Because of gerrymandering, why is that concept having to be explained on DU? Gerrymandering is

... as undemocratic as voter suppression that's the reason why they did good at the house level.

TRMS did nearly an hour on how historically gerrymandered the US is now, we no longer have a represenative government

[IronLionZion]

80. Obama didn't have time for these excuses in both of his elections

what part of Trump's message is resonating with a large part of the country?

Change

Make America Great Again

Jobs

and the notion that coastal educated urban elitists are looking down on large parts of the country with contempt and calling those Americans stupid worthless bigots.

And the notion that media and pollsters are in need of a rude shock

[EffieBlack]

104. Obama's messaging was undergirded with real policies

Trump has no policies, just taglines and scapegoating and venting - people voted for slogans and hate.

[Jakes Progress]

14. Maybe not resonating in your den.

But you know there are real reasons that the House and Senate are what they are. It's not that the donald has a better message. The rest of the country does not resonate to those of us on the real left. (I am a full blown liberal who wants all the things the we should have, but I'm not willfully ignorant of the reality of our nation.)

[Ace Rothstein]

17. My den? Speak for yourself. I voted for Hillary.

I've voted for the token Republican in the past but never again after they have us Trump.

[Jakes Progress]

85. So

What does your post try to say?

I never said I was speaking for anyone else. I also voted for Hillary. I also campaigned for her. I sent her money. I never bad mouthed her in the last year. I didn't attack my party's only chance of winning for some ideas that I thought were good but that I knew would not fly in today's America. I knew that attacking my party's only chance of winning was a sure way of seeing to it that she didn't.

I don't understand you cryptic "token republican" remark, but if you can say you supported Hillary without spewing crap about her, then good for you.

But the post I was replying to had to do with your saying the Democratic Party had the wrong message, and that is why we lost. That is incorrect. There are a host of reasons we lost, but having the wrong message wasn't it.

[Ace Rothstein]

87. I'm saying it isn't only about the Presidency as way too many here are focusing on.

We have been losing up and down the ticket since the turn of the Century. We won in 2006 when everyone realized just how big a disaster Bush was and the two elections when Obama ran. Obviously we're doing something wrong, very wrong.

[Jakes Progress]

148. Google gerrymandering and census.

Otherwise, the only way to interpret you concept that the Democratic Party is so very wrong (because we lost elections) is the say that we should be doing what the other guys are doing - that we should out tea-party them.

No thank you.

[Dustlawyer]

19. +1!!! Absolutely!

We lost touch convincing workers that unions are the way to better pay and job security. We lost touch when our politicians started taking big money from Republican donors (corporations and Plutocrats). We lost touch when we call our traitorous Democrats "spineless" instead of what they really are, sell outs. We lost touch when we rigged the Primary (DNC and Hillary) over Bernie (fact not opinion). We lost touch when we allow our MSM to ignore real stories and spew propaganda instead of truth. We lost touch when it became acceptable to have Wall Street insiders (who receive big bonuses before and after their government service) run our Treasury Dept., in EVERY Administration. We lost touch when a Democratic Administration did not go after the Wall Street banks for the fraud they committed in crashing the economy and their continued fraudulent schemes against Americans. We lost touch when we get distracted from the root cause of most of our problems, campaign bribes, Super PACs, dark money, and the revolving door, and instead focus on the symptoms caused by our campaign finance system.

How can we fix our country to prevent the next Donald Trump, the next time Republicans block a SCOTUS appointment,... if we refuse to even discuss the causes or even admit we have a problem?

[ehrnst]

22. Russian hackers also targeted congressional races, so that is at least part of it

A New York Times investigation revealed new evidence that Russian hackers also targeted nearly a dozen congressional races.

Also, in the past, Russia was not this sophisticated about how to disrupt specific races like this, leading to the conclusion that they may have had inside help.

I'm thinking Manafort.

[IronLionZion]

74. Republicans are dangerously close to passing constitutional amendments

and we don't want to know what they would do in that case

[Ace Rothstein]

78. But there's nothing to see here.

Move along.

[IronLionZion]

81. We could stick our heads in the sand and shelter in place

that has helped us so far

[Adrahil]

95. Yup, and I know what it is....

It is a message of inclusion and care for those marginalized and in need.

A big chunk of this country is letting racism and xenophobia dominate their thinking.

[oberliner]

6. It is an urban vs. rural divide

Democrats win in the cities, Republicans win in the rural areas.

This is not changing anytime soon.

[JudyM]

66. We need to revitalize the urban areas in red and swing states so we can tolerate moving there

and capture the majority popular vote in those states for the Senate, governorships and presidency.

[mcar]

7. Thank you

Some on this board act like we lost in a landslide and thus must make wholesale changes.

[Jakes Progress]

13. They are feeling guilty.

They know that they helped put trump in office. They have to deflect that guilt.

[LaydeeBug]

37. They have seriously been on a roll. nt

[Jakes Progress]

86. Guilt makes them blind.

They have to watch the next four years knowing that if they hadn't been so dumb or so selfish, we would have this happening.

[dionysus]

98. We may as well have... it's like we lost a national election to Dan Quayle. Nt

[kcr]

8. The argument that it doesn't matter because electoral college! is so stupid

As if the EC is an actual brain wave death ray that erases the thoughts of the voters who votes didn't count.

It doesn't matter if you're talking strictly about the outcome. Of course our EC is structured so that the popular vote doesn't count. But if you're talking about which party is in touch with the people, I don't see how you can argue that it isn't the party who got more votes. It makes no sense.

[Coyotl]

9. WE WON YUUUUGLY, but the system is rigged.

[GoCubsGo]

40. The margin would have been even larger if not for "cross check"

throwing thousands off the voter rolls, along with the other various suppression tactics that prevented people from voting. Or, the tampered electronic machines (see Wisconsin, Mighigan.)

[Coyotl]

45. The electoral college was reversed by Crosscheck.

And voter suppression also as a singular factor did the same also. Plus these and other efforts all taken together were insufficient and some illegal fixes were still "required" to squeak out the 40,000 votes with surgical precision that swung the electoral college to Trump.

[Joe941]

10. Maybe out of touch with the electoral college...

which determines the winner unfortunately. The system needs to be changed.

[LonePirate]

11. I'm perfectly fine with Democrats being out of touch with racists and other bigots.

[Jakes Progress]

12. The worst is when Democrats

say the same thing. There are a lot of people who need to point at someone else when their actions contributed to giving us trump.

[IronLionZion]

18. Do you want to keep losing?

Admitting our mistakes and how we can do better is the first step towards winning in the future.

We could certainly do better in PA, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and more.

We could certainly do better to pick up Senate and House and state legislative seats and governorships.

But promoting the notion that those who didn't vote for Dems are stupid and worthless, is not going to help us win.

[greenman3610]

20. obviously Russian hack, traitorous FBI, media myopia and groupthink hurt

But we know now that the Dems did not do the fundamental blocking and tackling of democratic politics in the rust belt states - they did not activate the base, get out their people to knock on doors, - here in Michigan it was a chore to get a sign, and you had to pay for it.
All the while we were being told that some fantastic ground game was building - that never materialized, at least in the areas where it was needed.
One would think that if one's entire strategy was based on a "blue wall" - you'd make DAMN sure that blue wall was fully armed and operational - but no.

This is gross political malpractice, at exactly the time when when we HAD to get it right - and I blame the Washington-centric computer whizzes that were running the campaign based on numbers and forgetting that

[IronLionZion]

25. I'll admit I believed the blue wall would hold

and dismissed the liberals in the rust belt who warned us that their neighbors were getting Trumped. It was ours to lose and we lost it. our party got complacent and didn't work hard enough where it mattered and lost winnable Senate races too.

[duffyduff]

61. More debunked nonsense. NT

[duffyduff]

59. Ignore foreign interference.

You are aware that the Michael Moore meme about the poor beleaguered white males hurt by the economy has been debunked, aren't you?

The bigot vote is what carried the day with these unreachable voters. Trump often hid it under the banners of illegals and Muslims.

We didn't lose the election but the EC.

[IronLionZion]

71. There's only so much we can do about bigots and Russians

But if we get more voters in more states, we can win.

You know the popular vote doesn't win the election.

"poor beleaguered white males hurt by the economy" doesn't do much to explain why white women voted Trump. or why we lost winnable Senate seats.

more votes for Dems in the rust belt would have won us the white house and Senate, and we could have appointed a judge to replace Scalia's empty seat.

[uponit7771]

112. "Our Mistakes" are NOT Comey, voter suppression and Russia... false sense's of self control wont

... get us any where either.

Its a false bar to ask for perfection too... we should not have given up Deans 50 state all county but to continue to act like those aforementioned factors aren't the ONUS is nearly gaslighting IMHO

[IronLionZion]

127. Do those excuses work for the Senate and house and governorships?

Maybe Russia interfered in state legislature elections and local city elections too?

I know Putin was behind the dog poop on the sidewalk this morning.

Voter suppression doesn't stop white women (and other white liberals) from voting. And it's harder to make that case in states with Democratic governors. Who are Dems suppressing?

My neighbor's dog has more self control than many DUers.

[uponit7771]

128. Yes, voter suppression and gerrymandering work for local and state level. We should know this by

... now shouldn't we?

Voter suppression is aimed at college students in red states and states with GOP houses (we're the zenith of state and federal powers lie nationwide) can do such past Governor vetos.

Maybe I should do a thread on the effects of voter suppression and gerrymandering but I thought RM covered this a year ago but not everyone gets her show.

This has been covered over and over again and that's why a lot of people on DU now would like the focus to be free and fair elections and the other bullshit be damned.

We can run JFK, Obama, FDR, Eisenhower, Lincoln, RayGun and Washington wrapped into one and still lose with those factors against us

[IronLionZion]

130. What's your plan of action to fix it?

[uponit7771]

131. A laser focus on free and fair elections by bringing as many post election law suites as possible...

... against red state fuckers to make them change their laws and then take it back to the USSC with new stats seein that Roberts (the fuck) said there wasn't disenfranchisment based on his stats

If that doesn't work then force disenfranchisement laws at the local level by disenfranchising mostly rural voters with a door to door campaign to bring attention the disenfranchised urban PoC, young and poor.

That would be my plan, go out to rural America and tell them they can't vote any longer to make the Red state legislators pass disenfranchisment laws... then take those laws to court if they are tilted towards rural areas.

Just my off the top of my head (not official) thought on the matter

[IronLionZion]

134. Sounds like a good plan

[Tatiana]

23. And that's why we won so bigly! Only...

we didn't. We got CRUSHED. Everywhere, except on the coasts. After eight years of a Democratic President, the country seems to be trending even MORE right-wing conservative in their voting habits.

Why?

It's not because our message is resonating with the voting population.

It's because we have exhibited the same type of (yes, elitist) arrogance regarding a good chunk of the voting populace. Kinda like the Clinton campaign taking the Midwest for granted.

Yes, they're dumb and they vote against their best interests. But we have to market and explain in a way that is simple and clear why Democrats deserve the public's votes.

Just saying visit my website doesn't cut it -- and I think that exhibits the type of arrogance that I'm talking about. How do we even know whether people have the internet or not?

[Ace Rothstein]

28. The visit my website stuff during the debates drove me crazy.

[DetlefK]

34. Even if you go purely by the numbers, there's no clear right-wing trend in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
Obama 65,915,795 = 51.1%
Romney 60,933,504 = 47.2%
1.083 democratic voters for every republican voter
voter-participation 54.9%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
Trump 62,979,636 = 46.0%
Clinton 65,844,610 = 48.1%
1.046 democratic voters for every republican voter
voter-participation 54.5%

So, the ratio of democratic voters has gone down, but they still outnumber republican voters.
And the lower participation-rate means that some people simply stayed home.



AND you have to take into account that Trump is not a real Republican. He's the anti-establishment candidate who hijacked the anti-establishment rhethoric of the establishment-Republicans.
Trump is no fiscal conservative, he's no national security hawk, he's no Libertarian, he's no Evangelical, he's no Tea Partier, ... What kind of Republican is he?

The big advantage for Trump is that he got the non-political people to vote for him. That's where his surge came from: All the people with a "fuck politics"-attitude suddenly had a candidate. It was these people, not a supposed avalanche of right-wingers, that earned him the Flyover-states.

It's still a far shot to say the US is turning more right-wing.

[Ace Rothstein]

51. That doesn't explain Republicans doing better in the House vote than the Presidential vote.

Not to mention statehouses and governors which date back 4 elections now that we've been getting our asses kicked.

[Tatiana]

93. I didn't say the country was turning more right-wing in its beliefs.

I believe the country is turning more right-wing in the way it is voting.

You're right. Trump is not a Republican. He's a Trumper. BUT -- look at his freaking cabinet! It's EXTREMELY RIGHT-WING! Even more so than Reagan or any of the Bushes.

There is NO WAY Trump should have received votes from as man women as he did.

In an election about "change" the same Republicans down ballot returned to their positions of power in Congress.

We have to pull our head out of the sand here. We're not reaching a wide swath of the country and it's because the media and the oligarchs have conspired to keep these people ignorant and uninformed. That's why they read fake news and think it's real, while most Democrats have enough knowledge to determine what is fake or what doesn't fit with their existing background knowledge on a particular topic.

We have to educate these people, but in order to do that, we have to make some inroads into building trust and establishing relationships. Yeah, that doesn't sound appealing, but it's what we must do if we're going to turn this ship around.

[Lurks Often]

24. Then why did ONLY 25.6% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS vote for Clinton?

74% of ALL eligible voters either stayed home or voted for someone other then Clinton. 74% of all eligible voters not wanting to vote for the Democratic nominee isn't "in touch" with the average voter.

"According to the United States Election Project, nearly half of eligible voters (46.9 percent of approximately 231,556,622 people) did not vote in the 2016 election. And while not the lowest voter turnout in history (that honor goes to the 1996 election between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, with 49 percent of eligible Americans abstaining from voting), the numbers are much lower than they were in both 2012 and 2008, particularly among Democrats."

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/

Raw numbers from http://www.electproject.org/2016g

[JHan]

26. If we're going to fuss about voter turn out and not take into consideration voter suppression.

we are not being serious about life.

2018 is critical - We unite with a sensible 50 state strategy, roll back the nonsense the republicans have gotten away with> this needs to be our focus. That is the lesson of this election: Getting people to vote by getting rid of republicans who want to disenfranchise citizens.

What happened in North Carolina should make us all sufficiently sick to our stomachs.

Tactical mistakes should not be confused with us having the "wrong message"

[Lurks Often]

27. Again, 74% of voters either stayed the fuck home or voted against her

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

The idea that all 46.9% of those that didn't vote were "suppressed" belongs in the creative speculation forum


On edit: I transposed 46.9% to 49.6%; My initial post used the correct 46.9%

[JHan]

35. You are denying voter suppression didn't play a part this year?

To believe that a year with a weakened voting rights act didn't impact voting is worse than "Creative speculation" , it's denying reality.

I shouldn't have to draw a road map to explain simple things

[Lurks Often]

49. Still you miss the point

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

If Clinton had connected with that 46.9% that stayed home, she would have won easily. So ask yourself why did so many people rather stay home and not vote.


On edit: I transposed 46.9% to 49.6%; My initial post used the correct 46.9%

[JHan]

56. I've missed no point..

Humans are able to multi task-

I can look at any number of reasons - I already addressed tactical errors in my original post to you ( which would include- since you're hungry for a criticism of Hillary - hubris on the part of Mook and others in her campaign). However, you went on a crazy horse to deny a very obvious, in your face, reason for low turn out - voter suppression.

If we cannot admit to or acknowledge schemes by Republicans to depress our numbers , then we deserve to lose over and over and over again.

[Lurks Often]

67. Explain why 46.9% of the country stayed home

Last edited Tue Dec 20, 2016, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

because the idea that the Republicans managed to suppress 46.9% of the country's voters is absurd.

Also explain why the Clinton campaign, which should have been aware of the voter suppression you seem to consider the main reason she lost, failed to compensate and make adjustments to handle the voter suppression.


On edit: I transposed 46.9% to 49.6%; My initial post used the correct 46.9%

[JHan]

70. If you want reasons why people don't go out to vote..

.. I could offer many-including laziness, civic ignorance, and a whole bunch of other factors - and I'm sure some will come up with silly my-candidate-didn't-win-the-primaries-a-pox-on-everyone reasons. I don't have a problem blaming voters for their stupid decisions.

I pointed out a legitimate, verifiable reason which impacted voter turn out - a weakened voting rights act. I never said it was *The reason* for low voter turn out, but it is plainly obvious it was a contributing factor.

The Clinton Campaign had a GOTV effort but..

It was not up to the Clinton Campaign alone to address voter ID laws now was it? - Democrats stayed home in 2010, 2012, 2014, ensuring GOP wins across State Legislatures which gave them the power to implement restrictive voter requirements.

[Lurks Often]

73. So why do Democrats keep staying home and letting Republicans win?

[ucrdem]

76. PBS: more than 58% of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/voter-turnout-2016-elections/

[JHan]

77. Thanks URCdem.

I wasn't sure of the figures

[ucrdem]

83. It's basically a media deception

or call it a myth. It was half-true on election night based on the votes COUNTED but it left out all the votes that hadn't been counted including early, absentee and provisional ballots. Some states kept counting and it appears that others didn't but the number has risen dramatically. But even though CNN for example "updates" the date it hasn't updated the story so when you Google it the first few pages are all "lowest turnout ever" based on those early half-truths.

And the media completely lost interest in reporting the number about 2 weeks ago, fancy that.

[Lurks Often]

88. Interesting, the 2 sites we each used as a source

each linked back to http://www.electproject.org/2016g

Did some digging as to why there was a difference and my link was from 11/9 and your NPR link was 11/20, so the numbers from NPR are more accurate since the United States Election Project most current numbers are based on the certified election results from each state.

So using the 58% number from NPR, 42% of eligible voters didn't bother to vote at all. Of the 58% that did vote, 32.4% of those eligible voters still voted for someone other then Clinton. So 74.4% of eligible voters choose to either stay home or vote against Clinton.

[JesterCS]

96. Because we didn't want Clinton

And got thrown to the curb after the primaries, with the "we don't need Bernie voters" bullshit maybe?

[Lurks Often]

103. It's unlikely Sanders could have won the general election

I know the Sanders fans disagree, but a 74 year old Senator from Vermont was not going to do well with many of the independents and moderate Democrats.

[JHan]

115. You didn't want Clinton,

and now the Democratic Party has zero leverage.

I wanted Clinton, she won the Primaries.

Cry me a river the length and breadth of the Nile, it's not always about you.

[JesterCS]

135. Oh yes we know, it's all about "her"

And where did that get us?

[JHan]

136. It was never about "her"..

it was about furthering the progressive agenda come hell or high water.

It was our business this year to get it together and back whoever - whether it was Sanders, O'Malley, Clinton.

The choice was clear and stark. Instead the candidate with the far more progressive agenda was dragged to the level of her opponent, by many leftists , contributing to the false narrative that she and trump were the same.

her flaws were amplified, instead of the ideas and policies of her platform which barely got media coverage because of the headless chickens of the fourth estate this year. Many on the left contributed to this lunacy. We lost the plot, - and I've got my critiques of Clinton , but this wasn't the year to play cute.

[uponit7771]

113. Yes, they're going to continue to say that in order to focus on the wrong issue to. Voter suppressio

... was a salient factor and they know it.

I'm tired of the focus on this shiny object over here shit

[dionysus]

99. Or that every GOPer is racist. While a vast majority of racist voters are GOP, it doesn't mean

All the GOPers are racist. The Republicans i know IRL are not the fire breathing exgremist cliwns seen on political boards. They can be reasoned with and educated.

[True_Blue]

68. Yes, unfortunately if we don't win by a landslide

the republicans will steal it everytime. Maybe we need UN poll watchers to make sure we have fair elections.

[MADem]

31. That's code for "Shut up, go away, go support some impossible candidates who won't win shit."

Funny how the Blue Dogs and the moderates did the best this election. They WON their elections.

I think our "social justice" instincts are right on track--we should not abandon immigrants, minorities, gays, women and other groups that have been historically disenfranchised and that is what the GOP WANTS US TO DO. THAT's our "core" constituency, not white guys who refuse to retrain and think that steelworking job is coming home from JI-NAH.

And apparently a lot of us like the idea of being fiscally sensible, too.

See, if they separate us from our core constituency, then that constituency will flail around either looking for the best deal from a bad lot (which means suspending disbelief and voting for fantasy), or stay home and say fuck it.

[Kentonio]

47. No-one is suggesting we abandon those groups for christs sake!

Apparently 'we aren't resonating with the white working class, let's work out how we're failing and improve' has been translated through some bizarre neo-liberal filter into 'we should dump all our principles and become racist, misogynist bigots!'. Do you genuinely think so fucking little about the left wing of the party?

[OnionPatch]

84. It's kind of bizarre, isn't it?

I'm totally confused as to how people are coming to this conclusion. Those of us who think the Dems should have been stronger in the rust belt weren't suggesting we start throwing out racist dog bones, we were thinking perhaps the Dems could do something about jobs.

[MADem]

91. I have nothing in common with racists, and I've seen lots of this "How can we appeal to the

Trump voters" crap floating around. I'm having NONE of it.

People who voted for Trump voted for a guy who said he'd grab women by their pwords, who said Mexicans are racists, blacks are lazy, his own kid is a "retard," and who believes gay people are not entitled to equal rights.

These aren't small things. A vote is an ENDORSEMENT, and we've seen who endorses Trump--the KKK.

I have no common cause with these people AT ALL.

I'd rather motivate our own allies to vote and work at knocking down barriers to enfranchisement than spend even a second appealing to people who want people like me dead or in effective perpetual serfdom. And anyone who can gloss over that end of Trump's business is so far "left" they've come out on the (alt) right.

Our candidate won the popular vote by a MASSIVE margin. Most people who bothered to vote found her to be the best candidate. Why? Because she was.

I'm not playing President Putin's game.

[Kentonio]

92. Sure you are, you're playing EXACTLY his game.

Divide America, create smaller camps that can be manipulated or defeated, that's precisely what Russia would love. Of course vote for Trump was a terrile thing, but what do we gain by saying 'You people are scum, you are not and never will be like us!'? The ideal situation is in 4 years time for those people to be voting Democrat and feeling ashamed that they made a terrible mistake in 2016. If you write them off now, they're our enemies forever and we have an even bigger voting block to have to overcome next time.

[MADem]

94. Right back atcha, then.

I'm not "dividing" America--I'm just not wasting my time trying to poach from a pool of racists who aren't interested in those quaint "liberal values." Why don't we go after those misunderstood Klansmen, too? Way to waste time, trying to convince people who hate those of us who are not white working men to join our effort.

They aren't like us. They don't LIKE us, either.

Why try to force them to join a coalition of people they find loathsome?

I'm not going to coddle racists. Sorry. I'd rather spend my time growing the pool of liberal voters who care about civil liberties, safety nets/social programs, and protections for minority groups. They're out there-we need to reach THEM, not racist Trump voters.

[dionysus]

101. Dean thought we could convert republicans, and his 50 state strategy is lauded. And just

Because the KKK endorsed trukp, doesn't mean every GOP voter is a klansmen. You're denigrating near half the voters in the country the same way rhe GOP does with dems. Not a winning strategy.

[MADem]

107. That's like saying "The desserts at this restaurant are wonderful, and beets are on sale at the

grocery store."

Dean's (ancient) views on a particular "conversion therapy" aimed at the GOP and active, canvassing, motivating presence in all fifty states are two entirely different things.


That said, we're not converting any "Trump voters" and we shouldn't even try. They're RACISTS. They're SEXISTS. They think Mexicans are rapists and pussy grabbing is OK. They find this kind of shit FUNNY.

Fertile ground is that fifty percent of people who didn't even show up to the polls. But Trump voters? Fuck them. They're lost.

[dionysus]

108. Many if not most trump fans are assholes. But are you going to extend

that to every Republican voter? If so, you're doin the exact same thing rhe RWers do when they call dems, roughly half the country, 'merka hating traitors.

If so, you've been suckered into doing what the TPTB count on us doing; getting one half of the little guys fighting the other half so they can rob the store unmolested.

Here's something you don't get. While trump dragged scores of racists and scumbags out of the woodwork, not every single republican is like that. They think claims of his douchebaggery are made up or exaggerated. While i don't want to be bosom buddies and have sleepovers with these clowns, we could find common ground on a lot of things and hopefully educate them to stop voting against their own self interests.

Unless you want to wait decades for the demographics to improve enough to render rwpublicans obsolete. I don't think we have that kind of time.

As far as going after the people who don't vote, that's great. But we didn't do that either. We pumped up the base, while donny dipshit excited the extremists and actually grew the GOP base this time around.

[MADem]

122. Republicans who voted for him are assholes. You can't parse this.

The few that didn't are hens' teeth.

The people who stayed home are up for grabs.

The ones being SUCKERED are those who believe that racists and sexists will EVER give a shit about us.

They'll only so do if they get something in return AND they're placed at the head of the line, ahead of the women and people with melanin and/or naturalization papers.

If we abandon OUR core constituency, OUR values, to chase after haters and shitbirds, then THAT will be the end of us. What we are, is our VALUES.

Stop playing their game. Play our own. Giving a shit about other people is the right thing to do. Pandering to racists isn't. Maybe you should stop telling me about what I "don't get" and spend a little more time looking inward. I'm not willing to throw OUR people under the bus for a chance at convincing their people--they can go fuck themselves.

We don't have to "wait decades" for shit. We just need to get souls to the polls. And we do that by combating disenfranchisement by every means necessary. If we have to find a sugar-daddy/mama to PAY for ID for poor people, or Crowd-Source a fund to pay for IDs, or take the "unequal protection" aspect of mandated, paid-for ID all the way to the Supremes, that is what we must do. Not kiss GOP ass.

What you 'don't get' is that white people don't NEED "ID" or "proof" to be able to vote. They aren't challenged at every turn, particularly if they're registered Republicans. They aren't scrubbed from voter lists. They are not turned away.

Stop buying the GOP memes. That shit sounds straight outta Forbes.

[dionysus]

100. I know, crazy, isn't it?

[uponit7771]

116. BULL FUCKING SHIT !!! If black supremacist ran like Benedict Donald did there'd be NO ONE on DU

... suggesting in anyway that we should be appealing to black working class like we should be appealing to white working class.

I don't believe that shit for a second

Also, when it comes to "working class" Clinton won most of the people concerned about the economy and made less than 50k a year...

Facts matter, the loss wasn't among whites who cared about the economy

Also, voter suppression, Comey and Russia is no where in your analysis as the ONUS ... how is someone who is not going to ignore those factors supposed to take the "white working class" comments?

tia

[MADem]

124. I have to agree with you. The high dudgeon would be "epic" as the kids say....

This whole meme about Dems going over to the dark side and finding common cause with fucking Nazis is coming straight outta Moscow.

I'm shocked that people who should know better are picking it up and passing it on, too. These people are haters and they don't care about their fellow humans. They want theirs, and if they have to do it on our backs, they will. And not think twice about it, either.

We're at war, now--with Russia. The battlefield is cyberspace. And this is already a World War. They've bombed Pearl Harbor and crumbled huge chunks of London, and we need to get off our asses and fight back.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/west-must-counter-russian-disinformation/

[Kentonio]

125. Because I'm sick of hearing excuses about Comey and Russia quite frankly.

Even with those influences, we should have walked this election, and yet some of you just can't accept you backed a candidate who failed against the weakest opponent in political history. That's ok, I don't really care whether you accept it or not, but I'm damned if I'm going to sit quietly by and let you lead us into another disaster like this one.

[uponit7771]

114. lofl.... huge Ji-Nah... lol

[man on the moonshine]

36. What we DON'T have to do

is tailor our message to white racist idiots! They're getting older and older and DYING! Time is on our side, juust like Mick said!

[Kentonio]

48. So basically any white working voter who didn't vote for us is a 'white racist idiot'?

And people wonder why we lost..

[man on the moonshine]

55. Nice Twist!

E for Effort

[Kentonio]

58. You're the one who appears to have twisted the idea that we should outreach into working white areas

Into some nonsense about us tailoring to racists.

[man on the moonshine]

62. Working whites don't have time to show up at Tea Party rallies in the afternoon

Those Baggers are the racists we must exclude.

[Kentonio]

65. Why are you focusing on who we should exclude?

We can build a message that continues to fight for social justice AND focuses more than we do currently on the economic plight of the working class. Is that a message racists will follow? No, of course not. We don't have to put work into excluding anyone, we just need to send a clear message of fairness and justice for all.

[Ace Rothstein]

63. Meanwhile the Republicans run everything for the next 30 years while we wait for demographics...

...to change.

[uponit7771]

117. Because of Voter suppression and hacking, I see those who push for anything outside of the ...

... empirical truth and want to turn out message towards people away from a together message are ignoring those factors

[Ace Rothstein]

121. Voter supression definitely plays into it.

But we need to work to pull some of the white working class voters back into the party. Peeling off 5% of them will get us back the states we should be winning.

[uponit7771]

123. We did win the white working class voters ... the M$M meme is we lost them but according

... to exits and recent polls Clinton won the votes that were concerned about the economy and not the ones concerned with immigration and terrorism.

That sounds like social issues to me not the economy

Also, I think we need to talk to more of the places that flipped for Clinton but I no doubt do NOT think the message of stronger together needs to change.

If we lose the white working class because of a message that we're stronger together then we make it up somewhere else like in turnout without voter suppression .... suppressed.

[OnionPatch]

82. Who on this board says we should tailor our message to racists?

I'm not seeing that anywhere here. Unless there's some nuance I'm not getting.

I agree with those who say not enough attention was paid to the economic death spiral that is happening in the rust belt. Is that what you mean?

[LaydeeBug]

38. record low voter participation?

I am pretty sure that is not true.

[DetlefK]

50. Lower than 2012, 2008 and 2004.

[Wernothelpless]

39. Hearing it is important

We have to look at the cost of letting bankers off with a slap on wrist and a fine. We need to pay attention to those who lost their homes and their retirement funds. But we won't, because we think we're the intellectuals who speak with an inclusive condescension that's more rhetoric than reality. So we lost the BERNIE millennials who thought their voice didn't matter. I begged those I knew to vote, but they went silent as death.

I can ignore the mean girl clique of the DNC, because I'm 60 and mean girl cliques are all I've known. They, however, were shocked only because they haven't studied anthropology. This is who we are. We're tribal. I'll go back to my tent now and we don't have to talk about it anymore.

You see anthropology is real whether we believe it or not.

[libtodeath]

41. We have a media that demonizes all Democratic positions

but look at these emails

[LaydeeBug]

72. OMG!!!! THIS. They've been doing this "Al Gore said he invented the internet"

Um...no he fucking didn't.

[JCanete]

90. been true for a long time, and we keep trying to work with the corporations that own our media. It

is not going to work out for us.

[Cryptoad]

46. the DNC ,,,,

has got to start help funding and promoting the local Democratic Parties in every state. Helping people at the Local level.

[duffyduff]

54. You are right.

The Democratic Party trashing needs to stop.

The problem here is with foreign interference with our elections plus the obsolete Electoral College.

The Michael Moore talking points need to go into the garbage can because they are false and completely debunked.

[True_Blue]

57. I don't buy it either

That's just a RW meme to cover up the fact that Putin picked our POTUS for us. I'm absolutely convinced that they stole the election. We just need to figure out a way to keep the republicans from stealing elections.

[uponit7771]

118. RIGHT !!! The people who are continuing to vie for turning the message towards "white working class"

... and not taking care of voter suppresion and Comey and Russia never mention those factors as a gating reason for this loss.

Its like we're being gas lit by mostly LPC members

[ucrdem]

75. K'n'R, but for the record, voter turnout in 2016 was the HIGHEST ever

But relative to population growth it's been stagnant since the 2008 when the VRA came under renewed attack:

Votes are still being counted from last week's election, including 4.3 million in California alone. But we know now that the total number of votes cast in 2016 will exceed those cast in 2012, with about 130 million banked so far vs. 129.2 million four years ago. It's almost certain that, as Hillary Clinton's campaign predicted, the total number of votes cast this year will be the highest on record, surpassing the number cast in 2008.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/more-votes-were-cast-in-2016-than-in-2012-but-that-doesnt-mean-turnout-was-great/

[uponit7771]

119. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THREAD WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ucrdem]

144. Thank you!

The pre-election day reports were all about record early voting and projections of record turnout. And if voters had had the same access to polling places that they'd had in say 2008, and if the votes that were cast were accurately counted, I don't doubt the story would have held, and Hillary would have won nationally in a California-size landslide. But it changed mysteriously on Nov. 9 to "low turnout sinks Hillary" based on grossly incomplete election night returns and that's the story they're sticking with.

[NCTraveler]

79. Those promoting that meme are full of shit.

They had no interest in listening to Clinton on the campaign trail, looking at her platform, or the platform other dems were running on. One of the most progressive in history.

The group you mention are truly fighting against progressivism. Know them by their words.

[LaydeeBug]

106. YESSS!!!!! nt

[pansypoo53219]

102. people do NOT want to eat kale.

[Garrett78]

120. A different Democrat with the same message and strategy would have won.

There are some things Democrats should do differently from a tactical standpoint. Not so much in terms of the message but in terms of outreach. Dems need to campaign in more places so as to minimize the losses in rural areas of purple states.

But I have no doubt that many other Democrats (not all, mind you) with the same message and strategy would have won. Clinton was victimized by 25+ years of hate. There are people who simply were not going to vote for Clinton, as awful as Trump is.

[uponit7771]

129. So Comey, voter suppression and Russia weren't an effect in this election!?!? REALLY !?!?

[Garrett78]

132. Of course they were. I never suggested otherwise.

In a tight race, any *one* of those things could have made the difference. We're talking about a mere 80,000 votes spread out over 3 states. I'm simply including 'Clinton hate' in that list of factors. You can also add to the list a pathetic ratings-focused media that's obsessed with spectacle and promotes false equivalencies in the name of some twisted sense of what constitutes "balance."

Clinton was victimized by 25+ years of smears. That's taken a toll.

Some insist Clinton lost because of message or strategy. I think a different Democrat with the same exact message and same exact strategy (the latter being somewhat flawed) could have won. Not *any* Democrat and not Sanders, but quite a few Democrats could have won (for one thing, others wouldn't have been a target of the FBI).

[uponit7771]

133. I disagree with "never suggested" by not placing on the onus on those factors it does suggest such

... in kind saying a different person with a different message.

If we ran Obama, JFK, FDR, RayGun and Eisenhower wrapped up into one they still couldn't defeat those factors period.

The messanger doesn't make a difference against overt and outright unfree and unfair elections.

[Garrett78]

138. I didn't say "a different message." I said "the exact same message."

Any number of factors could have made the difference when we're talking about 80,000 votes spread out over 3 states. Eliminate any *one* of those factors that you and I have listed, and I think we would have had a different result.

I suspect Biden, for instance, would have won. Even if his message and tactics were identical. I think there are a lot of folks who would have voted for the Dem nominee had it not been Clinton, who was victimized by 25+ years of hate (much of it rooted in sexism).

Mind you, I still expected Clinton to win. I wasn't expecting the last minute interference of the FBI or for the media to be as bad as it was. The voter suppression we knew would be a problem thanks in large part to the Shelby County v. Holder decision. We can't quantify exactly how much impact it had, but - again - it's one of several factors that all by itself could have made the difference in a super tight race.

[uponit7771]

139. But the measured and empirical factors we KNOW of are Comey, voter suppression and

... Russia.

Everything else is guessing... there's no guessing with those 3 factors.

They DID make a difference and that's bad enough, that's .... NOT... a free and fair election.

There's NO ONE who would've have won without a free and fair election... PERIOD.... I don't know why people aren't recognizing Comey, Russia and Voter suppression... whom even Benedict Donald has recognized as factors that played into this election.

[Garrett78]

140. We don't know the exact impact of any one factor.

But it's fair to guess that any one of them could have made the difference.

We can't dismiss that Clinton has been under attack for decades, which likely drove up turnout in opposition to her. She's been under attack to a greater extent and for a longer period of time than any other politician I can think of. This is a pretty good article on that topic: "The deep disgust for Hillary Clinton..."

I disagree that no Democratic nominee would have won. As I said, I think Biden would have won. The FBI/email story (that the media obsessed over) wouldn't have been a factor.

[uponit7771]

145. Again, it doesn't make a difference the exact impact... that there .... WAS.... impact at all..

... at all does NOT make this a free and fair election .... period end of story.

Its like saying "we don't know if they would've won" after the ref tripped the other team with the ball !!!

That's not a fair game !!!

Put Michael Jordan in as the player who got tripped... it STILL wouldn't make a difference !!!

[Garrett78]

147. Your previous reply seemed to be suggesting that certain factors are measurable in their impact.

And that Clinton hatred isn't measurable. So, I was responding to that specific point. We agree that multiple factors were consequential.

Where we disagree is over the notion that no Democrat could have won. Again, I think Biden would have won. He's not as polarizing as Clinton and the FBI/email story wouldn't have been a factor. I think Trump turnout would have been more depressed.

But we can agree to disagree.

[yurbud]

126. what did they fail to offer?

To stop trying to privatize public education and give it to Wall Street at the expense of middle, working class, and poor kuds.

To stop letting Wall Street pick their own cops.

To stop bailing out Wall Street and start bailing out their victims

To break big banks into small enough pieces that they can be subject to the rule of law

To treat Wall Street economic terrorists as at least as big a threat as the other kind that do far less damage, and prosecute their executives accordingly.

To stop a foreign policy based on serving transnational corporations that crushes democracy and workers rights in other countries. If we did that, we also wouldn't have as many illegal immigrants and refugees fleeing the receiving end of that policy.

To stop using Islamic fundamentalists to overthrow secular regimes in the Middle East, leaving a trail of chaos and death

To stop trying weaken Russia and China, which could lead to a world war, and instead look for ways to make a multi-player system work.

And to stop having socialism for the rich, and austerity for the rest.

[Takket]

137. the problem is 50% of the country is completely out of touch with reality.

[Garrett78]

141. I wrote about that here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512659983

Take note of the Silverman excerpt in which he suggests what needs to be done.

I think the tendency for so many to subscribe to patently false beliefs is a factor that needs a lot more attention. Democrats need to be talking about it when they're guests on the various 'news' programs/cable shows (especially when they're on Fox), because this matter speaks directly to both public education and media responsibility, two very important issues right now. The former has been under attack for years and the latter seems to become more of an oxymoron each day. Democrats need to reverse those trends pronto.

For many, being presented with the facts will backfire in that the false beliefs will become further ingrained. But if Democrats are repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of various beliefs held by huge swaths of Americans, cognitive dissonance will set in for some. Also, it's possible that some who have been apolitical will become engaged once they recognize the threat posed by tens of millions subscribing to utter nonsense. And, as I said, Dems need to combat the attacks on education/intellectualism, as well as the media's role in failing to properly inform the electorate. No more false equivalencies, no more obsession with spectacle and much more facepalming when it's called for.

[WilliamH1474]

142. I think this is the wrong approach.

I really don't mean this to be offensive but I feel like it should be said.

If we keep saying "we did nothing wrong" or blaming the Russians for everything then we will not get to the core of why we lost.

I think an in depth analysis is needed, and when a problem is identified it should be addressed and not dismissed.

I heard a week or two ago, that Trump won like 2,600 counties compared to Hillary's 500 (can't remember the exact number but it was close to that) AND he won 220 counties that President Obama won in 2012.

There is a serious problem when you are not resonating with that much of America. We have to find a way, to get jobs back or create meaningful employment for the folks who are living in rural America. While many of you may want to write them off, or call them names the fact's are that the electoral college is not going away, and we have to start talking to people again.

I personally saw just how unappealing Hillary's economic message was to the regular person (this is not my opinion at all, simply what I witnessed with my own eyes). I was having lunch in Mcdonalds which was filled with a solid mix of people of all ages and races. The TV was on and playing CNN, and there were a lot of people watching. They started airing her speech live, and I was pretty excited (and actually stayed 30 mins after I was done eating to hear it). I was pretty enthralled with the speech and enjoying listening, when I noticed something. Every single person who was watching TV and eating, had gone to playing on their phones or had left. There was one African American lady, who was sitting directly in front of the TV and who had been watching it until the speech came on. She was sitting there reading her food recipient and continued to do so, until she was bored with that and got her phone out to text or something.

I was the only one paying attention, and I realized right then, there was going to be a problem.

I live in an neighborhood that had 90% Obama signs out last election.. This time there was only one person in the entire area who had a Hillary sticker on their car. It seemed like no matter where I went, there were nothing but Dumbf signs up, and it did not matter where you went, poor or rich or middle income. They had stickers, they had signs and they had enthusiasm.

I know it will be hard to do, but we have to find someone to run who get's folks as excited as President Obama did.

Just my .2 I hope it does not offend anyone

[ucrdem]

143. Probably each of those diners had had an anti-Hillary message targeted just for them.

And had probably heard it every day for the last ten years. The VRWC is nothing if not relentless.

p.s. I'm guessing you're in midwest red state like Indiana or Missouri?

And welcome!