State of the Democratic Party

[Belsnickel]

So, there was an article in my daily Virginia politics email from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the headline was "Jim Webb applauds Donald Trump, says election shows Democrats have lost white working class". You should be able to read the article since RTD is a metered paywall site and I doubt any of you frequent them like I do.

Webb discussed recently how the Democratic party has moved away from the part of FDR, being for the working class, no matter the race, gender, sexuality, "to the point that it made white working people their most convenient whipping posts. Particularly white males." He preached on the way the party has gone the route of elitism.

Whether you agree with Webb or not, it's clear that the Democratic party is having a bit of an identity crisis at the moment. We all thought the GOP would be fighting against a schism (and it still may, there is still a lot of turmoil there to be hashed out), but no one was predicting that the DNC would have to take a hard look at itself in this way so soon.

So what do you think the Democrats need to do going forward? What happened to them? What do you predict for the future of the party? I have more to type out, but I have to actually do some work so I will add my two cents here in a bit.

[GMDino]

(11-16-2016, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there was an article in my daily Virginia politics email from the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the headline was "Jim Webb applauds Donald Trump, says election shows Democrats have lost white working class". You should be able to read the article since RTD is a metered paywall site and I doubt any of you frequent them like I do.

Webb discussed recently how the Democratic party has moved away from the part of FDR, being for the working class, no matter the race, gender, sexuality, "to the point that it made white working people their most convenient whipping posts. Particularly white males." He preached on the way the party has gone the route of elitism.

Whether you agree with Webb or not, it's clear that the Democratic party is having a bit of an identity crisis at the moment. We all thought the GOP would be fighting against a schism (and it still may, there is still a lot of turmoil there to be hashed out), but no one was predicting that the DNC would have to take a hard look at itself in this way so soon.

So what do you think the Democrats need to do going forward? What happened to them? What do you predict for the future of the party? I have more to type out, but I have to actually do some work so I will add my two cents here in a bit.

Honestly Matt I rarely think about or care about "the party" as a whole like that.

The inner workings and the backroom politics are well out of my view and my hands.

But given the results of THIS election it would seem they either need to change their entire campaigning methods or wait it out and see if Trump can be successful enough to carry out a re-election campaign the same way.

Let's say he doesn't run for a second term for the sake of argument.  Pence can NOT run the same kind of campaign Trump did.  Trump had a personality that allowed him to say whatever, whenever and never be flustered about being caught in a lie.  He wasn't a "politician" he was a television character on in improv show.

And he was facing an opponent that had many negatives herself that could not be overcome simply by talking about them because there was always the background noise from the right that she was always lying...even when she didn't and Trump did.

This may have been a once in a lifetime type scenario and we won't see ANY change except in the selection method of who the behind the scenes types want to push to the fore front to run for office.

[Benton]

there's a lot more, but one thing that would go far in getting them back into congress... Support the nra. Offer free guns to working class families. Support shotguns for shutins. Become the party of more guns and you pull away about 20% of the GOP.

[GMDino]

(11-16-2016, 01:57 PM)Benton Wrote: there's a lot more, but one thing that would go far in getting them back into congress... Support the nra. Offer free guns to working class families. Support shotguns for shutins. Become the party of more guns and you pull away about 20% of the GOP.

OT but there was a story this morning on NPR about how gun sales have dropped off since Trump was elected.  Almost like the fear mongering of "they're coming for your guns" was just to boost sales and now they don't have that fear to push.  Weird.

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2016, 02:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: OT but there was a story this morning on NPR about how gun sales have dropped off since Trump was elected.  Almost like the fear mongering of "they're coming for your guns" was just to boost sales and now they don't have that fear to push.  Weird.

Considering the firearms manufacturing industry is really who pays all the bills for the NRA, that's exactly what it is.

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2016, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Honestly Matt I rarely think about or care about "the party" as a whole like that.

The inner workings and the backroom politics are well out of my view and my hands.

But given the results of THIS election it would seem they either need to change their entire campaigning methods or wait it out and see if Trump can be successful enough to carry out a re-election campaign the same way.

Let's say he doesn't run for a second term for the sake of argument.  Pence can NOT run the same kind of campaign Trump did.  Trump had a personality that allowed him to say whatever, whenever and never be flustered about being caught in a lie.  He wasn't a "politician" he was a television character on in improv show.

And he was facing an opponent that had many negatives herself that could not be overcome simply by talking about them because there was always the background noise from the right that she was always lying...even when she didn't and Trump did.

This may have been a once in a lifetime type scenario and we won't see ANY change except in the selection method of who the behind the scenes types want to push to the fore front to run for office.

It's hard to talk about parties in this country because we aren't like others. The party itself is nothing more than the elites that work for it, since there is no real formal membership. Even elected officials don't truly belong to the party. But the identity, what the party stands for, is something that the party in the electorate (the people that identify with the party) and the party in the government (those elected officials with a D or an R next to their name) really shape.

I like progressive ideas. The ideas of FDR, the ideas that really changed our country. What I don't like is that progressive ideas have just become synonymous with social issues. This is where I agree a lot with Webb, and Bill Clinton from the sounds of it from another thread. Those issues are important. The civil rights of minority groups and women are important things to fight for. But the focus on them, the move to identity politics, has just gone too far.

The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of moderates with a focus on social issues to make you think they are actually progressive and liberal. But at the same time, those more liberal in the party focus on those things a lot more than they should as well. It's a tricky situation.

[xxlt]

(11-16-2016, 02:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: OT but there was a story this morning on NPR about how gun sales have dropped off since Trump was elected.  Almost like the fear mongering of "they're coming for your guns" was just to boost sales and now they don't have that fear to push.  Weird.

It is all part of the plan. Obama is coming for your guns in 3...2...1...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-16-2016, 06:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: It is all part of the plan. Obama is coming for your guns in 3...2...1...

They are coming for your guns in California.  People mock gun owners for this opinion, but history has shown they are right to expect it.  As for gun sales dropping off now that Trump got elected, that's easy.  If you think you have the next four years, at least, to purchase that firearm you want you're liable to wait.  If you think you have four months to get it you're going to get it now.

I'm really hoping Trump gets a national firearms bill through congress that eliminates "assault weapon" ammunition and magazine bans at the federal level.  The laws that have passed here in CA are a complete train wreck for lawful gun owners.

[*bfine32*]

The Dems have been so concerned with supporting the protective class that they ignored the working class. They have to not argue that everything is an affront to someone. This was never more obvious as when Hills called Trump supports (half) deplorables. They have preached we can work together if you follow our rules. The Right seemed to side more with the business owner as long as they don't break the law in accordance with the Constitution.

[treee]

(11-16-2016, 04:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's hard to talk about parties in this country because we aren't like others. The party itself is nothing more than the elites that work for it, since there is no real formal membership. Even elected officials don't truly belong to the party. But the identity, what the party stands for, is something that the party in the electorate (the people that identify with the party) and the party in the government (those elected officials with a D or an R next to their name) really shape.

I like progressive ideas. The ideas of FDR, the ideas that really changed our country. What I don't like is that progressive ideas have just become synonymous with social issues. This is where I agree a lot with Webb, and Bill Clinton from the sounds of it from another thread. Those issues are important. The civil rights of minority groups and women are important things to fight for. But the focus on them, the move to identity politics, has just gone too far.

The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of moderates with a focus on social issues to make you think they are actually progressive and liberal. But at the same time, those more liberal in the party focus on those things a lot more than they should as well. It's a tricky situation.

I agree wholeheartedly. I feel as if the Democrats have missed the forest for the trees lately. Of course we want equality for these marginalized groups. Of course we people to feel safe, loved, and accepted. But the reality is, is that there is a hierarchy. There is centuries of misogyny, racism, and homophobia enforced in such a way that could be defined as evil, cruel, and inhumane. There is an overarching group of very influential people who want the power structure to stay exactly how it is and change minimally. These people collectively own the fossil fuel industry. They own arms manufacturing industry. They own these facets of power that enable them to continue to rule over the common man, albeit indirectly. The Democrats used to be a union. A group decreeing that it would no longer be the victim of a sadistic mix of feudal age thinking and industrialism. They were based on the principal of the power of the common man through a universal understanding of what it means to be a person and how high of a cost it is to forfeit that substantially for 'economy', as we have been brainwashed to think. I truly hope that I'm not witnessing the erosion of those standards that were set 100 years ago. I hope that we can continue to build upon those standards reasonably, rather than stand by and watch Billionaires take office and enact the will of their class by deconstructing them.

[djam]

I would say the best thing for democrats now is to just start being honest and open. Stop lying to their people. Stop paying protesters to attack and aggravate people who disagree with them and pay the media to make it look like the opposition who creates it. The wikileaks emails uncovered what a lot of people already know. Its time for the moderates like Jim Webb to distance themselves from the extreme faction of that party, who has taken over and destroyed it. The dem party is no longer the party of JFK. If they were they would not have to cheat to win. JFK would no doubt have to run as republican now. No doubt.

Look at the dem reaction to this election loss folks. Look at whats happening around the country. Is that going to land you more working class voters? No, its just going to turn them off an you'll end up with a bunch of communitist party converts and socialist party converts, which both go completely against our constitution. Those parties have infiltrated the dem party enough already. I would push them back out of it.

Stop politicizing climate change, and insulting people who are skeptics. Accept that the science is far from settled at this point and stop pointing your fingers at everyone. It's a turn off to people.

The dems have a lot of fixing to do, and I sincerely wish you well with it. I hope the good folks get the bad ones out and return that party to at least semi-respectable. Our country will be better off for it. One thing that would help all democrats is to just simply open their minds. They are the most closed-minded, intolerant people our nation has ever seen on a political scale, especially the young ones.

[tigerseye]

Jdam you nailed it.

Got to get back to truth and honesty.

The US is stronger with a DEM Party that has integrity and honestly self evaluates.

Clintons and Soros have the DEMs a long way from there.

God Bless America

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 08:58 AM)djam Wrote: I would say the best thing for democrats now is to just start being honest and open. Stop lying to their people. Stop paying protesters to attack and aggravate people who disagree with them and pay the media to make it look like the opposition who creates it. The wikileaks emails uncovered what a lot of people already know. Its time for the moderates like Jim Webb to distance themselves from the extreme faction of that party, who has taken over and destroyed it. The dem party is no longer the party of JFK. If they were they would not have to cheat to win. JFK would no doubt have to run as republican now. No doubt.

Look at the dem reaction to this election loss folks. Look at whats happening around the country. Is that going to land you more working class voters? No, its just going to turn them off an you'll end up with a bunch of communitist party converts and socialist party converts, which both go completely against our constitution. Those parties have infiltrated the dem party enough already. I would push them back out of it.

Stop politicizing climate change, and insulting people who are skeptics. Accept that the science is far from settled at this point and stop pointing your fingers at everyone. It's a turn off to people.

The dems have a lot of fixing to do, and I sincerely wish you well with it. I hope the good folks get the bad ones out and return that party to at least semi-respectable. Our country will be better off for it. One thing that would help all democrats is to just simply open their minds. They are the most closed-minded, intolerant people our nation has ever seen on a political scale, especially the young ones.

You seem to have some misconceptions. JFK was the most liberal POTUS we have had since FDR. Based on his positions on congressional actions at the time he was in office, he was very liberal. We've actually seen the Democrats in the Oval Office trend more conservative since JFK, and GOP presidents as well for that matter.

Yes, this reaction to the election is concerning. I was concerned with protestors against Bush and the directions they took, and then those against Obama who burned a lynched effigy of him, and now this. It is completely appropriate to express concerns, and even protest, but both sides have been taking it too far. Let's not pretend that the left has a monopoly on astroturf asshattery.

Climate change is happening. Whether we have a major impact or not, the same things that we do that could potentially impact climate change in a negative way also hurt our environment in other ways and are often fiscally inefficient and unsustainable. It is good stewardship of our budget and our world to take measures to help the environment whether or not it is tied to climate change. Yes, it should stop being politicized, and I think one of the biggest mistakes of the past 30 years has been tying environmental stewardship to climate change/global warming.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 09:28 AM)tigerseye Wrote: Jdam you nailed it.

Got to get back to truth and honesty.

The US is stronger with a DEM Party that has integrity and honestly self evaluates.

Clintons and Soros have the DEMs a long way from there.

God Bless America

Can you do me a favor?  Compile a list of Trump's fact checks. Let me know what you find. Thanks. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I don't feel like a whipping post. Am I supposed to feel like a whipping post?

[fredtoast]

Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time.

Not all white people believe like that, but it is no coincidence that the lesser educated are more likely to buy into the argument that minorities are the problem in this country.

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time.

Not all white people believe like that, but it is no coincidence that the lesser educated are more likely to buy into the argument that minorities are the problem in this country.

So you don't think that the Democratic party getting back to focusing on the economy and policies to help the middle class would help win these voters back? I mean, don't get me wrong, the GOP is doing nothing to help them either, but that's just the thing. The Democrats have been the party for the middle class, as a whole, for a very long time. They feel abandoned by them and are now turning to the GOP in a "let's see if they will help us" move.

There are educated people in the middle class, Fred. Hell, I'm educated and in the lower-middle class, if that, same for my wife, my parents, my sister and her husband, lots of people I know. We stick with more progressive attitudes because of other reasons, but all of us can take a look at what has happened to the positions touted by Democratic lawmakers and see that there is not much being pushed to help us out. This isn't blame directed at minorities, saying that is an absolute cop out when discussing the dropped ball when it comes to economic policy on the left.

[Goalpost]

It could actually get worse for Democrats. In 2018, the Senate elections don't run in their favor.

33 seats up for grabs and 23 will be Democratic. Only 8 Republican and 2 Independent.

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Goalpost Wrote: It could actually get worse for Democrats. In 2018, the Senate elections don't run in their favor.

33 seats up for grabs and 23 will be Democratic. Only 8 Republican and 2 Independent.

Indeed, and 11 of those are shaky.

[THE Bigzoman]

Hey Bell,

I want your perspective on something.

Someone who I speak with in another community posted this months ago along with a prediction of a Trump Victory. She said that the democrats lost touch  with blue collar workers and they would pay the price this election. She takes it even further by claiming that the left doesn't really care about poor people:

While this may seem controversial, I swear it is absolutely the case that as a general rule people adhering to either party, or more generically Liberals and Conservatives, do not care about poor people. Poor people here means the economically distressed, the lower classes, and in general the victims of economic changes. When I say that they do not care for poor people I am not suggesting EVERY individual is careless, but that culturally both communities of political thought do not care about poor people outside of a very selective set of circumstances.

Tell me if this line would sound familiar:
Those people are in that position because of their lazy and repugnant values/culture, and they are just in general dumb and its hard to help people like that. What can you do for these people? They would rather be what they are than be reformed.

Now if you said that in the context of a discussion of urban poverty, you would most likely be approximating the position held by most Republicans about those people. And by those people we almost inevitably are talking about the Black Urban population. Obviously every pious Liberal would foam at the mouth at the mere suggestions of these words applying to the Urban Poor. It is pointed out as a gross, bigoted characterization, and rightly so one would be correct in assuming that this characterization exists to negate the more Republican loyal people from any perceived obligation to have solidarity with their fellow countryman in economic distress. One might also accuse the Republicans of applying a "I got mine jack!" mentality.

However, ask the general Liberal public about the Rural poor, or the Rust belt poor and you will inevitably hear a shrugging away of their plight. That population is mostly of White-European ethnic background and is often characterized as rednecks or hicks. Such a person will likely say more or less the same thing, perhaps in nicer words, maybe something more like "If people refuse to learn, refuse to go to school, and expect their jobs to remain static, they are deluded... I do not care if you think that is "arrogant" that is the truth." The equation remains the same, the fundamental perception of the more Democratically aligned is that THAT community of poor people deserve their fate, much as Republican aligned people will argue is the case for the Urban poor. References may also arise to the book Whats the Matter with Kansas even if the person making the reference has never read the book. In general the Democrat will say "They cling to the God and Guns!" or some other dispersing comment, but in the end he or she to is just saying "... Well we can't help them, their stupid and inferior and cannot be helped!"

Both political tribes will of course never acknowledge this. Both will pledge that they do care for the poor, but in terms of solidarity with those whom suffer economic distress their solidarity is largely contingent upon tribal loyalties or a transactional relationship with solidarity. As in "I will help you but only if you do ." Both engage in rationalizations, the exact SAME rationalization, for why they feel no obligation to do anything about poverty. Or they selectively chose to only care about poverty in the context of tribalistic political allegiances. Democrats focus almost exclusively on the Urban poor and Republicans often try and attack any attempts to help that population. Here though Democrats get more of the label of Hypocrite since in theory the Left is supposed to be IN GENERAL in Solidarity with the poor, Conservatives get a degree of a pass because they have not made it a point to campaign on such an idea.

In this, Liberals and Lefties deserve much HARSHER criticism for their slights against poor peoples because in theory they are the ones whom claim to be looking out for the poor, yet in America the political party is not interested in general in poverty and is fairly hostile to the rural poor. As are its members and individual meat space dwelling voters and adherents. Conservatives to a degree get a pass because they have never pledged solidarity with the poor, they have not made a promise and then broken it. In conclusion, both political camps engage in a critical lack of empathy but I would say it is worse when Liberals do it because it is them not living up to their claims about themselves in general.