What happens to the Democratic Party now? (1 Viewer)

[Heathen]

I’m sure much of us are having 2016 flashbacks this morning with a sick feeling to our stomachs..

2 of the last 3 elections Democrats have lost to a far right demagogue

Harris didn’t get close in many states to even Biden’s performance. We could very well lose the Presidency, Senate AND House depending on results the next few days…..

What went wrong?
What could’ve been done better?
What can we change in the future to ensure voters are motivated like they were when Obama was elected?

Democrats have no choice but to admit there’s a huge problem with some aspect of their platform— and to do a deep introspection of what’s going wrong..

 

[Optimus Prime]

I agree that the Republican party has a big edge in regards to their propaganda machine, which is both ruthless and something they've been building for a long time, such that there's nothing remotely similar in play for Democrats.

But something that struck and greatly disappointed me during this last election was how effective the "she's for them, he's for us" message was. I don't think that's a game Democrats can win, so the best thing to do is not to play it.

This cycle’s version of “Lock her up!”

Not as easy to chant but still simple and resonates

 

[DaveXA]

Even adding those names, I see very few viable candidates for national office.

Beshear -- He's a CIS white guy from a red state, so his candidacy wouldn't be an inevitable loss like a lot of the others listed. Not sure if he has enough charisma, though, to connect with people on a national level.

Buttigieg -- I'm sorry, love what he has to say, but a wimpy looking gay guy, who's highest elected office was mayor, will never ever ever ever ever ever be a viable candidate for president (at least not in my lifetime).

Harris -- I don't see how she could be expected to do any better than she did, and honestly don't think she could win a normal primary race.

Moore -- I like what I've seen of him, and I think he's got the look, background, and presentation where he could appear to be strong but not threatening, which is the sweet spot any black male would need to hit to be viable in a national race.

Murphy -- Sorry, just not photogenic enough. Democrats need to run some one that the electorate looks at and says "this guy forks!" Murphy is not that guy.

Newsom -- If were he a Republican, governing the country's largest state would surely be seen as a positive (as with Reagan), but he'll get tagged with being an out of touch coastal elite, that wants to bring California's high cost of living, bureaucracy, and taxes to the rest of the country.

Cortez -- I doubt she could win a single primary. She would get drubbed like no one's seen since Mondale.

Polis -- I love my governor, but a fat gay guy probably isn't going to do a lot better than a wimpy looking gay guy.

Pritzker -- The optics of his obesity would probably work against him (similar to Christie). This country discriminates, and obesity is something that is discriminated against.

Shapiro -- This guy has "rock star" potential that I think could overcome any prejudices he would face being Jewish, but much might depend on what's going on in the middle east in 3-4 years, and if his support of Israel is seen as a net positive or negative with the Democratic base.

Warnock -- Give me break. He'd be turned into Jeremiah Wright.

Whitmer -- Being a photogenic, twice elected governor of a swing state, who's also a CIS white woman, I think she's got a lot of potential and could outperform most of the people on this list. That said, after 2016 and 2024, I would be really leery about running a woman again.

I'm down with Newsom or Whitmer. The rest are either meh or entirely too polarizing.

That said I'd vote for AOC all day long. She's young, has energy to burn, and unapologetic in the things she cares about. She's definitely not a conservative like I am, but she's certainly her own person and won't be bullied to tow the parry line for the most part.

 

[coldseat]

But something that struck and greatly disappointed me during this last election was how effective the "she's for them, he's for us" message was. I don't think that's a game Democrats can win, so the best thing to do is not to play it.

That's just propoganda. Dems just needed to put out an equally propaganda message of, "He's for billionaire, she's for you" or some other bullshirt like that and pushed it ad nauseum. They should have never stopped with the "Wierdo" attack. Just keep pointing out every wierd flaw and attack them mercilessly. Americans aren't very smart.

Democrats get cooked because they try to be responsive to all the criticism and adjust their message to make people happy instead of being ruthless and unapologetic. They don't need to move away from trans people or and other group. They just need to say fork you to all the people criticizing them for it and move on.

 

[Booker]

That's just propoganda. Dems just needed to put out an equally propaganda message of, "He's for billionaire, she's for you" or some other bullshirt like that and pushed it ad nauseum. They should have never stopped with the "Wierdo" attack. Just keep pointing out every wierd flaw and attack them mercilessly. Americans aren't very smart.

Democrats get cooked because they try to be responsive to all the criticism and adjust their message to make people happy instead of being ruthless and unapologetic. They don't need to move away from trans people or and other group. They just need to say fork you to all the people criticizing them for it and move on.

Oh I agree, and I don’t even think the message really matters anymore, it’s all about the optics and the feels — and always being apologetic and on the defensive looks and feels weak.

 

[bird]

Very nice whatabout!!!

Thanks! That is high praise from the king of whatabout.

 

[Texan1211]

Thanks! That is high praise from the king of whatabout.

Coming from one who drags Trump around like a security blanket. Interesting.
Not to worry, the crown is securely yours--at least until your TDS subsides somewhat.

 

[bird]

Coming from one who drags Trump around like a security blanket. Interesting.
Not to worry, the crown is securely yours--at least until your TDS subsides somewhat.

Nah, coming from someone who is blind deaf and dumb to what his party allows the crown to stay with you.

So, how much griping did you do about Biden anyway? How much about Hunter, who held no office? Was there wailing and gnashing of teeth when nothing could be traced back to his old man? How about Gaetz? Obviously, he should be tried under the same laws as Hunter regarding buying a gun and drugs.

It isn’t “what about”. It is the track record of Trump and your party. Now, I realize that is difficult to understand but some day you just might get there.

Then again, maybe not.

 

[Texan1211]

Nah, coming from someone who is blind deaf and dumb to what his party al

See, there is where you get it all just so wrong.
Do you think it might be you who is partisan, while I wouldn't vote for Trump.
It's always whatabout with you, just like now, going on about Republicans.
Read the title for the article when memory fails you.

 

[SamAndreas]

That sounds like bull to me---not the story--- the actions of the hospital. Another good reason to have one set of laws applying everywhere for everyone regarding abortion. Set reasonable limits and don't allow states to pass their own laws regarding it.

I agree with what you've said about having one set of laws.

I also personally feel that abortion ought to be legal everywhere.

 

[bird]

See, there is where you get it all just so wrong.
Do you think it might be you who is partisan, while I wouldn't vote for Trump.
It's always whatabout with you, just like now, going on about Republicans.
Read the title for the article when memory fails you.

Already discussed. I do not care that you didn’t vote for Trump. You do get that because you seem intelligent enough to understand it. You do support the Republican Party which, in turn, supports what Trump says and does.

With you it is all about, well, literally nothing beyond your feeble attempts at claiming some sort of moral high ground by your ongoing “I didn’t vote for Trump” as though that signifies something important.

It doesn’t.

 

[Texan1211]

Already discussed. I do not care that you didn’t vote for Trump. You do get that because you seem intelligent enough to understand it. You do support the Republican Party which, in turn, supports what Trump says and does.

With you it is all about, well, literally nothing beyond your feeble attempts at claiming some sort of moral high ground by your ongoing “I didn’t vote for Trump” as though that signifies something important.

It doesn’t.

Deflection noted.

 

[SamAndreas]

Deflection noted.

Texan, are you a Republican? I had you pegged as an Independant who might not agree with folks that you are a Republican.

On the side bar I think Independenpends are kind of silly, A party who can't be both their name and be a party at the same time.

Why I'm not even sure if the word "Independenpends" is a real word. Both the dictionary and the Google AI seemed to be a bit uncomfortable with that idea when I looked.

Both the dictionary and that AI do seem to be aware that people do use that word even if it's is not quite proper. Kind of like the not-word "Ain't" Ain't that awful.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Democrats are harboring strong feelings of stress and gloom as the new year begins. And many are questioning whether their party’s commitment to diverse candidates – especially women – may lead to further political struggles as Donald Trump is sworn in for a second presidency on 20 January.

A recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that a significant number of Democrats believe that it may be decades before the United States will get its first female president.

Specifically, about four in 10 Democrats said it’s “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that a woman will be elected to the nation’s highest office in their lifetime, according to the poll. That’s compared with about one-quarter of Republicans who feel the same.


While despondency is hardly unique for a political party after a high-profile loss, that finding reflects the deep depression that has set in among Democrats about the country and their party after Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.

Such concerns may already be shaping the Democratic National Committee (DNC)’s search for a new leader. For the first time in more than a decade, the top candidates for the job are all white men.

And looking further ahead, the party’s pessimism is influencing early conversations about the contest for the 2028 presidential nomination.

“We knew men hated women. The last election showed, for some of us, that we underestimated the extent to which some women hate other women,” said Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democratic state representative from South Carolina and former president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. “America is as racist and misogynist as it has always been.”……

Gloom and pessimism take hold of Democrats as they look for new leaders

Questions about the viability of a female presidential candidate rise after a crushing presidential defeat

www.theguardian.com

 

[faceman]

Democrats are harboring strong feelings of stress and gloom as the new year begins. And many are questioning whether their party’s commitment to diverse candidates – especially women – may lead to further political struggles as Donald Trump is sworn in for a second presidency on 20 January.

A recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that a significant number of Democrats believe that it may be decades before the United States will get its first female president.

Specifically, about four in 10 Democrats said it’s “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that a woman will be elected to the nation’s highest office in their lifetime, according to the poll. That’s compared with about one-quarter of Republicans who feel the same.


While despondency is hardly unique for a political party after a high-profile loss, that finding reflects the deep depression that has set in among Democrats about the country and their party after Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.

Such concerns may already be shaping the Democratic National Committee (DNC)’s search for a new leader. For the first time in more than a decade, the top candidates for the job are all white men.

And looking further ahead, the party’s pessimism is influencing early conversations about the contest for the 2028 presidential nomination.

“We knew men hated women. The last election showed, for some of us, that we underestimated the extent to which some women hate other women,” said Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democratic state representative from South Carolina and former president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. “America is as racist and misogynist as it has always been.”……

Gloom and pessimism take hold of Democrats as they look for new leaders

Questions about the viability of a female presidential candidate rise after a crushing presidential defeat

www.theguardian.com

I totally agree with this. If we were going to elect a female President this was the perfect opportunity. I believe
if the Republicans would have ran a man more sane than Trump the race would not have been close.

 

[horse2H5]

Democrats are harboring strong feelings of stress and gloom as the new year begins. And many are questioning whether their party’s commitment to diverse candidates – especially women – may lead to further political struggles as Donald Trump is sworn in for a second presidency on 20 January.

A recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that a significant number of Democrats believe that it may be decades before the United States will get its first female president.

Specifically, about four in 10 Democrats said it’s “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that a woman will be elected to the nation’s highest office in their lifetime, according to the poll. That’s compared with about one-quarter of Republicans who feel the same.


While despondency is hardly unique for a political party after a high-profile loss, that finding reflects the deep depression that has set in among Democrats about the country and their party after Trump soundly defeated Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.

Such concerns may already be shaping the Democratic National Committee (DNC)’s search for a new leader. For the first time in more than a decade, the top candidates for the job are all white men.

And looking further ahead, the party’s pessimism is influencing early conversations about the contest for the 2028 presidential nomination.

“We knew men hated women. The last election showed, for some of us, that we underestimated the extent to which some women hate other women,” said Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democratic state representative from South Carolina and former president of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators. “America is as racist and misogynist as it has always been.”……

Gloom and pessimism take hold of Democrats as they look for new leaders

Questions about the viability of a female presidential candidate rise after a crushing presidential defeat

www.theguardian.com

How about Kamala was a horrible candidate. If y'all would stop making excuses and look at the real problem. It wasn't that the country will not elect a women, just not that particular unelectable woman. Now you can list whatever qualifications you want, in 2020 the Democrat party did not nominate her when she was running for the top of the ticket. As a matter of fact the electorate was clear, your party did not want her. She was one of the least popular of all of the candidates.

She was chosen as VP because of being a minority woman. (this was joes words not mine). Joe left y'all in this predicament. Don't blame WHITE MEN! We are not monolithic. Be mad a Joe, that is the white man that caused this landslide. OR blame democrats who did not vote for her, why is always someone else's fault?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How about Kamala was a horrible candidate. If y'all would stop making excuses and look at the real problem. It wasn't that the country will not elect a women, just not that particular unelectable woman. Now you can list whatever qualifications you want, in 2020 the Democrat party did not nominate her when she was running for the top of the ticket. As a matter of fact the electorate was clear, your party did not want her. She was one of the least popular of all of the candidates.

What made Harris a horrible candidate? I want particulars! She was VERY popular and energized the Democratic base more than Biden was capable of doing. She lost this elections because of 2 specific reasons and they are Americans failure to understand the root causes for GLOBAL inflation and the Israeli conflict. I'm willing to bet Harris' loss will turn out to be as close as Clinton's loss.

Republicans have told you that trump won by the greatest landslide in American history and that has given them a MANDATE. By the tone of your comments, you have ate that crap up! The truth is that trump has received fewer than half of the popular votes in this country, meaning that more people voted against him than for him.

She was chosen as VP because of being a minority woman. (this was joes words not mine). Joe left y'all in this predicament. Don't blame WHITE MEN! We are not monolithic. Be mad a Joe, that is the white man that caused this landslide. OR blame democrats who did not vote for her, why is always someone else's fault?

Ok. I'm not going to even waste my time or any effort in an attempt to dissuade you of those beliefs.

 

[horse2H5]

What made Harris a horrible candidate? I want particulars! She was VERY popular and energized the Democratic base more than Biden was capable of doing. She lost this elections because of 2 specific reasons and they are Americans failure to understand the root causes for GLOBAL inflation and the Israeli conflict. I'm willing to bet Harris' loss will turn out to be as close as Clinton's loss.

Republicans have told you that trump won by the greatest landslide in American history and that has given them a MANDATE. By the tone of your comments, you have ate that crap up! The truth is that trump has received fewer than half of the popular votes in this country, meaning that more people voted against him than for him.

Ok. I'm not going to even waste my time or any effort in an attempt to dissuade you of those beliefs.

Don't ask me, ask your fellow democrats. I think policy wise she was horrible and we can discuss, but we are obviously on different sides. She lacks charisma. She was very preachy and not in a good way. She was not appealing to the regular people of the United States. In all honesty, despite what this board thought, y'all were losing this election no matter who the D candidate was. The country was/is fed up with liberal ideology.......and it showed.

Moreover, when did the Democrats become the party of the rich and wealthy?




On the second point would you like to read his words?

 

[Dragon]

Don't ask me, ask your fellow democrats. I think policy wise she was horrible and we can discuss, but we are obviously on different sides. She lacks charisma. She was very preachy and not in a good way. She was not appealing to the regular people of the United States. In all honesty, despite what this board thought, y'all were losing this election no matter who the D candidate was. The country was/is fed up with liberal ideology.......and it showed.

Moreover, when did the Democrats become the party of the rich and wealthy?




On the second point would you like to read his words?

A more urgent question is - When did the republicans stop carring about the law? How could they vote for someone who was a convicted fellon? And who had a jurys verdict that he committed a sexual assault ?