What happens to the Democratic Party now? (12 Viewers)

[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..

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

So the Democratic Party needs to wake up and decipher what the voters said last night.

 

[DaveXA]

But voting for Democrats is the only way to save the country, so I think it's equally about both. A lot of people obviously voted out of what was best instead of what their party is. What's best for the country right now is Democrats and I don't think that's debatable, can be diminished, or can be dismissed.

Well, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent and my loyalty is to the country, not a political party. Which is why I say this is more about the country than a political party. If ever I feel like the direction of the party hurts the country more than helps, I’ll oppose that regardless of party politics and position.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Well, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent and my loyalty is to the country, not a political party. Which is why I say this is more about the country than a political party. If ever I feel like the direction of the party hurts the country more than helps, I’ll oppose that regardless of party politics and position.

I hear you. I was only speaking about right now in this moment of time. I've never been a member of either party and don't plan to be. Lincoln's Republicans and the Dixiecrats shows that political parties aren't fixed in their beliefs and pursuits.

 

[DaveXA]

I hear you. I was only speaking about right now in this moment of time. I've never been a member of either party and don't plan to be. Lincoln's Republicans and the Dixiecrats shows that political parties aren't fixed in their beliefs and pursuits.

Agreed.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I respect and understand your perspective. The reason I don't agree is because we've been hearing for years that same rationale based on different circumstances and it has never actually happened. If Republicans keep both the House and Senate, we will have to literally fight for our freedom and our survival. I'd rather fight for survival in the political arena with gerrymandering, than have to actually fight in the streets and in the fields.

Neither are desirable options, but one is clearly a whole lot better than the other. I would never advocate for either if we weren't in both a metaphorical and literal do or die situation.

I get it, I really do. I just think historically these sorts of political maneuvering backfires in the long run. At my heart I'm a process conservative - I deeply believe in doing things the right way. I also don't think it's needed. I really don't. I think a vigorous campaign in Texas could actually at least hold serve and even gain seats in this environment.

 

[efil4]

I get it, I really do. I just think historically these sorts of political maneuvering backfires in the long run. At my heart I'm a process conservative - I deeply believe in doing things the right way. I also don't think it's needed. I really don't. I think a vigorous campaign in Texas could actually at least hold serve and even gain seats in this environment.

here is what is at stake.

While i understand the thinking " if you do the right way it will all work out", it will be too late. The blueprints are being laid out for all to see.



At some point, you reach the conclusion of either fighting fire with fire or packing it up and leave the arena. We cant leave the arena due to what is at stake. The damage to date is going to take years to undo. Imagine a decade of this type of governance.

I am one of the most empathetic and forgiving person that i know. I have raised my girls in the same manner. But one thing i have repeated over the years and drilled into them- NEVER LET ANYONE MISTAKE YOUR KINDNESS FOR A WEAKNESS.

Ever.

Thats where i am at in this political arena. Far too long the Dems have played this "take the high road" and its not resonating. Sometimes you have to SHOW that you are capable of more than just platitudes.

This is that time.

 

[RobF]

I get it, I really do. I just think historically these sorts of political maneuvering backfires in the long run. At my heart I'm a process conservative - I deeply believe in doing things the right way. I also don't think it's needed. I really don't. I think a vigorous campaign in Texas could actually at least hold serve and even gain seats in this environment.

I think it's a tricky one. Personally, I lean towards the fighting fire with fire* argument here, because:

1) Gerrymandering, in general, does, unfortunately, work.
2) That said, there is merit in the premise that it can fail, and can even backfire by contributing to its own failure if the gerrymandering itself drives voters to oppose it.
3) But I think it's too big a stretch to rely on that happening at any given point. There's a lot of other factors, and depending on the extent and effectiveness of the gerrymandering, the breaking point, where opposition can overwhelm gerrymandering, can be pretty high.
4) So given how high the stakes are, with the direction and nature of the Trump administration and the movement behind it, I think not attempting to carry out 'balancing' gerrymandering is a big risk, and probably too big a risk.

I would caveat that with, like any situation where you're having to do the wrong thing in response to someone else doing the wrong thing - defending yourself with violence when under attack for example - it is essential to continually make it clear that this stops as soon as the initiating party stops. So here, that would generally be an absolute commitment to return without delay to independent electoral maps when the ones being countered are also made independent (although I think Prop 50 returns it to independence post 2030).

*I can never use that expression without thinking of a joke: "My dad used to say, 'Always fight fire with fire,' which is probably why he got thrown out of the fire brigade." It's a good reminder that you don't always fight fire with fire though, and it's vital that it's questioned when it happens.

 

[coldseat]

I get it, I really do. I just think historically these sorts of political maneuvering backfires in the long run. At my heart I'm a process conservative - I deeply believe in doing things the right way. I also don't think it's needed. I really don't. I think a vigorous campaign in Texas could actually at least hold serve and even gain seats in this environment.

The thing is that the Democrats in California did do things the right way. They campaigned and put it up to a vote of the electorate of the state and had the citizens weigh in. It was Trump and Abbot that did things the wrong way. You may be right about Texas because I have a strong feeling the Latino vote in this state will go back to Democrats in the next election cycle, but that will only double the pain for Republicans and allow Democrats to accomplish more.

Maybe next time Republicans think about rigging the next election, they'll pause and think about it twice. And maybe if Democrats shellack Republicans, they'll come to the table and finally say let's stop gerrymandering and have independent commissions across the country so that voters actually pick their politicians and not the forking politicians pick their voters. I still can't believe that in a "democratic republic", politicians blatantly gerrymandered and the SC looked at that and said, "Yeah, politicians picking their voters is cool. Go ahead without restrictions." This is all that rancid right wings SC's feet, they could have legally stopped it.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The thing is that the Democrats in California did do things the right way. They campaigned and put it up to a vote of the electorate of the state and had the citizens weigh in. It was Trump and Abbot that did things the wrong way. You may be right about Texas because I have a strong feeling the Latino vote in this state will go back to Democrats in the next election cycle, but that will only double the pain for Republicans and allow Democrats to accomplish more.

Maybe next time Republicans think about rigging the next election, they'll pause and think about it twice. And maybe if Democrats shellack Republicans, they'll come to the table and finally say let's stop gerrymandering and have independent commissions across the country so that voters actually pick their politicians and not the forking politicians pick their voters. I still can't believe that in a "democratic republic", politicians blatantly gerrymandered and the SC looked at that and said, "Yeah, politicians picking their voters is cool. Go ahead without restrictions." This is all that rancid right wings SC's feet, they could have legally stopped it.

Over 60% of the voters in CA approved Prop 50 and as RobF mentioned, it does in fact expire and return to the independent, non-partisan committee after the 2030 elections. There will be no costly backlash to the gerrymandering here in CA.

I looked at the map of the typically deep red counties in this state and most of them were more pink than their typical dark red on Prop 50. A lot of Republican voters in CA voted yes on Prop 50. That means a lot of Republicans in CA don't want the fascist takeover that Republicans and Trump are attempting.

 

[zztop]

In Virginia, where there’s a concentration of federal workers impacted by the government shutdown and Trump’s sweeping layoffs of the federal workforce, voters flipped control of the governor’s mansion and elected Democrat Abigail Spanberger as the state’s first female to lead the state. In New Jersey, where Trump endorsed the Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli and held several tele-rallies on his behalf, voters instead chose to keep Democrats in power and elected Congresswoman Mikie Sherill.

Down the ballot in some states, voters approved Democrat ballot measures, except in deep-red Texas: In Maine, voters rejected changes to voting that would have shortened the early voting period and required photo ID—something Trump called for in a social media post Tuesday night. Voters in the state also approved a red flag law gun control measure. In Colorado, voters opted to raise taxes on higher-earning households to pay for public school student meals. While Maine remains competitive for Republicans, Colorado has shifted left. In Texas, meanwhile, votes approved amendments to the state constitution that require U.S. citizenship to vote there and to affirm that parents are the primary decision-makers for their children.

 

[Huntn]

In Virginia, where there’s a concentration of federal workers impacted by the government shutdown and Trump’s sweeping layoffs of the federal workforce, voters flipped control of the governor’s mansion and elected Democrat Abigail Spanberger as the state’s first female to lead the state. In New Jersey, where Trump endorsed the Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli and held several tele-rallies on his behalf, voters instead chose to keep Democrats in power and elected Congresswoman Mikie Sherill.

Down the ballot in some states, voters approved Democrat ballot measures, except in deep-red Texas: In Maine, voters rejected changes to voting that would have shortened the early voting period and required photo ID—something Trump called for in a social media post Tuesday night. Voters in the state also approved a red flag law gun control measure. In Colorado, voters opted to raise taxes on higher-earning households to pay for public school student meals. While Maine remains competitive for Republicans, Colorado has shifted left. In Texas, meanwhile, votes approved amendments to the state constitution that require U.S. citizenship to vote there and to affirm that parents are the primary decision-makers for their children.

Texas blah…morons. My vote record yesterday in Texas:

Prop1 No- businesses should pay for their training, not taxpayers
Prop2 No- not paying capital gains shift tax burden to those not wealthy.
Prop3 No- denying bail, judge already has discretion.
Prop4 No- Shifts more power to the governor.
Prop5 No- not taxing farmers for feed shifts tax burden to everyone else.
Prop6 No- not taxing securities transaction shifts tax burden to general population.
Prop7 Yes- property exemption for spouse of veteran who dies due to disease contracted under service.
Prop8 No- prevents state from establishing inheritance tax. Mostly benefits the wealthy.
Prop9 No- Favors businesses > local residential taxpayers.
Prop10 No- tax break for property completely destroyed by fire does not recognize limit or mostly damaged and is limited by fire.
Prop11 Yes- increase homestead exemption to retired people
Prop12 No- gives governor more judicial appointment power
Prop13 Yes- increases homestead exemptions.
Prop14 Yes- dementia research
Prop15 No- Parential rights, courts have already established, allows parents to defy laws, disrupt schools, possible abuse of their children by them.
Prop16 No- citizenship is already required to vote
Prop17 No- offers property exemption to signed easement for a border wall.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

We just saw another tell. The Republicans and Trump are comparable to the Empire of the world of Star Wars, not the Democrats.

that is true amen to that

althought the star wars movie titles names with democracts in it just sounded in a way cool

like the democracts strikes back return of the democracts the democracts awaken and rise of the democracts

 

[porculator]

Greetings from deep blue Virginia this morning

Before everyone becomes infatuated with the NYC mayoral results, let's take a look at VA gov elect Abigail Spanberger's absolute blowout victory.

15 pts is by far the highest margin of victory for a VA democrat governor candidate since 1961 (when being a democrat in the south was a much different thing), and she flipped it in a state with a relatively popular (by modern standards) sitting Republican governor.

In her first election for US Rep she was the first Democrat to win her district since 1970

Of note:
2019: 1 of 11 democrats not to vote for Pelosi for speaker. No blind allegiance to the gerontocracy.
2020: Quote "Democrats should never use the word 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again" This is still true for everywhere but the most liberal pockets of the country
2021: Quote: "Nobody elected Biden to be FDR, they elected him to be normal and to stop the chaos," I'm not convinced on this, many moderate voters just wanted normalcy but Progressives may have stayed home if there were no "big ideas"
2021: Criticized Nancy Pelosi for her insider stock trading and called for a ban on trading for elected officials. More shade to the completely out of touch gerontocracy.
2022: Per Fox News, "Spanberger is one of a handful of Democrats to break with her party to call attention to the southern border crisis" Fast forward to 2024+, everyone acknowledges the border was a shirtshow
2023: 1 of only 7 democrats to vote to end mandatory COVID vaccines for healthcare workers. 2023! Like 2 years after everyone else stopped caring.

Meanwhile, votes party line 99% of the time.

WON BY 15. Other D's on the ballot won by 11 and 5.

If you want a formula for the swing states, there it is.

I will grant that VA with its high percentage of government and gov't adjacent workers values "stable" government more than most states and the time and place for someone like her as a former intelligence officer couldn't be more ideal. Might be less than a 15 point margin in a place like PA, WI, NV, etc. But way more than zero!!

 

[Taurus]

that is true amen to that

althought the star wars movie titles names with democracts in it just sounded in a way cool

like the democracts strikes back return of the democracts the democracts awaken and rise of the democracts

The Phantom Democrat. The Democrat War. The Last Democrat. You're right, it works.

 

[Taurus]

Greetings from deep blue Virginia this morning

Before everyone becomes infatuated with the NYC mayoral results, let's take a look at VA gov elect Abigail Spanberger's absolute blowout victory.

15 pts is by far the highest margin of victory for a VA democrat governor candidate since 1961 (when being a democrat in the south was a much different thing), and she flipped it in a state with a relatively popular (by modern standards) sitting Republican governor.

In her first election for US Rep she was the first Democrat to win her district since 1970

Of note:
2019: 1 of 11 democrats not to vote for Pelosi for speaker. No blind allegiance to the gerontocracy.
2020: Quote "Democrats should never use the word 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again" This is still true for everywhere but the most liberal pockets of the country
2021: Quote: "Nobody elected Biden to be FDR, they elected him to be normal and to stop the chaos," I'm not convinced on this, many moderate voters just wanted normalcy but Progressives may have stayed home if there were no "big ideas"
2021: Criticized Nancy Pelosi for her insider stock trading and called for a ban on trading for elected officials. More shade to the completely out of touch gerontocracy.
2022: Per Fox News, "Spanberger is one of a handful of Democrats to break with her party to call attention to the southern border crisis" Fast forward to 2024+, everyone acknowledges the border was a shirtshow
2023: 1 of only 7 democrats to vote to end mandatory COVID vaccines for healthcare workers. 2023! Like 2 years after everyone else stopped caring.

Meanwhile, votes party line 99% of the time.

WON BY 15. Other D's on the ballot won by 11 and 5.

If you want a formula for the swing states, there it is.

I will grant that VA with its high percentage of government and gov't adjacent workers values "stable" government more than most states and the time and place for someone like her as a former intelligence officer couldn't be more ideal. Might be less than a 15 point margin in a place like PA, WI, NV, etc. But way more than zero!!

I seriously disagree with her Covid stance. Clinicians have to be vaccinated against a host of diseases. The only difference with Covid is political, not scientific.

 

[porculator]

I seriously disagree with her Covid stance. Clinicians have to be vaccinated against a host of diseases. The only difference with Covid is political, not scientific.

Well, 2 things:
First, my point in general is that she is better at having her finger on the pulse of the US than her party writ large. Looking back, I think general consensus is that we probably overdid it with COVID for too long, particularly with schools, but also mandating the firings of otherwise competent people in the military and medical professions.
You may not agree but I think the fact that no one gets the vaccine anymore kind of backs up the general sentiment.

Second, I may be wrong but I believe COVID was pretty unique in there being a federal requirement for vaccinated medical workers. States and hospitals can have their own rules of course, and I fully get the immediate response to a pandemic with regulations, but at some point, especially in 2023, that time had passed.

 

[Dragon]

I seriously disagree with her Covid stance. Clinicians have to be vaccinated against a host of diseases. The only difference with Covid is political, not scientific.

Agree with you! Non vaccinated Clinicians risk exposing vulnerable people to a potential deadly disease. So with so many other types of mandatory vaccines - why leave out Covid which has been proven to hit vulnerable people harder and killing many ?