Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[baldgriff]

Pretty sure the biggest house district swing in the country was Ojeda's 36 pts, but again, tell me if I'm wrong!

As Fly pointed out - he didnt win. Additionally, and I admit that I havent been into all of the R to D or D to R discussion (or by how much). Wouldnt taking the largest swing in a district and using as your supporting piece by relying on the outlier, rather than using the overall statistical analysis?

We know you have a hard on for Ojeda - we get it. His performance is not the norm when compared to the whole group.

Just my curious thoughts

[B-Fly]

Its funny to me that the right wing and mainstream "left wing" media are both doing everything they can to discredit progressives. There was an interesting clip of Fox News bring up Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over 30 times in 24 hours, host after host. The energy right now in the media is pretty strongly behind attacking all progressives. I really think it works in their favor, as progressives used to be laughed off, now they're vilified and talked about endlessly. As Trump showed, free media is good, whether the coverage is positive or negative. 70% of the country now supports Medicare for all, including 52% of Republicans! Millenials across the country supported Democrats by a 2-1 margin, and if you look at the polling data, millenials are radically left on issues. Probably further left than me. Run towards those voters, they wont be dead in 4 or 8 years, they're the future of the party.

I agree with you that Medicare for All could be a winning position for 2020, as could other progressive economic fairness and economic security arguments/positions. But I don't think "abolish ICE" or "f the police" or "f the deplorables" will win. You suggest that Beto could have won if only he were capable of being more vicious. I think he would have been trounced if he were vicious or contemptuous of Cruz or conservatives more generally.

Much like you and me in RotoJunkie debates, we're probably not all that far apart on platform/policy/substance, but we seem to be very far apart on style/tone, in terms of what we think is most effective.

[baldgriff]

Much like you and me in RotoJunkie debates, we're probably not all that far apart on platform/policy/substance, but we seem to be very far apart on style/tone, in terms of what we think is most effective.

Something about catching more flies???

[Teenwolf]

He didn't win. The biggest swing from a red district to a blue district was the NJ 11th, right next door to me, which swung from GOP +19 to Dem +13. The candidate was a relatively moderate navy pilot/prosecutor/mom, Mikie Sherrill. That basic strategy flipped almost the entire NJ congressional delegation.

I didn't say he won, I said he had the biggest swing in the country of any house district. Although he also fits some of the centrist mold you like (supporting coal and apparently opposing abortion, though I never confirmed that)... I think it's his economic populism that wins the day. So I guess hes a tricky example, with elements of both strategies we think are beneficial. Interesting.

I believe the vast majority of posters here are much better off financially than average Americans, and this financial insulation blinds you to the economic imperative that will push progressives to the front.

Democrats in some house districts were so heavily against their progressive candidates that they actively worked to elect Republicans in some of those districts. So it's a stacked deck, in terms of party and media support. The millenials own the future and the future is far left. Only question is when it happens.

[Teenwolf]

I agree with you that Medicare for All could be a winning position for 2020, as could other progressive economic fairness and economic security arguments/positions. But I don't think "abolish ICE" or "f the police" or "f the deplorables" will win. You suggest that Beto could have won if only he were capable of being more vicious. I think he would have been trounced if he were vicious or contemptuous of Cruz or conservatives more generally.

Much like you and me in RotoJunkie debates, we're probably not all that far apart on platform/policy/substance, but we seem to be very far apart on style/tone, in terms of what we think is most effective.

It's only 1 example, but Ojeda had the biggest swing in the country, and he didn't make it happen by playing pattycakes!

I liked Beto's focus on policy, but he was a bit too long-winded and a bit too JFK/Obama style of a speaker. I'm not saying he should have attacked Cruz personally, but even in terms of policy, he was hyper focused on policy wonk talk, and needed to make Cruz more directly accountable, which I thought he failed at.

Do you think Gillum campaigning with Hillary Clinton helped his turnout or hurt it? I think this question would say a lot, and I think I might even have baldgriff on my side on this one.

[Teenwolf]

Much like you and me in RotoJunkie debates, we're probably not all that far apart on platform/policy/substance, but we seem to be very far apart on style/tone, in terms of what we think is most effective.

For the record, I'm not recommending any politician adopt my style of discourse!

[baldgriff]

Do you think Gillum campaigning with Hillary Clinton helped his turnout or hurt it? I think this question would say a lot, and I think I might even have baldgriff on my side on this one.

HRC has more baggage than most of those with a D next to her name. So the more moderate take may not have been the deciding factor it may have been HRC herself. Alas, her name still comes up in conversations about a 2020 campaign. Even after 4 years of Trump - Im not sure HRC could beat him - That speaks to how horrible a candidate she was and the fact that she cant get out of her own way going forward.

[B-Fly]

Do you think Gillum campaigning with Hillary Clinton helped his turnout or hurt it? I think this question would say a lot, and I think I might even have baldgriff on my side on this one.

I don't know. It seems some of Gillum's "far left" positions didn't sit well with some Black voters, e.g., opposition to charter schools and vouchers, who swung more heavily for Nelson over Scott than they did for Gillum over DeSantis. I also think that some white voter racism played a role, too. I don't, however, think that Hillary Clinton was the right person to bring to Florida, considering she lost the swing state to Trump pretty convincingly two years earlier.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article221768370.html

[onejayhawk]

Yes, being Obama-like as a candidate is a very good thing, regardless of skin color. And it's kind of absurd for you to suggest that the title is the point, when the actual piece clarifies what they mean:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353

He's the kind of candidate who could potentially energize and unite many segments of an incredibly diverse Democratic Party: young and old, moderate and progressive, men and women, white and non-white, white collar and blue collar. He's a very effective communicator who is positive and hopeful and who can articulate his positions and views in ways that are respectful of differing viewpoints.

I am, in fact, intrigued by him as a possible candidate for a lot of the same reasons I gravitated pretty early to Obama.

It even turns out that was just the European headline. The US version drops it. Here's the .eu version: https://www.politico.eu/article/hes-...ratic-primary/

The reason I ask is that Barack Obama turned to be a much better candidate than President. In addition to his energy, Beto appears to have all of his weaknesses. All of the criticisms of Obama's lack of experience proved well founded. In the end, he was a huge disappointment.

J

[B-Fly]

It even turns out that was just the European headline. The US version drops it. Here's the .eu version: https://www.politico.eu/article/hes-...ratic-primary/

The reason I ask is that Barack Obama turned to be a much better candidate than President. In addition to his energy, Beto appears to have all of his weaknesses. All of the criticisms of Obama's lack of experience proved well founded. In the end, he was a huge disappointment.

J

LOL, sez you. He was neither a poor president nor a huge disappointment in the assessment of hundreds of millions of Americans. I certainly don't think he was perfect, but I thought he was a very, very good president of whom both his supporters and Americans as a whole could be justifiably proud.

[Bernie Brewer]

LOL, sez you. He was neither a poor president nor a huge disappointment in the assessment of hundreds of millions of Americans. I certainly don't think he was perfect, but I thought he was a very, very good president of whom both his supporters and Americans as a whole could be justifiably proud.

Here's a shocker: With each passing day, I miss Obama more and more!

And, in case this is not already abundantly clear, I was never an Obama supporter!

[DMT]

Here's a shocker: With each passing day, I miss Obama more and more!

And, in case this is not already abundantly clear, I was never an Obama supporter!

It's not shocking as you seem like a rational person. Anyone who prefers Trump's daily shitshow to Obama's steady hand is not.

[Bernie Brewer]

It's not shocking as you seem like a rational person. Anyone who prefers Trump's daily shitshow to Obama's steady hand is not.

Damn it DMT, you've accused me of a lot of things, but this...this...is where I draw the line. Rational?!?!?! Humph!

[Ken]

It's not shocking as you seem like a rational person. Anyone who prefers Trump's daily shitshow to Obama's steady hand is not.

Hey I have the exact same viewpoint as Bernie on this and I'm sure I don't seem rational to you

So don't limit it to the rational folks.

[onejayhawk]

LOL, sez you. He was neither a poor president nor a huge disappointment in the assessment of hundreds of millions of Americans. I certainly don't think he was perfect, but I thought he was a very, very good president of whom both his supporters and Americans as a whole could be justifiably proud.

That's a bit much, don't you think? He never got 70 million votes, much less "hundreds of millions."

He was a disappointment for most Democrats who expected more than one major piece of legislation. That law, the ACA, turned into boondoggle before he even left office. Some of the funding had to be by executive order since it was not passed by Congress as part of the law. That was with a 60 vote Senate and a large majority in the House. Racial tensions increased during his term and his foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster. His biggest acheivement was to avoid a recession. BooYa. You can argue he did no harm but I do not see room to claim he was either effective or beneficial.

J