The Democratic Safe House

[Shiloh Raven]

Look what I saw trending on Facebook about the Electoral College.

Millions sign petition urging Electoral College to elect Hillary Clinton

'Mr Trump is unfit to serve:' Almost THREE MILLION people sign a (doomed) petition...

 

[Shiloh Raven]

And that is exactly what is happening across the country - hate crimes - since Trump was elected.

Trump’s World: Make America Hate Again

 

[mark46]

The damage was done by Clinton not Sanders. She was shoved down our throats and this is the result.

Believe as you will. The effect of the Sanders campaign on Democrats in the Rust Belt is clear.

 

[FreeinChrist]

The damage was done by Clinton not Sanders. She was shoved down our throats and this is the result.

Third party voters helped Trump get into office. If they complain now because the things they wanted are not going to happen - like good climate change action and improving the situation of the average American - I have a small violin I can play for them. I will fight for good climate change legislation and for the average American, but those who did not vote or went third party bear blame for a Trump presidency.

 

[stamperben]

It's the fact that AGAIN, only about half of eligible citizens bothered to go vote that elected this travesty.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Yes, only 55 - 56 % of registered voters voted. Trump won with less than what McCain and Romney lost by.
Maybe this will wake some up. Otherwise they get what they did not vote for and have no room to complain.

 

[stamperben]

Nm

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

How do Democrats here feel about the national party's stances?

What do you think of Hillary?

My views would fall under "conservative Democrat", even though I'm an Independent.

I think the party is too progressive on the national scale and if it toned down the progressive agenda, it might get my vote.

 

[mark46]

SOME CAUTIONARY NOTES

We can blame the loss on the Russians or on the FBI. We can even blame it on the party not choosing Sanders.

I think that this is time for election. The Democratic Party has NO BENCH. Republicans have a majority in the Senate, the House, among governors and in state legislatures. The situation has gotten MUCH worse since Obama has been elected. For example, there are 1000 more Republicans in state legislators that when he was elected.

It is instructive to look at a state map and see all the increasing red, especially in the Mid-West. It is even more instructive to look at the US county map. There is very little area that is Democratic, the coasts, Chicago and Denver (and NM).

Bill Clinton's DLC appealed to white working and middle class voters. Bill Clinton advised Hillary to spend MUCH MORE time and effort trying to appeal to white working and middle class voters. Hillary and her campaign refused, choosing to count on African-American voters to make the difference in the Mid-West. She was wrong, Bill was right. Hillary approach to Latino voters was reprehensible. She spent almost no money on Spanish media; she gave few, if any, interviews. Hillary just counted on the Latino vote. She got what she deserved. Trump got a higher percentage of Latino voters than Romney.

This was a horribly run campaign, starting when she was warned not to make millions giving speeches to Wall Street. Advisors told her to write a book on the Middle Class and economics. Obviously, not turning over ALL the emails at the beginning of the campaign was a huge error.

WHERE WE STAND
This is a center right country. Every time the Democratic Party moved to the left of say the Clintons, we have been demolished with candidates like McGovern and Mondale. The Democratic Party has been purged of almost all its moderates. The left will likely control the party though 2020, perhaps even naming a majority leader in a few weeks. This is the path to feeling good. It is also the path to allowing the Republicans to consolidate under 8 years of Republican rule in the presidency, the Senate, the House, governorships and state legislatures.

The party mis-read the election of Obama. The country was tired of two wars and had entered the worst recession since the 1930's. The country had NOT moved to the left. Obama started with majorities in the Senate and House. Election by election, the majorities were lost. And all along, Obama continued to be popular. The Republican consolidation moved on, as the Democratic Party continued to purge its centrist candidates.

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
Most likely the party will move to the left and have another McGovern moment in 2020. I really see no way to avoid that. To think that a Sanders or a Warren would win in NC, FL, GA or AZ is sheer delusion.

BOTTOM LINE
The Democratic Party is at a really low ebb, NATIONALLY. IMHO, we should NOT be dwelling on ways Clinton might have sneaked out a victory against the worst candidate to have ever run for the presidency. Rubio would likely have won by Reagan type numbers.

It is time for introspection. Waiting for the Hispanic vote to take us back to victory is NOT a strategy. After all, the Republicans could have run Rubio or Cruz. Hispanics are not, and will not be, a unified block. (And certainly not after the passage of immigration reform which is almost sure to become law in the next few years)

 

[mark46]

I am a centrist Democrat as I have been for over 50 years. I voted for Clinton, even though she was a flawed candidate. I generally support the policies of the Clinton's, as I have since the 90's. Those policies gave us many, many gains, and budget surpluses. The progressive policies of the last few years have much also (really starting with Bush's prescription plan for seniors).

For me, the open question is whether the country is better off than it was 25 years (before the Bill Clinton election). For me, the answer is a resounding yes. Some prefer the US of 1950's. Some prefer the US that it will be in the 2050's. The first group is called Republicans, the second is called Democrats. (over 70% in each party, BTW).

How do Democrats here feel about the national party's stances?

What do you think of Hillary?

My views would fall under "conservative Democrat", even though I'm an Independent.

I think the party is too progressive on the national scale and if it toned down the progressive agenda, it might get my vote.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Ladies and Gentleman, the next President of the United States of America.

 

[mark46]

It should be time for new leadership. Schumer is a good choice in the Senate, with Sanders and Warren in leadership positions.

Should we really continue with Pelosi? The Democrats won 37% of the white vote, refusing to even campaign much (WI) in much of the rural white areas and the Rust Belt. It is time to move on and run on economic issues that appeal to working people, white, black, Latino and Asian. Apparently Pelosi will be re-elected for 2 more wasted years.

The current strategy of the coalition is flawed. Obviously, women and Latinos are not voting BLOCKS. They are demographics within there are widely different interests. Trump got more Latino votes than Romney. Clinton's vote among suburban women was much, much less than expected. The party must go back to the coalition of working people and the disadvantaged, and the protection of all those who are discriminated against. IMHO, a party of the left that waits for enough Latinos to vote is simply going to fail. IMHO, Rubio-Halley would have won by 10% or more. The party has problems. The truly amazing abilities and appeal of Obama has masked those problems. We can appeal based on race and national origin. That is the Trump strategy, not ours.

 

[mark46]

I suggest that the Democrats in the House have no leaders over 70 years old. Their top three are over 75.

 

[DaisyDay]

I suggest that the Democrats in the House have no leaders over 70 years old. Their top three are over 75.

Ageist much?

 

[mark46]

I don't think that the leadership (top 3) of the House over the next two years should be over 75. I believe that at least one of the top 3 should be younger.

If the party believes that the right image is for everyone to be over 75, that is their choice. It may work, it may not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In considering the reasons why Trump might have won, it's useful to do some self-reflection as well; to contemplate what we could do better.

Clinton & co are finally gone. That is the silver lining in this disaster — Guardian

In a capitalist democracy, the party of the left has one essential reason for existing: to speak for the working class. Capitalist democracies have tended towards two major parties. One, which acts in the interest of the capitalist class – the business owners, the entrepreneurs, the professionals – ensuring their efforts and the risks they took were fairly rewarded. The other party represented workers, unions and later on other groups that made up the working class, including women and oppressed minorities.

This delicate balance ended in the 1990s. Many blame Reagan and Thatcher for destroying unions and unfettering corporations. I don’t. In the 1990s, a New Left arose in the English-speaking world: Bill Clinton’s New Democrats and Tony Blair’s New Labour. Instead of a balancing act, Clinton and Blair presided over an equally aggressive “new centrist” dismantling of the laws that protected workers and the poor.

Enough examples should by now be common knowledge. Bill Clinton signed the final death warrant of the Glass-Steagall Act (itself originally signed into law by FDR), removing the final blocks preventing the banking industry from gambling away our prosperity (leading to the 2008 recession). Bill Clinton also sold us on the promise of free trade. Our well-made American products were supposed to have flooded the world markets. Instead, it was our well-paid jobs that left in a flood of outsourcing. After the investment bankers gambled away our economy the New Democrats bailed them out against the overwhelming objection of the American people.

 

[mark46]

Reflection is good.

Looking back at Blair and Clinton as being the "New Left" is a bit strange for me. Then they were called "new centrists", apparently a surprise tot he writer. Clinton and his DLC were formed to oppose the left in the Democratic Party. It's intent was to be centrist, and right of center within the party.

 

[Haramis]

I suggest that the Democrats in the House have no leaders over 70 years old. Their top three are over 75.

Term limits would take care of this. Virtually no one enters politics in their 60s(Trump aside). We can't impose it for national elections without a constitutional amendment, but we could for leadership positions in the party. No one would stick around in Congress after 12 years, if we had party rules that said "No more committee chairs, no more leadership, no more etc", beyond 12 years.

The problem in my mind is much less chronological age, and much more stagnation. Pelosi is a legacy leader from a different political era. She's been there for 29 years. If she'd come to Congress at age 25, and was only 54 now, I don't think things would be any better at all.

Same deal with Schumer. He's "only" 66, but he's been in Washington even longer(35 years), and the Senate in particular for 18.

 

[DaisyDay]

With term limits you're trading in one evil for another, hidden more perfidious one. With things as they are, we can at least vote them out, but with term limits, the source of power is hidden.

I think knowledge, stability and competence are good things in government.

 

[Haramis]

We can vote out people with term limits. Today, Congresspeople have a re-election rate of 90%. And that's not because 90% of them are accomplishing magnificent feats.
Would you postulate that limiting the president to only eight years was an erroneous decision? I'm proposing the equivalent of a three-term president. That affords a sufficient timetable to accomplish numerous legislative goals, while also adding a sense of urgency. At present, anything can be tabled with apathy. They'll be here next decade, no rush to get anything done expediently.

I look at the current congress and see one of the most corrupt and incompetent in history, yet they have a 90+% re-election rate. I see living in the D.C. bubble as being absolutely pernicious, and can't think of one single politician who was doing better work in their 9th term, than their 3rd. The longer they're in there, the more pro-war, and pro-corporate they seem to become.