I now see how the Democrats are going to lose the election in 2020.

Not to burst your bubble, but you're hardly the only one who feels this way

Look around at what’s happening in your country. A pretty hefty portion of it has moved demonstrably left.

Anti-establishmentarianism ran the last election.

The center is dead. It’s a war between liberal progressives and something I don’t recognize yet.

I suppose this is in contrast to the Republicans, who won the last election by nominating a moderate who never said anything that people who hate him might put on T-shirts.

Hi Thomas! Long time no see.

Trump won because he reached the voters who were in play. The right wing voted with Trump, the left wing voted with Hillary (no surprise with either of these). Trump won enough of the middle to take the White House. Trump's antics were calibrated to win over a key voting demographic (White middle American voters). He identified an important group, many of whom had voted for Obama, and told them "I will stand up for you". Hate him if you want, his strategy worked. He won the election.

The democrats seem to be intent on insulting and alienating anyone outside of their base. They are telling their core base, people who are already voting for them "I will stand up for you".

Their message to the middle is "your time is up"... not a good message to give the people whose votes you need to win the election. Being "right" means nothing if you can't win elections. (For the record, I do believe the Democrats will do quite well in the midterms).

Hi Max! So if you could write the Democratic Party platform for 2020 --- which changes, spwcifically would you make to the 2015 one? And which groups of voters, specifically, would the Democratic Party win back if it adopted your platform?

What is important is the strategy. You are putting the cart in front of the horse. The platform isn't that important.

The Democrats need to have a positive message to White middle-class and working class America. If they alienate these important parts of the electorate, they will lose. The democrats already have a lock on African-American, LGBT and feminist voters... as great as these people are as human-beings, they are not in play. Any effort to reach out to them is politically foolish.

Trump won because he was able to convince middle American voters that Hillary's liberal values were a threat to them. He was insulting to voters he knew weren't going to vote for him anyway.

When Hillary called voters "deplorables"... liberals cheered. The voters who were offended were voters who would have been in play. I don't care about the platform. The issue is the Democrat's inability to reach out to in the middle American voters who will decide the election. Many on the left show open disdain for these key voters.

It's a hard call. Kirsten Gillibrand is a strange one. While she does have (of has in the past) support of both Clintons, she has traditionally been a middle if the road, somewhat conservative leaner. She was part of the Blue Dog Coalition (may still be).

Much of what she says and does, hinges on what senior Senator Chuck Schumer says and does. He's decidedly liberal and she seems to parrot most of what he says.

I do not like her. I do not trust her. However, if she plays her cards correctly, she could win.

Fun moments of Gillibrand include being told of the dangers of keeping loaded rifles under her bed at home with two small children who could easily access them. This was just after former Governor David Patterson had put her into the national spotlight as the Hillary Clinton Senate seat replacement.

Time will tell whether the Dems decide to throw her to the wolves.

This is demonstrably false. The Democrats swept both the House and Senate in 2006 and the Republicans did the same in 2010 with absolutely no message but "we are against the President". It's a lot easier (and more effective) to run against your opponent than to try to sell a positive message.

Exactly

Thanks, I was wondering who the bogey man was.

Midterms are different than presidential elections, I believe that the Democrats will do well in the midterms this year. This is because it is easier for statewide candidates to tailor their message... many candidates in statewide elections have a message quite different from that of the national party.

The Democrats did outline a positive message in 2006... the Six Point Plan. You can read about it, an unquestionably positive message targeted at Middle America. The democrats weren't attacking voters in this election.

The 2010 election message from the Republican was undoubtedly anti-Obama. But again they weren't attacking voters. They were saying to voters "Obama is a threat to you".

The left is attacking voters. The slogans are "War on women", and "times up" alienate key groups of voters. These are all way of defining "deplorables". If the Democrats insist on a message that attacks voters, they will pay the obvious price.

I'm not putting the cart before the horse, I'm putting the product before the sales pitch --- where it belongs. You can't have an effective and honest sales pitch before you know what you're pitching. With that in mind, could you please answer my question? What changes, if any, would you make to the product, meaning the platform the party will implement if elected?


While a positive message to White middle-class working America would certainly be nice, it can't be a mandatory part of winning elections, or else Trump wouldn't have won. Trump didn't win with a positive message for his cause, he won with multiple negative messages about Clinton.


There is a hidden assumption in this paragraph that I think is false: you're assuming that they're voters rather than just sitting the election out.


That wasn't Trump's message as I remember it. Convincing policy arguments played no role in his sales pitch. His pitch was to wrongly claim that Clinton was a crook and a criminal and that he would "lock! her! up!"

Also, as I remember the post-election polls, Trump won mostly because he succeeded in mobilizing the Republican base and because parts of the Obama coalition turned out less strongly for Clinton than it had for Obama. I don't have the sources ready to hand, but I can dig them out if I need to. And to the extent that mobilizing your demotivated voters is important, accommodating swing voters in the middle can hurt rather than help your chances.

I have not looked at Kirsten Gillebrand enough to have a definite opinion about her, but nothing I've heard her say so far looks like a show-stopper so far.

I get the distinction between "product" and "sales pitch". I disagree that the product is the platform. No one cares about the platform, what is in the platform is irrelevant to any part of governance.

1. The product is the president. When I voted for Obama, I was voting for him as a person, and as a leader. The positions he took during the campaign were also important. I voted Obama with great pride and I was happy with my choice.

2. Trump's message was "I will stand up for you". Yes, he was attacking a lot of people who he was presenting as threats to his base. But his most important message was "You forgotten people will be forgotten no longer". This was powerful political message that lots of Americans felt was positive.

3. Clinton attacked the "deplorables". Trump attacked Muslims and Mexicans. Clinton alienated mainstream American voters. Trump agitated people who weren't going to vote for a Republican candidate anyway.

There is basic game theory, games aren't always fair... you have to choose your battles on terrain that favors you. Trump alienated Muslims, Clinton alienated Evangelical Christians. One of those things is a big political error.

4. The Democratic candidate can win if they speak to real issues that attract middle American voters. Democrats can make a real progress on economics, on fairness, on education and on the environment. If the discussion is on these topics, they have the advantage.

If Democrats end up attacking Christians, or gun owners, or identity politics, or immigration, or "#MeToo", they will lose. I include immigration on this list even though it is an issue I care about... it is still a losing issue for a presidential candidate.

Obama was able to present a positive, inclusive message that for the most part made middle-class White Americans feel good about voting for him. He avoided attacking voters (with one slipup for which he immediately apologized) and even on controversial issues like abortion, he made it clear that he respected the other side.

Clinton attacked the voters that she needed. When she called them "deplorables" she didn't really fully apologize. She the very people that she needed to vote for her that they were sexist and wrong-headed to vote for Trump. (Yes, Trump also insulted people... but he insulted Muslims while she insulted Christians. Hillary was stupid to play this game).

Hmmm --- it looks as if we disagree. Just like old times.

It is good to see you again.

You too.

So, I still don't understand what your beef with Kirsten Gillibrand is. What specific things has she said or done that you think will scare away white, working-class men?

The Left Remembers
(Couldn’t deny myself a GOT reference...)

The center seems to forget. An instructive reminder by Sema Hernandez:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/amp/Establishment-Democrats-remain-asleep-at-the-13095713.php?cmpid=gsa-chron-result&__twitter_impression=true

Excerpt:

The 2016 presidential election should have been the wakeup call for the Democratic Party. Its failure to reclaim control of at least one congressional house, and the loss of three stronghold states in the presidential race were signs that new voters felt abandoned by the old guard. Unfortunately, the party didn’t learn from its mistakes.

Income inequality, crippling medical debt, shrinking disposable income, and systemic poverty are cross-generational issues which affect all other demographics. People of color, indigenous communities and persons vulnerable due to age, gender, origin or ability have been stripped of representation. These issues have been aggravated by top-down policies advanced by Democrats and Republicans alike. Nothing good grows when fed by “trickle

The 2018 midterm elections inspired brave new candidates, eager to institute bold solutions to the struggles of working families and individuals. They embraced the Democratic party rather than run as independents or third-party candidates. But instead of welcoming them in what used to be a “big tent,” the Democratic party muted these new voices and clung to the corporate agenda that voters rejected in 2016.

Democratic socialists are winning elections. So what do they...
America is no longer land of opportunity, and Democrats must...
Reynolds: Democrats may have a Steele-y resolve, but only party...
I ran in the Texas Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate this year. I was rejected by the party as a nonviable candidate the day I registered my name for the ballot.

I campaigned on the issues that mattered most to Texas voters. People at every campaign stop listed a liveable wage, job security, guaranteed universal health care, education, environment, and indigenous rights as what mattered most to them. These are the same platform issues that have been at the heart of Democratic primary victories in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Montana and New York.

Today, the U.S. Senate race in Texas is tight. The 24 percent of primary voters who supported my progressive platform cannot find those policy solutions in the platform of either of the two candidates. Unless one of them convinces voters that they can do without a decent standard of living, health care, education, safe water, clean air and protection of their rights, those disenfranchised Texans are likely to stay home on Election Day.

Three of the brightest stars of the Democratic Party have faced the same opposition through the primary. Cathy Myers is a staunch Democratic reformer in Wisconsin, supporting universal heatlh care, a liveable wage, increased education spending and an end to corporatism. Party leaders propped up her primary opponent Randy Bryce, who repeatedly refused a public debate on the issues in their bid for Paul Ryan’s House seat. Grass-roots support boosted Cathy’s profile on social media until a debate finally was held, still with resistance from the party.

In Florida, Tim Canova twice has faced this same fate in his primary bid for the House seat held by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Running on a progressive platform in 2016, Democrats shut him out of appearances and debates with the incumbent, and a questionable primary culminated in the unlawful destruction of ballots by another party member. When party leaders this year once again bolstered Wasserman-Schultz’s campaign with donors and promotion, Tim withdrew as a Democrat and refiled to appear on the 2018 ballot as an independent.

Bill Cimbrelo, a Democrat in Massachusetts, is in a primary race for the House seat held by Bill Keating, a party holdover who opposes universal health care, a liveable wage and renegotiation of NAFTA. Bill’s platform mirrors that of Cathy Myers, Tim Canova and dozens of other Democratic reformers like myself, all of whom support legislation that makes our hard-earned tax dollars work for the 99 percent of U.S. citizens who paid them. Still, the Democratic party has promoted Keating’s candidacy, and Keating refuses to debate or even acknowledge his primary opponent.

The Democrats refuse to wake up.

The Democratic party needs to embrace progressive candidates, progressive issues, and progressive policies and solutions if they truly care about the people of our great state. Voters want to know that their tax dollars work for them and not for some CEO on Wall Street. The Democratic Party would be wise to pay less attention to million-dollar consultants and more attention to the working people who have the right to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice.

Time is running out.

Hickenlooper will lead a reasonable future free from the specter of GOP fascism lead by this crazy-man or 1930's style Bernistic socialism.

yo!

Workers unite! (Not a bad slogan)

What do you like about Hickenlooper?