4 hours ago, marceline said:

What gets me about the constant criticism is that the people doing it don't seem to know what they want. Bernie says we need to embrace working class white men then turns around and claims that we need to become more progressive and move further to the left. You can't have it both ways. Just like the purity ponies claim they want to get all corporate money out of the party, you know, because the serial killing she-beast Hillary Clinton did fundraising for the party but then they want to know why the DCCC didn't send money to Kansas. Well, the party isn't going to be able to throw money at small races without that filthy corporate lucre. We can hate Citizens United all we want but it's the rule of the game now.

I guess I don't get it. I keep hearing the party is out of touch and that may be true but ok, there is new leadership, a new staff just put in place, so what exactly are people expecting to have happen? The grass roots efforts both Obama and Bernie have been encouraging is happening. That is what I am missing. If the outreach tour was the DNC's  first effort, it was a huge failure for 2 reasons, no messaging that I could see and IMO(some won't agree) constant attacks by Bernie on the party. While there are problems, I don't see how constant "they are failing" messaging helps.

 

I just got done listening to Cornell West on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman and he's saying the same thing and said that it's time to start a new party and that they are trying to recruit Bernie for The People's Party. According to him all these women who marched in January, the Science Marchers, will all join.  He was asked about reproductive rights and while he acknowledged they were important, went back to the "class" differences as the main focus. But you can't talk about class differences and economic equality while dismissing racism and reproductive choices, because it's all intertwined. 

 

Again I am asking someone what is it that the democrats need to be doing now that is not happening. My biggest issue is messaging and maybe it sounds simple but it's a huge effort. Marketing is one thing the GOP has done tremendously well. Is that what people are talking about because I am totally missing it.

Sanders and a lot of his people have racial bias that they don't want to admit. They want to open up the party to white men who blame minorities and women for their problems, despite the fact that those men are not anywhere close to being liberal or progressive. Blacks, Hispanics and educated Whites are part of the future of the Democratic Party, yet some "progressives" want to ignore that. There are working class and rural whites that are part of the coalition, but they aren't the only path to winning the presidency.

24 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

Sanders and a lot of his people have racial bias that they don't want to admit. They want to open up the party to white men who blame minorities and women for their problems, despite the fact that those men are not anywhere close to being liberal or progressive. Blacks, Hispanics and educated Whites are part of the future of the Democratic Party, yet some "progressives" want to ignore that. There are working class and rural whites that are part of the coalition, but they aren't the only path to winning the presidency.

You're right. But Bernie's fundamental message, boiled down, is if you make less than $350,000 a year, and you vote republican, you're voting against your own best financial interests. Bernie isn't really pushing LGBTQ rights. He's not pushing feminism or reproductive rights.  He's not focused on Black Lives Matter, or justice reform.  He's not dialed down on the environment, although his decades long campaign against against Monsanto is epic.  He's pressing income inequality. That's his core message.  And that's a core message that can and will appeal to a broad audience. And a broad appeal is what will win elections. 

 

Beto O'Rourke has embraced that message. He's not accepting corporate donations or PAC funds in his TX Senate campaign vs Ted Cruz. It remains to be seen if he can overcome the extreme gerrymandering in the state. 

But if people simply ignore how racism plays into issues like gerrymandering and voter suppression (mechanisms that have traditionally and successfully kept people away from the polls), how is that "outreach" going to manifest itself into  actual collective action?

 

As for Cornell West, he had the nerve to speak at my school demanding tens of thousands of $$$$ for only 10 minutes worth of talk. He drained the coffers of the Black Student Union and for what? It wasn't even a memorable speech other than the feeling it left that we'd all been hustled.

 

Bernie would probably be better served if he did start a new political party. What good is it to constantly rail about a party while simultaneously using their apparatus and infrastructure?? At least Nader didn't do this.

I sort of disagree that Bernie's message is broad, it may appear broad on its face but is actually more specific and narrow to a key set of interests. 

Edited April 26, 20178 yr by DramatistDreamer

13 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

But if people simply ignore how racism plays into issues like gerrymandering and voter suppression (mechanisms that have traditionally and successfully kept people away from the polls), how is that "outreach" going to manifest itself into  actual collective action?

 

There's not a lot of daylight between white conservatives and white liberals.

20 minutes ago, rhinohide said:

You're right. But Bernie's fundamental message, boiled down, is if you make less than $350,000 a year, and you vote republican, you're voting against your own best financial interests. Bernie isn't really pushing LGBTQ rights. He's not pushing feminism or reproductive rights.  He's not focused on Black Lives Matter, or justice reform.  He's not dialed down on the environment, although his decades long campaign against against Monsanto is epic.  He's pressing income inequality. That's his core message.  And that's a core message that can and will appeal to a broad audience. And a broad appeal is what will win elections. 

 

Beto O'Rourke has embraced that message. He's not accepting corporate donations or PAC funds in his TX Senate campaign vs Ted Cruz. It remains to be seen if he can overcome the extreme gerrymandering in the state. 

That message isn't getting through, because plenty of people vote against their best interests because of social issues and that isn't going to change. Believe it or not, there are poor people who vote Republican because they prioritize abortion over their own financial circumstances. Income inequality can be talked about all day, but no one really cares about that more than they do their own personal biases on social issues. You can't win by pretending that only straight, white men are the only people in this country.

Just now, ReddFoxx said:

You can't win by pretending that only straight, white men are the only people in this country.

 

The thing is you can. Trump is proof of that.

 

The problem is that those who only seek to maintain their position in the current system want desperately to evade accountability.

28 minutes ago, DeeeDee said:

 

The thing is you can. Trump is proof of that.

 

The problem is that those who only seek to maintain their position in the current system want desperately to evade accountability.

What I should say is that you can't win as a Democrat using that logic.

8 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

You know what gets tiresome is the constant chastising of democrats. While I can agree with a lot of what is said, are people sitting around waiting for the party to do something? Not from what I can see. We have successful local elections in Illinois booting republicans out of some key downstate localities, Thompson in KS gained support with grassroots efforts(no help from the party), Ossoff has had more of the same although his race has certainly been given more attention, but it's all the democrats are out of touch. Who are the people helping Thompson, Ossoff, and Quist in Montana?

 

I don't really know what people are expecting from those in congress. And the people writing these articles in NYC and DC and Chicago and LA are as out of touch as the parties are. (there was an excellent piece in Politico this AM about the MSM and press bubbles that exist that they themselves can't see).

 

Change will come from the bottom up. If people want to influence change that's the way to do it. Do I think the party is a mess - yes - do I think this unity tour was a success - no it was a disaster and never should have happened as is the so called Unity Committee. I think Perez is trying to listen but I think what was needed was new faces and that means NEW not Sanders or Clinton people. I keep thinking back to the DNC chair race and Buttigieg who is the mayor of South Bend and how he might have actually been a better choice now. The party needs to get it's messaging straight and then help promote races that adhere to that messaging. That's what they should be doing.  I don't expect a thing from them in Illinois (our own party here is corrupt and those local elections also booted out many establishment dems) but I am also looking at the democratic slate of candidates we have for governor and am encouraged.

 

I'm not taking my anger out on you and please don't feel that way I am frustrated that all the same crap gets regurgitated. Do people really think the image of the party was going to change in 4 months? This has been years in the making.

 

The problem isn't individual members or efforts as much as it's the party as a whole. I think they have mostly coalesced around "Trump sucks," which he does, but I'm not sure what's underneath. It will take time to build, and I think people at a local level will try to build it, but I don't have any real faith in those up top. I'm wary of how much hasn't changed - there's still overemphasis on special elections that are very difficult to win (which means when Democrats inevitably lose, people are crushed and demoralized). There are still purity contests and proxy wars. People are still fighting shadow puppets over Bernie vs Hillary. Democrats in Congress are standing up to Trump, which is a lot better than where they were in W's first years in office, but I'm not sure how much is posturing and how serious it would be if he actually had a bargaining position they would work with. 

 

Right now the whole party rests on Trump being loathed and feared. Once that is gone, the house of cards collapses. 

At least some of the out-of-touch response is due to the effectiveness of conservative propaganda/messaging. The idea of the "limousine liberal" has been pounded into people's brains for a long time. For some reason, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton having substantial wealth makes them out-of-touch, but the Koch brothers being richer than Croesus isn't a problem. And the Dems continued support of "science." Don't people realize that intellectuals and eggheads just don't get it?

3 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:

That message isn't getting through, because plenty of people vote against their best interests because of social issues and that isn't going to change. Believe it or not, there are poor people who vote Republican because they prioritize abortion over their own financial circumstances. Income inequality can be talked about all day, but no one really cares about that more than they do their own personal biases on social issues. You can't win by pretending that only straight, white men are the only people in this country.

 

I believe it. In fact I know it to be true that some people vote their special interest over their financial best interest.   I do however disagree that the majority of people care more about social issues than their financial well being. I believe that's where Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. 

2 hours ago, ReddFoxx said:

What I should say is that you can't win as a Democrat using that logic.

Apparently Democrats can't win by any logic. 

Edited April 26, 20178 yr by rhinohide

2 hours ago, DRW50 said:

 

The problem isn't individual members or efforts as much as it's the party as a whole. I think they have mostly coalesced around "Trump sucks," which he does, but I'm not sure what's underneath. It will take time to build, and I think people at a local level will try to build it, but I don't have any real faith in those up top. I'm wary of how much hasn't changed - there's still overemphasis on special elections that are very difficult to win (which means when Democrats inevitably lose, people are crushed and demoralized). There are still purity contests and proxy wars. People are still fighting shadow puppets over Bernie vs Hillary. Democrats in Congress are standing up to Trump, which is a lot better than where they were in W's first years in office, but I'm not sure how much is posturing and how serious it would be if he actually had a bargaining position they would work with. 

 

Right now the whole party rests on Trump being loathed and feared. Once that is gone, the house of cards collapses. 

You make some good points. I'm hoping someone with real talent and charisma comes along to bring people together.  I guess at this point we can also hope that Trump screws up so badly that the Democrats 2020 message is irrelevant. Someone asked Michael Moore if he thought Trump would be impeached and he said something like "Yes, somewhere in the middle of his second term". Normally, I can at least smile at gallows humor, but not this time.

Edited April 26, 20178 yr by Juliajms

1 hour ago, Juliajms said:

You make some good points. I'm hoping someone with real talent and charisma comes along to bring people together.  I guess at this point we can also hope that Trump screws up so badly that the Democrats 2020 message is irrelevant. Someone asked Michael Moore if he thought Trump would be impeached and he said something like "Yes, somewhere in the middle of his second term". Normally, I can at least smile at gallows humor, but not this time.

We just had 8 years of Barack Obama who I now hear being accused of being a sellout. Don't get me wrong. I have had my disagreements with Obama, but sellout is one thing I would never accuse him of. He can't even collect a record advance for his auto biography without many accusing him of being that. But Obama's charisma and talent is partially to blame for where the dems are. We all(me included) got lazy and took for granted that him being president was the end all be all and allowed those local and state offices to get handed over to the GOP.

 

I agree with most of what Carl said so what's the answer. Do we need another Obama to rally people or do we do what Obama himself just said at that conference he was at the other day and work from the ground up forcing change?

9 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

We just had 8 years of Barack Obama who I now hear being accused of being a sellout. Don't get me wrong. I have had my disagreements with Obama, but sellout is one thing I would never accuse him of. He can't even collect a record advance for his auto biography without many accusing him of being that. But Obama's charisma and talent is partially to blame for where the dems are. We all(me included) got lazy and took for granted that him being president was the end all be all and allowed those local and state offices to get handed over to the GOP.

 

I agree with most of what Carl said so what's the answer. Do we need another Obama to rally people or do we do what Obama himself just said at that conference he was at the other day and work from the ground up forcing change?

 

I don't think they can find another Obama just as they never found another Bill Clinton - it's once in a generation, or several generations. 

I'd say the best thing they can do is to stop the infighting, stop the purity contests (if possible), focus more on face-to-face meeting and building up, less on demographics and micro-targeting. Less on the idea that everything is going to go their way because it's supposed to (because of Republicans going too far, or demographics). And I think Obama has the best idea in working against gerrymandering. I'd say there needs to be a lot more time spent on judicial elections too.

16 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I'd say the best thing they can do is to stop the infighting, stop the purity contests (if possible), focus more on face-to-face meeting and building up, less on demographics and micro-targeting. 

 

Democrats are gonna continue to have problems as long as they continue to act like Republicans (centering whiteness).