Maybe next time--unlike the 2016 presidential election--the NY Times shoudn't run an "Election Tracker" that advertises for months in advance that the Democratic candidate is a shoe-in winner and thereby discouraging democrats from turning out to vote.
29
Are we seriously expected to put any stock in predictions about voter turnout a full year and a half before the election? And this, five months after every respectable pollster and news source, including the Upshot, told us days before Trump's election that Hillary was all but sworn in?
If the Times and other news sources of its caliber had any remaining shred of respect for truth in reporting, they would have slashed the budget for this brand of poll-driven journalism on November 9, 2016.
If the Times and other news sources of its caliber had any remaining shred of respect for truth in reporting, they would have slashed the budget for this brand of poll-driven journalism on November 9, 2016.
14
Mail-in ballots. PEROID.
6
I'll believe it when I see it.
8
How is turnout affected by Republican voter suppression? How many votes is Republican voter suppression costing Democrats, and in which states?
That's a critical factor. Simply pretending that it doesn't exist, or that it isn't expanding, is flat-out dishonest.
Tell us the effect.
That's a critical factor. Simply pretending that it doesn't exist, or that it isn't expanding, is flat-out dishonest.
Tell us the effect.
11
Can we admit yet that the millions of dollars' worth of in-kind support from the NY Times is largely aimed at upping progressive votes in the next election?
there as so many things forbidden to be mentioned here that this issue may be just one of dozens.
But if the smartphone generation could nor be bothered to go vote when Mr. Freebie was president, how do you think that this will get better with Sen. Schumer, Ms. Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are still the most recognized Democrats?
there as so many things forbidden to be mentioned here that this issue may be just one of dozens.
But if the smartphone generation could nor be bothered to go vote when Mr. Freebie was president, how do you think that this will get better with Sen. Schumer, Ms. Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are still the most recognized Democrats?
4
Respectable candidates would help.
10
Maybe people don't turn out to vote for Democrats because they don't like the candidates. In California, 83 year old Diane Feinstein is contemplating another term in the Senate. If she retires, 80 year old Jerry Brown may run for Senate after four terms as governor. That's going to put the youngsters to sleep.
7
It will soon be now or never. Will the Trump damage be contained? Will the non-voters, third party nihilists, and "independents" awake from their slumber?
6
It is our only chance to get more Dems back into power. Get out there and vote Dems. Let's turn this around. Vote, everywhere!
4
The Dems will also have to recruit the best and brightest of potential candidates to seek these offices.
Here's Why. All the craven hacks in the D party -- and those opportunistic Rs who are willing to switch parties -- will crawl out of their holes to run if they smell the scent of easy victory in 2018.
To the extent that this happens, voters will be turned off big time and just sit it out.
Here's Why. All the craven hacks in the D party -- and those opportunistic Rs who are willing to switch parties -- will crawl out of their holes to run if they smell the scent of easy victory in 2018.
To the extent that this happens, voters will be turned off big time and just sit it out.
5
It seems like the DNC could make a relative simple goal the number one priority: 100% Democratic voter turnout in every town, city, state and national election. Achievable? No. But I believe a 100% goal is energizing and directly leads to questions like: Just how do we do this?
9
You overcome low turnout with a good candidate. Hillary Clinton was not a good candidate, with her pledge to continue things as they have been, in the face of large majorities saying the country was headed in the wrong direction. Bernie Sanders would have been a winning candidate, unless all the Hillary voters refused to vote for him.
9
Democrats biggest obstacle is the corrupt, tone deaf DNC and it's affluent faithful who are still too wrapped up in their own seemingly worldly righteous superiority to actually listen to the day to day challenges facing people in local districts.
9
If the current "sad!" state of affairs does not ruin our democracy first, at least the majority of the electorate now appears well aware of just how easily a democracy can become fragile, and potentially hijacked (thank you Russia). The blatant incompetence and ignorant policy of the current White House inhabitants, aided and abetted by an equally blatant and unscrupulous Republican majority out to rob from the poor and the environment to give to the rich, has now been fully exposed to most everyone, except the truly under (Fox News) informed to see. If this does not create a surge in Democratic voter turnout for the next century, then America deserves exactly what it gets.
13
If we should have learned anything from this election, it is that our votes count. Our vote is the most powerful tool/right we have to ensure our Constitution is honored, protected and implemented as it is intended. That so many choose to ignore or practice it, is a travesty. The midterms need to send a message to the current leadership that the sane people of this country will not stand for the egregious lack of respect for the laws of this land and the people that they serve. To not see this and want to do something about it would not just impact those who don't care, it hurts us all. I would love to see the people of this country take their responsibility to heart, and hope they do. We could never get the Repubs to make voting compulsory for fear that they would not be able to manipulate enough of the rest of us to keep winning. Perhaps when saner minds take back the responsibility for serving the people of this country, they will reverse the damage done by gerrymandering, voter repression laws and big money in our politics. I would support a compulsory voting law and it would be an easy lift to get it passed if framed appropriately by those who craft it. Until then, we need to remind people that to get our country back, we need to participate in the most powerful process and gift that our forefathers provided us. It is ours to use and it is our responsibility to participate in our democracy for it to flourish. Use it or lose it is not a stretch at the moment me thinks...
7
I don't think our vote counts really across the country for all people. There are large numbers of voters in California and New York whose votes don't matter because of the way the system is set up, and there are only a few states where your arguments would hold. Even a compulsory voting law wouldn't change this.
On the other hand, if we truly did have elected representatives in direct proportion to the population (of a state and the country as a whole), and didn't have winner take all systems, then I think voters would be more convinced that their vote counts and not sit elections out. To affect this kind of change, it's the voters in the swing states and districts that need to be convinced to get out and vote, not voters in places where votes don't count. So it needs to be a targered operation.
On the other hand, if we truly did have elected representatives in direct proportion to the population (of a state and the country as a whole), and didn't have winner take all systems, then I think voters would be more convinced that their vote counts and not sit elections out. To affect this kind of change, it's the voters in the swing states and districts that need to be convinced to get out and vote, not voters in places where votes don't count. So it needs to be a targered operation.
7
Democrats: Tie the GOP to Trump and pull out all the stops.
(1) Trump breaks many of his populist promises to improve things for his working class supporters. His backing of Ryancare is a case in point. In no way did that misbegotten plan provide better care for "everybody" at "lower costs" with "more choices."
(2) The GOP establishment is in solid opposition to Trump's populist "promises." Speaker Ryan and the GOP establishment will do their best to privatize, to underfund or to otherwise undermine not only the ACA, but also Medicare and Social Security. Further, there will be no GOP establishment support of Trump's "promise" to repair and improve the nation's infrastructure.
(3) Trump has a history of robbing the "little people"--Trump University, stiffing contractors, etc. Trump's history may be more blatantly obvious, but it is not all that different from the histories of many of the plutocrats the GOP serves.
(4) Trump has used bankruptcy as a ploy to build his personal fortune and his frequent comebacks from financial disasters.
(5) As a result of Trump's numerous bankruptcies, reputable U.S. banks will no longer lend to him.
(6) Trump is carrying $300,000,000 in loans from Deutsche Bank, a disreputable bank which has been successfully prosecuted for laundering billions of dollars for Russian oligarchs.
(7) Trump's ties with Russia--and the GOP's failure to significantly address the issue--are major threats to our national autonomy and security.
(1) Trump breaks many of his populist promises to improve things for his working class supporters. His backing of Ryancare is a case in point. In no way did that misbegotten plan provide better care for "everybody" at "lower costs" with "more choices."
(2) The GOP establishment is in solid opposition to Trump's populist "promises." Speaker Ryan and the GOP establishment will do their best to privatize, to underfund or to otherwise undermine not only the ACA, but also Medicare and Social Security. Further, there will be no GOP establishment support of Trump's "promise" to repair and improve the nation's infrastructure.
(3) Trump has a history of robbing the "little people"--Trump University, stiffing contractors, etc. Trump's history may be more blatantly obvious, but it is not all that different from the histories of many of the plutocrats the GOP serves.
(4) Trump has used bankruptcy as a ploy to build his personal fortune and his frequent comebacks from financial disasters.
(5) As a result of Trump's numerous bankruptcies, reputable U.S. banks will no longer lend to him.
(6) Trump is carrying $300,000,000 in loans from Deutsche Bank, a disreputable bank which has been successfully prosecuted for laundering billions of dollars for Russian oligarchs.
(7) Trump's ties with Russia--and the GOP's failure to significantly address the issue--are major threats to our national autonomy and security.
12
The Trump Administration isn't even 3 months old. Way too early to project turnout 21 months into the future.
By November of 2018 liberal passions will have cooled. Topics that now seem so motivating to the base will be long forgotten. The Democrats are playing defense with the Senate schedule of races in 2018 and little ever happens in the House. Look for a mostly blah election in 2018 with a little change at the edges.
By November of 2018 liberal passions will have cooled. Topics that now seem so motivating to the base will be long forgotten. The Democrats are playing defense with the Senate schedule of races in 2018 and little ever happens in the House. Look for a mostly blah election in 2018 with a little change at the edges.
1
The actual solution is to do what Australia did: require showing up at the voting booth.
You can draw cartoons or actually vote, but you must show up, that's all. The Aussies have found that this works really well.
My guess is that if us Americans have to show up, then more will take an interest in government participation, more will learn civics and there will be no opportunity for a repeat of the deadly fiasco that resides in the White House currently.
Imagine the end of voter suppression if everyone has to vote.
It would be a beautiful thing.
You can draw cartoons or actually vote, but you must show up, that's all. The Aussies have found that this works really well.
My guess is that if us Americans have to show up, then more will take an interest in government participation, more will learn civics and there will be no opportunity for a repeat of the deadly fiasco that resides in the White House currently.
Imagine the end of voter suppression if everyone has to vote.
It would be a beautiful thing.
8
The Democrat's biggest challenge is to present progressive ideas.
They seem to depend on getting votes simply on the basis that they are not Trump.
They offer us Schumer and Pelosi as their most prominent faces. Two party hacks, in my opinion.
They should know, having endured the humiliating defeat they suffered by offering - by shoving down our throats - the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, that not being Trump far from enough if their goal is to get people to the polls.
The Democrats challenge is to begin to represent the people - the downtrodden, those of us longing to breathe free, for an end to the unconscionable and unending wars, for an end to income inequality, for a healthcare system as a right to all citizens guaranteed by the government, for aggressive action on environmental protection, for an end to institutional racism.
If they offer us nothing but yet another different face on the same old box of cornflakes, who in their right minds would bother dragging themselves to the polls to vote for them?
They seem to depend on getting votes simply on the basis that they are not Trump.
They offer us Schumer and Pelosi as their most prominent faces. Two party hacks, in my opinion.
They should know, having endured the humiliating defeat they suffered by offering - by shoving down our throats - the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, that not being Trump far from enough if their goal is to get people to the polls.
The Democrats challenge is to begin to represent the people - the downtrodden, those of us longing to breathe free, for an end to the unconscionable and unending wars, for an end to income inequality, for a healthcare system as a right to all citizens guaranteed by the government, for aggressive action on environmental protection, for an end to institutional racism.
If they offer us nothing but yet another different face on the same old box of cornflakes, who in their right minds would bother dragging themselves to the polls to vote for them?
15
That's a load of old coppers, for want of the more pungent term I'd like to use. Show some respect. Nancy Pelosi has been working for progressive ideas longer than I can remember. She corralled the votes for Obamacare and helped sink the Bush Social Security privatization without a trace in 2005 and she's detested and vilified by Republicans, which she wouldn't be if she were the party hack as you so state with callow indifference to the facts. Ageism, anyone?
14
What a crock of nonsense. It actually sounds like you are describing the Republican party and all of the environmental and health protections set-up by the Democrats which the Repubs have overturned since January 20.
As far a Nancy Pelosi goes, you sound quite sexist and ageist against both her and Schumer.
Humiliating defeat? Three million more popular votes dispute that. More likely it is time for the antiquated Electoral college system to be retired. It is the Democrats who are trying to tackle income inequality via raising the minimum wage and educational support.
The only problems the Democrats face is increased messaging, especially to combat the lying Fox network spewing nonsensical propaganda.
As far a Nancy Pelosi goes, you sound quite sexist and ageist against both her and Schumer.
Humiliating defeat? Three million more popular votes dispute that. More likely it is time for the antiquated Electoral college system to be retired. It is the Democrats who are trying to tackle income inequality via raising the minimum wage and educational support.
The only problems the Democrats face is increased messaging, especially to combat the lying Fox network spewing nonsensical propaganda.
5
In 2006, she was put in a position of leadership in the Democratic sweep. She was given the specific mandate of ending the war in Iraq. That was the issue: Iraq.
Instead, she supported Bush's "surge" - adding yet more of our personnel to that Bush inspired horror.
And we're still there.
She betrayed the electorate.
By the way, if you read what I wrote instead of focusing your "reply" on defending Pelosi, you might notice that most of my recommendations for what the Democrats should represent should they wish to get people to the polls - are positions put forth by Sanders. a man who is 75 years old, a man she did not support. So, no. My criticism of Pelosi is based on her ties to establishment politics, and you stooping to calling my criticism of her and Schumer ageism is beyond the pale.
I will repeat: If the Democrats wish to win, to get people to the polls, they need to aggressive push for progressive reforms and actions. If they continue to offer as the face of their party Pelosi and Schumer - two people tied to establishment politics - they will get nowhere. And they will deserve to get nowhere.
Instead, she supported Bush's "surge" - adding yet more of our personnel to that Bush inspired horror.
And we're still there.
She betrayed the electorate.
By the way, if you read what I wrote instead of focusing your "reply" on defending Pelosi, you might notice that most of my recommendations for what the Democrats should represent should they wish to get people to the polls - are positions put forth by Sanders. a man who is 75 years old, a man she did not support. So, no. My criticism of Pelosi is based on her ties to establishment politics, and you stooping to calling my criticism of her and Schumer ageism is beyond the pale.
I will repeat: If the Democrats wish to win, to get people to the polls, they need to aggressive push for progressive reforms and actions. If they continue to offer as the face of their party Pelosi and Schumer - two people tied to establishment politics - they will get nowhere. And they will deserve to get nowhere.
5
Bla bla bla. It's all just a bunch of noise. We protest, tweet, and organize, but when the rubber hits the road many people that call themselves Democrats are really just lazy, complainers who may feel an urge to participate, but other obligations distract them. Like television. Or the internet. Voting takes time and effort and Tuesday night shopping is beckoning.. Look at the millions who had so much to lose but instead stayed home, and what? Oh that's right, did nothing, then complained.
13
Traditional political science research states that in an off year election of a president in his first term, that his/her party usually loses the legislature. Either the House of Representative, the Senate or both.
However, young people and minorities usually fail to show up to vote in non presidential years. On the other hand older whites who tend to be Republican, most certainly do show up and vote. Hence, this scenario favors the Republican
party.
Donald Trump is the best weapon that the democrats have. With his low approval ratings and being anathema to minorities and women, perhaps the groups that usually fail to vote in these elections will show up?
We'll see? But I wouldn't bet the house on it.
However, young people and minorities usually fail to show up to vote in non presidential years. On the other hand older whites who tend to be Republican, most certainly do show up and vote. Hence, this scenario favors the Republican
party.
Donald Trump is the best weapon that the democrats have. With his low approval ratings and being anathema to minorities and women, perhaps the groups that usually fail to vote in these elections will show up?
We'll see? But I wouldn't bet the house on it.
6
Democrats need to quit lecturing white people on the BLM movement and incessant drumbeat of how terrible white heterosexual men are towards women... and everyone. It's nonsense and it's the reason why we lost the election. And, before a professional victim comes forth in a rant, no, I am not a misogynist nor a racist, far from it. There are decent level headed people of all persuasions who are concerned about the issues, and then there are the exploiters who academia has trained. They are the enemies of free speech. They have an agenda and elimination is their way of dealing with an opposing view. They brand every view that doesn't 100% back up their view as hate. It does such damage to society and it's un-American. Thank them for Trump.
13
Democrats preach at voters and then expect them to respond to the single word ''Hope'' with nothing solid to go with it.
But screechers are going to screech because that is the only skill they have.
That and the most obvious hypocrisy on the planet.
If the Moon had water like the Dems have hypocrites, we'd have people living up there already.
But screechers are going to screech because that is the only skill they have.
That and the most obvious hypocrisy on the planet.
If the Moon had water like the Dems have hypocrites, we'd have people living up there already.
2
Death, taxes and Democrats blowing elections. The constants of life.
However, if the pervasive anxiety and anger that runs through everything in society today maintains (and doesn't become the mainstream baseline expectation), things might work out.
However, if the pervasive anxiety and anger that runs through everything in society today maintains (and doesn't become the mainstream baseline expectation), things might work out.
2
I truly believe that low Democratic turnout, especially in the midwest, led to Clinton's defeat as much as gerrymandering, Russian meddling and dark money from the far right.
The mistake this article makes, I think, is "waiting until 2018" for proof of change. There are elections every November - EVERY November (and special elections before, as noted) - and it is in these local races that Republicans have established a foothold. It is imperative for every race to be considered major because some of these folks are going to move up in their states and to congress; even if they don't, they will hold significant local power.
No year should be an off year - today's small-town dogcatcher could be tomorrow's major, next year's state representative, and next decade's US senator. ETERNAL vigilance is the price of democracy.
The mistake this article makes, I think, is "waiting until 2018" for proof of change. There are elections every November - EVERY November (and special elections before, as noted) - and it is in these local races that Republicans have established a foothold. It is imperative for every race to be considered major because some of these folks are going to move up in their states and to congress; even if they don't, they will hold significant local power.
No year should be an off year - today's small-town dogcatcher could be tomorrow's major, next year's state representative, and next decade's US senator. ETERNAL vigilance is the price of democracy.
30
If they want to increase voter turnout, they need to get rid of Democrats like Charles Schumer, Deborah Wasserman-Schultz, Nancy "chained-CPI" Pelosi and get some real Democrats in charge. Democrats who act like Republicans on economic issues are going to rally the turnout.
7
I hate articles like this because it is never going to happen. Democrats. Do. Not. Vote.
2
Watch us.
9
2008.
3
We just did watch, five months ago. Unimpressive.
2
"The available evidence is limited, but it suggests that the party out of power enjoys stronger turnout than the party holding the White House."
Mr. Cohn, have you read the existing political science literature on mid-term elections? To claim that the evidence on how people choose at mid-terms is "limited" suggests that you have not. Studies of the decline in support for the President's party date back to Angus Campbell's 1960 "surge and decline" theory (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2746724). Over the years we've seen many different explanations of mid-term voting including modifications of Campbell's theory (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111231), "retrospective voting" interpretations following V. O. Key, Samuel Kernell's "negative voting" modification of Key, and arguments based on a mix of presidential approval and economic conditions from scholars like Gerald Kramer, Morris Fiorina, Edward Tufte, and Douglas Hibbs, to name just a few.
In general I subscribe to the model that presidential approval and short-term economic conditions play the greatest role in determining aggregate mid-term outcomes. While much of the work on mid-terms looks at the House, my study of voting for the Senate also shows significant effects for those two variables in the off-years. (http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/category/senatorial-elections/)
Mr. Cohn, have you read the existing political science literature on mid-term elections? To claim that the evidence on how people choose at mid-terms is "limited" suggests that you have not. Studies of the decline in support for the President's party date back to Angus Campbell's 1960 "surge and decline" theory (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2746724). Over the years we've seen many different explanations of mid-term voting including modifications of Campbell's theory (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111231), "retrospective voting" interpretations following V. O. Key, Samuel Kernell's "negative voting" modification of Key, and arguments based on a mix of presidential approval and economic conditions from scholars like Gerald Kramer, Morris Fiorina, Edward Tufte, and Douglas Hibbs, to name just a few.
In general I subscribe to the model that presidential approval and short-term economic conditions play the greatest role in determining aggregate mid-term outcomes. While much of the work on mid-terms looks at the House, my study of voting for the Senate also shows significant effects for those two variables in the off-years. (http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/category/senatorial-elections/)
2
No explanation about why subgroups that typically vote Democrat (young, non-white) do not vote. The near universal availability of absentee ballot solves the problem of transportation, time off work, etc. Send in the application, get the ballot, have two witnesses sign the completed ballot, send it to the board of elections. Certainly we can manage that!
2
I just don't see that turnout will be a problem in 2018 for the Democrats. After-all, there is plenty of time for Trump to rub everyone's common sense into a frenzy. The common sense frenzy to get Trump and all Republicans out of Washington is a one-way ticket to an election win for the Democrats.
2
Excuse me but did notice that we just had 268,000 new jobs in February, about 240,000 in January? You all act as if the new President is on some highway to hell. He may do quite well.
1
They need to get the Dems to the polls for more than fighting Rs. Where are their policies, ideas, strategies? I am waiting DNC. . . .
7
Since I was of legal age, I have voted in every election (except for one primary in which my party had one choice on the ballot). Doesn't matter if I am convinced the candidates/issues I want to succeed will fail or vice-versa ... I consider it my civic obligation and privilege. I do my best to convince friends, co-workers, acquaintances--anyone I run into where it's feasible to bring it up--of the same thing.
2
Democrats run to lose. They buy in to every negative/losing cliche about the election process: lose in off years, lose due to redistricting, lose because of poor candidate pool, lose because of lack of money, etc. They always know why they are handicapped. They have a loser attitude and they lose.
Will they run with the announced intention of reversing their current reversals? Never. They would rather whine and warn.
What do they stand for square for and offer to deliver to the nation? Show us the list?
Democrats are bad at presenting a clear alternative to the GOP. Of course turnout is low. Why turnout to support a bunch of warmed over low achiever Republicans?
Mr. Cohn makes a common mistake: He assumes the Democrats represent a meaningful alternative to the GOP. They don't. Name one Democrat who has spelled out a Democrat answer to the GOP critique of Obamacare.
Ever read the Democrats fund raising letters, Nate? Ever concluded millions will turn to the Dems and make an effort to vote for them based on those appeals? Of course, not.
Everything explains the Democrats electoral ineptitude.
Will they run with the announced intention of reversing their current reversals? Never. They would rather whine and warn.
What do they stand for square for and offer to deliver to the nation? Show us the list?
Democrats are bad at presenting a clear alternative to the GOP. Of course turnout is low. Why turnout to support a bunch of warmed over low achiever Republicans?
Mr. Cohn makes a common mistake: He assumes the Democrats represent a meaningful alternative to the GOP. They don't. Name one Democrat who has spelled out a Democrat answer to the GOP critique of Obamacare.
Ever read the Democrats fund raising letters, Nate? Ever concluded millions will turn to the Dems and make an effort to vote for them based on those appeals? Of course, not.
Everything explains the Democrats electoral ineptitude.
8
The Dems need more than turnout: they need policies to float the middle class and get them jobs, and it has to be convincing.
As for policy? They will have to admit that autonomous vehicles and computerized manufacture and expert systems mean corporations can never employ enough people, never mind how skilled and flexibly adaptive. New jobs are coming from people-centered work, work corporations can't fit into their bottom-line profit-before-people business models.
And to be convincing? One way to be convincing is to find a good salesman. A better way is to really mean it and get funding from small donations instead of Wall Street and corporate biggies. Then they can claim independence from the corporate "lower taxes, less regulation, fewer benefits, smaller government" chant of the GOP.
As for policy? They will have to admit that autonomous vehicles and computerized manufacture and expert systems mean corporations can never employ enough people, never mind how skilled and flexibly adaptive. New jobs are coming from people-centered work, work corporations can't fit into their bottom-line profit-before-people business models.
And to be convincing? One way to be convincing is to find a good salesman. A better way is to really mean it and get funding from small donations instead of Wall Street and corporate biggies. Then they can claim independence from the corporate "lower taxes, less regulation, fewer benefits, smaller government" chant of the GOP.
8
I completely agree John. I think that the Democrats (and, I'm sorry to say, the Clintons and President Obama totally fit into this category) who have long convinced themselves, and the party establishment, that the party must kowtow to Wall Street and corporate biggies (as you put it) in order to have a chance to win elections would be utterly amazed at how far a politician who has the courage to say no to them can go.
9
I'll believe that when I see it. The left seems more enamored with marching and social media protests that turning out to vote. Voting requires actually doing something important and I am yet to be convinced that the Left sees any importance in any election (congress, state or local) that is not a presidential election. Unlike the Tea Party that would vote for every Republican whether they like the candidate or not, the left requires 100% agreement with their own personal beliefs. If they disagree on any point, the candidate must be a tool of the corporate elite and who wants to vote for someone like that. So they stay home and whine on social media.
14
If this were the case, why did Clinton get millions of votes more than Trump, and why did she lose by less than 100,000 votes in the key battleground states? And until Trump vs. Clinton, Democrats have been doing as well as Republicans in Presidential elections and even have had power in Congress for stints. So I think blanket statements about the left vs. right is how the plutocrats divide the American people.
1
The Dems have to face that suspicion that they themselves are "tools of the corporate elite". That suspicion is what sank them this time.
3
I'm not going to say "I told you so," esp. since there are still 19 months until Election Day in 2018, not to mention 43 months until Election Day in 2020. But in the Comments section to the article which ran last November 9 on Trump's victory in the presidential election, I did predict that the Trump presidency would prove to be very good for the Democratic Party in terms of enabling the party to mobilize against Trump to win many House seats and at least limit the Senate losses next year. So far, things do appear to be on track for that. The Democrats need to keep the momentum going by developing a message (which I think has to be an economic-based message, given the varying attitudes toward social issues from one region to the next) that will resonate in the congressional districts and states where gains can be made, recruiting good candidates in those districts and states, and building up an organization that can support these efforts across the country. Can the Democrats do all this? That will be their political challenge.
2
The paradox now is that most people are so frustrated with both parties that their only option is to support their own party more strongly, because the alternative choice is unthinkable even as the conventional choice is unpalatable. A lot can happen over the next two years, and the two parties have to figure out how to work together on key issues, such as the economy, or it will be a plague on both their houses.
If working with GOP is to be an option, Ryan and McConnell have to go. Ain't likely!
1
Bah. I'll believe that when I see it.
I'll tell you why Democratic turnout is bad. It's because the powers that be in the Democratic Party long ago decided to pursue "republican-lite" policies. Nobody, but NOBODY, wants republican-lite! Not Democrats, not republicans.
I have seen no sign that the Dem bigwigs have learned their lesson. Until they do, the Democrats will continue to LOSE.
I'll tell you why Democratic turnout is bad. It's because the powers that be in the Democratic Party long ago decided to pursue "republican-lite" policies. Nobody, but NOBODY, wants republican-lite! Not Democrats, not republicans.
I have seen no sign that the Dem bigwigs have learned their lesson. Until they do, the Democrats will continue to LOSE.
30
Sadly agreed. Local elections - this year, not just in 2018 - are where new Democratic blood will be charging up. There can be no off-year elections, just elections for different positions.
4
"me" does not define what Republican lite is. Is that where you believe in Progressive policies but you still think people need to earn a place in America by going to work if at all possible and not expect that you are carried by everyone else? If so then, there's at least one person that believes in it. But I despise the Republican party and everything about it. So I'd highly prefer you choose a different name.
Back when elections were routinely swinging between Republican corporate cronies and slightly less conspicuous Democratic corporate cronies, it wasn't all that interesting. Now that the Republicans have taken their steroids and gone bananas and the Democrats have swung a bit more to the left, it is more compelling. The orbits are becoming more eccentric all the time.
I always vote, but before, it wasn't as interesting because I live in a district that is safely Democratic. I vote to exercise my right anyway, knowing that it isn't likely to change anything in my case. Ah, the benefits of Gerrymandering.
I always vote, but before, it wasn't as interesting because I live in a district that is safely Democratic. I vote to exercise my right anyway, knowing that it isn't likely to change anything in my case. Ah, the benefits of Gerrymandering.
1
There has been no Democratic swing to the left. None at all. It just seems that way in comparison.
12
That's called 'this is our reality today.'
Try it; you might find it preferable to more Republicans.
Try it; you might find it preferable to more Republicans.
Your vote can help choose the new Democratic blood the party so desperately needs. Every viote should count, but it won't if someone doesn't vote.
1
I can feel the enthusiasm among my friends, the absolute anger and disgust at the corrupt administration. i hope we can sustain this till the midterm elections.
19
Not to worry, given the past 60 days, Trump by his actions, will sustain that anger till the midterm elections.
4
Most Republicans are ideologues. Most Democrats are not. The former will hurt someone to get to the voting booth.. In the past Democrats could be distracted by a hot latte on the way to the voting booth. Democrats have taken the world for granted for far too long. And at last, thanks to Trump, Democrats may be sensing a fundamental threat to their way of life. Its time for progressives to get into the fray and at least hurt some feelings.
57
I live in the 6th District in GA. Voted yesterday for Jon Ossoff. My daughter, usually rather uninterested in voting and such, has suddenly become very politically aware. She voted for Hillary in Nov. and will get out to vote for Ossoff this month. The turnout for early voting was surprisingly large and while I cannot say who is voting for whom, the numbers for Ossoff are currently looking good.
It is encouraging the numbers of Democrats I know of who have come out of the woodwork, so to speak, recently and they all support our candidates and, more importantly, are intending to vote if they have not already done so! Conversations lately have indicated many former Republicans slipping over to our side. Here's hoping we can #flip the sixth !
It is encouraging the numbers of Democrats I know of who have come out of the woodwork, so to speak, recently and they all support our candidates and, more importantly, are intending to vote if they have not already done so! Conversations lately have indicated many former Republicans slipping over to our side. Here's hoping we can #flip the sixth !
45
Curious. Why doesn't anyone talk about the Congressional race in Kansas. (You know, What's Wrong With Kansas? Aanswer, plenty, starting with Brownback.) James Thompson, pro choice Democrat, is running against anti-choice Republican for Mike Pompeo's open House seat on April 11. I get emails from organizations urging to me donate to Jon Osman about every 5 minutes. No one contacts me about James Thompson. Why?
25
I will be sarcastic about this, even though it might depress you. The Republicans don't use as many unpaid volunteers. They pay them -- probably at minimum wage. In California, after they got rid of Governor Gray, there were a bunch of propositions included with our choice for the next governor. I ran into little tables stacked up with these propositions. The volunteers could not explain a single one, but urged me to sign anyway, to get them on the ballot. Otherwise, he would make less money. It would not surprise me at all that 'dark money' is helping Jon Osman.
2
Republican leaders have attributed some of their internal dissent to the notion that their party is a "big tent." That moniker belongs to Democrats. Despite the diversity, if the Democrats can coalesce in opposition to the many Trump/GOP agendas (or lack thereof), they will dominate in upcoming elections. We will see whether states like Georgia point the way.
3
Pro tip for the Democrats: try providing candidates the electorate can vote for rather than relying on the Republicans to provide candidates to vote against. Running a formerly mainstream Republican against a reactionary Republican is not a formula for energizing your base.
20
Bingo!
8
The purple states matter most. GA, OH, NC, PA and maybe MO are the states where I'll be looking most closely.
And I'll pay attention to the candidates that raised the most money from within their district or perhaps their state. I'm skeptical about Ossoff's chances because he got so much out of state money.
And I'll pay attention to the candidates that raised the most money from within their district or perhaps their state. I'm skeptical about Ossoff's chances because he got so much out of state money.
2
l. Re: Ossoff, whatever it takes.
2. Look to those midwest states where Trump squeaked by and got himself into the White House. That's where new blood is going to be vital for Democrats.
2. Look to those midwest states where Trump squeaked by and got himself into the White House. That's where new blood is going to be vital for Democrats.
1
Add Michigan and Wisconsin. Better yet, do not take ANYstate for granted, nor snub any!
3
"That seems ready to change."
--Nate Cohn
Or not.
--Nate Cohn
Or not.
2
Hopefully the Democratic Party will get out of its own way, stop stifling debate, and offer robust solutions to working class Americans, instead of running campaigns as though it were the 1990's.
17
Democrats should be focusing on an economics/shared prosperity and quality-of-life agenda. Proposing to make the rest of the country more like California and less like Kansas.
14
It will only matter if people have a party that stands for something. The current corporatist Democratic party stands for its donors.The public knows that and that is why the party is wiped out on every level of government across the country. The party is anti single payer, pro Wall Street, pro fracking, anti $15 minimum wage, pro war, pro surveillance state. Being anti Trump is not enough, look what it did for Hillary. Their Russia Gate fixation that is about to backfire in their faces like a cheap exploding cigar will actually bring the party to even lower approval ratings that they suffer from right now.
17
Sir, you're a Trump supporter, probably hard core. Why not just admit it. The Republicans have no ethics whatsoever. Just look at the way, they exploited racism as long ago as 2009, telling everyone that Obama was born in Kenya and a Muslim, and never even bothered to apply for U.S. citizenship. And then full advantage was taken with the results of the 2010 census. This has lead to elections where the democrats heavily outvote the republicans even though their candidates for the House keep getting defeated. And after that, we have voter suppression. There are poor black people in the Deep South who never had a birth certificate, not ever because the Segregationists refused to issue them. And as for women being refused the right to vote, because their married name and their maiden name are different, and therefore they need a bunch of documents as to marriages. And then they brag about how easy it is to register to vote, provided you're a member of the NRA.
10
I am a Democrat who is also frustrated at the candidates offered. There was not a fair and free Democratic primary; if there was Bernie would have been the candidate and probably the president. I think Hillary would have made a fine president, but her campaign was awful, she lacked charisma and she had more baggage than Railway Express (and came off to younger voters as being about as old - something Bernie did not, despite his age).
We need fresh candidates for national office - president and congress - who are creating excitement at the local or state level as well as a compelling way to tell their story. And it starts now with upcoming state and local elections. Let's get going, fellow Democrats.
We need fresh candidates for national office - president and congress - who are creating excitement at the local or state level as well as a compelling way to tell their story. And it starts now with upcoming state and local elections. Let's get going, fellow Democrats.
8
Until December 2012 I had been a registered Democrat my entire voting life, since 1976. That is not to say I only ever voted for Democrats. Although I voted for Obama both times, after his non-"transparent" manner of conducting a reign of spying, and unrestricted world- wide war, I came to the studied conclusion he was just the newest form of mendacity to occupy the presidency. Now I am "unaffiliated" and do not expect to be a registered anything again. While there are still basic elements of policy purportedly advanced by the Democrat Party I identify with, I finally--finally--came to the conclusion that both Democrats and Republicans are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wall Street, the defense industry, medical care insurers, pharmaceutical companies, big medical care systems, big banks and payday lenders, any other interests which provide unrestricted funding to politicians' PACs, and everyone over 62 years of age--with Medicare and Social Security being metaphorical sacred cows (and the defense department).
Trump's election is a symptom of trouble in our very sick two-party system, not the cause. The manner by which the Democrat party sabotaged Bernie Sanders, and Trump's resulting election has inadvertently revealed just how truly rotten and corrupt are those in the employ of and pursuit of office in our federal government.
Trump's election is a symptom of trouble in our very sick two-party system, not the cause. The manner by which the Democrat party sabotaged Bernie Sanders, and Trump's resulting election has inadvertently revealed just how truly rotten and corrupt are those in the employ of and pursuit of office in our federal government.
29
Stop with this false equivalence. You are being influenced by Russian news propaganda. Democrats and Republicans are absolutely not the same. In the last 2 months, Republicans have voted to take away healthcare from the most vulnerable, remove protections for women, reversed rules that make our air cleaner, stopped progress on the environment, separated vulnerable families, supported a police regime that murders innocent US citizens, tried to obfuscate collusion with Russia, and voted to sell your data to ISPs.
26
You are correct in saying that Democrats are not as bad as republicans. That is quite true; they are not nearly as bad.
OTOH, they are not nearly as good as they ought to be, and judging from election results, they are not nearly as good as they need to be either.
OTOH, they are not nearly as good as they ought to be, and judging from election results, they are not nearly as good as they need to be either.
10
Seriously???? Do you really believe that a Clinton presidency would have stripped all of us of privacy rights on the internet, tried to strip the least privileged of medical insurance, added wall street billionaires and incompetents and family members to her cabinet and 100 other things in the last 2 months. If you really think a Democratic presidency would have done the same things, you're living on another planet.
3
I've always admired the discipline of Republicans to turn out to vote especially during mid-terms when they know they could place anyone or anything on the ballot and it will pass. We Dems and liberal Independents are so much more complicated and so many of us are too otherwise engaged to take the time to vote. To actually turn out to vote young people and minorities need reminding, prodding, nagging and more to take seriously the right which people were imprisoned and even hanged for. Therefore voting patterns by the left point to more Republicans winning more seats to congress. We may be fired up on the left but that doesn't mean that people who didn't vote will turn out. Frankly voting may be too difficult or too much of a bother for too many on the left. It's truly dispiriting.
5
Not only is Democratic turn-out up in these four special elections, but Democrats are leading in polling for two House seats they haven't held in years. Democrat Jon Ossoff is leading in Georgia's 6th District, a seat Democrats haven't held since Newt Gingrich took it in 1979. And Democrat Rob Quist is leading in Montana's state-wide district, which Democrats haven't held since 1997. The Republican candidate in California's 34th District special election yesterday took less than four percent of the vote - behind the Green Party candidate.
There are plenty of other, non-electoral indicators of this trend: from the women's march that out-drew Trump's inaugural, to the nation-wide protests that exploded in response to Trump's first Muslim ban, to Trump's historically low approval ratings - lower than Reagan after Iran-Contra, lower than Nixon during Watergate, lower than Bush after Katrina.
If this trend holds, the 2018 mid-terms are going to be a Democratic tsunami. Meanwhile, there are four special elections for Congress this spring, each to fill the seat of a Trump cabinet appointee. Then there are the Virginia and New Jersey elections this November - Democrats may well take back the Virginia House and the New Jersey governor's seat.
At least as important as the Congressional mid-terms are the state legislative and gubernatorial elections in 2018, which Democrats must win to end egregiously partisan gerrymandering.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
There are plenty of other, non-electoral indicators of this trend: from the women's march that out-drew Trump's inaugural, to the nation-wide protests that exploded in response to Trump's first Muslim ban, to Trump's historically low approval ratings - lower than Reagan after Iran-Contra, lower than Nixon during Watergate, lower than Bush after Katrina.
If this trend holds, the 2018 mid-terms are going to be a Democratic tsunami. Meanwhile, there are four special elections for Congress this spring, each to fill the seat of a Trump cabinet appointee. Then there are the Virginia and New Jersey elections this November - Democrats may well take back the Virginia House and the New Jersey governor's seat.
At least as important as the Congressional mid-terms are the state legislative and gubernatorial elections in 2018, which Democrats must win to end egregiously partisan gerrymandering.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
33
I sure hope so. But sometimes, my paranoia gets to me. Like suddenly one day, Trump by executive order, will cancel the 2018 elections. Instead he will run TV programs similar to the Apprentice, in which the harshest, most extreme, most right-wing contestants jump over one another, bragging on how cruel they know how to me. And President Trump will just shake his head, and say, 'Nope, not right wing enough! And you're fired!." In this way, a whole new House will be selected. Putin will help Trump out. After all, Putin can have his Duma vote with a turnout of 500 to 1, and the next day, that one guy fell out from the roof of the Lyubanka Prison. He must have broken into that building himself with his desire to end it, by jumping. And it must be true, because both Putin and Trump will tell you it is true.
1
What if the results of ongoing investigations conclude:
Trump in no way collided with Russia to win the election.
The Obama administration actively spied on members of the Trump team beginning before the NH primaries - incidentally on purpose.
The NYT and MSM has been hyperventilating with their chosen narrative - of course Trump did such things and of course a Democrat administration would never do such things. They have gone all in, bet the house and have lost all sense of objectivity.
If in fact their narrative is wrong, and it may well be, their credibility will not just be in the toilet, it will be flushed forever, damaging Democrats chances at being taken seriously for years if not decades.
Choosing extreme partisanship is a dangerous strategy if you turn out to be wrong on these key issues.
Trump in no way collided with Russia to win the election.
The Obama administration actively spied on members of the Trump team beginning before the NH primaries - incidentally on purpose.
The NYT and MSM has been hyperventilating with their chosen narrative - of course Trump did such things and of course a Democrat administration would never do such things. They have gone all in, bet the house and have lost all sense of objectivity.
If in fact their narrative is wrong, and it may well be, their credibility will not just be in the toilet, it will be flushed forever, damaging Democrats chances at being taken seriously for years if not decades.
Choosing extreme partisanship is a dangerous strategy if you turn out to be wrong on these key issues.
5
If, if, if....
It's our FBI that is investigating Trump; not the media or even the Democratic Party.
Hold your thoughts until their work is done and then we can all have an intelligent conversation.
It's our FBI that is investigating Trump; not the media or even the Democratic Party.
Hold your thoughts until their work is done and then we can all have an intelligent conversation.
22
The investigation has already concluded that close associates of Trump has deep Russian ties - Michael Flynn has already resigned, Jeff Sessions have already recused, Paul Manafort has admitted he is a Putin stooge and so has Carter Page and Roger Stone. I don't know what else is there to investigate. Trump is a Putin stooge.
11
There is no "if" about this president. His conflicts of interest, Russian collusion questions and all -around incompetence and narcissism have awakened the sleeping giant of decent, left-of-center folks to the existential threat to our country. I live in a "purple" district in NJ and there is an awful lot of energy around flipping the Congressional district and the governorship in 2017/2018.
2
As long as the Democrats have learned their lesson and focus on bread and butter issues and on the importance of not giving Trump free rein they should do well. That said they have shown an amazing proclivity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the past--we'll see.
21
It is sad to think that voter apathy ends up deciding who oversees the country for the rest of us.
Progressive groups are reaching out to voters, and voters are searching for the groups they want to join and with whom they want to become engaged.
Corralling multiple interests under one big tent has to happen...........the candidate may not be perfect, but voters need to understand that not voting, or using a protest vote, has dramatic and dangerous consequences.
Progressive groups are reaching out to voters, and voters are searching for the groups they want to join and with whom they want to become engaged.
Corralling multiple interests under one big tent has to happen...........the candidate may not be perfect, but voters need to understand that not voting, or using a protest vote, has dramatic and dangerous consequences.
29
Thanks, Donald.
3
I live in Distrct 6 in Georgia, and the energy is palpable. If this district, former home to Newt Gingrich, turns blue, it will absolutely be because of the astounding grassroots effort lead mostly by dedicated, focused, determined women. #Flipthe6th
109
And you know what? If Jon Ossoff wins, it may give hope to Democrats elsewhere that they can actually make a difference, if only they turn out to vote.
There are many red states that aren't all that far from turning blue or at least purple, if only Democrats realize that winning some elections is in reach.
There are many red states that aren't all that far from turning blue or at least purple, if only Democrats realize that winning some elections is in reach.
5
You need to be in Georgia now, in the area just north of Atlanta. Two seats could go Democrat in Newt Gingrich and Tom Price territory. Jon Ossoff in US 6th and Christine Triebsch in GA32. Both are running strong, positive campaigns and the color blue is everywhere! Check out their campaigns election dot com and ChristineForGA dot com. GOP is running nothing but fear-based ads.
35
We must turn out at midterm 2018. It is imperative for the sake of our country. We are now living thru hell for our complacency and the complacency of Pres Obama who did nothing for the Democratic Party.
5
The majority of white women voters went with Trump
Will they turn out again to support him?
This is the first big test if the women's movement is in fact a movement.
Will they turn out again to support him?
This is the first big test if the women's movement is in fact a movement.
11
Dems need to get more energized about voting, and Tom Perez, New Democratic National Chairman needs to settle down a little. A little too much caffeine! He will need to be a little more calm in his encouragement, please.
Nevertheless, 2018 will prove to be a great turnout year for Dems.
People who did not vote in 2016 because they thought it was slam dunk, you know, those polls, have learned a great lesson. And some of those who voted for Trump are learning a few lessons too.
Nevertheless, 2018 will prove to be a great turnout year for Dems.
People who did not vote in 2016 because they thought it was slam dunk, you know, those polls, have learned a great lesson. And some of those who voted for Trump are learning a few lessons too.
12
The reason for the swings is obvious: A large portion of the voting population has no clue what is going on or who plans to do what, and can't be bothered to inform themselves about it, but they are always vaguely unhappy with how things are, so they vote for the party currently not in power.
This is also why the Republican obstructionism worked so well and in general why the G.O.P. can get away with being so radical. Many ignorant voters will always vote for 'change', even if one of the parties is completely crazy.
This is also why the Republican obstructionism worked so well and in general why the G.O.P. can get away with being so radical. Many ignorant voters will always vote for 'change', even if one of the parties is completely crazy.
19
Its now or never, you have seen first hand, what happens when you dont get out and vote!!
40
Here in Charleston, we have gone from monthly meetings attended by 3-6 people to needing a larger space because we are getting closer to 100. The Charleston County Democrats hit a record turnout for a monthly meeting of over 300 people. If that's happening in South Carolina, I'd say the Democrats are finally waking up to the importance of turning out for every election – from dog catcher to president. We have to retake congress and state legislatures and build a strong farm team by winning local and county races.
91
Rob -
Is Charleston really representative of the state? I wonder if your lovely city is an island of blue in a sea of red. The mid-terms may make Charleston more blue, but my recent time in rural northwest South Carolina have convinced me that this may not be a time of significant political change for the state as a whole.
Is Charleston really representative of the state? I wonder if your lovely city is an island of blue in a sea of red. The mid-terms may make Charleston more blue, but my recent time in rural northwest South Carolina have convinced me that this may not be a time of significant political change for the state as a whole.
6
The Jon Ossoff mentioned, a Democrat, is running for Tom Price’s (now Secretary of Health and Human Services) vacancy here in GA on Apr, 18th. A good one to keep an eye on. The district is in Cobb County which is traditionally Republican. I live in adjacent Fulton County, John Lewis is our House Rep. (Thank God).
Although Cobb is Republican most of the time, they are moderates. In the 2016 Republican Primary they voted for Marco Rubio over Trump. And surprisingly in the national election they voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump as did other Republican counties that border Atlanta and Fulton County. So there is hope and Jon Ossoff has a reasonable chance to take a traditional Republican District.
Although Cobb is Republican most of the time, they are moderates. In the 2016 Republican Primary they voted for Marco Rubio over Trump. And surprisingly in the national election they voted for Hillary Clinton over Trump as did other Republican counties that border Atlanta and Fulton County. So there is hope and Jon Ossoff has a reasonable chance to take a traditional Republican District.
64
Governing invariably requires trade-offs and compromises, many of which are easy to criticize. Thus, it’s generally easier to be passionate in one’s opposition than a fervent supporter of the party or president in power. Since Trump has given Democrats (and others) much to oppose, it would be astounding if the Democrats did not show up in droves. I only hope that they will remain the party of good ideas and not join the Republicans as the party of NO.
12
The dems have a very good shot to take back the Senate (despite the fact more dems are up for election) and even have a shot at the house because of the demagogue Trump.
In order to do this though, they have to do one thing first.
Don't run a Hillary Clinton female identity candidate campaign. It was lethal to her even with white females. She downplayed, ignored or outright opposed issues that many Americans were concerned about.
Dems can certainly be for "woman's issues" but select a few that they need, like stopping violence towards women. All others should be secondary to the ones that Trump demagogued, rust belt jobs, infrastructure spending, no foreign wars etc. Also, the ones that people want that dems want, ie universal health care, free college tuition. reeling in Wall Street etc.
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat one's worst mistakes.
In order to do this though, they have to do one thing first.
Don't run a Hillary Clinton female identity candidate campaign. It was lethal to her even with white females. She downplayed, ignored or outright opposed issues that many Americans were concerned about.
Dems can certainly be for "woman's issues" but select a few that they need, like stopping violence towards women. All others should be secondary to the ones that Trump demagogued, rust belt jobs, infrastructure spending, no foreign wars etc. Also, the ones that people want that dems want, ie universal health care, free college tuition. reeling in Wall Street etc.
Learn from history or be condemned to repeat one's worst mistakes.
22
Unless something drastic happens (which is absolutely possible), the Demos don't havea very good shot at taking back the Senate. The seats that are up are their most vulnerable, and they will not pick up more than 1 from a republican. The best we can hope for is the same as it is now.
The House is out of reach. It would take a sweeping Presidential victory tide for the Dems to take the House, based on current gerrymandering and voter suppression. The Dems will make gains in the House, yes, but take it back...no.
I wish I was wrong.
The House is out of reach. It would take a sweeping Presidential victory tide for the Dems to take the House, based on current gerrymandering and voter suppression. The Dems will make gains in the House, yes, but take it back...no.
I wish I was wrong.
11
I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Here in Houston, Texas, the town halls and Democratic meeting have been exploding with energy. We have had a lot more people registering to vote even in the suburbs of Houston. I think we will see a huge (30-35 Seat) swing in the House.
If Donald has his current or lower approval ratings in 2018, I think that the Democrats can pick up a seat or two. Ted Cuz is up for re-election here and there is a big enough movement, that I think he just might lose (crossing my fingers).
If Donald has his current or lower approval ratings in 2018, I think that the Democrats can pick up a seat or two. Ted Cuz is up for re-election here and there is a big enough movement, that I think he just might lose (crossing my fingers).
18
Thank you for your reply Rory, While everything you say is true and nobody can predict what will happen, nevertheless what I say is true too.
If Hillary followed my advice (which she didn't and I think was incapable of) and if the dems nominated Bernie, there would have been a much better shot of Trump losing.
The dems are on the side of what America wants re many issues. They just have to show them that. Trump, albeit demagoguing it, did it on rust belt jobs and infrastructure.
If Hillary followed my advice (which she didn't and I think was incapable of) and if the dems nominated Bernie, there would have been a much better shot of Trump losing.
The dems are on the side of what America wants re many issues. They just have to show them that. Trump, albeit demagoguing it, did it on rust belt jobs and infrastructure.
4
Complacency is a large part of what put Trump into the WH in the first place, so I wouldn't start popping the champagne just yet because of some projections 2 years in advance.
What the Democrats really need is actual leadership that can steer the party in a direction palatable to the general public and get people motivated to participate. This is in large part what Trump did to get elected and is what Sanders was trying to do. The difference is that Trump was always going to be all talk with no real action.
The biggest gift giver will be the Republicans themselves. If Trump allows the establishment Republicans, who were only ushered in alongside Trump, to enact enact legislation which is clearly skewed towards the rich then it will flip just as it did in 2010 against Obama.
What the Democrats really need is actual leadership that can steer the party in a direction palatable to the general public and get people motivated to participate. This is in large part what Trump did to get elected and is what Sanders was trying to do. The difference is that Trump was always going to be all talk with no real action.
The biggest gift giver will be the Republicans themselves. If Trump allows the establishment Republicans, who were only ushered in alongside Trump, to enact enact legislation which is clearly skewed towards the rich then it will flip just as it did in 2010 against Obama.
42
I agree with almost everything said in your comment, except for the idea that Sanders' ideas are palatable to the general public. I think liberals in general have confused country's move to the left on specific social issues like gay marriage and drug use with a general move to the left. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to actual action, as opposed to empty rhetoric, the country (liberal activists and Jehova's witnesses notwithstanding) appears much less interested in the issues of sacrifice for the common good and personal accountability to the society at large.
I think at this point the best we can do is an effective centrist leader that promotes ideas of "enlightened selfishness" and individual gains from long term investments in community.
Or we can just have a massive war and/or complete economic collapse to get the people on the right track again (if any are left).
I think at this point the best we can do is an effective centrist leader that promotes ideas of "enlightened selfishness" and individual gains from long term investments in community.
Or we can just have a massive war and/or complete economic collapse to get the people on the right track again (if any are left).
Let us hope that the energized organizations that have finally awoken to their responsibility as citizens to become active remain so. For the time being, it seems to be a groundswell. Since Trump and his group, reinforced by a GOP led Congress that has forgotten how to work due to their atrophy from 8 years of obstruction, show no signs of doing their jobs in a responsible manner, it is going to be up to the electorate, I hope we are up to the task. This is one time that "Take our country back" seems to be the rational thing to do.
17