How the Democrats can start winning again

[KingOrfeo]

Demographic trends won't be enough, and assuming that leads to dangerous complacency.

The Democrats have a future if and only if the Justice Democrats -- a sort of left-wing Tea Party movement -- succeed in transforming the party. In economic as distinct from social terms, the Democratic Party in its current form is not liberal enough to win. There is far too much corporate/Wall Street/1% influence. That is one reason why Trump won -- the American people do not want the plutocracy we have now, and many voters somehow concluded only Trump could and would fight it, partly because the Democrats have presented no real opposition to the plutocracy for decades now. But if the Democrats become a real left-populist, social-democratic party, then they can win.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well....they can stop blaming those piece of shit racist white males who are born white supremacist for all their fuckin' woes.


Because NOT alienating 2/3 of the country is a GOOD election strategy.

The Democrats have a future if and only if the Justice Democrats

Yes, Fuck whitey!!!

a sort of left-wing Tea Party movement

Except it's far more racist, open about it and and wants MORE plutocracy.

succeed in transforming the party.

Into ?

because the Democrats have presented no real opposition to the plutocracy for decades now.

Because they are the plutocracy.

But if the Democrats become a real left-populist, social-democratic party, then they can win.

And vote all the wealth creators out of the country or into poverty. Great plan!

 

[Liar]

Well....they can stop blaming those piece of shit racist white males who are born white supremacist for all their fuckin' woes.


Because NOT alienating 2/3 of the country is a GOOD election strategy.

White males are 2/3 of the country?

No wonder so many of them are cranky. Must be near impossible to get some.

 

[BotanyBoy]

White males are 2/3 of the country?

No but white people are.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The Democrats alienated rural America. A vote in North Dakota counts twice as much as one in California. It's that simple.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Democrats alienated rural America. A vote in North Dakota counts twice as much as one in California. It's that simple.

But North Dakotans don't like the plutocracy any more than Californians do.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But North Dakotans don't like the plutocracy any more than Californians do.

That's why they didn't vote for Clinton.

 

[KingOrfeo]

From the article linked into the OP:

Democrats may try to assure themselves that things are not so bleak. The party still pulls in nearly 90 percent of the black vote, two-thirds of Hispanic or Asian votes, and majorities among racial and ethnic “others.” They continue to capture a majority of women and young people. While the exit polls show that Republicans have been consistently chipping away at this coalition, the trend does not suggest the GOP will actually win majorities from any of these groups anytime soon.

But here’s the rub: Republicans actually don’t need to outright win – or even come close to winning – any of these demographic categories in order to come out ahead. If minority turnout is low, Republicans win. If Democrats fail to capture 2012 levels of black, Hispanic and Asian votes, they lose. It doesn’t really matter if lost votes go to Republicans or independents – the outcome is the same.

The Democrats’ current coalition presents a very narrow path to victory. Minority groups like LGBTQ, Jewish, Muslim, Asian, black or Hispanic Americans each comprise just a small slice of the electorate. Meanwhile, whites amount to no less than 70 percent. This means Democrats can get 100 percent of the votes from all other groups combined, and still not be anywhere near a majority unless they get at least a third of the remaining white vote. However, Democrats do not have unanimous support from any of these populations.

Minority votes also tend to be concentrated in relatively safe states and voting districts. To win statewide or national races, Democrats would have to capture an even larger share of the white vote than the raw electoral share data would suggest – particularly in rural and suburban areas which tend to have higher turnout despite their lower populations.

Democrats stand to benefit little, if at all, in terms of congressional seats or Electoral College votes, regardless of how many more Americans happen to fall into Democratic-leaning categories.

Moreover, ideological affiliations and perceived interests tend to grow more diverse within groups as they expand. Therefore, while Hispanic and Asian voters currently skew heavily toward Democrats, Republicans could actually end up benefiting more in the long run from the projected demographic shifts.

Finally, Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win national contests, particularly during years with presidential elections. This group tends to stay home unless they are actively inspired. And even when these voters truly believe in a candidate or cause, they can be easily discouraged from going to the polls.

Adjusting for relative participation rates, internal disagreement and uneven geographic distribution, a winning Democratic coalition would likely require a ratio of at least one non-minority white for each minority constituent. And to the extent that Republicans actually do rally the white vote – again, Trump did not – Democrats’ margin for error more or less vanishes. Yet Democratic support among white voters has plummeted in every election since 2008. This trend is not sustainable if progressives aspire toward any kind of majority coalition in any foreseeable future.

IOW, the Dems need the white vote to win.

And whites in general don't like the plutocracy any more than minorities do.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's why they didn't vote for Clinton.

As stated in the OP, the Dems have presented no real opposition to the plutocracy for decades. If that changes, they can win in North Dakota.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As stated in the OP, the Dems have presented no real opposition to the plutocracy for decades. If that changes, they can win in North Dakota.

About as likely as Montana and Alaska LOL

Seeing as the Dakotas are dominated by freedom loving Americans and capitalist, instead of oppressive socialist.........but some of the more purple states surely.

 

[KingOrfeo]

About as likely as Montana and Alaska LOL

Seeing as the Dakotas are dominated by freedom loving Americans and capitalist, instead of oppressive socialist.........but some of the more purple states surely.

Don't forget that attacking the plutocracy is how Trump won their votes.

 

[Adre]

Putting Pubs in charge is always a good start.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Don't forget that attacking the plutocracy is how Trump won their votes.

Also their being rather Red kinda made them a sure thing.


We aren't talking PA or OH here.......the left no matter it's promises of utopia on Earth if they just become slaves to the state, just isn't very popular in the Dakotas.