Well here is a new analysis. MSN Why Clinton Lost
This leaves me wondering what Urban Dems will do differently to attract rural and suburban working class voters? Or if they will continue to double down on trying to win the votes of the poor, minorities, LGBT, urbanites, environmentalists, etc by buying them and/or scaring them into it.
This leaves me wondering what Urban Dems will do differently to attract rural and suburban working class voters? Or if they will continue to double down on trying to win the votes of the poor, minorities, LGBT, urbanites, environmentalists, etc by buying them and/or scaring them into it.
Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes and lost the electoral college because of the James Comey letter cost her a 2-3 % of the vote. Democrats do not buy votes.
ReplyDeleteI recommend that dems try to win elections with a strong focus on good paying jobs and protecting/ expanding health care.
For Democrats it's always a question of persuasion vs. turnout. You see that dynamic in all sorts of different forms. I think when the question was asked, Should the move to the left? that's a form of the persuasion-turnout issue. When we ask ourselves, "Did we overreach?" that a different way of addressing the same question. The fact is, there is not easy answer answer to this question, and the more complicated answer is that we need to do both and neither. The strategies that help us turn out our base, make us vulnerable to the broader electorate. Policies that help us reach out the broader electorate tend to alienate the base.
ReplyDeleteIt's said that Hillary got this balance wrong, and of course she did because she lost the election. But Obama got it right in two elections in a row, and Hillary did win the popular vote by a pretty significant margin. We as Democrats do need to think about why we lost the election in 2016, but what is of greater concern is putting together strategies for winning in 2018, and 2020, when there will be a whole new set of mistakes to make.
--Hiram
I think Hillary's big problem was that she is a woman. A lot of people, in different ways, just didn't want a woman as president. We thought the country wouldn't elect a vile, misogynistic creep as president, but it turns out lots of people wanted a vile misogynistic creep as president.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Just saw an article about the British press raising the same issues with respect to the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn has a lot of support within the party, but little support outside it. So how does he manage to reach out to the British general election voter, without alienating his base? I have no idea.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
ReplyDeleteI recommend that dems try to win elections with a strong focus on good paying jobs and protecting/ expanding health care.
One of the many ironies is that Trump won by advocating policies Democrats only accepted reluctantly. Base Democratic voters didn't like NAFTA. We are suspicious of globalism. We are not averse to trade barriers that seem to protect American jobs. Over years and decades, Republicans have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain to us why these policies are in fact good for us. Many of us have gone along with the arguments, despite the fact that they seem contradictory to our own political interests. But now, Republicans have abandoned those views. Their national support for protectionism is enthusiastic and clear. We Democrats are accused of being out of touch for not supporting the protectionist policies Republicans worked so hard to persuade us to abandon.
But there is a resolution of these ironies. Despite what Trump said during the campaign, he has created an administration full of globalists, and free traders. The campaign rhetoric is still there, but the implementation is put on hold. "Never, does never work for you?". And his supporters continue to support him, because at least he said he tried.
--Hiram
Laurie,
ReplyDeleteThe whole Democratic belief system is based on buying votes and fear mongering...
Vote for us and we will:
- give you additional welfare, food stamps, etc
- give you free / reduced cost healthcare.
- give you free / reduced cost higher education
- give your illegal friends / family pardons
- protect you public employees from performance accountability
- protect your right to live differently than most Americans.
- raise your minimum wage
- etc
Now the challenge is that many rural and suburban working voters acknowledge the message above, and dislike being forced to pay for and support it.
The whole Democratic belief system is based on buying votes and fear mongering.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting perspective. From where I sit, it seems to me that Republicans are in fear of a lot of stuff, that we don't seem to be in quite the same way. In my view, that's part of why we are accused of being out of touch, of not "getting it". As I walk down the street, I don't worry much about ISIS blowing me up. Maybe I should worry more. I don't worry a lot about illegal aliens taking my job. When I go to a restaurant, I never ask for the server's papers. Maybe I should. I don't worry a lot about illegal voting. I worry a little about voting in the wrong precinct. Should I worry more?
I worry about the rising cost of health care? Is that worry misplaced. Donald Trump assured me that his health care plan would lower my cost and increase my coverage. Does that mean I can stop worrying?
I worry that higher education costs are too high, much higher than when I went to school. I worry that future generation won't have jobs but will be slave to debt. Is that worry unfounded? Donald Trump's, the self styled king of debt, answer to excessive debt was bankruptcy. Should that be option for those who are less privileged than Mr. Trump?
Illegal friends. Should I be afraid of them? Or not afraid of them? Which is it? As it happens, rules by fear though I may be, I am not terribly afraid of my illegal friends. Should that change? Would it help if I listened to O'Reilly podcasts more?
--Hiram
This does remind me of the 2014 campaign. Leading up to the election, much of Fox Nation was gripped by Ebola fear. I talked with a number of folks who were really scared. They demanded to know why President Obama wasn't closing the borders. On the national scene, Trump was among those people. Although I may be ruled by fear generally, I have to say this was something I found less than terrifying. It's a big country, and only one or two cases of Ebola had been identified anywhere in it. Of course, once the election was over, Ebola disappeared from Fox News. I didn't get it, nor did anyone I know. Fox moved on to their favorite fear campaign, The War Against Christmas. Now that O'Reilly is gone, I wonder who will wage that war this year. Could this finally be the year that Christmas loses? Can we expect to see unemployment lines full of Santas? Should I stop growing my white beard?
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I agree that the GOP folks do fear some silly things, like their irrational fear of LGBT folks...
ReplyDeleteHowever I think that for the most part they want individuals to take more personal responsibility for their choices, beliefs and actions.
And they want to enforce the laws with regard to deport illegal residents / workers.
As for their belief that big government is less effective and efficient than the alternative, I find it hard to disagree with that.
I agree that the GOP folks do fear some silly things, like their irrational fear of LGBT folks...
ReplyDeleteFrom watching Fox News, I think Republicans are afraid of lots of things, things that are often of little concern to me. Those are thing that I don't "get". Those are feelings I am out of touch with. And to be perfectly fair, those are things to which I occasionally condescend, sometimes contrary to my best efforts.
--Hiram
As I said...
ReplyDelete"As for their belief that big government is less effective and efficient than the alternative, I find it hard to disagree with that."
Maybe you get much more back from the government than you pay in? Therefore there is no fear or frustration regarding governmental waste and ineffective public employees.
Don't you think that is the natural dividing line between DEM and GOP voters?
ReplyDeletePeople who are fine accepting welfare and other freebies from their fellow tax payer's forcefully collected wallets vote DEM...
And people who are reluctant to accept welfare and other freebies from their fellow tax payer's forcefully collected wallets vote GOP...
I mean there other issues like regulations and religion also, but that money thing is a pretty big difference.
As for their belief that big government is less effective and efficient than the alternative, I find it hard to disagree with that
ReplyDeleteWhat's the alternative? Small government in the sense of fewer employees? Or small government in reduction of responsibilities.
The obvious thing to say is that in many cases, big is better than little because of economies of scale. Obamacare, for example is divided into 50 markets. Many of those markets are too small in scale to operate efficiently. Insurance companies don't want to operate in small states because the costs are too high, and the risks too great.
Is the alternative the private sector? I don't think there is much evidence that the private sector is much more efficient or effective than government. And often, the private sector relies on the government to make it more effective and efficient. Private schools for example have inefficient administrative costs, while relying on the state to provide vital services in special education, transportation, etc. You notice that those are inefficient services to provide, and the fact that it's the government that's supplying them that adds to private sector efficiency. In a lot of ways, we want government to be inefficient, because we also want it to be convenient. That's why you get mail on Saturdays.
--Hiram
Don't you think that is the natural dividing line between DEM and GOP voters?
ReplyDeleteI have defined the dividing line between the parties as the Democrats want the government to do something, the Republicans want the government to do nothing.
In terms of freebies, very often people don't understand what government does and the extent to which it is not free. As reluctant as people are to accept welfare, they seem to have no problem in driving on government roads, sending their children to government schools, benefiting from government health care, having their freedoms protected by government troops. I could go on.
--Hiram
As I noted earlier, the government of the 1960s did many things that Conservatives support. (ie national defense, infrastructure, justice, education, etc)
ReplyDeletePlease remember that Entitlements, Education and Welfare account for most of the change between government expense then and government expense now.
And these pretty well align with the gifts that the DEMs offer...
ReplyDeleteVote for us and we will:
- give you additional welfare, food stamps, etc
- give you free / reduced cost healthcare.
- give you free / reduced cost higher education
- give your illegal friends / family pardons
- protect you public employees from performance accountability
- protect your right to live differently than most Americans.
- raise your minimum wage
- etc
I'll never understand folks who insist that Conservatives don't want a functional government just because they want to constrain the scope, improve the cost effectiveness and improve the quality of government.
ReplyDeleteIt is like saying that someone does not want a functional car just because they want a quality, good performing car without all the bells, whistles and expense.
Which of course is silliness... They want a great car...
Just one that is different from the folks who favors bells, whistles and high cost... You know the folks who think they can have someone else pay for those bells and whistles... :-)
I'll never understand folks who insist that Conservatives don't want a functional government just because they want to constrain the scope, improve the cost effectiveness and improve the quality of government.
ReplyDeleteThey want a functioning government. They just don't want a competent government. That's why it scares them when a government acts competently.
--Hiram
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are correct.
The DEMs are okay with settling for an expensive, bureaucratic, controlling, demoralizing and basically competent government...
Competent:
1. having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified: He is perfectly competent to manage the bank branch.
2. adequate but not exceptional.
And the GOP wants an efficient, effective, liberating and excellent government that can help the USA stay the most successful country in the world.
Thanks for pointing that out !!!