Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
gorgon wrote: While lots of forces and energy will be aligned against Trump in 2020 (if he even runs), it's important to remember the identity of the candidate always matters in an election, no matter how partisan things become. And we're talking about a Democratic party that has a long history of being fractured. If Sanders supporters continue with their "we want our candidate or we're talking our ball and going home" behavior, then the door is certainly open to Trump winning again.
IME, as long as the Democrats are perceived as the party of identity politics, and as long as the Republicans are seen as standing up for labor, the Democrats will continue to lose. The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda, and while standing up for equal rights, they need to get out of the Oppression Olympics game. White working and middle class people need help just like everyone else in the working and middle classes, and to the extent that the Democrats play into the "feth white man patriarchy narrative", they'll continue to receive strong opposition. People aren't buying into that anymore, realities on the ground have changed.
Where do you live? I suspect it is in a region that would never go blue anyway. There is a lot of diversity of thought across the country that you don't recognise. That is not how people around here, even in Reddest OC, view the Democratic or Republican parties. Frankly, anyone so poorly informed and susceptible to Breitbart-style propaganda is already a lost cause. Every post you prove exactly how necessary the 'identity politics' you decry are.
I live in West Virginia, which used to be a solid Democrat state, but flipped over to Republican wig GW Bush mostly because of economics, but also because of identity politics.
I've never even visited Breitbart news.
Since you seem to be an acolyte of identity politics, I can understand how threats against it might seem existential. Some people have fashioned huge parts of their own identity out of identity politics. If you think it's a winning strategy, go ahead and double down on it. IME, it's a losing strategy based on a flawed philosophy that one's immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, and sexual orientation, are more important than or as important as their individual character and the choices they make in life.
But what do I know. I'm also easily duped by MLK-style propaganda.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:27:27
Where do you live? I suspect it is in a region that would never go blue anyway. There is a lot of diversity of thought across the country that you don't recognise. That is not how people around here, even in Reddest OC, view the Democratic or Republican parties. Frankly, anyone so poorly informed and susceptible to Breitbart-style propaganda is already a lost cause. Every post you prove exactly how necessary the 'identity politics' you decry are.
I live in West Virginia, which used to be a solid Democrat state, but flipped over to Republican wig GW Bush mostly because of economics, but also because of identity politics.
I've never even visited Breitbart news.
Since you seem to be an acolyte of identity politics, I can understand how threats against it might seem existential. Some people have fashioned huge parts of their own identity out of identity politics. If you think it's a winning strategy, go ahead and double down on it. IME, it's a losing strategy based on a philosophy that one's immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, and sexual orientation, are more important than their individual character and the choices they make in life.
Whenever you blame identity politics, you always go after the same kinds of targets. It comes across as "When will someone finally think of the white man". Your characterization is also facile. You are making a bigger deal out of identity politics than the actual proponents, as in you doth protest too much. Besides, you left out religion and "Americanness" which both became central to the Republican party, so you obviously only care when others do it.
Around here, most people care about economic policies, but since we are in big cities and not failed small towns, many of the policies we care about, such as the social safety net, get turned into identity politics by the right. This article is by Cracked, but gives a good idea what I mean. Most of the time identity politics come into play because of the community and the wide recognition that there are different 'identities' and that we all have to live together as fairly as possible. They are not the centerpieces of the platform, but rather the subchapters that discuss how best to implement bigger picture items.
You constantly talk about people voting against identity politics, as if voting against minority interests is more important to you and yours than voting for minority interests is for the minorities.
I thought we were talking about the Democrats. I don't like judging people by their sex, race, gender, religion, nation of origin, whether it's done by Democrats or Republicans. I'd rather live in a society where people's individual character and the choices they make in life are valued more than the buckets they've been put in.
I agree with you as well that economics tend to be the most important issue people vote on. On this issue, the Democrats are on a losing foot as well IME, because they are perceived to be the party of over-regulation and globalism at the expense of American labor. The Republicans shared the last bit until Trump came along with his America First message.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:42:40
Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. "Identity politics" exists as a reaction to the fact that people are treated badly based on sex/race/religion/etc. When you say "get rid of identity politics" what you're actually saying is "pretend that these issues don't exist because white men find it uncomfortable". Maybe this is a successful strategy for winning elections in a nation full of deplorables, but it's hardly something I'd be proud to advocate.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Alternatively, the Balkans and the Tutsi / Hutu conflict are the ultimate expressions of identity politics.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Voters really need to start accepting their part in the crapshow we have. The body of evidence available overwhelmingly told us that Trump would act exactly as he as when elected, yet people lined up to vote for him. Meanwhile the majority of people just stayed home because the election just wasn't important enough for them to participate in. And that's the tip of the iceberg. I'm not saying the politicians and media are blameless (quite the oppose, they are the ones actually pulling this crap after all) but there is a decent share of blame to go to voters who either do not make even the slightest bit of effort to become informed, and/or make entirely too much effort to remain ignorant (see: Whembly).
Not me. I voted for the dopehead. Blame your selves.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Voters really need to start accepting their part in the crapshow we have. The body of evidence available overwhelmingly told us that Trump would act exactly as he as when elected, yet people lined up to vote for him.
I'd think it would be a safe bet to assert that the majority of people who voted for Trump are actually happy that he's doing the things he said he'd do. For Trump voters who aren't, yeah, they need to think before they vote. For those who didn't vote, I've got little to say except you had your chance, and you blew it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:58:48
NinthMusketeer wrote: Voters really need to start accepting their part in the crapshow we have. The body of evidence available overwhelmingly told us that Trump would act exactly as he as when elected, yet people lined up to vote for him. Meanwhile the majority of people just stayed home because the election just wasn't important enough for them to participate in. And that's the tip of the iceberg. I'm not saying the politicians and media are blameless (quite the oppose, they are the ones actually pulling this crap after all) but there is a decent share of blame to go to voters who either do not make even the slightest bit of effort to become informed, and/or make entirely too much effort to remain ignorant (see: Whembly).
Trump does not have overwhelming support and a good portion of those who did vote for him did so because they've always voted R or couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. The people who stayed home did so either because the system is designed to make them irrelevant, because they hadn't been energised or because there wasn't anything that represented them. Blaming the least powerful group involved in this nonsense isn't very productive.
jasper76 wrote: I thought we were talking about the Democrats. I don't like judging people by their sex, race, gender, religion, nation of origin, whether it's done by Democrats or Republicans. I'd rather live in a society where people's individual character and the choices they make in life are valued more than the buckets they've been put in.
That is a false binary. First of all, we are not talking about 'judging' people. Stop viewing everything through a lens of moral judgement and listen to what is being said and your feelings might feel less hurt over it. Most identity politics have to do with bridging a gap of opportunity or closing a gap of protection under the law. It's not about raising one group above others or condemning another group, but recognizing who might be at an institutional disadvantage or who is more vulnerable in society and helping to level the field for them. Perhaps you could point to some specific example where you feel identity politics has harmed you or your countrymen and we can discuss the specifics.
The idea that individual character means everything is also quite a pipedream. For anyone who was born with different means or part of an unpopular minority, what you're saying is a joke. Yes, character is important. Yes, it can make you successful despite hardship, but it's not all powerful. All the strength of character in the world won't get you pulled over less often for driving through the wrong neighborhood or make other Americans hate and fear you for not believing in God. Those other Americans won't even bother getting to know your character. There is a large difference in the opportunities provided to people based on all kinds of factors, from location to age to gender to color to sexual orientation, and it isn't their fault for lacking character. You want to pretend the country is something it isn't, and when people try to make the country as it is a little more fair for the unlucky, you suddenly have a big problem with those people rather than the country not living up to your ideal.
I agree with you as well that economics tend to be the most important issue people vote on. On this issue, the Democrats are on a losing foot as well IME, because they are perceived to be the party of over-regulation and globalism at the expense of American labor. The Republicans shared the last bit until Trump came along with his America First message.
Maybe where you live. Here, they are known to be more supportive of (really less hostile to) labor, actually want a social safety net (hugely important to most people I know), and have actual ideas about how to move society into the new economy instead of telling fairy tales. The idea that regulations are always bad is just mind-blowingly weird. Do you not drink water or buy food over there?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 20:06:57
I agree with you as well that economics tend to be the most important issue people vote on. On this issue, the Democrats are on a losing foot as well IME, because they are perceived to be the party of over-regulation and globalism at the expense of American labor. The Republicans shared the last bit until Trump came along with his America First message.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Maybe where you live. Here, they are known to be more supportive of (really less hostile to) labor, actually want a social safety net (hugely important to most people I know), and have actual ideas about how to move society into the new economy instead of telling fairy tales. The idea that regulations are always bad is just mind-blowingly weird. Do you not drink water or buy food over there?
I was more talking about the perceptions of people around me than my own views. Regulation of the coal industry in particular is mightily unpopular in these parts, because people have lost jobs because of it. There's been staggering job loss, which has led to all sorts of problems that come along with it, and that's going to have a big impact on how people vote. They need someone to blame, and they've found it in the Democrats, for better or worse.
Insofar as I can tell, safety net programs are still popular here, largely because people have come to rely on them with the decline of the coal industry.
I think support for social programs along with taking climate science seriously are two of the Democrats biggest strengths. But there's a big conflict here between climate science and the coal jobs, obviously.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 20:13:01
Nunes here said that he had seen no evidence of any contacts between the Trump administration and Russia. He also said he’d been told by people inside the intelligence community “there’s nothing there.”
This ordeal should've been handled by a Special Prosecutor.
Just Tony wrote: My son's congenital heart diseas was diagnosed in the first MONTH of his gestation. Do you know why? Because his heart was beating at 18 days. I'm well aware that if born at 18 days, he would not have survived, but to classify that as unviable tissue and not a life is being purposefully disingenuous soleley to remove one's correlation between abortion and euthanization. Mentioning the 2 year old was taking the thought of abortion as a matter of convenience and extrapolating it out to the point of ridiculousness. But it did showcase the problem. deciding when someone accepts something as life. Now here's a thought, how far in the womb does a baby have to be to be considered developed? 2 trimester births have a survival rating from 0-70%, depending on the week of birth. Week 24 gives a 40-70% rating according to The March of Dimes. That seems more than developed enough to be considered life, but 2nd trimester abortions are already gaining support with the left at an alarming rate. And to be honest, I don't feel that life should be given a percentage rate.
Heartbeat is a poor indicator of "life". A brain-dead person with a beating heart is still considered "dead", and it's permissible to disconnect life support at that point. A much better standard is brain development. You know, the thing that defines us as a person, and without which we are nothing but an empty shell. And virtually all voluntary abortions happen before meaningful brain development/consciousness/ability to feel and understand pain/etc have occurred. The late-term abortions that would involve any difficult moral questions over this are almost entirely because something has gone badly wrong and the child is doomed no matter what happens. The choice at that point is between a merciful end to the suffering via abortion, or forcing the mother to carry a dying child (which they almost certainly wanted), knowing the whole time that the best they can hope for is to watch that child die screaming in pain within a few minutes of being born.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Just Tony wrote: My son's congenital heart diseas was diagnosed in the first MONTH of his gestation. Do you know why? Because his heart was beating at 18 days. I'm well aware that if born at 18 days, he would not have survived, but to classify that as unviable tissue and not a life is being purposefully disingenuous soleley to remove one's correlation between abortion and euthanization. Mentioning the 2 year old was taking the thought of abortion as a matter of convenience and extrapolating it out to the point of ridiculousness. But it did showcase the problem. deciding when someone accepts something as life. Now here's a thought, how far in the womb does a baby have to be to be considered developed? 2 trimester births have a survival rating from 0-70%, depending on the week of birth. Week 24 gives a 40-70% rating according to The March of Dimes. That seems more than developed enough to be considered life, but 2nd trimester abortions are already gaining support with the left at an alarming rate. And to be honest, I don't feel that life should be given a percentage rate.
Heartbeat is a poor indicator of "life". A brain-dead person with a beating heart is still considered "dead", and it's permissible to disconnect life support at that point. A much better standard is brain development. You know, the thing that defines us as a person, and without which we are nothing but an empty shell. And virtually all voluntary abortions happen before meaningful brain development/consciousness/ability to feel and understand pain/etc have occurred. The late-term abortions that would involve any difficult moral questions over this are almost entirely because something has gone badly wrong and the child is doomed no matter what happens. The choice at that point is between a merciful end to the suffering via abortion, or forcing the mother to carry a dying child (which they almost certainly wanted), knowing the whole time that the best they can hope for is to watch that child die screaming in pain within a few minutes of being born.
And if you've ever paid attention to my views posted on abortion I have never suggested that NO abortion is valid, and a life saving proceedure, or a proceedure because the child is already in essence dead is completely fine. What I have an issue with is the "inconvenience" abortions, the flippant treatment of a fetus as unviable tissue if it absolves one of guilt, and the preemptive measures not being taken that would avoid the issue altogether. I personally think elective abortions should be illegal, and that a physician has to sign off on the proceedure. I realize this is a speed bump, as all a woman would have to do is shop around for a "choice friendly" doctor to get that signed off, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Just Tony wrote: What I have an issue with is the "inconvenience" abortions, the flippant treatment of a fetus as unviable tissue if it absolves one of guilt, and the preemptive measures not being taken that would avoid the issue altogether.
Virtually all "inconvenience" abortions happen well before the point at which any meaningful brain development has occurred, so yes, it is just mindless tissue. And the idea that people aren't taking preemptive measures to avoid having an abortion is just laughably wrong. Abortion is much less convenient than other forms of birth control, the idea that people are deliberately ignoring the alternatives and planning to get abortions as their first option is nothing more than a right-wing myth.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Heartbeat is a poor indicator of "life". A brain-dead person with a beating heart is still considered "dead",
Actually your example is the opposite of what you intend. aThough that person is "dead" they are not and still retain protective rights. You can't just shut them off.
and it's permissible to disconnect life support at that point.
Try it without a written consent or other color of law.
In the US the real trick to viability is can it exist outside the mother? In 20 years it can. Then we get to the crux of the issue.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I should have posted this a while back, but pre-November, I watched a lot of debates and read a lot about Trump.
Two key, and IMO, very insightful points cropped up time and time again:
1. Donald Trump is not the problem. The problem will be the reaction of Trump's supporters when they discover that he can't do everything he promised.
We in the Western world have made gods of politicians - we expect them to solve every problem, and when they can't we dismiss them as failures.
Our expectations of our leaders are too high and Trump's supporters will lash out when they discover this truth.
2. Trump might actually resign, not because of scandal or criminal activity, which is a possibility, but because he becomes bored and frustrated at the limitations of POTUS.
Trump is a man used to getting his own way. Months of banging his head against the brick walls of the media, congress, courts etc etc
may prompt him to say feth this and walk away.
Trump could be the first POTUS to voluntary walk away from 1600...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2. Trump might actually resign, not because of scandal or criminal activity, which is a possibility, but because he becomes bored and frustrated at the limitations of POTUS.
Trump is a man used to getting his own way. Months of banging his head against the brick walls of the media, congress, courts etc etc
may prompt him to say feth this and walk away.
Trump could be the first POTUS to voluntary walk away from 1600...
I think that's wishful thinking. Trump's already filed for reelection in 2020. I think if anything causes him to resign or choose not to run in 2020, it will be his health...he's no spring chicken and it's obvious he doesn't eat well.
jasper76 wrote:On this issue, the Democrats are on a losing foot as well IME, because they are perceived to be the party of over-regulation and globalism at the expense of American labor.
In actual policy, the Republicans are on the losing side. Supply side, trickle-down, horse and sparrow, whatever name you want to apply to their policy, it's all the same, and it works just as well as it always has. Which is to say, it doesn't work, and has been proven false every single time.
In campaign speaking, I agree with you. But that's because the average voter isn't all that bright, so when a democratic candidate is talking tax changes, he/she thinks that automatically means that he/she is gonna be paying everything they make in taxes. On the flip side, when a Republican candidate is talking tax cuts, average Joe/Jane thinks that's gonna help him, but in reality, most of those cuts are going to Henry McBillionaire AND average Joe/Jane is going to be footing even more of the tax burden than they were previously. But hey, tax cuts sound nice, so let's vote for the guy who's gonna feth us, right?
jasper76 wrote:he's no spring chicken and it's obvious he doesn't eat well.
Lol, just because he orders a steak well done doesn't mean that he doesn't eat well
Just Tony wrote: What I have an issue with is the "inconvenience" abortions, the flippant treatment of a fetus as unviable tissue if it absolves one of guilt, and the preemptive measures not being taken that would avoid the issue altogether.
Virtually all "inconvenience" abortions happen well before the point at which any meaningful brain development has occurred, so yes, it is just mindless tissue. And the idea that people aren't taking preemptive measures to avoid having an abortion is just laughably wrong. Abortion is much less convenient than other forms of birth control, the idea that people are deliberately ignoring the alternatives and planning to get abortions as their first option is nothing more than a right-wing myth.
I didn't say mindless, I said unviable. I'm continuing from someone else's terms, up to and including "inconvenient". Do I think people are purposefully ditching birth control? Nope. Do I think that a lot of intercourse happens where the heat of the moment doesn't break so someone could find some? Yep. If a woman is well aware she doesn't want to have kids, then why not an IUD/Depo prevara/Birth Control Pills/Spermicide or a combination of these? Hell, my wife and I are proof that you can have a tubal ligation reversal and have kids. Why not have tax payer funded tubal ligations? I think it'd be a more long term solution and be less controversial.
And for the record, even though anecdotal evidence is useless, I've interacted with more "inconvenience" abortion recipients than I ever have with medical emergency recipients, which is zero at current count. The others are well into double digits. I've also not seen any data to dissuade me from believing that it is the norm.
Just Tony wrote: Why not have tax payer funded tubal ligations? I think it'd be a more long term solution and be less controversial.
I think you cannot have this, simply because even with the best drafted bill for it, this will ALWAYS veer into, or be used for eugenics purposes. Now, that's not to say there's something inherently wrong with eugenics, but when a government is involved, I think it's safe to say it's used in very negative ways.
Just Tony wrote: Why not have tax payer funded tubal ligations? I think it'd be a more long term solution and be less controversial.
I think you cannot have this, simply because even with the best drafted bill for it, this will ALWAYS veer into, or be used for eugenics purposes. Now, that's not to say there's something inherently wrong with eugenics, but when a government is involved, I think it's safe to say it's used in very negative ways.
Well all of the problems with Democracy are caused by humans, so if we could use eugenics to eliminate those people from the equation things would be a lot better!
President Trump orders his steak well done with ketchup
What donkey-cave goes out to dinner at one of the nation capital’s most-acclaimed steakhouses, orders a 30-day dry aged New York strip, then asks the chef to cook it well done? And if that’s not enough, eats it with ketchup like a 5-year-old?
We’ll give you one guess.
I actually didn't think I could find more disdain for this individual than I already have...I was wrong. Eats like a 5-year old, talks like a 5-year old...it fits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/28 00:00:09
Mario wrote: Yup, the people in power (in the Democratic party) would rather stay in power inside the party (and have a harder time getting into governmental power) than try to revitalise the party by addressing the poor and working class better or even acknowledge that arguments from further left could be sensible.
What the actual feth? The final two candidates were from the left wing of the Democrats and the far left wing of the Democrats. Both ran on platforms that explicitly called for more economic populism, directly appealing to the poor and working class by promising them more stuff.
This wasn't a battle between the left of the party vs right, or even left vs the centre, the left had already won when these two were the final candidates. The only question remaining was how far left they would go.
From where I'm sitting (Germany) Clinton is more of a centre right candidate when it comes to policies and ideas and Sanders is centre or centre-left (depending on policies) and if I remember correctly Clinton only adopted the minimum wage increase idea once Sander supported her. I don't know how many of the more left leaning ideas would have appeared in her portfolio without him. Overall it wasn't really much economic left wing populism but just little bits that were acceptable for the Democrats' platform. The "hope and change" crowd that helped Obama wasn't that enthusiastic about her platform in a few decisive states because this time around they felt "hope and change" was more rhetoric than actual policy (and then there was gerrymandering and voter ID laws to make it even harder).
My point is that the Democratic party is okay with being in this centre (that is the US left) and is not willing to actually go with some really left ideas (while the Republicans dropped off the right wing cliff some years ago). In the US a single payer healthcare system is seen by certain people as some sort of ridiculous idea, despite it working in more or less any other developed country while also costing less. The Democrats managed to push through the ACA and while the Republicans are fighting against it the Democrats are barely trying to pull it further into the direction of a single payer system. That just one issue but it's similar when it comes to other things. The Republicans pull further to the right while the Democrats often move slowly after them to keep the "discussion" going and engage with them while ignoring voters to the left of them who in turn for the most part grudgingly vote Democrats because there's no real option for them. And at some point they don't vote anymore because for them the difference between Republican and Democrats policies isn't big enough and neither party has policies that they think could change things for the better.
But this fact might say it better than any: In the 2016 campaign, Sanders won more votes among those under age 30 than the two presumptive major-party presidential nominees combined. And it wasn't close.
That's something they could embrace for the future and try to work with.
Trump got a populist right wing movement working that supported him and it was enough to get him into the White House. Even if Sanders wasn't their candidate the Democrats could have tried to refresh the party and go further left with a more populist left wing approach but they are too afraid to look too socialist (and not capitalist/American enough or something) and are okay with the status quo because it keeps the Democrat's machine running even if they lose elections all over the place. They are staying where they are right now (which lost them election all over the place, including the "big one"). Instead of actually trying some more left leaning ideas to get to undecided voters and trying to get a populist left going they seem to be hoping for a better result due to some Trump collapse once people see that his ideas aren't working for them. To them the only possibility space for solutions exists in this spectrum between them and the Republicans, as if ideas further to the left can't possibly work.
The losses in November are part of a sharp and unprecedented decline for the party at the state level. Since Obama took office eight years ago, Democrats have lost over 800 seats in state legislatures. For the first time in history, they do not control a single legislative chamber in the South. Overall, the party is now at its weakest point at the state level since 1920.
“I don’t know how it gets any worse for the Democrats,” says Lucy Flores, a party activist who was one of the first Hispanic women elected to the Nevada state legislature. “There is no national strategy—we don’t invest in sustained engagement with voters outside of the presidential election. I don’t have a lot of faith in the current leadership.”
…
“Reaching millennials and Hispanics requires a completely different way of running a campaign than reaching old, white people who still watch the local news at night. We’ve been very fast to innovate at the top of the ticket, but not to adjust to these changes underneath. There are parts of the party that have been slow to catch on.”
