4 Completely Wrong Post-Election Things Democrats Are Fighting About

[Garrett78]

I could nitpick aspects of the following piece, but I think it makes many an excellent point: "4 Completely Wrong Post-Election Things Democrats Are Fighting About"

Additionally, Senate candidates running to Clinton’s left on economic issues did worse than she did. If more progressive economic policies were the key to electoral victory, those Senate candidates would have done better than Hillary, not worse.

When you believe strongly in something, it’s hard to accept that most of your fellow citizens do not. Especially when you surround yourself with like-minded people, and get your information from like-minded media. But the evidence that a majority of Americans are eager to pay higher taxes, and give up their employer-provided health insurance, in exchange for a European-style welfare state is nonexistent.

Besides, Hillary did talk about economic issues. A lot.

But Trump’s appeal is cultural, rather than economic. It’s a mix of anti-elitism, anti-political correctness, and white identity politics, not carefully cultivated policies.

The fact that we’re talking about the white working class, instead of just the working class, is a pretty big clue.

If they’re smart, Democrats will pour their time, money, and effort into winning state elections. That will shape policy, help the 2020 redistricting, and cultivate a deep bench for future Congressional and presidential elections.

Run someone without Hillary Clinton’s baggage and lack of charisma, or Bernie Sanders’ history and far-left policies, and you’ve got a good shot at the presidency.

But if you don’t win more state elections, you’re screwed.

That 2nd excerpt contains points I've made numerous times. If a portion of the *white* working class has much different priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, one need not think too long and hard about why that might be.

[yallerdawg]

1. This is how we fight back.

This is how we move on.

[Cha]

2. Yeah nothing says "Anti-elitsim" like this... the only thing dump is going to drain..

[Garrett78]

3. Trump does speak for/to the guy waving the Confederate Flag.

As Grossman said and as many of us have been saying, it's a cultural thing and not an economic thing.

Trump could break virtually every campaign promise he made and not experience a dent in his level of support. But imagine if he came out in favor of Black Lives Matter, a path to citizenship and LGBTQ rights. That's the one thing that would substantially erode his support. It would erode the Republican Party. Take away the bigotry, particularly racism, and the Republican Party would cease to be viable. It's the glue, the tie that binds. Would there still be trickle-down believing, privatization-supporting, jingoist Republicans? Sure, but not nearly enough to win elections.

[aikoaiko]

4. The Marcus Johnson analysis is not the solid proof so many claim.

Because it keeps getting touted as Gospel, I'll keep undermining it.

When Bernie lost the nomination and kept his promise to support HRC it left a lot of rank and file confused and a bit rudderless without a leader.

Of course a candidate can support both approaches but let's face it that HRC led with social justice and Bernie led with economic justice. Word counts? WTF? Do these people understand optics?

I agree that we need someone with the credibility that can do both - some kind of synergy between the two and present something new.

[Garrett78]

5. First of all, economic justice and social justice are heavily intertwined.

Secondly, it's not just word counts. Clinton's message was heavily focused on economic justice and the narrative to the contrary is simply false.

That some actually claim she focused too much on "transgender bathrooms" is beyond absurd. Those folks have created an alternate reality in the same way Trump supporters have. They simply weren't observing the same campaign the rest of us were.

It was cultural and not economic, as Grossman wrote. Clinton won among the working class overall. A segment of *white* working class voters, bearing in mind the white backlash that's been building for the last 8 years, has a different set of priorities. Gee, I wonder why.

The urban vs. rural divide is growing, as well.

You know who won by a wider margin than Trump? Major proponents of the TPP and opponents of Wall Street reform. The incumbent re-election rate was even higher than normal, which is saying a lot given how high it typically is.

[aikoaiko]

6. You should look back at the convention -- the time when the most people were watching.

It was heavily focused on her social justice past and future and very little on economics.

Millions of people were watching. How many people on average attended her speeches? Her rallies and gatherings were generally small.

It was a good strategy for the primary. It won and she did well in the GE. Her social justice stances were more full-throated than Obama's at times.

[Ken Burch]

7. Bernie is NOT "far-left".

"Far-left" is forced collectivization, everyone wearing Mao suits, mass executions...not single-payer and free college.

[Garrett78]

8. That would be my primary disagreement with the author, but his overall point stands.

[Amishman]

9. By American political standards what you describe as far left is off the map

Bernie is far left. But he still came pretty close to getting the nomination and polled very well nationally in general election matchups. America might not be moving left wholesale, but some elements of his far left stances are getting serious attention

[uponit7771]

10. +1, "The fact that were talking about the white working class, instead of just the working class,..

... is a pretty big clue"

[treestar]

11. Yes. We have to stop looking only at the top

The State Houses are important. Republicans did the work to get them. And of course, they cheat.