DNC Restructuring

[Fiye]

But then you elect dems and then shit like this happens.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/...lature-energy/

then this happened.

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/13/...n-energy-bill/

Like its hard not to be mad at the current round of dem leadership when Rubio just had a disastrous town hall and you remember 'Oh yeah just got elected because we pulled funding out of his race at the last month'

[Marootsoobutsu]

I think trying to take any lesson away from Jones' victory other than "dig very hard into Republican backgrounds" is pretty ridiculous. Jones won because his opponent was a literal child molester, and there's little reason to think he'll maintain his seat once the GOP find a regular candidate to run against him.

Likewise, 2016 was too full of unique factors to really be instructive for this year's mid-terms. Continuing to debate the serves no purpose. Honestly, at this point, what more is there to say?

You're almost right. Jones won because his opponent was a literal child molester *AND* because it was the only race in the country, so you had enormous national attention and money flooding into the state to point that out. If it were a general election, it likely doesn't receive the same attention, and he doesn't win.

[Deftscythe]

Even if the comparison of Obama to Trump wasn't proof enough that establishment Democrats are better than letting the Rs walk over us, he clings to the narrative that veering left would be all we need to win despite all the evidence to the contrary.

1. Didn't get Bernie the nomination
2. Didn't get Gephardt the win in the national race
3. Didn't get the special election candidates a win (or even a loss with a closer margin)



I think had Jones been more conservative it would have been an easier grab, though I doubt it matters to holding the seat. Had he been more liberal he might have lost.

My point was and continues to be that there is little value in overly examining races that were clearly determined by unique factors if the point is to return the Democratic party to power. If there are lessons to be learned, they're in other, more standard(in so much as special off-year elections can be standard) races. Why did Gianforte win after physically assaulting a reporter? Why did left(and I am including center-left here) candidates win so sweepingly in Virginia? Why did the money poured into Ossof's race not secure him victory?

These questions are far more useful this year than any we could ask about 2016.

[Deftscythe]

You're almost right. Jones won because his opponent was a literal child molester *AND* because it was the only race in the country, so you had enormous national attention and money flooding into the state to point that out. If it were a general election, it likely doesn't receive the same attention, and he doesn't win.

I really don't see the GOP refusing to flatly denounce someone who preys upon underage girls ever not making national headlines.

[archibaldcrane]

This is a depressing article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-up-this-year/

About states that could possibly flip their governors offices from Republican to Democrat. Even though there are a whopping 18 states listed, very few of them look like likely to do so. How the fuck are blue states like Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland so content re-electing Republican governors? How does Rauner have a decent shot at holding on in Illinois?

[Zealot]

MD's governor is deeply entrenched in our political system. He made appointments for a previous administration so like 1000 public servants statewide owe him their jobs. He's also a millionaire with a business in the state and takes easy shots at Congress and the President to endear himself to Democrats. Hogan's no fool. He got elected due to dumb luck but he knows how to stay where he is.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

But I mean

https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/sta...64221886337025

[Headspace]

But I mean

https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/sta...64221886337025

Because Illinois Dems are disciples of Rahm and who likes Rahm

[Fiye]

DCCC is attacking a democratic candidate.

https://dccc.org/races/laura-moser/

[Moridam]

no surprises there, gatekeeping is one of the main functions of the DCCC. i am going to throw out a wild guess and assume this is the guy they're backing based on the fundraising totals and healthcare position http://www.alextfortexas.com/issues/healthcare

[archibaldcrane]

It's a toss-up to lean-Republican seat, 7 Democrats running in the primary. Moser is 3rd in fundraising and secured the Our Revolution's Texas chapter endorsement, although I imagine her saying she'd rather have teeth pulled than to live in Texas wouldn't help her too much in the general.

[Deftscythe]

no surprises there, gatekeeping is one of the main functions of the DCCC. i am going to throw out a wild guess and assume this is the guy they're backing based on the fundraising totals and healthcare position http://www.alextfortexas.com/issues/healthcare

According to a piece in The Intercept, they haven't officially endorsed anyone but Alex Tlongname has been telling people he has their support.

It's a toss-up to lean-Republican seat, 7 Democrats running in the primary. Moser is 3rd in fundraising and secured the Our Revolution's Texas chapter endorsement, although I imagine her saying she'd rather have teeth pulled than to live in Texas wouldn't help her too much in the general.

Still, wouldn't the more typical move be to just endorse and fund their preferred candidate rather than smearing a potential candidate before they've even made an endorsement?

[Zealot]

No because then the person they want might lose.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

Still, wouldn't the more typical move be to just endorse and fund their preferred candidate

Isn't this exactly what people were bitching about the last time the DCCC was brought up?

[Deftscythe]

Isn't this exactly what people were bitching about the last time the DCCC was brought up?

I really don't recall. I don't normally follow congressional/local races at the primary stage. Literally all I was doing was observing that this feels like an atypical move.

Edit: Based on some of the reactions I'm seeing on twitter from people who care about "norms," this is definitely not a normal thing for the DCCC to do.

[archibaldcrane]

It's definitely abnormal. And the basis for which the complaint is filed - that she would never want to move to a tiny town in Texas despite the low cost of living - is pretty weak tea.

Decent article about it here, complete with the article she wrote that they are citing as proving her "unfitness".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...pposition-memo

[Talint]

Hello.

I don't normally shitpost like this since this forum is too fast, but here we go.

We don't need 2016 to identify the failure of the Democratic party. They've lost over 1000 seats since 2008.

2016 is, arguably, the biggest failure to date considering the electoral advantages that the democrats enjoyed (blue wall). Democrats getting wiped out since 2008 is related. Identifying causes should be necessary, albeit will be dismissed by the establishment anyway.

Here's the full exchange

----

M: Let's take support out of it, because support is a charged word. If you and your campaign knew that there was Russian meddling, and that it was trying to sow divisions, why not take this to your supporters? Many of whom really hung on your very word as you know?

BS: I would say the real question to be asked is what was the Clinton campaign (doing). They had more information than we did and at this point we were working with them.

M: Did the Clinton campaign say don't talk about it?

BS: No, of course not. I mean, you know. But who do you think should be raising that issue?"

----

So he was asked directly and point blank why HE didn't take it to the idiots supporting him because they would only believe things out of his own mouth (because of the way he had campaigned)... then he redirects and asks what the Clinton campaign was doing.

Bernie warns supporters about Russian facebook interference (if that's even a real fucking thing), gets hit with "thinks woman can't run her own campaign, typical Berniebro" or "Sanders still running his own campaign to undermine Clinton". He can't even say those things because you establishment types have turned him into such a fucking lightning rod for everything it's insane.

Or what if he does say it? "Yes, my campaign should have done more about Russian facebook troll posts". Then he gets hit with that instead. All you people want is to continue clubbing Bernie because he dared to question Mother.

It is inexplicable how much everyone hates the man.

And it's not just about 2016, it's about identifying what went wrong in order to identify the best path forward. Placing everything at the feet of Hillary is a leftist tactic to ignore any and all pitfalls of a hard left strategy. Placing blame at the feet of Bernie can be, depending on the person doing it, a) a similar a tactic to ignore the mistakes of Hillary in her own defeat and/or b) identifying aforementioned pitfalls of a hard left strategy.

This is an actual important debate proven by the fact we still have to have it because you have people like Talint that will attribute only blame (Ossoff) but no credit (Doug Jones) whenever the establishment does something but hold the left blameless (the leftists being beaten in their special elections by wider margins than Ossoff) and give them all the credit to leftism rather than anti-Trumpism (VA races)

Comparatively no one that supported Hillary here has claimed she is blameless, merely that the priority should be the total amount of seats, not the hue of blue, and that there ARE in fact seats that are winnable the more purple the candidate.

You want the establishment to get credit for winning the easily winnable (VA races). And then you want credit for winning races where it's versus a literal child molester and the establishment ran a remarkably republican candidate anyway. Nuts to both of those.

Also, it's funny how you say it's a leftist-attributing-blame thing, when I've shared a few articles now of simple grassroots activists/energized movements getting absolutely snuffed out in favor of highly establishment candidates. The establishment will get credit when it takes the hard path.

Bernie was/is the closest the left has gotten to a Trump-esque all flash and no substance candidate running on "get off my lawn" grumpy old man personality.

He was and is trash.

You know everyone is now talking about getting Trump funds for his damn fucking wall, right. You know, that massive lolfest at how dumb and ridiculous idea it is, how it doesn't actually accomplish anything, and is nothing but burns a massive hole in the budget.

The whole point of political power is to fucking wield it. That's why the republicans are robbing everyone blind and stacking the courts; because they're in power and they can get away with it. Who's going to stop them?

Bernie may be, as you put it "all flash and no substance", but that's how modern elections are won. You want to talk about all flash and no substance, how about those 1,000 lost seats over the course of eight years? How much power and faith we the people gave the democrats and how much they fucking pissed it all away. With both bad candidates and the repeated failure to recognize just how authoritarian the republican party has become.

Fiye points out that the strategy was to chase republican votes at the sacrifice of democratic ones. Bernie chased democratic ones, and it continues to be inexplicable how much democrats hated that idea.

[archibaldcrane]

2016 is, arguably, the biggest failure to date considering the electoral advantages that the democrats enjoyed (blue wall)

If you don't enjoy an advantage in a given year (the electoral college vs. popular vote being a random walk, not consistently one direction) is that a failure?

I mean, literally any other of the past 60 years her margin of victory in the PV would've been sufficient - but she was the most disadvantaged candidate in that time period by a considerable amount.

Spoiler: show

the blue wall was always a myth

Spoiler: show

This graphic is actually a little incorrect because it was before the certified vote totals - she won by 2.1 in the PV, but lost WI (the actual tipping point state) by 0.8% - so the EV edge for Republicans was the same at R+2.9

[Fiye]

Yeah democrats generally don't enjoy an electoral advantage on the basis that its tilted towards representing the rural states more heavily which conveniently enough R's dominate.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah democrats generally don't enjoy an electoral advantage on the basis that its tilted towards representing the rural states more heavily which conveniently enough R's dominate.

Dems and Republicans actually pretty evenly split the small states - and when you look at the chart you'll see that neither party enjoys a consistent advantage.

RI, NH, VT, DC, DE, ME, HI are all 3 or 4 EVs won by Hillary
ND, SD, MT, AK, WV, ID, WY are too, won by Trump. Evenly split.