Democrats prepare for top-down review after 2014 election losses

[Grummgug]

http://news.yahoo.com/big-review-set...-election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are planning an extensive review of what went wrong in the 2014 and 2010 elections, hoping to find ways to translate success in presidential campaigns into future midterm contests.

A party committee will conduct a "top-to-bottom assessment" of the Democrats' performance in recent midterm elections and try to determine why they have struggled to turn out its core voters in nonpresidential elections.

"It's apparent that there are increasingly two separate electorates: a midterm electorate and a presidential electorate. We win one and we don't seem to be able to win the other," said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who leads the Democratic National Committee, in an interview Saturday. "That is a fundamental dynamic that we have to change."

I read that and....the premise is wrong.

The democrats won the white house in 2008 and 2012. Winning two elections doesn't mean what they infer --- that they always win the White House. The republicans have won the House 8 of the last 10 elections. THAT is impressive and one might infer the GOP pretty much has that on lockdown. But even 2012 was not that impressive for democrats. Obama won re-elction but was one of I think 2 or 3 presidents to do so without expanding the map. He actually lost a state he won in 2008.

That's the thing about the democrats. Sometimes they make these ridiculously outlandish comments and then it seems like they might actually believe them. Like after 2008, they boldly predicted the GOP would be out of power for 40 years and that Obama won - get over it. Instead, the GOP was back in power in the House just 2 years later. Now they've got the Senate as well, and their response is this Quixotic notion that they cannot lose the White House.

Yes they can.

[Wells]

The democrats underperform in mid terms. Its been that way for a long time. That's what she's talking about. She's right.

This is pretty standard for a losing party. Nothing much to see.

Anyway, couple points from your nonsense:

The republicans have won the House 8 of the last 10 elections. THAT is impressive and one might infer the GOP pretty much has that on lockdown.

Gerrymandering is a hell of a thing. They actually lost on numerical count in recently so don't hold onto that one for too long.

Obama won re-elction but was one of I think 2 or 3 presidents to do so without expanding the map.

An unpopular president handily won reelection with a mediocre economy. That's nothing to sneer at.

That's the thing about the democrats. Sometimes they make these ridiculously outlandish comments and then it seems like they might actually believe them. Like after 2008, they boldly predicted the GOP would be out of power for 40 years and that Obama won - get over it.

And the neocons thought they would have the federal government for a generation when they took office in 2000. What of it?

In otherwords, Grummgug gonna Grummgug

[OzoAndIndi]

That's ok, I'll just look to the positive. That being that Republicans are after all still just politicians, bound to screw up or fail and make people disappointed/angry and then maybe some of the most rabidly conservative of their followers, who seem to think the Republican party is Superman, can get over themselves.

(Is it bad of me to think I can't wait for all in-fighting.)

[user531345]

The democrat this election cycle sucked we need to run on being liberal like Kenneddy, LBJ, and FDR


We need to run on maintaining welfare- we need to inform voters that no one should go hungry, or homeless and that corporations who recieve subsidies and outsourcing are the real budget killers

We need to run on universal tuition, we need to inform voters that all future jobs will be high tech jobs that will be sent to nations like china, india and germany unless we have universal tuition,

We need to run on universal healthcare, we need to inform the voter that the for profit healthcare system actually does not incentivize corporations to find cures, and that nobody should die just because they are poor, whether its their fault or not, its immoral

We need to run on the disasters of reagan and bushes' wars in the middle east, we need to show the american people the results of their war, and how clinton/obama both helped the economic effects those wars had.


I think liberal ideas have the moral high ground, and i also think we have the data to back us up.


Also republicans will eventually lose the white house indefinitely, california, washington, and new york are expanding their population at a rate MUCH faster than heartland and southern states, in 2-3 cenuses they will have enough electorates to supercede all of the red states, because they are gowing so fast- and most of them will be most likely liberal voters.

- - - Updated - - -

That's ok, I'll just took to the positive. That being that Republicans are after all still just politicians, bound to screw up or fail and make people disappointed/angry and then maybe some of the most rabidly conservative of their followers, who seem to think the Republican party is Superman, can get over themselves.

There isnt much difference betweem a chuck schumer democrat, and a mitch mocconell republican, but this senate wave was a tea-party wave, which is far far right, and already the tea party has vowed to even crush mcconnells moderate bills, will be interesting to see if ted cruz forces mcconell to go further left to get more democrats to support his bills if the tea party wont settle for moderate concessions.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I'll give the newly Republican Governor of Illinois a chance but...if he wastes most of his time on ACA and not the stuff I want to pass here that technically won(Minimum wage, higher school taxes on millionares). I'll look at him fiercely.

[user531345]

I'll give the newly Republican Governor of Illinois a chance but...if he wastes most of his time on ACA and not the stuff I want to pass here that technically won(Minimum wage, higher school taxes on millionares). I'll look at him fiercely.

Is he a centrist pragmatist?? Or is he a far right conservative, in michigan our republican governor, even though he has terrible policies like tax cuts for the rich, right to work, and cutting education, he did expand medicaid, veto voting ID that his congress wanted, and gave immigrants worker visas to work in our state, he bailed out the detroit pensions which no republican wanted at all. hes a bit right wing but not crazy like scott walker or sam brownback.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Is he a centrist pragmatist?? Or is he a far right conservative, in michigan our republican governor, even though he has terrible policies like tax cuts for the rich, right to work, and cutting education, he did expand medicaid, veto voting ID that his congress wanted, and gave immigrants worker visas to work in our state, he bailed out the detroit pensions which no republican wanted at all. hes a bit right wing but not crazy like scott walker or sam brownback.

I wouldn't know. Hard to tell what he supports when the political ads hit each other so much to the point of having to ignore them.

[Elegiac]

Dude, don't point out the delusions of grandeur. Let them continue thinking that everything's gonna be great and all the Mehicans are gonna flood over the boarder and swell them to perpetual political victories. Nothing to see here, move along.

Because wanting to rescue the country from GOP incompetence is bad how?

[Independent voter]

When a party, Democrats at the moment, hold power for 8 years voter fatigue kicks in. Voters want to give the Republicans a shot. 8 years from now 2022, they'll want the Democrats back. This is what has happened historically.

The part out of power does some soul searching, their radical elements shut up and they come back for a win.

[Elegiac]

When a party, Democrats at the moment, hold power for 8 years voter fatigue kicks in. Voters want to give the Republicans a shot. 8 years from now 2022, they'll want the Democrats back. This is what has happened historically.

Yeah, no. That phenomenon only applies when a particular party has uncontested power for a long period.

- - - Updated - - -

The part out of power does some soul searching, their radical elements shut up and they come back for a win.

If that were true why haven't the GOP's radical elements shut up?

[user531345]

When a party, Democrats at the moment, hold power for 8 years voter fatigue kicks in. Voters want to give the Republicans a shot. 8 years from now 2022, they'll want the Democrats back. This is what has happened historically.

The part out of power does some soul searching, their radical elements shut up and they come back for a win.

Before 1994, we controlled the house for 40 years,
and liberals held the presidency from 1933-1969 36 years
Overwhelmingly the nation supports liberal principles, it wasnt until money flooded into our political system from corporations and billionaires that conservatives took power, along with the "southern strategy" Which demonized democrats and pandering to "lazy minorities" through the social welfare programs.

[Northy]

Liberals need to be true liberals and progressives, not Diet Conservatives.

[Elegiac]

You see, this hurts the narrative that Republicans are a dying breed and that Democrats will soon rule in hegemony. They don't take into account that whole dynamic where people grow out of their 20-30s and become disillusioned with idealistic impossibilities and become realists.

Which is a dynamic that does not actually exist. Voting habits tend to be fairly concretely established early in life, which is why electoral or general political shifts occur generationally. If your 'dynamic' were actually the case the Democrats would not have held any branch of government since the Reagan era due to the age disparity in the population.

I'm in that conversion age range, and the only loud and proud people I know that were once outspoken libs chose to make their whole identity out of it. Most people who casually observed politics swing center-right. But that's just my neck of the woods, I don't live in California.

The Republicans aren't centre-right, so I don't know what bullshit metric you're using.

- - - Updated - - -

Liberals need to be true liberals and progressives, not Diet Conservatives.

Blame Clinton and his Third Way garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

How many years did you guys hold the Grand Wizardship?

Dunno, why did you decide to pick up our racist elements when we dropped them?

[Independent voter]

Before 1994, we controlled the house for 40 years,
and liberals held the presidency from 1933-1969 36 years
Overwhelmingly the nation supports liberal principles, it wasnt until money flooded into our political system from corporations and billionaires that conservatives took power, along with the "southern strategy" Which demonized democrats and pandering to "lazy minorities" through the social welfare programs.

That was because of the Great Depression.

[Flatspriest]

The Republicans have won the House so many times due to the incompetency the Democrats show when it comes to making laws that are enforceable.

[Elegiac]

I just find it hard to take you guys seriously right now. You can't really talk your way out of what just happened . I scream ice cream, you scream gerrymanderkochvotersuppressionwebadatmidtermeverythingwillbeallrightafteramnesty! Is that how it goes?

No, put forward arguments based on political science and its analysis of both electoral structures and trends, then you start screaming 'libtards' or some other ad hominem due to lacking a point. Go figure.

What occurred on Tuesday was the result of an incredibly dysfunctional electoral system combined with long established voting trends. It's not indicative of an electoral shift in the slightest.

[user531345]

I just find it hard to take you guys seriously right now. You can't really talk your way out of what just happened . I scream ice cream, you scream gerrymanderkochvotersuppressionwebadatmidtermeverythingwillbeallrightafteramnesty! Is that how it goes?

Immigration reform isnt amnesty, it just means companies can import highly trained employees from germany, india, and china to come work in the US to do jobs for us, so that their nations taxpayers cover their tuition, so that the company wont have to pay for ours. Its kinda good..but i rather have the corporation just a pay bit more so people here can become engineers.. but your against that as well.

Also border security since 2009 has doubled, and we have record deportations.

[Elegiac]

Is this trolling? Pretty sure he was talking about the HoR, which is much more relevant to the conversation than what you thought he was saying.

(Guess who's controlled the House during the last two census periods)

[Elegiac]

Whatever you say guy. I'm actually a poly sci guy myself. But when I watch SportCenter and listen to the "experts", no matter what new excuse they make for their beloved powerhouse teams, an L is still an L at the end of the day. We can talk Hobbes, Reconstruction and whatever else titillates your intellect. Your guys best hope still rests on flooding the nation with immigrants and granting them voting rights as soon as you possibly can. Even then, you'll need us not to put in those pesky voting laws because your base can't be arsed to be grown adults for one day a year.

Based on your understanding I can assess you graduated from the University of Never Never Land.

Again, the civil service has more than enough information to confirm your identity with no user input - so either start advocating free citizen ID cards be distributed or admit you're making efforts to disenfranchise poor voters.

Unless you're hoping for the US to go far right then any electoral shift that occurs is not going to be to your tastes.

[Elegiac]

Actually, I graduated from the University where the major was founded in our fine country. I just don't find it necessary to put on airs when making a simple point. You reiterate the latest talking points from Rachel Maddow or any other hack on MSNBC and throw around Poltical Science as a subject and think you can intimidate someone from carrying on an argument with you. But that's beside the point.

I don't think I've watched MSNBC since I was actually in university, but nice try.

We could have spent an eternity flinging shit back and forth between one another in any of these threads prior to the midterms (which many people did) and your damage control headlines supplied courtesy of the Huffington Post would still be just as meaningless. I'm guessing you're used to getting confirmation from your compatriots in the echo chamber here, but you can put away the black-framed hipster glasses and admit that you lost and that you were wrong (at least for this election).

Not particularly, considering I don't read the amalgam of stolen news stories that is the Huffington Post. How about you get a new talking point rather than claim I use particular media sources?

Admit that I was wrong? Pray tell where I was predicting that the Democrats would win the midterm?

- - - Updated - - -

Further, you can admit that the way the DNC was looking at things for this election needs a serious turnaround.

I agree, they don't attack the GOP on their incompetence nearly enough.

They didn't just lose, they were demolished.

Demolished, huh?

Where's that GOP supermajority, then?