This latest Time magazine cover pretty much summarizes the state of the Democratic party

[Anonymous]

Yes, we can march and send letters to members of Congress and oppose Trump's nominees but the Democratic party today is flailing, leaderless, demoralized and impotent.

We are led in the House by several septuagenarians who have presided over the decline of the party to its current state. And with at least ten Democratic senators who are up for reelection in 2018 from states that Trump won we may not have hit bottom.

[Anonymous]

The party matters. The leaders don't.

[Anonymous]

Did you actually read the article? I'm guessing not, because despite the clickbait cover, it's really just a sympathetic profile of Chuck Schumer. Yes, Democrats have some challenges. Are they going to be lost in the wilderness forever? Of course not.

And I didn't know that Trump was a Schumer donor!
Despite their spats, Trump was a regular donor--he saw it as the cost of doing business in Manhattan. In total, the Trump family has given more than $80,000 to Schumer's electoral efforts over the years, according to federal records, which is not a huge amount by political standards, but not token either.

http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/?xid=homepage&pcd=hp-magmod

[Anonymous]

The March 2016 Time Magazine cover was this:



The feature story was titled "WHO REALLY DESTROYED THE PARTY OF REAGAN?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The March 2016 Time Magazine cover was this:



The feature story was titled "WHO REALLY DESTROYED THE PARTY OF REAGAN?"

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you actually read the article? I'm guessing not, because despite the clickbait cover, it's really just a sympathetic profile of Chuck Schumer. Yes, Democrats have some challenges. Are they going to be lost in the wilderness forever? Of course not.

And I didn't know that Trump was a Schumer donor!
Despite their spats, Trump was a regular donor--he saw it as the cost of doing business in Manhattan. In total, the Trump family has given more than $80,000 to Schumer's electoral efforts over the years, according to federal records, which is not a huge amount by political standards, but not token either.

http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/?xid=homepage&pcd=hp-magmod

Trump also gave to Hillary. His history of political contributions is pretty interesting if you haven't seen it.
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_Donald_Trump%27s_political_donations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you actually read the article? I'm guessing not, because despite the clickbait cover, it's really just a sympathetic profile of Chuck Schumer. Yes, Democrats have some challenges. Are they going to be lost in the wilderness forever? Of course not.

And I didn't know that Trump was a Schumer donor!
Despite their spats, Trump was a regular donor--he saw it as the cost of doing business in Manhattan. In total, the Trump family has given more than $80,000 to Schumer's electoral efforts over the years, according to federal records, which is not a huge amount by political standards, but not token either.

http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/?xid=homepage&pcd=hp-magmod

Yes, I did read the article and the relationship between Trump and Schumer is not a revelation. As Trump said repeatedly during the campaign, he used to contribute to both parties.

The cover personifies the current state of the Democratic party. Will it change down the line? I am sure it will though I doubt if we have hit bottom because there is remarkably little introspection within the party as to what happened over the past eight years for us to have been literally decimated in individual states. We just rely on convenient explanations of gerrymandering, racism, uneducated voters, Putin, Comey and so on. Not a prescription for a turnaround, IMO.

[Anonymous]

The democratic clown-car hear driven over a cliff; where it lands is anyone's guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The March 2016 Time Magazine cover was this:



The feature story was titled "WHO REALLY DESTROYED THE PARTY OF REAGAN?"

If your point is that today's Republican party is not the party of Reagan, you will get no argument from me. But in March 2016, the decline of the Democratic party at state level was no secret. We have been headed down since 2008.

[Anonymous]

There is no decline. This is all just a neo-con diversion.

It's fake news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you actually read the article? I'm guessing not, because despite the clickbait cover, it's really just a sympathetic profile of Chuck Schumer. Yes, Democrats have some challenges. Are they going to be lost in the wilderness forever? Of course not.

And I didn't know that Trump was a Schumer donor!
Despite their spats, Trump was a regular donor--he saw it as the cost of doing business in Manhattan. In total, the Trump family has given more than $80,000 to Schumer's electoral efforts over the years, according to federal records, which is not a huge amount by political standards, but not token either.

http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/?xid=homepage&pcd=hp-magmod

Yes, I did read the article and the relationship between Trump and Schumer is not a revelation. As Trump said repeatedly during the campaign, he used to contribute to both parties.

The cover personifies the current state of the Democratic party. Will it change down the line? I am sure it will though I doubt if we have hit bottom because there is remarkably little introspection within the party as to what happened over the past eight years for us to have been literally decimated in individual states. We just rely on convenient explanations of gerrymandering, racism, uneducated voters, Putin, Comey and so on. Not a prescription for a turnaround, IMO.

What is your evidence that there is no introspection? Serious question. The fact that you are conflating the Presidential election (Putin, Comey) and the state-level dynamics makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about. The Presidential election was actually a very near miss for the Democrats despite the crowing on DCUM. 80,000 votes in a handful of counties is not very many, as you know. Especially as these seem to be economy/jobs/healthcare voters who are not likely to find solace during this interval of Republican domination.

[Anonymous]

How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:

[Anonymous]

Time is trying to sell magazines by pretending that it's relevant. It's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you actually read the article? I'm guessing not, because despite the clickbait cover, it's really just a sympathetic profile of Chuck Schumer. Yes, Democrats have some challenges. Are they going to be lost in the wilderness forever? Of course not.

And I didn't know that Trump was a Schumer donor!
Despite their spats, Trump was a regular donor--he saw it as the cost of doing business in Manhattan. In total, the Trump family has given more than $80,000 to Schumer's electoral efforts over the years, according to federal records, which is not a huge amount by political standards, but not token either.

http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/?xid=homepage&pcd=hp-magmod

Yes, I did read the article and the relationship between Trump and Schumer is not a revelation. As Trump said repeatedly during the campaign, he used to contribute to both parties.

The cover personifies the current state of the Democratic party. Will it change down the line? I am sure it will though I doubt if we have hit bottom because there is remarkably little introspection within the party as to what happened over the past eight years for us to have been literally decimated in individual states. We just rely on convenient explanations of gerrymandering, racism, uneducated voters, Putin, Comey and so on. Not a prescription for a turnaround, IMO.

What is your evidence that there is no introspection? Serious question. The fact that you are conflating the Presidential election (Putin, Comey) and the state-level dynamics makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about. The Presidential election was actually a very near miss for the Democrats despite the crowing on DCUM. 80,000 votes in a handful of counties is not very many, as you know. Especially as these seem to be economy/jobs/healthcare voters who are not likely to find solace during this interval of Republican domination.

First, with regard to "conflation", my point is that Democrats have generally been inclined to blame the factors that I mentioned for the loss at presidential, federal and state levels.

With regard to the lack of introspection can you point me to any reasoned analysis by Democrats in a leadership role or who are significant players within the party that attempts to explain our decline from the dominant position we held as of 2008 to where we are today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about this graphic from the Daily Kos showing the decline of the Democratic party? Not a pretty sight:

There's really not much you can do about that since the state houses are largely based on counties. Young people and democrats don't live in counties. As cities continue to fill up with democrats there's really nothing you can do.