Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be 16-18 million throughout the country so long as you can get enough voters in Detroit (13K), Milwaukee (27K), Philadelphia (68K), Miami (114K), or Charlotte and Raleigh (177K) to overturn Trump's parenthetical margins of victory in those states.

You are trying to win next war based on last one's metrics.

Not the best recipe.

Why not? It sounds like you think there are no lessons learned from 2016 re: urban turnout in MI, WI, PA, FL, and NC.

+1 Democrats have learned a ton since 2016 (witness the Blue Wave in 2018 of 40+ House Members). The silver lining of having Trump as POTUS is the strengthening of the Democratic party for the next generation.

Same thing was said during the GWB administration and it didn't work. There needs to be a deeper acknowledgement of the errors of the Democratic Party for it to start being more than an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. Absent a serous postmortem of 2016 and the decades that lead to it, I'm not sure hope is justified.

We are in the middle of a realignment that Trump started but Democrats plan to finish. You've heard of Reagan Democrats. Get ready for ______ Republicans. Educated suburban Republicans will turn towards Democrats now. Assuming Democrats run a good candidate, which I think they will.

Chuck Schumer said the same. Didn't matter. You need a group with bigger #s and in more dispersed geographies. The Democrats masturbating to the idea of "educated suburban Republicans" need to realize that the Democrats already have a surfeit of votes in professional class enclaves: absent the 75 highest income counties, Trump would have won the popular vote.

Ed rendell said the Same thing about Hillary

We’ll lose votes in pennsyltucky and make it up in bucks and Montgomery county (Philly burbs).

Ed rendell is still waiting for his admin job with hrc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be 16-18 million throughout the country so long as you can get enough voters in Detroit (13K), Milwaukee (27K), Philadelphia (68K), Miami (114K), or Charlotte and Raleigh (177K) to overturn Trump's parenthetical margins of victory in those states.

You are trying to win next war based on last one's metrics.

Not the best recipe.

Why not? It sounds like you think there are no lessons learned from 2016 re: urban turnout in MI, WI, PA, FL, and NC.

+1 Democrats have learned a ton since 2016 (witness the Blue Wave in 2018 of 40+ House Members). The silver lining of having Trump as POTUS is the strengthening of the Democratic party for the next generation.

Same thing was said during the GWB administration and it didn't work. There needs to be a deeper acknowledgement of the errors of the Democratic Party for it to start being more than an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. Absent a serous postmortem of 2016 and the decades that lead to it, I'm not sure hope is justified.

We are in the middle of a realignment that Trump started but Democrats plan to finish. You've heard of Reagan Democrats. Get ready for ______ Republicans. Educated suburban Republicans will turn towards Democrats now. Assuming Democrats run a good candidate, which I think they will.

Chuck Schumer said the same. Didn't matter. You need a group with bigger #s and in more dispersed geographies. The Democrats masturbating to the idea of "educated suburban Republicans" need to realize that the Democrats already have a surfeit of votes in professional class enclaves: absent the 75 highest income counties, Trump would have won the popular vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who can the Democrats nominate that will turn out the base in large enough numbers (and, more importantly, in the swing states)? It's really that simple, except that there's no magic formula in finding the right candidate who will do so.

Base, my ass. They need a broader coalition. Less than half of eligible voters choose Trump or Clinton. There are enormous numbers of untapped folks out there.

Since nonvoters by definition don't vote, what makes you think a better candidate will get them to the polls.

Give them a real reason or three to show up, not just another indifferent narcissist from the professional class, and you'll see different results. Nonvoting is something that can change, actually fairly easily, if the right things happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be 16-18 million throughout the country so long as you can get enough voters in Detroit (13K), Milwaukee (27K), Philadelphia (68K), Miami (114K), or Charlotte and Raleigh (177K) to overturn Trump's parenthetical margins of victory in those states.

You are trying to win next war based on last one's metrics.

Not the best recipe.

Why not? It sounds like you think there are no lessons learned from 2016 re: urban turnout in MI, WI, PA, FL, and NC.

+1 Democrats have learned a ton since 2016 (witness the Blue Wave in 2018 of 40+ House Members). The silver lining of having Trump as POTUS is the strengthening of the Democratic party for the next generation.

Same thing was said during the GWB administration and it didn't work. There needs to be a deeper acknowledgement of the errors of the Democratic Party for it to start being more than an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. Absent a serous postmortem of 2016 and the decades that lead to it, I'm not sure hope is justified.

We are in the middle of a realignment that Trump started but Democrats plan to finish. You've heard of Reagan Democrats. Get ready for ______ Republicans. Educated suburban Republicans will turn towards Democrats now. Assuming Democrats run a good candidate, which I think they will.

“Gay republicans”

That’ll be the name of this voter even if they are straight.

They like the gays but hate:

1. Anyone that takes away their tax breaks
2. Higher taxes for more public spending on services
3. Single payer health care
4. Palestine (they love AIPAC)
5. Environmental regulation
6. Building affordable housing and opening up zoning (they are huge nimbys)

In short, they love people like: macron, Cameron, Biden, Lieberman.

They align with Dems at present because they like the gays but in terms of policy will hold back any progress.

Beto is a Trojan horse for the third way.

He’s a NDC dem.

He joined R’s in support of rolling back financial institution regulation.

He’s bought and paid for by oil and gas - David Sirota exposed him.

No thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be 16-18 million throughout the country so long as you can get enough voters in Detroit (13K), Milwaukee (27K), Philadelphia (68K), Miami (114K), or Charlotte and Raleigh (177K) to overturn Trump's parenthetical margins of victory in those states.

You are trying to win next war based on last one's metrics.

Not the best recipe.

Why not? It sounds like you think there are no lessons learned from 2016 re: urban turnout in MI, WI, PA, FL, and NC.

+1 Democrats have learned a ton since 2016 (witness the Blue Wave in 2018 of 40+ House Members). The silver lining of having Trump as POTUS is the strengthening of the Democratic party for the next generation.

Same thing was said during the GWB administration and it didn't work. There needs to be a deeper acknowledgement of the errors of the Democratic Party for it to start being more than an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. Absent a serous postmortem of 2016 and the decades that lead to it, I'm not sure hope is justified.

We are in the middle of a realignment that Trump started but Democrats plan to finish. You've heard of Reagan Democrats. Get ready for ______ Republicans. Educated suburban Republicans will turn towards Democrats now. Assuming Democrats run a good candidate, which I think they will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who can the Democrats nominate that will turn out the base in large enough numbers (and, more importantly, in the swing states)? It's really that simple, except that there's no magic formula in finding the right candidate who will do so.

Base, my ass. They need a broader coalition. Less than half of eligible voters choose Trump or Clinton. There are enormous numbers of untapped folks out there.

Since nonvoters by definition don't vote, what makes you think a better candidate will get them to the polls.

Anonymous wrote:Who can the Democrats nominate that will turn out the base in large enough numbers (and, more importantly, in the swing states)? It's really that simple, except that there's no magic formula in finding the right candidate who will do so.

Base, my ass. They need a broader coalition. Less than half of eligible voters choose Trump or Clinton. There are enormous numbers of untapped folks out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/

Plenty of Obama voters didn't bother turning out for Hillary in 2016. Really that simple.

Is that more or less than 16-18 million?

Yup. Many voted for Obama in 2008 thinking he was the start of something new. They were heartbroken to discover he was more likely the end of something. The Democrats could learn from this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

This is a strategic mistake IMO, and one of the reasons why Democrats lose many winnable elections. Apart from her other flaws, HRC wasted time and resources persuading and/or appealing to the moderates when doing so ran the risk of alienating a greater number of voters from her base. The juice is often not worth the squeeze.

I'm not saying that you insult or intimidate moderates, but energizing the base is typically an easier and more efficient way to win votes.

It's a very tricky balance. For every moderate you turn off and then votes the other party you need to get two new votes from your base.

Not sure the math works...

Problem is, it isn't a left/right thing. The middlebrows here just insist on making it one. The Clintons and most Democrats since have moved sharply rightward and it's just let the Republicans go even further rightward. The changes have to be around things like trust, not simple right/left paradigms. No one with a sane mind thinks those with fingerprints all over economic dislocation and perpetual war is trustworthy and they're justified, regardless of where they fit on a left-center-right paradigm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, you're still just saying "Shut up, liberals. Your outrage over the outrageous is unacceptable."

this.

so, accept the unacceptable? NOPE. EVERYONE should be pissed. This shit isn't normal. It's on THEM if they just want to go along to get along.

Seriously, screw that.

NP here.

I'd recommend leaving your little bubble more often.

There was a close election. One party won, another lost. Pretty typical.

Yet, you were doing marches the very day after Inauguration. You are becoming an undemocratic fascist mob, and don't realize it.

Net net, grow up, drop the fake outrage, and think how to win 2020.

Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

Those who still love Trump can't be persuaded. They are lost. And JFC no one is trying to intimidate them. They are pathetic little snowflakes if they think every march, every protest, every unkind word, is somehow a threat to them. And the midterms suggest that those who were reluctant Trump voters to start with ARE being engaged and persuaded.

And how about this: Why doesn't TRUMP need to persuade and engage, instead of insulting and intimidating? Why TF do you think this only f*cking applies to those who aren't Trump?

Because elections aren't won so much as lost and the Democrats of recent decades having been losing to worse (GWB) and worse (Trump) Republicans. It's time for an upgrade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be 16-18 million throughout the country so long as you can get enough voters in Detroit (13K), Milwaukee (27K), Philadelphia (68K), Miami (114K), or Charlotte and Raleigh (177K) to overturn Trump's parenthetical margins of victory in those states.

You are trying to win next war based on last one's metrics.

Not the best recipe.

Why not? It sounds like you think there are no lessons learned from 2016 re: urban turnout in MI, WI, PA, FL, and NC.

+1 Democrats have learned a ton since 2016 (witness the Blue Wave in 2018 of 40+ House Members). The silver lining of having Trump as POTUS is the strengthening of the Democratic party for the next generation.

Same thing was said during the GWB administration and it didn't work. There needs to be a deeper acknowledgement of the errors of the Democratic Party for it to start being more than an occasional thorn in the side of the GOP. Absent a serous postmortem of 2016 and the decades that lead to it, I'm not sure hope is justified.

Beto and Sherrod Brown

Anonymous wrote:Biden/Harris

Sounds like McCain/ Palin.

They lost.

Biden/Harris