Depends on what happens in 2018.

Thought we could use a thread devoted to discussing the latest news and ideas about the rebuilding of the Democrat party.

We haven't seen the Democrats this out of power since the 1920s.  After that we got FDR and generations of Democrat rule.

Hopefully we can get to the same place after this but skipping the whole Depression thing.

the democrats were this out of power for the middle 4 years of the bush administration.

Yeah but apart from that...

Thought we could use a thread devoted to discussing the latest news and ideas about the rebuilding of the Democrat party.

We haven't seen the Democrats this out of power since the 1920s.  After that we got FDR and generations of Democrat rule.

Hopefully we can get to the same place after this but skipping the whole Depression thing.

the democrats were this out of power for the middle 4 years of the bush administration.

No they weren't.  Maybe at the federal level but I was talking about at the state level as well.

oh.  ok, I'll buy that.

Media reports now of Clinton Foundation donations down by 37%. Shocking.

weird

Very karmic

Nancy Pelosi survived the fight for Democratic house leadership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-tim-ryan.html

The twitter trumpster fire is ecstatic.

fyi, referring to the democratic party as "the democrat party" is some kind of weird newspeak that originates with conservative media

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

not offended by it, just letting you know it's a red flag.  if you use it in a post, you might as well be saying, "hey guys, here's what I heard on fox news today!"

I was under the impression that ksen did that on purpose to see who would take the bait.

no you weren't

Hey guys, what are we talking about?

Your use of the pejorative Democrat instead of Democratic.

Well, tbf, I am feeling a bit pejorative towards them right now for being a bunch of dumbasses.

Nice meltdown

"If only politicians ran on the issues most important to me, they'd win every election!" is the worst sort of political analysis ever.

"If only politicians ran on the issues most important to me, they'd win every election!" is the worst sort of political analysis ever.

I don't think it really is. If politicians can articulate the policies they advocate and tie those policies to values/value propositions, they win elections. Yes, in an era of sensationalism and narcissistic consumerism, there is the sports team mentality, complete with dog whistles and everything else about media mind control, there have been plenty of examples of successful use of that strategy, but in the end, the tactic of simply overwhelming facts with quantity of non-fact material has its own drawbacks. The key is more in articulating the values clearly enough to tie them to policy than the reverse of that.

It assumes that running on the exact platform you'd like is the platform lots and lots of other people would also like. It's the same sort of centrist/No Labels garbage we see from a lot of pundits all of the time.

It assumes that running on the exact platform you'd like is the platform lots and lots of other people would also like. It's the same sort of centrist/No Labels garbage we see from a lot of pundits all of the time.

Well, I assumed that part was hyperbole. It isn't about exact platforms for sure but it is about tying policies to values. The dems/establishment republicans have basically decided that small business isn't important as a value to inform policy or have successfully equivocated between small and multinational business. But it does matter. What we saw in the last election was the potentially terminal gasping of an elite establishment that cannot see past the corporate lives that they all lead and almost totally can't imagine that there are any alternative visions of utopia to corporate hell.

the lost jobs in the rust belt weren't about small businesses, they were about megacorps that folded or moved production overseas (or automated jobs away and still produce domestically with fewer employees)

the lost jobs in the rust belt weren't about small businesses, they were about megacorps that folded or moved production overseas (or automated jobs away and still produce domestically with fewer employees)

I know. But that's the divide. America was built as a land of small business and it's surprising to a lot of people just how many people are engaged at companies with fewer than 20 employees. The last figure I saw was several years ago but it was around 85 million americans. You might be able to find the current number here:
http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

With markets being defined through regulations however the global corporations want them to be defined, and the dems coming down with all kinds of social programs that are being paid for not by the vast majority of the produced wealth but by small businesses disproportionately, it's easy for the gop to pretend they are pro small business while the dems are unabashedly pro giant organization, i.e. robotic bureaucrats, as if they cannot fathom that there is any other way of life.

That is why Bernie understood the problem but Hillary didn't. He is from the land of small business.

Just saying.

Just saying.

Yes Schneibster.

Just saying.

Yes Schneibster.

ouch! how did I deserve that?