[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

I couldn't be arsed to vote in the primaries here in MD. (I was taken by surprise; even after several cycles I should remember the hidebound insistence on Tuesdays.) Wanted to throw away votes on Chelsea Manning and Ben Jealous, but I've been fatigue-bombed the last few weeks.

Just remember to double-check your registration. Not voting, even in primaries, is now used as an excuse to throw people off the register.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Is voting not done by mail?

Only in certain states; each state has its own system - Oregon is wholly vote by mail, I think.

Rep. Joe Crowley loses primary to 28-year-old newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Almost a Cantor level upset by a Democratic socialist with no elected political experience.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Rep. Joe Crowley loses primary to 28-year-old newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Almost a Cantor level upset by a Democratic socialist with no elected political experience.

The on-the-ground aspect of this is that Ocasio-Cortez was out there, working her ass off for this post, and Crowley completely blew off campaigning, to the point of not attending the only scheduled debate.

The crazy part, it wasn't even close, as she won 58%-42%. She credited talking issues and ignoring Trump for her win.

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Jayhawker wrote:

The crazy part, it wasn't even close, as she won 58%-42%. She credited talking issues and ignoring Trump for her win.

yeah that is interesting. Massive credit to the effort she put in, but I think the gap speaks to the perception that Crowley wasn't progressive enough (and he was pretty liberal from what I've read) in a very liberal district. Kudos to Crowley for immediately voicing his support for Ocasio-Cortez.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

The crazy part, it wasn't even close, as she won 58%-42%. She credited talking issues and ignoring Trump for her win.

yeah that is interesting. Massive credit to the effort she put in, but I think the gap speaks to the perception that Crowley wasn't progressive enough (and he was pretty liberal from what I've read) in a very liberal district. Kudos to Crowley for immediately voicing his support for Ocasio-Cortez.

I agree. I keep seeing the stories about the Democrats being rocked. What they should be doing is welcoming her in, talking to her, and treating her like a possible rising star. That doesn't mean every Dem district needs to find socialists. But it should mean that the Dems welcome fresh ideas and are willing to work and compromise with anyone trying to to do good work.

I think we are too quick in establishing narratives.

Jayhawker wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

The crazy part, it wasn't even close, as she won 58%-42%. She credited talking issues and ignoring Trump for her win.

yeah that is interesting. Massive credit to the effort she put in, but I think the gap speaks to the perception that Crowley wasn't progressive enough (and he was pretty liberal from what I've read) in a very liberal district. Kudos to Crowley for immediately voicing his support for Ocasio-Cortez.

I agree. I keep seeing the storied about the Democrats being rocked. What they should be doing is welcoming her in, talking to her, and treating her like a possible rising star. That doesn't mean every Dom district needs to find socialists. But it should mean that the Dems welcome fresh ideas and are willing to work and compromise with anyone trying to to do good work.

I think we are too quick in establishing narratives.

I think "Democrats are rocked" makes a better headline, but all the actual reporting I've seen seems to show her being welcomed with open arms. We cannot let this become a divide and conquer wedge.

SallyNasty wrote:

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Maybe we should hold off on being happy about this until November? I don't want to see new blood come in and get smeared all over the general election, losing a Democratic seat in the process.

Atras wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Maybe we should hold off on being happy about this until November? I don't want to see new blood come in and get smeared all over the general election, losing a Democratic seat in the process.

I’m willing to take a chance on it, though. Part of why we have Trump is because the Democrats openly embraced Neoliberalism and eventually Americans decided (in both parties) that they hated Neoliberal policies.

Atras wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Maybe we should hold off on being happy about this until November? I don't want to see new blood come in and get smeared all over the general election, losing a Democratic seat in the process.

I will not stop my happiness for you or for anybody!

Pretty good interview with Acasio-Cortez and discussion.

DSGamer wrote:
Atras wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Maybe we should hold off on being happy about this until November? I don't want to see new blood come in and get smeared all over the general election, losing a Democratic seat in the process.

I’m willing to take a chance on it, though. Part of why we have Trump is because the Democrats openly embraced Neoliberalism and eventually Americans decided (in both parties) that they hated Neoliberal policies.

Trump won because the DNC was tone-deaf to the fact that many Americans didn't like Hillary Clinton.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Atras wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Awesome. Take heed, Pelosi.

Maybe we should hold off on being happy about this until November? I don't want to see new blood come in and get smeared all over the general election, losing a Democratic seat in the process.

I’m willing to take a chance on it, though. Part of why we have Trump is because the Democrats openly embraced Neoliberalism and eventually Americans decided (in both parties) that they hated Neoliberal policies.

Trump won because the DNC was tone-deaf to the fact that many Americans didn't like Hillary Clinton.

Not really, it was for many different reasons each doing just enough to cost her the win when they all came together.

Progressives ripping Hillary Clinton in the exact way the Russian and Right Wing Trolls instructed them to do did not help, that's for sure.

Let's remember that HC won the popular vote by a pretty significant margin.

SallyNasty wrote:

Let's remember that HC won the popular vote by a pretty significant margin.

Indeed. To overcome the unconstitutional structural barriers Republicans have erected liberals have to have ideas that really grab people.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Let's remember that HC won the popular vote by a pretty significant margin.

Indeed. To overcome the unconstitutional structural barriers Republicans have erected liberals have to have ideas that really grab people.

A potted plant running against Trump would have won the popular vote. What the Democrats needed was a candidate with good character to give us someone to vote FOR. Clinton didn't resonate with voters that liked Sanders, and had too much baggage to rise above the right's character assassination.

SallyNasty wrote:

Let's remember that HC won the popular vote by a pretty significant margin.

I don't think anyone's going to forget that fact any time soon, but I also think it really even matters at this point.
Unless you guys fix your broken-as-f*ck electoral system, the popular vote is nothing but a consolation prize for the losing party.

While, as a progressive, allowing the Northeast and West Coast to pick our presidents would be nice, I'm not sure that is actually fair. I think the Electoral Collage is good way to balance out the needs of individual states. It's not like Missouri has as many votes as California, so popular vote still matters.

I would prefer Democrats learn to work within the system as it is than to try an change it to make it easier to elect Democrats. There was a good reason for the electoral college and I think it still holds. I mean, isn't a good thing that a Democratic politician has to get know and understand people from other parts of the country?

How about rather than having the 1,236,876th argument about 2016 we leave it at Democratic candidates need compelling messages, that may not be the same in all districts.

I will also add that personally I do not agree with some of the precise policies that the more progressive wing of liberal politics espouses. That being said I would still vote for someone who will push for liberal policies rather than someone pushing for conservative ones.

To which I will add I would not consider voting for a third party candidate as a protest or what have you as the right play. Like it or not the political system in the US currently only effectively supports a two party system. Much as I may or may not want change aspects of how it works I would rather vote for someone close enough rather than chance someone completely objectionable winning.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:

Trump won because the DNC was tone-deaf to the fact that many Americans didn't like Hillary Clinton.

This reminds me of something I saw the other day from a long-time Obama adviser:

Mr. Obama and his team were confident that Mrs. Clinton would win and, like much of the country, were shocked when she did not. “I couldn’t shake the feeling that I should have seen it coming,” Mr. Rhodes writes. “Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to bring change.”
Jayhawker wrote:

I think the Electoral College is good way to balance out the needs of individual states.

The problem is elections aren't about the needs of the individual states. If people in the individual states had more in common with the fellow members of their state, the contemporary (the history is ugly) Electoral College would be a good idea.

The problem is individual states don't have enough individual goals anymore. The goals that are important in modern politics are goals that cross individual state lines. At least when it comes to Democratic goals like health care coverage and civil rights.

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.
HRC got more people to vote for her but whether he fumbled onto it like everything else he does, Trump built a better consensus. I can't believe evangelicals voted for him in such numbers but they did and he not only orchestrated it, but he followed through on his promise (with the Gorsuch nominee)

fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

fangblackbone wrote:

HRC got more people to vote for her but whether he fumbled onto it like everything else he does, Trump built a better consensus.

It's exceptionally easy to build a consensus when you literally just have to appeal to older white people who are religious nutters, racist, or rich (or some combination thereof).

Democrats have a much bigger tent and have to somehow simultaneously appeal to diverse groups that frequently have divergent and even competing needs and desires.

fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

Considering it gave the election to a reality TV star that is in almost every possible way unfit for office, I don't know how good of a job it does of protecting us against a popularity contest, especially when the unpopularity of his opponent played the role it did.

The problem with the consensus building aspect is that there's a bug in it that encourages a party willing to stoop to the levels of the Republicans to refuse ANY consensus and run on a platform of division and hate. It's not built to deal with a bad faith actor.

HRC got more people to vote for her but whether he fumbled onto it like everything else he does, Trump built a better consensus. I can't believe evangelicals voted for him in such numbers but they did and he not only orchestrated it, but he followed through on his promise (with the Gorsuch nominee)

He didn't build consensus, though. He built the opposite of it--a much more homogeneous group that lost the popular vote to a coalition of much greater diversity.

Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers.

Basically this. The entire point of democracy is a popularity contest. The electoral college is nothing more than a thumb on the scale, and if there's a thumb on the scale, someone's getting screwed.

Jonman wrote:
Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers.

Basically this. The entire point of democracy is a popularity contest. The electoral college is nothing more than a thumb on the scale, and if there's a thumb on the scale, someone's getting screwed.

It's been said before, Jonman, but you have the weirdest sex.

Mormech wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

I still think the electoral college is important because it is protection against popularity contest and it encourages consensus building.

I want the popularity contest. I want a president that is chosen by the population centers. F*** the flyover states, they'll take what they're given by the people that matter.

Needless to say, this will never happen, but my disdain for the electoral college, and for the states that benefit from it, cannot be overstated.

I agree. This reminds me about the nonsense #civility debate that’s been going around social media lately. The right is accepting of a proposed agenda that’s the closest in my lifetime to actual fascism. They have a leader who openly talks about stripping citizens of their rights and treating non-citizens as if they’re prisoners of war.

They are making common cause with Nazis and with cryptofascists in hostile foreign countries.

When it comes to their judgement on national elections I don’t super trust them right now so I’d prefer a national popularity contest at this point.