Do Democrats Have A Future?

[The Rabbi]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I think we'll know a lot more after the 2016 elections.

The table will be turned and the GOP will have to defend more seats, and there's no White House incumbent.

It does look like some cracks are forming in the Dems' Identity Politics strategy. We'll see.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

The Democratic party is in the catbirds seat until a Civil War restores order. America has sold herself to the devil. And in the details are alternatives to employment. The end means can be provided my the machine, for which the entitled are loyal. Used to be the employer was the winner relative to such loyalty, yet now such loyalty rings hollow and it has been transferred under the guard of the government.

Our culture, the American Way as we knew it, has departed.

-Geaux

 

[mudwhistle]

As long as there are brown people in other countries Democrats have a future.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, Rabbid fantasizing because you barely won the Cleetus Midterms.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah, Rabbid fantasizing because you barely won the Cleetus Midterms.

Barely? You clearly didnt pay attention. Before the election most pollsters were calling races like KY's too close to call. But the election was overwhelming. The GOP won all over, House, Senate, and state races like governor and state houses. The GOP controlls both the governorship and state house in way more states than the Dems do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2016, when the GOP has to defend 24 Senate seats and the presidential election boosts turnout,

then we'll see if the Democratic Party is really in trouble.

 

[The Rabbi]

In 2016, when the GOP has to defend 24 Senate seats and the presidential election boosts turnout,

then we'll see if the Democratic Party is really in trouble.

Blacks turned out in overwhelming numbers to vote for Obama. Why will they turn out to vote for either Clinton or Warren?
But keep believing this. Your denial will help insure GOP victory.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Rabbi, you do realize that there was a record set for low turnout and that historically, this election went to way that it should have?

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, Rabbid fantasizing because you barely won the Cleetus Midterms.

Barely? You clearly didnt pay attention. Before the election most pollsters were calling races like KY's too close to call. But the election was overwhelming. The GOP won all over, House, Senate, and state races like governor and state houses. The GOP controlls both the governorship and state house in way more states than the Dems do.

Pollsters weren't calling KY too close to call. The DNC pulled the plug on Grimes weeks before the election.

The thing is, most voters stayed home. They won't in 2016, particularly if you guys revert to type and go full assclown on them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2016, when the GOP has to defend 24 Senate seats and the presidential election boosts turnout,

then we'll see if the Democratic Party is really in trouble.

Blacks turned out in overwhelming numbers to vote for Obama. Why will they turn out to vote for either Clinton or Warren?
But keep believing this. Your denial will help insure GOP victory.

They helped elect that other Clinton twice.

 

[JoeB131]

Rabbi, you do realize that there was a record set for low turnout and that historically, this election went to way that it should have?

Now, Cabbie, don't take it away from them. They really need to believe that people love them again, and that most people don't view their party unfavorably.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rabbi, you do realize that there was a record set for low turnout and that historically, this election went to way that it should have?

He rarely suffers any realizations of any consequence.

The states in red below are the one the GOP has to defend a Senate seat in 2016:

The Senate

 

[Geaux4it]

Rabbi, you do realize that there was a record set for low turnout and that historically, this election went to way that it should have?

Now, Cabbie, don't take it away from them. They really need to believe that people love them again, and that most people don't view their party unfavorably.

What does most people mean? You use the term as a one all to beat all... The American people have spoken... right?

Well, they also have spoken on Obamacare and Immigration too. That didn't stop the Liar in Chief.

-Geaux

 

[Mac1958]

.

One consistent theme I'm seeing from "pundits" is that the key to the GOP's overall victory was the fact that they ran much better candidates who ran much better campaigns.

It may be that the party (at least at a big picture level) has realized that a more pragmatic approach is far more effective than fire & brimstone.

That would be the biggest thing the Democrats would need to be concerned about for 2016, I reckon.

.

 

[Billy000]

After last election's wipeout this is a legitimate question. The Democrat platform of race baiting, woman pandering, and class warfare was shown to be a total failure. So if they can't run on those things, what can they win with? The Democrats increasingly look like a shrinking party, popular only in the inner cities, and on college campuses. Even the non-government unions are sick of them, having gotten royally fucked by Obamacare and other regulatory intitiatives.
A look at their leadership reveals no new faces. Reid is 74. So is Pelosi. Those mentioned as presidential candidates are either retreads, like Clinton, or extreme left wingers who wont attract a following outside the welfare classes.
With the biggest history of failed policies in a generation Democrats seem to be out of ideas. "BOOSH" just doesnt sell like it used to.

Tell me King Jew, if the dems are in trouble, what does that make republicans? Have you seen their approval ratings? They are worst than Obama's.

The repubs took control for three reasons:

1) People who take the initiative to vote tend to vote republicans. Overall polls showed people wanted dems to retain control. Unfortunately most of those people were too stupid to vote. Repubs only ever had an edge with likely voters, not the general populace.

2) The dem candidates themselves were losers.

3) It is also common at the 6 year mark of a presidency that people turn to the other party. It's a cycle, genius.

Progressivism will never die. I also predict that as income inequality and the failure of republican economics becomes more widely known, repubs will lose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This was a normal 6th year midterm election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2016 the GOP Congress will have to run on their accomplishments between now and then,

which will add up to approximately zero.

 

[CowboyTed]

.

One consistent theme I'm seeing from "pundits" is that the key to the GOP's overall victory was the fact that they ran much better candidates who ran much better campaigns.

It may be that the party (at least at a big picture level) has realized that a more pragmatic approach is far more effective than fire & brimstone.

That would be the biggest thing the Democrats would need to be concerned about for 2016, I reckon.

.

Agreed, The GOP took a more moderate line on the contestable states...

The RW on this site think the GOP is to moderate anyway so real question will be:
Will the GOP abandon the Hard Right to gain power? It is not like the HArd Right have anywhere to go.

Demographics are on the Democrats side...Hispanics are Democratic for at least a generation after Obama...

 

[JoeB131]

What does most people mean? You use the term as a one all to beat all... The American people have spoken... right?

Well, they also have spoken on Obamacare and Immigration too. That didn't stop the Liar in Chief.

No, an election in 9 backwater states is not asking the people what they think. And your guys really didn't run on immigration or ObamaCare. Tillis, who won in NC, was PRO-Amnesty. So was Gardner in CO.