CDZ Democrats need to regroup

[Coyote]

I think the Republicans growth in the state legislatures is not due to demographics, it's due to a carefully orchestrated long term plan. Dems focused money on top down strategies - controlling the WH, and Congress, but the Republicans focused money on the state races (Dems screwed up big by ignoring the "small" races). That put the Republicans in a strong position after the census and were able to redraw districts to favor them despite the changing democraphics. A lot of gerrymandering.

It absolutely is a long term plan. ALEC literally writes laws in the states. The Democrat version is that "bipartisan" organization Jim Bowie listed: the NCSL. They go in and write laws as well. Democrats don't like to talk about that and people need to start asking why that is.

You know what made BLM die down? Charter schools. The NAACP kicked out a report. Poof! Gone. People need to start asking why that is.

All politics is local.

People before party. The Democrats nationally talk about how they give a damn but they really don't.

Participatory budgeting is people before party albeit small. All money allocated in Chicago must be used or returned to the city. The only reason Rahm does this is to keep actual power from being in the hands of the people. It does demonstrate that groups of people from a variety of backgrounds can solve problems.

We have ALEC writing laws here now that we are Republican majority. Problem is some like charter schools won't work well in our state, and study after study is disregarded. What I hate is that these groups are coming in from outside a d don't have a fucking clue about what the people in the state need or want.

I agree. In fact, I'm over protesters coming in or outside little activists coming in or any number of hack jobs doing the deciding.

The thing is - how do we get rid of it? Get them out of our local elections? Our state has huge budget problems, the state employee health insurance is in a precarious financial position, they have to make big cuts across state spending and what was the legislature passing? Conceal carry permit laws and a frigging "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". Issues that I don't recall being on the plate before.

 

[ding]

I think the Republicans growth in the state legislatures is not due to demographics, it's due to a carefully orchestrated long term plan. Dems focused money on top down strategies - controlling the WH, and Congress, but the Republicans focused money on the state races (Dems screwed up big by ignoring the "small" races). That put the Republicans in a strong position after the census and were able to redraw districts to favor them despite the changing democraphics. A lot of gerrymandering.

Or it could be that Americans are rejecting their core message and behaviors. Blaming this on anything else will lead to multiple root solutions which are false and will lead to predictable surprises. What you are describing here are the symptoms of the illness not the disease. The disease is
radicalism during a winter cycle of the saeculum.

I don't think it's entirely that. I think most of what Dis said is on the ball, all politics is local. The Dems have evidence ignored that to their loss. As a whole, they need to to get back to a message that goes beyond special interest politics. Healthcare, education, higher education, tech and trade schools to prepare our workforce, childcare assistance for working families, paid parental leave, clean water, criminal justice email reform, abortion rights,...that's a handful of traditionally leftwing things that would resonate across ethnic and racial groups.

What exactly do you think the job of the government is? The government is not going to "save" us, especially from ourselves.

Among other things, I believe in a strong safety net, and that is provided or directed in part by the Federal Government.

Why do you believe that is the federal government's job? Are you familiar with subsidiarity?

 

[Coyote]

I think the Republicans growth in the state legislatures is not due to demographics, it's due to a carefully orchestrated long term plan. Dems focused money on top down strategies - controlling the WH, and Congress, but the Republicans focused money on the state races (Dems screwed up big by ignoring the "small" races). That put the Republicans in a strong position after the census and were able to redraw districts to favor them despite the changing democraphics. A lot of gerrymandering.

Or it could be that Americans are rejecting their core message and behaviors. Blaming this on anything else will lead to multiple root solutions which are false and will lead to predictable surprises. What you are describing here are the symptoms of the illness not the disease. The disease is
radicalism during a winter cycle of the saeculum.

I don't think it's entirely that. I think most of what Dis said is on the ball, all politics is local. The Dems have evidence ignored that to their loss. As a whole, they need to to get back to a message that goes beyond special interest politics. Healthcare, education, higher education, tech and trade schools to prepare our workforce, childcare assistance for working families, paid parental leave, clean water, criminal justice email reform, abortion rights,...that's a handful of traditionally leftwing things that would resonate across ethnic and racial groups.

What exactly do you think the job of the government is? The government is not going to "save" us, especially from ourselves.

Among other things, I believe in a strong safety net, and that is provided or directed in part by the Federal Government.

Why do you believe that is the federal government's job? Are you familiar with subsidiarity?

No, so I looked it up:
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

Actually I agree with it up to a point.

For example, in terms of safety nets like welfare. I believe that the communities themselves know best what their needs are - whether it's job retraining, subsidies for women and children, childcare - whatever. The reasons for poverty vary and a one-size fits all solution doesn't work well and gets bogged down in bureacracy, mismanagement and waste. But leaving it entirely up to the state level has not always worked well either - with money siphoned off other projects, or not used at all for the intended purpose.

I see the Federal role in providing block grants to states with minimal rules to prevent fraud or misuse, and the states in turn giving it to counties, cities and communities with similar rules and then it's up to them to determine how best to use it.

I see the Federal role as one of ensuring the safety net remains intact.

 

[ding]

Or it could be that Americans are rejecting their core message and behaviors. Blaming this on anything else will lead to multiple root solutions which are false and will lead to predictable surprises. What you are describing here are the symptoms of the illness not the disease. The disease is
radicalism during a winter cycle of the saeculum.

I don't think it's entirely that. I think most of what Dis said is on the ball, all politics is local. The Dems have evidence ignored that to their loss. As a whole, they need to to get back to a message that goes beyond special interest politics. Healthcare, education, higher education, tech and trade schools to prepare our workforce, childcare assistance for working families, paid parental leave, clean water, criminal justice email reform, abortion rights,...that's a handful of traditionally leftwing things that would resonate across ethnic and racial groups.

What exactly do you think the job of the government is? The government is not going to "save" us, especially from ourselves.

Among other things, I believe in a strong safety net, and that is provided or directed in part by the Federal Government.

Why do you believe that is the federal government's job? Are you familiar with subsidiarity?

No, so I looked it up:
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.

Actually I agree with it up to a point.

For example, in terms of safety nets like welfare. I believe that the communities themselves know best what their needs are - whether it's job retraining, subsidies for women and children, childcare - whatever. The reasons for poverty vary and a one-size fits all solution doesn't work well and gets bogged down in bureacracy, mismanagement and waste. But leaving it entirely up to the state level has not always worked well either - with money siphoned off other projects, or not used at all for the intended purpose.

I see the Federal role in providing block grants to states with minimal rules to prevent fraud or misuse, and the states in turn giving it to counties, cities and communities with similar rules and then it's up to them to determine how best to use it.

I see the Federal role as one of ensuring the safety net remains intact.

 

[Disir]

I think the Republicans growth in the state legislatures is not due to demographics, it's due to a carefully orchestrated long term plan. Dems focused money on top down strategies - controlling the WH, and Congress, but the Republicans focused money on the state races (Dems screwed up big by ignoring the "small" races). That put the Republicans in a strong position after the census and were able to redraw districts to favor them despite the changing democraphics. A lot of gerrymandering.

It absolutely is a long term plan. ALEC literally writes laws in the states. The Democrat version is that "bipartisan" organization Jim Bowie listed: the NCSL. They go in and write laws as well. Democrats don't like to talk about that and people need to start asking why that is.

You know what made BLM die down? Charter schools. The NAACP kicked out a report. Poof! Gone. People need to start asking why that is.

All politics is local.

People before party. The Democrats nationally talk about how they give a damn but they really don't.

Participatory budgeting is people before party albeit small. All money allocated in Chicago must be used or returned to the city. The only reason Rahm does this is to keep actual power from being in the hands of the people. It does demonstrate that groups of people from a variety of backgrounds can solve problems.

We have ALEC writing laws here now that we are Republican majority. Problem is some like charter schools won't work well in our state, and study after study is disregarded. What I hate is that these groups are coming in from outside a d don't have a fucking clue about what the people in the state need or want.

I agree. In fact, I'm over protesters coming in or outside little activists coming in or any number of hack jobs doing the deciding.

The thing is - how do we get rid of it? Get them out of our local elections? Our state has huge budget problems, the state employee health insurance is in a precarious financial position, they have to make big cuts across state spending and what was the legislature passing? Conceal carry permit laws and a frigging "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". Issues that I don't recall being on the plate before.

Start showing up at your local county/city/town meetings. Know who your lobbyists are and whom they are sleeping with.

It is real hard in some areas because the papers have been bought and sold and major cuts were made. Reporters don't attend those meetings anymore. There is no watch dog and what you do have has been bought and paid for by name your side.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Such a great Op coyote.. Spot on.

 

[Disir]

I think the Republicans growth in the state legislatures is not due to demographics, it's due to a carefully orchestrated long term plan. Dems focused money on top down strategies - controlling the WH, and Congress, but the Republicans focused money on the state races (Dems screwed up big by ignoring the "small" races). That put the Republicans in a strong position after the census and were able to redraw districts to favor them despite the changing democraphics. A lot of gerrymandering.

Or it could be that Americans are rejecting their core message and behaviors. Blaming this on anything else will lead to multiple root solutions which are false and will lead to predictable surprises. What you are describing here are the symptoms of the illness not the disease. The disease is
radicalism during a winter cycle of the saeculum.

I don't think it's entirely that. I think most of what Dis said is on the ball, all politics is local. The Dems have evidence ignored that to their loss. As a whole, they need to to get back to a message that goes beyond special interest politics. Healthcare, education, higher education, tech and trade schools to prepare our workforce, childcare assistance for working families, paid parental leave, clean water, criminal justice email reform, abortion rights,...that's a handful of traditionally leftwing things that would resonate across ethnic and racial groups.

Some of those are gone. The Democrats sold out education. They have destroyed the public education system.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This election has been a HUGE wake up call for both major parties.

We've been hearing about the Republicans for several years now. It's like an impending divorce that is messy, stuff gets thrown and broken and there are calls for "we have to stay together for the kids". It's been loud and public, like celebrity marriage. It's been analyzed and reanalyzed.

But what about the Democrats? Their midlife crisis has been much more quiet. Lots of behind closed doors bickering and presenting a happy face for the kids. Bernie kind of opened the door on that. Hillary's loss cemented it.

What is the Democrat Party going to do, from here on in? It can't continue as the party of "identity politics". And what does it/should it represent? We have major demographic changes which offer hope to both parties IF they can grasp them?

Hispanics: this is a demographic that is growing, hugely. It's a demographic the Dems have largely attracted because of immigration issues. Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic. It should be prime picking for Republicans EXCEPT another big part of their party is a strong anti-immigrant contingent.

Blacks: another demographic that is growing but and could easily be exploited by the Republicans. Like white voters, they are diverse outside of racial issues. A high proportion of them are religious and socially conservative.

If the Republican's hang on the politics of fear - they're going to to take your guns away, discriminate against your religion, flood this country with foreigners, and whites will be a minority - the Democrats hang on to the politics of identity - black, female, hispanic, lgbd. This strategy works only as long as the OTHER side, opposes identity. Essentially, each side has become a house of cards.

But we don't hear much about the Democrat's implosion and I think we need to.

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party? What principles can they promote that can resound in a way that reaches everyone - not selected groups who are actually fairly diverse and might not always be counted on for support across the board?

Such a great Op coyote.. Spot on.

Dang for a liberal coyote.

That was one of the best ones I have seen in awhile..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet it's a demographic that is, by and large, socially conservative and Catholic


I have been saying that all along. If immagration is solved, the democrats have a 10 million problem on their hands..

Do they really want them legal?