Politics The Donkey in the room...the Democrats today

I really hope the Democrats come up with some other options besides Clinton.

That said, as I alluded to earlier, the process of the GOP primary is such that only the craziest candidates need apply. Any Republican hopeful that is remotely mainstream/centrist (ie electable) would get destroyed in the primaries for "failing the purity test". I mean, Romney won the primary because he actually WAS the most electable of the bunch, but he still got destroyed by Obama (who wasn't exactly Mr. Popular at the time).

 

The Democrats' strength in 2016 is that the Democratic base will turn out for a presidential election. The Democrats' weakness going forward is that whiteness has gained political salience.

With the growing perception of the Republican Party as the "white" party, in opposition to the "nonwhite" Democrats, white voters have been shifting strongly toward Republican candidates. This is seen most clearly in the Deep South, where about 95% of white voters supported Mitt Romney, but it is affecting elections all over the country, and it will surely have an impact on 2016.

We Democrats used to think that the Republican coalition was doomed because its electorate couldn't get any whiter, but that was the wrong way to look at it. It turned out that white voters could easily get a lot more Republican.

 

The Democrats have a white male problem, and Hillary won't help much. Bill might be able to talk about their issues and what a Hillary administration would do. But, it will be difficult.

The Democrats are lacking for details about how white blue collar and white collar workers will be able to make more money. They don't have a good plan for showing how taxes and government budgets will get better, while providing the same level of services. And straight white males don't care about LBGT issues, immigration (other than "they" are going to take my job), medical insurance (if healthy), and even the racial issues aren't a big deal to most.

 

White women, too. If anything, the losses have been proportionately larger among women.

 

I don't know.
The Republicans might have a strangle hold on the white male dick but with candidates like Chris Christie and Scott Walker they certainly are going to have issues with the unions.
When your greatest accomplishments are beating up mostly white middle class union workers that's gotta work against you.
As to the woman side of the white vote, the Republicans have routinely shoved their feet in their mouths when it comes to woman's issues so I don't think this time will be any different.

 

I wish that were true. But the unions as we knew them have been largely destroyed. Only about 6% of U.S. private sector workers are unionized any more.

Michigan used to be one of the strongest union states. Now we have a "right-to-work" law like Mississippi or South Carolina. (For those who don't know the jargon, a "right-to-work" [for less] law is intended to make union organizing impossible.)

The governor who signed that law was re-elected last November.

 

^Republican governor. I'm surprised his name hasn't been brought up for a Presidential campaign, it seems like everyone else has come up.

It is kind of like if federal taxes were voluntary, who would pay them? Then think about what kind of society we would have if everyone had the same attitude.

 

I still dont buy it.

First, I dont put much into off year elections.

In 2012, Romney had the largest white vote of any recent canddiate (+7) and still not enough to win. And, while it is hard to measure, racism among some whites cant be discounted as a factor that will not be in play in 2016.

And I just dont see any of the Republicans cutting much into the women/black/Hispanic votes given how they are likely to push each other as far right as possible on women's reproductive rights, immigration, minimum wage, etc. The exception might be Bush and, there I think the "retreading" of two old guard names will offset.
--- merged: Mar 10, 2015 4:09 AM ---
p.s. That is not to suggest that the Democrats should rely on demographics. A more coherent message (or vision or something) and one that appeals to swing voters as much as the far left base would help; polls would suggest that Independents are more closely alligned with Democrats on many (most ?) economic and social issues. They just need reminding...repeatedly!

 

I couldn't disagree more. I'm a straight white male and I care very much about all those issues (as do all of my straight white male liberal friends)

 

Agreed. In my experience straight white males (esp upper/middle class ones) tend to be the most vocal and most radicalized voices when it comes to identity politics, to the point of alienating women and actual minorities. Falls back to the issue of the Democrats trying to appeal to such a broad base they become blandly unappealing to everyone, until they're taken over by the Leftea party.

 

Elizabeth Warren seems to be doing a pretty good job of representing the left side of the Democratic bird (or to my mind what the Democrats were, as opposed to the Republican Lights that they've become).
I'm pretty sure she isn't going to run but the specter of her running may pull Hillary over a little bit.
Bernie Sanders is talking about running which is just about getting his message out.
I'd love to see him at least be able to speak.

 

Bernie would certainly raise the level of discourse on the issues important to the most liberal among the base and in a manner that would be credible to a larger audience but at the expense of the endless chants of "socialism" from the right.

 

The Democratic Party needs to have debate. I don't agree with Warren on most of her economic ideas, but I did find one position that got my interest and an area were I would like some accountability. If nothing else she seems genuine. My gut tells me that the party establishment wants her to be controlled and silenced when it comes to criticism of administration policy.

Elizabeth Warren: Sallie Mae May Be Hurting Borrowers, Taxpayers

Education Department Sends More Student Borrowers To Firm Just Penalized By DOJ

 

I think they need debate insomuch as I'm unhappy with Clinton already being treaded as the de facto candidate

 

But, you can't be cohesive without having the debate. And it really isn't a debate in the terms of one side is wrong and the other is correct. It is more, how can both sides agree and support the same thing.

And yes, I think the main-stream media is treating Clinton as the front runner. And she does have the experience and name recognition. She is also polling well, but I'm not sure who exactly is supporting her.

 

Al Gore should run for president - Vox

Here is an interesting article that I never thought of. I'm not sure Gore would do it, at least from the outside his relationship with the Clinton's is good. But, it would ensure that the environment gets talked about.

Howard Dean would be another person that should lead the discussion about what to do in order to improve the healthcare system. If he needs to run a presidential campaign to get the media attention, I don't see that as a problem.

 

The Democrats do have a weak bench and some are still hoping for Liz Warren to jump in if Hillary were to fall.

I think she would be a great candidate on the domestic issues. She has the passion and the credibility to take on Wall Street and the monied interests. Much more so than "socialist" Bernie Sanders.

As to combacks, I think Kerry would have a better shot than Gore. Dean has nothing to offer, given the failure of the Vermont health program.