CDZ Democrats need to regroup

[Bush92]

Considering the accuracy of polls during the recent campaign, you will forgive my skepticism.

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

The methodology of the polls eas flawed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I had posted on that for weeks. Post election, some Democrats get it, some do not. Working class industrial families were abandoned by Democratic Party. Democrats used to be their champion. Bring back industrial jobs to the USA.

Agree. Election polls were clearly WAAAAAY out of whack.

And I agree with what you said that I had bolded.

The issue is in..."bring back industrial jobs"....but the real question is ...what if we can't?

It's been brought up that a big loss in manufacturing jobs is LESS in that they were outsourced but that they were automated. In a news story recently I recall that being discussed...one industry returned but, instead of providing thousands of jobs...it was 500. Due to automation.

So the question is - what can you do? The trend towards automation is a given. So what do you do? Families can not subsist on fast food franchise style jobs.

I knew the Democratic Party was becoming out of touch the first time I met Barack Obama. Had a gathering at a coffeehouse and café latte flowed along with wine and cheese. College professors and academic liberals who hosted thought it was great. First Democratic candidate gathering I had been to where you couldn't get a beer. Had nothing in common with these clowns that were there. Democrats hold meetings in Union halls...not effete cafes.

 

[OldLady]

Are you skeptical of ALL polls then?

Currently, yes.

I'm not.

There are polls that measure current trends - what people think, what they believe in...if the methodology is sound, I think they are accurate.

I think the trouble with election polls is they strive to be PREDICTIVE and that might be their weakness when you add in a totally - make that unprecedented - unpredictability - an election with many wildcards - they completely failed.

I think that is different then say approval rating polls.

From what I've been hearing, people are still gathering demographic data on this and trying to figure out why they were SO out of whack (and the ONE poll, a typically liberal one -LAtimes - was accurate).

I really want to know the results of this. Everything about this election has been abnormal.

The methodology of the polls eas flawed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I had posted on that for weeks. Post election, some Democrats get it, some do not. Working class industrial families were abandoned by Democratic Party. Democrats used to be their champion. Bring back industrial jobs to the USA.

Agree. Election polls were clearly WAAAAAY out of whack.

And I agree with what you said that I had bolded.

The issue is in..."bring back industrial jobs"....but the real question is ...what if we can't?

It's been brought up that a big loss in manufacturing jobs is LESS in that they were outsourced but that they were automated. In a news story recently I recall that being discussed...one industry returned but, instead of providing thousands of jobs...it was 500. Due to automation.

So the question is - what can you do? The trend towards automation is a given. So what do you do? Families can not subsist on fast food franchise style jobs.

I knew the Democratic Party was becoming out of touch the first time I met Barack Obama. Had a gathering at a coffeehouse and café latte flowed along with wine and cheese. College professors and academic liberals who hosted thought it was great. First Democratic candidate gathering I had been to where you couldn't get a beer. Had nothing in common with these clowns that were there. Democrats hold meetings in Union halls...not effete cafes.

Finally, a description I can understand. Well said.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Ok, for the people who disagreed with my claim that most Republicans oppose ALL immigration.

Would this be a fair assessment of your position?

Most Republicans oppose illegal immigration and/or support a more limited immigration that focus' on strict vetting and limits on immigrants from terror-prone areas, and focus' on encouraging the immigration of those who have skills that could benefit the country?

Is that fair?

If so, then I would like to repudiate another claim that is repeatedly floated but is also just as much a lie: that Democrats are for open borders.

Democrats are not for open borders - other than perhaps a lunatic fringe but everyone has their lunatics.

Democrats are for an immigration programs that works in the modern world - one that is realistic and compassionate. Realistic in that legal immigrants should not have to wait for years to immigrate. The system is so antiquated and bottle necked - it doesn't work, and the lack of enough pathways to legally immigrate encourages illegal immigration. You can't fix the problem by simply building up the border - you need to fix the entire system.

Democrats don't oppose vetting of people from terror-prone countries. Where they differ from the Republicans is in the degree of what is acceptable in terms of risk.

On the compassionate side - and this is where I place a high priority - are ways to help certain categories of people.

We've long had a wet foot/dry foot law regarding Cuban illegal immigrants but it has never been expanded to other immigrant groups. One would be unaccompanied minors, such as the mass influx we had of those escaping horrific violence and conditions in parts of Latin America. No parent sends their child on such a dangerous route if they didn't feel it was the only way to save their children. They've been through hell to get here. When they got here, they were faced, on one side, with angry protesters and ugly signs telling them to go home. These kids. And on the other side - by a collection of American CHURCHES - opening their arms. Two sides of conservative America - to drastically different messages. These are one of the groups of people who I think should be given the benefits of a wet foot/dry foot policy.

Another group, is the group Obama called "dreamers". Many of those kids are here through no act of their own, why should they be punished? Many are going to school, trying to get a higher education, shown themselves to be hard working, with a desire to succeed in spite of the difficulties created by their lack of legal status (roadblocks to college, financial assistance and, jobs once they get that degree). These people have the skill set and attitude that would be a benefit to this country, not a detriment.

What makes it fair and/or equitable to grant head of the line privileges to someone who came here illegally when there are millions of others around the world who want to come here, due to the same horrid living conditions and violence, who are denied that opportunity?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Thanks Dis, for putting this all together.

Personaly - I don't feel the Republicans are any better. You've confirmed the Dems aren't any DIFFERENT.

Now, I like Obama. I love Obama. And I no longer care if I am castigated for that. But Clinton...the establishment...the big parties - you've given me a lot to mull over.

Thank you.

Forcing people to purchase an item from a private industry, just because they happen to be breathing, is wrong.

If someone feels that said item should be available to "all" then said item should be nationalized and available to all.

Anything less only means that government is in the pocket of the industry that they are demanding the citizen to purchase that item from.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What the democrats need to do is STOP playing all the incessant identity politics, not double down on it.

It's true that The New Black Panthers, La Raza, Muslim Brotherhood, Act Up and nation of Islam would be stronger together than they are apart, but that is not the strength the Democratic party needs.

Instead of treating every body as different and then pandering to the different identities, how about trying an actual liberal approach by helping to build a color-blind society?

Hillary lost because she told Middle Americans whose jobs were outsourced by her husband that they had to confess to all their "white privilege" while calling them deplorable if they didn't vote for more of the same. It is a veritable recipe for electing the other guy.

 

[Mac1958]

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party?

Good stuff, thanks.

At this moment, I'm not convinced that the Democrats either (a) have known they had issues until late Tuesday night, or (b) have done much in the way of reflection since Tuesday night and determined that they need to do anything differently.

While I'm no fan of Trump, the thought of the Democrats realizing that PC and Identity Politics and White Guilt and White Privilege and Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings have turned a lot of good and decent people OFF has me so hopeful I don't even want to think about it.

What should they do? Start treating people with respect; stop trying to shut people up; stop insulting people who dare to disagree with them; stop pandering; be honest. Be decent.

That would be a lovely start, but I'm not at all convinced they really think they need to do anything.
.

 

[Coyote]

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party?

Good stuff, thanks.

At this moment, I'm not convinced that the Democrats either (a) have known they had issues until late Tuesday night, or (b) have done much in the way of reflection since Tuesday night and determined that they need to do anything differently.

While I'm no fan of Trump, the thought of the Democrats realizing that PC and Identity Politics and White Guilt and White Privilege and Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings have turned a lot of good and decent people OFF has me so hopeful I don't even want to think about it.

What should they do? Start treating people with respect; stop trying to shut people up; stop insulting people who dare to disagree with them; stop pandering; be honest. Be decent.

That would be a lovely start, but I'm not at all convinced they really think they need to do anything.
.

I think you are right. The splits and issue within the GOP have been loud and public. Not so much with the Dems. Tuesday was their "come to Jesus" moment.

 

[Mac1958]

What do the Dems need to do to rebuild their party?

Good stuff, thanks.

At this moment, I'm not convinced that the Democrats either (a) have known they had issues until late Tuesday night, or (b) have done much in the way of reflection since Tuesday night and determined that they need to do anything differently.

While I'm no fan of Trump, the thought of the Democrats realizing that PC and Identity Politics and White Guilt and White Privilege and Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings have turned a lot of good and decent people OFF has me so hopeful I don't even want to think about it.

What should they do? Start treating people with respect; stop trying to shut people up; stop insulting people who dare to disagree with them; stop pandering; be honest. Be decent.

That would be a lovely start, but I'm not at all convinced they really think they need to do anything.
.

I think you are right. The splits and issue within the GOP have been loud and public. Not so much with the Dems. Tuesday was their "come to Jesus" moment.

Let's see how many of them were listening.
.

 

[longknife]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

 

[Coyote]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

 

[Interpol]

The truth is most presidential elections could go either way because both sides walk into an election with about 45% of the vote. It becomes a matter of keeping your own coalition in tact. Just do that and you win.

With only some outstanding results still coming in, Hillary Clinton is at 47.8% of the popular vote. Trump, 47.3%. Mitt Romney took 47.2%. Despite their passion, Republican voters managed to hit their ceiling again and that is all, while Hillary didn't get the Democrats anything more than their floor.

The current demographic trend in our society is that it will continue getting more colorful moving forward. That favors Democrats, who made positive gains in Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, states with more Hispanics, but in Georgia's case, more younger people who have moved there in recent years from states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The brain-drain is in Atlanta now, one of the fastest-growing places in America, if not the fastest.

107,000 votes were the difference in the election when you combine the difference in WI/MI/PA. That is not an insurmountable deficit to overcome by either political party, so the hypothesis that Democrats need some kind of deep soul searching is overblown. Republicans held together their own coalition (in the process, swapping a couple million college-educated whites for non-college educated ones) while enough progressives broke away to vote for the Greens and Libertarians.

When they get someone who lights their fire again, they'll win. In Trump, Republicans have this now. It's as simple as that.

 

[longknife]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

 

[Coyote]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

 

[longknife]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

Anyone who swears an oath of support the Constitution of the United States of America is welcomed with open arms.

Those who live or want the rest of us to live by Sharia Law should be deported.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

That inclusion involves selecting somebody who is on record as defending Louis Farrakhan and who had ties to the Muslim brotherhood before he distanced himself for political expediency. This shows that the DNC is merely doubling down on all the identity politics they play instead of having learned why they lost.


Keith Ellison - Discover the Networks

Now, I'm sure all this appeals to you, but I sincerely doubt whether most Americans want this sort of leadership.

 

[Coyote]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

That inclusion involves selecting somebody who is on record as defending Louis Farrakhan and who had ties to the Muslim brotherhood before he distanced himself for political expediency. This shows that the DNC is merely doubling down on all the identity politics they play instead of having learned why they lost.


Keith Ellison - Discover the Networks

Now, I'm sure all this appeals to you, but I sincerely doubt whether most Americans want this sort of leadership.

I don't agree with you on this, however you and I are worlds apart on the issue of Muslims.

What I tend to find is that if a politician is Muslim (and not an outspoken critic of all things Muslim or an exMuslim) they seem to get tarred with the "Muslim Brotherhood" brush and "Discover the Networks" is, surprise surprise - a child of David Horowitz. This is strongly remeniscent of the red scare of yesteryear and with about as much legitimacy. In my opinion.

Keith Ellison is a perfectly fine choice. One among many. What is sounds like is that they are awakening to the idea that the politics of ideas needs to win out over the politics of identity. Selecting a Muslim solely because he is a Muslim would be continuing that trend - but rejecting him solely because he's a Muslim amounts to the same thing. If people can't handle a Muslim being part of the political process because they can only see him as a Muslim, then I find that very sad. From what I read of him, Ellison is enormously popular among liberals for his ideas and his record. He has the strong endorsement of Bernie Sanders and I can't see Bernie endorsing someone who is truly associated with Islamic extremism. Elizabeth Warren endorses him and I respect her. There are other candidates as well, and it remains who will get chosen but I don't see a problem with him if he can fire people up, and move the party in the right direction.

What IS important is that the Dems are taking this seriously....Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup and it sounds like Dems who have been somewhat marginalized by the elite are not being taken seriously.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

That inclusion involves selecting somebody who is on record as defending Louis Farrakhan and who had ties to the Muslim brotherhood before he distanced himself for political expediency. This shows that the DNC is merely doubling down on all the identity politics they play instead of having learned why they lost.


Keith Ellison - Discover the Networks

Now, I'm sure all this appeals to you, but I sincerely doubt whether most Americans want this sort of leadership.

I don't agree with you on this, however you and I are worlds apart on the issue of Muslims.

What I tend to find is that if a politician is Muslim (and not an outspoken critic of all things Muslim or an exMuslim) they seem to get tarred with the "Muslim Brotherhood" brush and "Discover the Networks" is, surprise surprise - a child of David Horowitz. This is strongly remeniscent of the red scare of yesteryear and with about as much legitimacy. In my opinion.

Keith Ellison is a perfectly fine choice. One among many. What is sounds like is that they are awakening to the idea that the politics of ideas needs to win out over the politics of identity. Selecting a Muslim solely because he is a Muslim would be continuing that trend - but rejecting him solely because he's a Muslim amounts to the same thing. If people can't handle a Muslim being part of the political process because they can only see him as a Muslim, then I find that very sad. From what I read of him, Ellison is enormously popular among liberals for his ideas and his record. He has the strong endorsement of Bernie Sanders and I can't see Bernie endorsing someone who is truly associated with Islamic extremism. Elizabeth Warren endorses him and I respect her. There are other candidates as well, and it remains who will get chosen but I don't see a problem with him if he can fire people up, and move the party in the right direction.

What IS important is that the Dems are taking this seriously....Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup and it sounds like Dems who have been somewhat marginalized by the elite are not being taken seriously.

I see -- so since David Horowitz is Jewish and therefore one of the bad identities and Ellison is a black Muslim and therefore a good identity, this means the Jewish man is simply lying? The reason I ask is that you have not addressed whether or not anything here is TRUE, but merely focused on the identities of the two individuals.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the entire problem being revealed in this election in a nutshell.

Whether or not Ellison supported what he supported should be your consideration here, as he is on record as defending Louis Farrakhan and taking campaign contributions from a Muslim Brotherhood source with ties to Hamas.

Say, the situation here involved a member of the extreme right instead of extreme left, and a white congressman was on record of defending David Duke and the KKK, and took money from the Aryan Nation to finance his campaigns. Would you be similarly predisposed towards defending him if a few years later he tried to claim that he simply didn't know the full extent of what he was supporting, or would you see it as a very cynical attempt at backtracking? You see, that is EXACTLY what Ellison has done here when it comes to the maneuvering he has engaged in regarding distancing himself from the very extreme attitudes he has expressed.

This thread is about the DNC learning from its failures, and I can understand if extremists think they need to be MORE extreme to be appealing, but as far as I'm concerned, they haven't learned squat here. They just seem even more determined to shoot themselves in the foot by doubling down on their identity politics b.s.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

What principles can they promote that will reach everyone?

That can start by actually practicing the tolerance and inclusivity they preach about.

 

[oldsoul]

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?

What principles can they promote that will reach everyone?

That can start by actually practicing the tolerance and inclusivity they preach about.

Wouldn't that be something? Dems actually practicing what they preach? I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Too many of them think they are smarter than everyone else in the room, they simply do not have to play by the same rules, because they are better than us. Of course the Reps aren't much better.

 

[jasonnfree]

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?

So they select a Muslim from Michigan to head the DNC?

Is that a problem?

Not if you don't mind more fleeing from the xxxxxxx Party.

Muslims are as much entitled to be a part of the political process as everyone else. If you're going to be about inclusion you don't start by excluding.

All this democrat inclusion and trying to flood this country with third worlders who have nothing to offer but cheap labor to drive down wages, and more voters at election time, is what put Trump in office. We don't even have enough jobs here for our workforce anyway, and the safety nets here are now underfunded. This is what put Trump in office. And lay off the lgtb stuff too. They're not getting hassled and harassed like they were in the '50s anymore, and they're a fairly small minority. Stop trying to push them and their lifestyle on America. Dems lost a lot of working class to the republicans for some of these reasons.