|
Hedera Helix posted:This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future? http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/ I like Howard Dean and it was a shame what happened to him. Bonus points for him being Rahm's arch-enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/ Yes, as states that aren't dominated by well-run Democratic machines continue with their poo poo practices, non-poo poo individuals will gravitate towards the opportunities available in non-poo poo areas. This process covaries with the rates of individuals' possession of pre-established social network established in non-poo poo areas, and is mediated by the value of those networks. This implies that, as non-poo poo areas continue to produce non-poo poo individuals at a higher rate than poo poo areas, non-poo poo individuals will have to be offered better comparative payments in order for non-poo poo areas to maintain the quality of their institutions. For instance, UofMichigan and UWMadison will be required to offer reduced payments for lower-quality staff and subcontracted employment opportunities, while offering increased payments for higher-quality staff from non-poo poo institutions. These non-poo poo individuals individuals from non-poo poo institutions, then, provide a gateway through which non-poo poo networks in non-poo poo states are shared with non-poo poo individuals at a higher rate and value than poo poo networks in poo poo states are shared with poo poo individuals, thus reducing the quality of available non-poo poo candidates which poo poo states' political parties are able to both attract and retain given the competitive advantages and reinforcing dynamics of non-poo poo states. tl;dr come to Chicago, for in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri, all is lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, as states that aren't dominated by well-run Democratic machines continue with their poo poo practices, non-poo poo individuals will gravitate towards the opportunities available in non-poo poo areas.  Yeah Chicago!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:
Well, if you want a non-poo poo Senator to win your election in 2016, yes, come to Chicago. I advice you to not put too much into your hopes for the states bordering Chicago; I certainly don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:As I said, I'm skeptical of assigning too much weight to generational explanations for political leanings, but the question here isn't whether there will be a mass politic of liberal millennials in 15-20 years, but rather whether Obama will inspire a wave of future Democratic politicians who fill up the state legislatures and Congress in the same way that Reagan inspired, say, Paul Ryan.  http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/11-3-11%20Generations%20Release.pdf Actually generational gaps do explain a good chunk voting patterns, essentially forever (til people die). The fact that the original new dealers still totally defied the stereotype of old people being conservatives across 10 years of elections is pretty cool evidence of this. What matters is who is president when you're in your formative political years. Those who started paying attention under Bush are going to be permanently scarred by how bad he was, and it's still too early to tell, but I'm curious how Obama impacts those who came of age under him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, if you want a non-poo poo Senator to win your election in 2016, yes, come to Chicago. I advice you to not put too much into your hopes for the states bordering Chicago; I certainly don't. Please outline for me how what you said is different than what Dean said without word salad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Please outline for me how what you said is different than what Dean said without word salad. Dean brought some innovation; he went too far, too soon, and it resulted in a shitload of backlash in 2010. It isn't just having the best strategy and innovation, its knowing the right time and proper place for rollout. I suppose it goes back to whether you're solely focused on the next 2 cycles, or have the redistricting in mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Dean brought some innovation; he went too far, too soon, and it resulted in a shitload of backlash in 2010. It isn't just having the best strategy and innovation, its knowing the right time and proper place for rollout. Where did the backlash come from? Why was there a backlash against his successful strategies for 06 and 08? Don't you think the Dems would have suffered less in 10 if he was still head of the DNC at that point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Where did the backlash come from? Why was there a backlash against his successful strategies for 06 and 08? Don't you think the Dems would have suffered less in 10 if he was still head of the DNC at that point? So, to answer your first two points, you have to work back from your third point. Why did Democrats lose 2010 so horridly? Simply, Obama. More complex? Obama's second-guessing of Rahm and turning from his trust on the House to his trust in the Senate. So, to then we've got to work back and figure out the factors which led Obama to ignore Emanuel and turn to Durbin. I've detailed them before, in other threads, and ultimately, they come back to Dean's rollout for the '06 cycle rather than holding back for the '08 cycle. He was one cycle too early.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
2010 explained as "he turned away from Rahm," how could I have guessed differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:2010 explained as "he turned away from Rahm," how could I have guessed differently. 2010 explained as: "Obama placing his trust in Senate Democrats." Never loving place your trust in Senate Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
How many failures have been because Obama placed his trust in someone? (Every time) He ought to swallow his pride, and place his trust in Tavis Smiley and Cornel West, and get a few things accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:So, to answer your first two points, you have to work back from your third point. Why did Democrats lose 2010 so horridly? Ah ha ha of course, Rahm Was Right. Stupid Obama! I wonder how successful Dems would have been in 06 without Dean. I mean, hatred for the Bush administration was nearly at its peak so they had that working for them. My Imaginary GF posted:2010 explained as: "Obama placing his trust in Senate Democrats." Yeah but the real narrative here is Always Listen to Rahm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:2010 explained as: "Obama placing his trust in Senate Democrats." If Rahm challenges Kirk in 2016 is your head gonna explode like that guy in Scanners? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Where did the backlash come from? Why was there a backlash against his successful strategies for 06 and 08? Don't you think the Dems would have suffered less in 10 if he was still head of the DNC at that point? It wasn't so much backlash as it was got blue dogs elected in more conservative states/districts in a wave without building the local infrastructure to maintain their support. Here's a look at the house members who came in as a result of flipping Republican seats in 2006.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
What's up with the yellow background when people quote me?  eta: My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, as states that aren't dominated by well-run Democratic machines continue with their poo poo practices, non-poo poo individuals will gravitate towards the opportunities available in non-poo poo areas. I think Dean's most salient point was that Dems see a self-funding millionaire as a potential candidate and go KA-CHING, thereby making their GET RID OF CITIZENS UNITED rhetoric even emptier and hollower than it usually is. Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 03:13 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What's up with the yellow background when people quote me? Something Awful is in the Library of Congress now, and lowtax is a friend to archivists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If Rahm challenges Kirk in 2016 is your head gonna explode like that guy in Scanners? My head will be spouting, "Never trust the House. Those Rs in the Senate? They're just the opposition."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:It wasn't so much backlash as it was got blue dogs elected in more conservative states/districts in a wave without building the local infrastructure to maintain their support. Was it Dean who didn't focus on building the local infrastructure for 2010 (when he was no longer head of the DNC) and beyond, or the people who succeeded him? Willa Rogers posted:I think Dean's most salient point was that Dems see a self-funding millionaire as a potential candidate and go KA-CHING, thereby making their GET RID OF CITIZENS UNITED rhetoric even emptier and hollower than it usually is. His "gently caress the Beltway" attitude was nice to hear as well. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Was it Dean who didn't focus on building the local infrastructure for 2010 (when he was no longer head of the DNC) and beyond, or the people who succeeded him? Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. If you design a method for winning so easily broken, you've done worse than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. Well you're certainly living up to your reputation as the Worst Democrat Ever, Rahm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, if you want a non-poo poo Senator to win your election in 2016, yes, come to Chicago. I advice you to not put too much into your hopes for the states bordering Chicago; I certainly don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Well you're certainly living up to your reputation as the Worst Democrat Ever, Rahm. Its better to win consistently than it is to win by going full populist. Public whims change far too often to implement the structural reforms necessary to fully transition America, with the least harm, into the digital era.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its better to win consistently than it is to win by going full populist. Public whims change far too often to implement the structural reforms necessary to fully transition America, with the least harm, into the digital era. I'll bite: What should Dean have done in 06 and 08? I'm assuming your strategy would have resulted in smaller Dem wins but a smaller loss in 2010. edit: Although we're probably pissing in the wind considering even with the huge wins in 06 and 08 the Dems didn't do poo poo and deserved to lose big in 2010 anyway. Ninjasaurus has issued a correction as of 04:12 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its better to win consistently than it is to win by going full populist. Public whims change far too often to implement the structural reforms necessary to fully transition America, with the least harm, into the digital era. eripsa?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
To be fair I feel like people put too much of his period's successful Democratic gains at Dean's feet when an equally big role was played by President Bush. People like to talk about Katrina as a turning point but really Bush fell apart basically the day after he was re-elected. Conservatives let out their breath in relief as they realized that they could stop pretending that he was a great president and his numbers rather quickly fell apart as a result and only got worse as time went on. It was only natural that people across the country would either start voting for Democrats or just stay home entirely. Yes, Dean did a great job at candidate recruitment but at the same time even unheralded candidates in races that weren't focused gave surprisingly close results in 06 and 08, just as they did in 14. And its funny, I look at that 2006 retirements chart and I see anything but failure. Sure most of them are no longer in office. But a majority of those losses were either from redistricting or from challenging for higher office. Redistricting has to be a mulligan and going for higher office should be viewed as a solely positive outcome of those candidates' 2006 victories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I'll bite: What should Dean have done in 06 and 08? Hold off on the 50-state rollout until 08 & 10's cycles. Focused every effort towards maximizing 10's gains in order to consolidate them during redistricting rather than winning with his unsustainable combined operational strategy. You plan for 10 being the year at which you maximize gains for, not 08. Its good that a D won President in 2008; it'd be far better that Ds win 2010 big and consolidate gains without caring who wins President in 2008, because, frankly , whoever won would be a moderate willing to compromise their core values. Far better for you to decide what values they get to compromise on, than it is to lose control over policy development for a decade. evilweasel posted:eripsa? gently caress no, I'm talking about consolidated services with realtime data-driven metrics that allow adaptive program delivery. Also, more urban workers and fewer suburbanites in order to meet the needs of a labor-mobile economy. My Imaginary GF has issued a correction as of 04:18 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What's up with the yellow background when people quote me? Pretty sure they added in a feature to highlight when you're quoted. I dunno if you can turn it off though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
I agree with you on that, Cliff, and would add that Bush's overreach on privatizing Social Security along with a turn for the worse in Iraq after the election contributed to the 2006 results. 2008 can also be seen as something of a black swan event due to the collapse of the banking sector two months before the election and the ensuing chaos. In both, voters were eager to get someone, anyone, new in Washington.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Hold off on the 50-state rollout until 08 & 10's cycles. Focused every effort towards maximizing 10's gains in order to consolidate them during redistricting rather than winning with his unsustainable combined operational strategy. Have the Dems ever said "gently caress it, we'll focus on picking up more Congressional seats at the expense of the Presidency"? There was never any way the Dems would win big in 2010. And even if they had, they'd still be limp dicks who grabbed their ankles every time the GOP told them to bend over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
We've veered enough away from the original point (which was about candidate strength) that I might as well also mention there's evidence that the public reacts to administrations like a thermostat, becoming more conservative during Democratic administrations, more liberal during Republican administrations. Charitably, Americans seek to moderate their government. Or, if you prefer the cynic's take, Americans don't know what they want from their government, they just don't ever like what they're getting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We've veered enough away from the original point (which was about candidate strength) that I might as well also mention there's evidence that the public reacts to administrations like a thermostat, becoming more conservative during Democratic administrations, more liberal during Republican administrations. More like, "As throughout history, most individuals in the general population focus on the figure-head of government over the structure which that government takes." You see the same thing everywhere, throughout history, from Germans who thought if only Hitler knew about the holocaust he'd have stopped it, or that Stalin would surely grant them reprieve and just didn't know about their situation, to records of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and discourse on the French Revolution, all the way back to antiquity with Emperors intervening if only they knew what was being done in their name. Americans know precisely what they want from their government: They want Democrats. Not all Americans know how to express their desires, so its the job of the Democratic Party to advance the structure of operations most likely to get Democrats to realize they're Americans and should go vote. Americans are consistent with what they want; they are inconsistent with how they focus on obtaining what they want. They don't want to moderate the branches of government, they want Democratic supermajorities crafting policy and are willing to accept a Republican executive every few cycles in exchange.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Have the Dems ever said "gently caress it, we'll focus on picking up more Congressional seats at the expense of the Presidency"? 1972, 1984.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We've veered enough away from the original point (which was about candidate strength) that I might as well also mention there's evidence that the public reacts to administrations like a thermostat, becoming more conservative during Democratic administrations, more liberal during Republican administrations. Or, if you're a cynic's cynic, you realize that the political pendulum is an elaborate dance that disguises the genuine points of agreement among the 1 percent who rule the 99 percent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its loving easy to say, "See! I was right!" when you don't consider all the ways folks'll gently caress up what you did after. Its not enough to win; you have to win in a sustainable manner that isn't reliant upon you, the individual, retaining your leadership position. By your logic, Clinton did "worse than nothing" as President, because Bush ruined his surplus and the economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Or, if you're a cynic's cynic, you realize that the political pendulum is an elaborate dance that disguises the genuine points of agreement among the 1 percent who rule the 99 percent. It might set certain things off limits that aught not to be (along with a bunch of stuff that is, rightly, regarded as sacrosanct by both sides) but it would be foolish to pretend that there isn't real disagreement among both the movers and shakers and the people on the ground which drives the two parties to fight against each-other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:By your logic, Clinton did "worse than nothing" as President, because Bush ruined his surplus and the economy. You're applying a post-9/11 mindset to pre-9/11 political affairs. Without that defining act, for which America had to rally around the President due to the contentions of the 2000 election, Bush likely would have likely been a one-term President. Admittedly, the data is extremely limited given the shortness of the pre-9/11 period. You need to examine campaigns by both cycle and redistricting period. Having a President elected every 4 years guarantees that you'll have a Presidential election falling on a redistricting election every 20 years. For those, you roll out the 50-state strategy over the immediately preceding 2 cycles and consolidate gains. To maximize redistricting gains, sometimes, its better to delay rollouts of improved party operational methodologies for a cycle. If you win 2 redistricting cycles in a row, you're effectively able to consolidate state party power enough that you turn the state into a solid operation. Its worth more to all levels of party financing to win a majority of states during redistricting; its even more important to win the second redistricting election to expand your solid seats while minimizing opposition party competitive electoral potential. This causes an atrophy of your state's opposition party until a national figure is willing to come in and completely rebuild it, and frankly, there aren't that many national figures who are willing, able, and see the business potential in doing so. Christ, its almost as if political observers are only focused on who'll be winning the next election, with no care for how to maximize party revenue while minimizing outlays. You need me to explaining anything else about the proper way to run a country as a well-oiled political machine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
What? No. I'm making a statement about leadership, which is timeless. Germanicus was a good emperor, even if Caligula wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:What? No. I'm making a statement about leadership, which is timeless. Germanicus was a good emperor, even if Caligula wasn't. Caligula and Nero were quite decent emperors and the most apt comparisons to Obama. The histories have them as horrid brutes mainly because the histories were written by the entrenched nobility who felt most hosed over by Caligula and Nero's public policies, whereas the great majority of Roman citizens were experiencing the greatest opportunities for class advancement in their life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:14
|
|