|
EDIT - Yes I know. It's "win" not "when" back. Sorry it is the middle of the night here and I am tired. Please do not focus the conversation of the thread about the title please. EDIT 2 - Thanks to the mod who fixed my topic title. It is no secret that Congress is a mess right now. The house, which is the backbone of all legislation, is firmly Republican. The senate seems like it could go either way. While the executive branch seems to be treading toward being Democratic. This has led to a political disaster as Congress is at an all-time high in inactivity. Now the answer to this seems obvious for the Democrats. Just merely win back the house. However, due to gerrymandering, being packed in urban areas, and districts being less competitive than ever before: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/why-democrats-cant-win.html?_r=0 What worries me is that, from a distance, there doesn't seem to be a plan on the Democratic Party's radar of how to win back the House. Some people say they should wait until 2020 to win the House again so they can change the district lines. But if they find it difficult to win the House now why would things change in 2020 presidential election or not? So realistically, what can Democrats do to win the House and actually get legislation passed? punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Feb 5, 2016 |
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Elect a better president than Obama next time. I don't think there's any historical precedent for how many down-ticket races, governors' offices and statehouses the Democrats have managed to lose while Obama's been in office, and those races are key to the redistricting process that will determine who can win Congress. Some of those losses were going to happen no matter what but many of them are from the White House's self inflicted wounds. The real problem for the Democrats, though, is that there's a lot less unity between what large parts of their base want and what their big money donors want, and that makes them vulnerable to the demographically weaker but more ideologically coherent Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Offhand, I'd say do things that make people want to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The real problem for the Democrats, though, is that there's a lot less unity between what large parts of their base want and what their big money donors want, and that makes them vulnerable to the demographically weaker but more ideologically coherent Republicans. plus, its strange everyone's running to jump on obama's bandwagon during the debates. i know conceptually he's popular, but his record is middling at best
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Offhand, I'd say do things that make people want to vote for them. Yeah, about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Make life as hard as possible for the Republicans, until they agree to fairly draw districts so that the popular vote represents the actual ideology of the representatives sent there. That's personally what I would do. But of course Republicans aren't likely to ever do anything for the sake of fairness, because such notions are foreign to them, that and there's no much of an arsenal to use. So tl;dr democrats are screwed, probably well past 2020, and they should have acted a lot more aggressively when the tea party wave demonstrated just how insane modern conservatism has become.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Work to actually grow the party in local state elections. Increace labor turnout, stand with the 15$minimum wage people. Work to empower rural workers and not think they are all rednecks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Wouldn't taking on the Supreme Court for accurate representation of representation of the house so urban votes aren't wasted be a viable option once the Supreme Court swings Democrat?Crowsbeak posted:Work to actually grow the party in local state elections. Increace labor turnout, stand with the 15$minimum wage people. Work to empower rural workers and not think they are all rednecks. -Troika- posted:Offhand, I'd say do things that make people want to vote for them. This may sound simple but it is possibly the solution. According to this article there are still more than enough competitive districts for Democrats to win. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/0731/Yes-Democrats-can-win-the-House-though-probably-not-this-year
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This is unfortunately too true with many Democrats. Just look at the stereotype that most poor whites vote Republican. What I'm saying is, make me dictator and I'll solve this poo poo post-haste.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well in a very real sense they do, but the typical assertion is Racism Just Because, which I'm not a terribly large fan of. Many people, especially the poor, are nowhere near as stupid as other seem to think, sometimes (in fact, I'd argue basically all the time) its having a kind of legitimate desire/concern, but not having the right language, framing or ideology to properly express, so it comes out all wrong. So anti social-liberalism as a kind of expression of 'I feel alienated, I don't have a place to belong, not in the modern democratic party, so I vote republican'. And that of course can lead to direct racism, as well as anti-gay or anti-abortion stuff, but the racism/christian-fanaticism acts to fill a kind of void in their lives, as opposed to being something that's intrinsic to them. At least, that's my impression. Most poor whites vote Democratic in Non-Southern states: http://themonkeycage.org/2013/05/white-vote-by-income-2012/ Even in Kansas: http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well in a very real sense they do, but the typical assertion is Racism Just Because, which I'm not a terribly large fan of. Many people, especially the poor, are nowhere near as stupid as other seem to think, sometimes (in fact, I'd argue basically all the time) its having a kind of legitimate desire/concern, but not having the right language, framing or ideology to properly express, so it comes out all wrong. So anti social-liberalism as a kind of expression of 'I feel alienated, I don't have a place to belong, not in the modern democratic party, so I vote republican'. And that of course can lead to direct racism, as well as anti-gay or anti-abortion stuff, but the racism/christian-fanaticism acts to fill a kind of void in their lives, as opposed to being something that's intrinsic to them. At least, that's my impression. Actually more of them vote democrat then Republicans. The problem is most don't vote at all. In part I would argue because no one (except right now with Trump) ever even tries to communicate with them. Yeah some of their antipathy is racism, but most of all its that no one reaches out to them. Period. Everyone tells them to get in debt and go to college. Well why should they want to get into debt for ten years. They want jobs, they want good pay, and they want their jobs to be appreciated. Actually appreciated and not just be written off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Actually more of them vote democrat then Republicans. The problem is most don't vote at all. In part I would argue because no one (except right now with Trump) ever even tries to communicate with them. Yeah some of their antipathy is racism, but most of all its that no one reaches out to them. Period. Everyone tells them to get in debt and go to college. Well why should they want to get into debt for ten years. They want jobs, they want good pay, and they want their jobs to be appreciated. Actually appreciated and not just be written off. Which becomes a real problem when given the impression that the Democratic party agenda is at the behest of the big dollar campaign contributors, making the poor demographic even more alienated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Pass the congressional apportionment amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Does anyone have vote totals for all democrat and republican house members in the past congressional elections?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
As soon as you can persuade all of these people to vote Democratic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Pass the congressional apportionment amendment. So that would just increase the amount of representatives we have? That would lead to a more balanced representation in the House? How will that fix the problem of Democratic voters being stacked in small lined city areas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I think a big problem is that the candidates are terrible. We seem to be in an era where good governance is an afterthought, and the anti-government disease has struck the Democrats to the point where we're playing the same game convinced that there is no such thing as good politicians who can make good policy- so only the lovely ones run. It seems there aren't enough good candidates inspired to run, who believe (and who are not afraid to say) that government can work for its people. That government will be diligent in doing so. We need good candidates to inspire not just the electorate, but government itself. Decades of cuts and the erosion of self-worth on the conscience of government workers has caused them to believe that they can't be a part of the solution. They can. They can help government work for its people. They can ensure the citizens get the good government they are entitled to, that can help support them, that can help get them past hard times. Or just to show them that government can be as efficient as they imagine private enterprise to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Which becomes a real problem when given the impression that the Democratic party agenda is at the behest of the big dollar campaign contributors, making the poor demographic even more alienated. Well, in fairness, the Democratic party agenda IS at the behest of the big dollar campaign contributors. Both parties are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So that would just increase the amount of representatives we have? That would lead to a more balanced representation in the House? How will that fix the problem of Democratic voters being stacked in small lined city areas? Well, the allocation of all those new seats would both give an opportunity to reduce gerrymandering and also make it more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, the allocation of all those new seats would both give an opportunity to reduce gerrymandering and also make it more difficult. So more seats = more representation = more difficult for gerrymandering? Makes sense, but I recall hearing that the house in individual states are smaller and are still very gerrymandered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Make gerrymandering illegal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Abandon gun control as an issue. It only appeals to people who are already solid Democrat voters and it alienates the rural working class. Also stop trying to elect Hillary Clinton to things she has all the charisma of a sack of damp leaves and carries more baggage than your average 747.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I think a big problem is that the candidates are terrible. Actually do things that EVERYONE, not just some specific constituency. It's the whole herding cats problem of the Democratic party. Put qualifiers on everything to bring certain groups up when they could actually try and benefit everyone, add the qualifiers later after the success of the first round. I have a dream of returning to my home town one day and running on a platform of putting curbs into the rest of the city. half the city doesn't have them and the roads suck, if we had curbs we would have less lovely roads. Cars would need less maintenance, pedestrians wouldn't get muddy, bikers could bike comfortably and even weirdos on rollerblades would be able to traverse the city easily, making transportation choice equity for all. More people would be put to work, and get to work, the city would improve, and I would pay for it by taxing the top 1% of the city. gently caress em' they are already rich and they wont be poor afterwards, they'd benefit the most, and we would have curbs! Then I would get assassinated in a bar fight over the way I pushed out the old privatized pot hole filling lobby. Rent-A-Cop posted:Abandon gun control as an issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Abandon gun control as an issue. This too. At best talk about gun policy and attack insane poo poo like Texas style poo poo. Don't be trying to restrict mag size.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
I've wondered if there is a geometric solution to redistricting. Like "districts must be drawn with less than 42 lines".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
They're inherently disadvantaged because their core constituencies are much less likely to vote in off years. Their best strategy would be to be a lot more strategic with their money. 1 million to legislature candidates in a state like Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio would go a lot further than it would for the presidential race, where it's a rounding error. Emulate Paul Singer's strategy where his super PAC would strangle anti-Gay legislators in the womb before they had a chance to get on the national stage and do real damage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I've wondered if there is a geometric solution to redistricting. Like "districts must be drawn with less than 42 lines". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A If you really want to get involved, you can modify the algorithm to, rather than drawing straight lines, draw curved lines which have the minimum number of people along them (so that they will tend to conform to geographic boundaries - less populated areas), which you should be able to do with census data, geographic data, and some computing power. It's not perfect, because it doesn't take into account the 'self-selecting' you get with demographics, but it's the fairest way. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:This too. At best talk about gun policy and attack insane poo poo like Texas style poo poo. Don't be trying to restrict mag size. And for gently caress's sake go after things that make sense. The vast majority of gun murders are done with cheap, small-caliber handguns. Assault weapon bans don't address the actual circumstances under which gun murders are committed and only give gun dorks the chance to be absolutely correct when they attack them as pointless nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:And for gently caress's sake go after things that make sense. The vast majority of gun murders are done with cheap, small-caliber handguns. Assault weapon bans don't address the actual circumstances under which gun murders are committed and only give gun dorks the chance to be absolutely correct when they attack them as pointless nonsense. This, for instance coming out against open carry would be fine with most Americans and most gun owners. Its trying to restrict what they can own period that pisses them off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Honestly I'd have more of a problem with concealed carry and concealed weapons, if it's open carry and the gun always stays holstered, with like a strap on it, that'd be a little better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Guns are for people whose job it is to kill professionally, such as soldiers and hunters. Not sure why civilians desperately wanting to own a gun is something that needs to be tolerated. There are other ways Democrats can win back the house that don't involve capitulating to crazy people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Guns are for people whose job it is to kill professionally, such as soldiers and hunters. Not sure why civilians desperately wanting to own a gun is something that needs to be tolerated. There are other ways Democrats can win back the house that don't involve capitulating to crazy people. Guns help make people feel like they have some power/control left in a world that increasingly alienates, especially white males
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
2020 wave election repudiating the Trump administration
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:Guns help make people feel like they have some power/control left in a world that increasingly alienates, especially white males yeah, and then they use that imaginary power/control to shoot up malls, abortion clinics and schools no thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Guns aside, the DNC really needs to do something about the perception of being the irritating HOA council writ large upon the nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:And for gently caress's sake go after things that make sense. The vast majority of gun murders are done with cheap, small-caliber handguns. Assault weapon bans don't address the actual circumstances under which gun murders are committed and only give gun dorks the chance to be absolutely correct when they attack them as pointless nonsense. I understand the point of banning assault rifles is to prevent mass shooting. But yeah this too. BlueBlazer posted:Actually do things that EVERYONE, not just some specific constituency. It's the whole herding cats problem of the Democratic party. Put qualifiers on everything to bring certain groups up when they could actually try and benefit everyone, add the qualifiers later after the success of the first round. Yep. Democrats have to sell their policies as things that benefit EVERYONE rather than "the poor".
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:yeah, and then they use that imaginary power/control to shoot up malls, abortion clinics and schools But that is pretty rare compared to the number of times Obama's UN storm troopers agenda 21 my Modern Sporting Rifles away
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
TBH you're much more likely to be shot by the cops rather than a gun owner in the US anyways, especially if you're black.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:TBH you're much more likely to be shot by the cops rather than a gun owner in the US anyways, especially if you're black. The reason cops in the US have guns is because the populace has guns. Cops in the UK (except Northern Ireland) don't have guns for instance, because they don't need to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 08:33
|
|