Senate The US Politics discussion

But has it really ever been any other way? Sincere question: it's not like the US has always looked after its vulnerable, it weak and its poor, and now, suddenly, there is some lurch to the right and those vulnerable, weak and poor are being shafted, is it? Seems to me that the rhetoric is more loony tunes but that in fact not much as really changed in the US as far as social, political and economic 'equality' is concerned for as long as I have been alive (which is nearly 50 years).

 

There were attempts, yes, but America and Americans have always been pretty selfish and cruel. What we have reflects our national character. We are bad people.

 

It was only for certain parts of a period lasting 35 years (approx. 1933-1968) that there was anyone in power in the United States who wanted to invest in new, far-reaching social programs and succeeded. The Medicaid expansion under the ACA is the only thing that comes close I think. Problem was, while Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was greatly expanding assistance to the poor, he was also sending them to die in Southeast Asia. (And his reforms didn't go far enough e.g. abolishing Jim Crow did nothing for blacks in the North.) I don't think the U.S. has ever really gotten over that contradiction and the state has certainly decided that it would rather have a war machine than robust social programs.

 

I'm not remotely surprised by these results. Democrats simply don't know how to win in the Trump era. They can get close (the SC district race today was only decided by 2%) but can't close the gap.

I suspect more "moral victories" will be in store for 2018.

 

We've never really had much of a "left wing" in this country anyway. I don't know how this is some sudden decline of anything. As you said, this is nothing new.

 

Well, I think Vivec is on the right track with his observations of alternatives.

So, since Trump has been in office, republicans have won the special elections in Montana, Kansas, South Carolina, and now Georgia. Democrats did have their special election in California, but that served to further fracture the party internally than actually appeal to a larger group of voters.

Democrats are in their current tail spin because they continue to take the voters for granted. Despite the fact that the major news outlets positioned this election as a larger referendum to get ratings , local/state elections are not about grandiose messages, they are about appealing to those in the district. Most of Ossoff's donations came from California. This is not to say that Ossoff didn't have strong support, he did. But he was another pawn of the national democratic party instead of an organic candidate. Money can get one pretty far, but I think money will loose out to the personal connection when it is time to cross the finish line. Ossoff was more of a Handel-lite. But ultimately, why vote for someone who is simply the lite version of the other candidate? The true challenger to Handel would have been someone who represented an alternative. Even Trump pointed out that Ossoff didn't live in the district he was running for, and that lack of connection at the local level is a powerful force, no matter what one feels about Trump at the national level.

Instead of being almost completely obsessed with formulas and numbers, (ie..."Ossoff is the first line item in the 24 seat formula to take back the House....") democrats have to return to the basics and actually appeal to the voters.

 

Very much this. The idea that America was ready for a large scale social upheaval always seemed quixotic to me.

 

I'm disappointed in the results. I still believe things are trending positively for Democrats overall and that the massive swings in heavily Republican districts portend major problems for Republicans next year. There are many, many Republicans that can't and won't survive 15-25 point swings. As usual, Josh Marshall is on it: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/thoughts-on-the-disappointing-result-out-of-georgia-6

Good strategists in the Republican Party know that they can't keep taking these 15-20 point hits, because many of them are going to happen in much less safe territory for Republicans.

 

So as I mentioned, I live in the 6th and voted for Ossoff twice. This is a very frustrating result, but the good news is that a) Handel only has that seat until the end of its original term, which is November 2018, and b) the infuriating ads we've been inundated with here can now stop. Of course I'm biased, but the ads run by Handel or some organizations on her behalf have often been very low and very misleading. As KnightWriter says, the Republicans won this race, but the warning signs are all there for them in the future. Also, speaking of the "issue" about Ossoff not living in this district... he grew up in this district, and his parents live here. He doesn't currently live here because he's living with his girlfriend while she finishes college, closer to her college, which is about ten miles outside of the district. So it's just another stupid misdirect.

 

Well, I guess it will be interesting to see. There is precedent for such a massive shift, but it's not common.

In 2008, coinciding with Obama's election, the democrats gained 21 seats in the House. In the years prior to that, most elections only saw back and forth switches in the single digits. However, everyone remembers the 2010 midterm elections, 2 years into Obama's first term, when the democrats lost 63 seats, with the GOP gaining the same amount. This was the largest swing in the House since post WWII 1940's. This could happen again. But I think Marshall is playing is safe, because incumbent dissatisfaction usually sees a gain in the party that is opposite of the President during midterm elections. I don't know if democrats will gain 25 seats in the house 16 months from now, but I could see some sort of normalizing with the democrats picking up a net gain among specific gains and losses.

In fact, if you look at the 2010 election result map, I think it is the year which laid the foundation for the results of Trump's Presidential election, with the democrats cementing their presence on the coasts, but loosing ground nearly everywhere else. Of course, Obama was obviously re-elected at the national level, but I think at the expense of starting to cede the local/state races.

​

​

2010​

Democratic hold-dark blue
Democratic gain-light blue
Republican hold-dark red
Republican gain-light red

 

Well the demos have a big dilemma and zero leadership. They need to get their vision back or the party will continue adrift and without real meaning. Ossoff was a poster boy for that. DLC, past the sell by date, candidate. Maybe if he'd run twenty years ago? Or even ten.

 

I disagree with all the above.

Also, what national leadership did they have in 2005-06? There wasn't any, yet they still managed to take back the House and Senate.

 

You can still take back Congress and not have national leadership. But they wont take back the WH without it. And they are now 0-4 or is it 0-5 on these special elections.

 

They were all safe Republican seats. Democrats took massive bites out of previous margins, all of which run through 2016. If Democrats had fumbled a campaign where the departed representative had won by five points or less, that would be a different story. Price won by over 30 points, and the district is rated at about R+10. The Republican candidate should have won tonight according to the numbers, and Republicans in general should have won each of the special elections.

I guarantee you that the better strategists in the party aren't doing much celebrating right now. They understand what they'll have to deal with in in less than 18 months.

 

You mean nothing apart from the official ideology of the party which rules the country, and still justifies its monopoly on power through appeals to "socialism with Chinese characteristics"?

 

The PRC is a centrally planned state capitalist country, regardless of what words they use to call themselves. Next thing you're going to tell me about how the DRPK is democratic because it's in the name.

 

And the US champions itself as "the shining city on a hill," leading the world by moral example in democracy and human rights... "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All."

 

I do not share your rosy outlook. They will lose and lose big in 2018. The Democratic Party is dead.

 

Jesus, I wouldn't go that far.

 

But KW's rosy outlook has such an excellent track record!

Excellent at being rosy.

 

I can confirm that KW was the one who told May she'd win a 400 seat majority.

 

Folks, I have no love for Republican-lite Ossoff or his worthless party, but we need to address the elephant in the room: voter suppression.

Please watch/read this Greg Palast report:

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/6/15/greg_palast_how_racist_voter_suppression

 

I confess to being highly discouraged at yesterday's results in SC and GA (my post last night certainly reflects that). But the following comment I saw this morning offers a consoling counter perspective:



That said, the best thing Democrats can do right now is to rally behind a central message (something more substantive than merely "We're not Trump"). Obama won because he had a message of hope and change. Bernie performed far better in last year's primary than anyone expected because he had a message for those disillusioned by corporate elites. Clinton lost because her message was little more than "I'm not that deplorable guy over there," and I'm convinced Ossoff could've closed the gap or even won if he'd had run on a platform that was more than just being the anti-Trump.

The importance and effectiveness of messaging, I believe, is the big takeaway from the shocking gains made by the Labour Party in the UK's recent general election, for instance.