Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all the talk in this thread about the Democrats need to win back white non-college voters, that remains the demographic that is tanking the most nationally.
But no one is saying that. We're saying that they need to win back the white working class. One can have a college degree and be working class. One can have a law degree and be working class (like me.) Most people who have graduate degress in sociology or art history or some foolishness will probably have to work their way up to being working class.
Dems aren't worried about 2020 and the presidency. They have the demographics, the blue wall has a few holes but still stands, and with a better candidate they win unless Trump surprises on the plus side and actually runs again. The problem is the local level and off year elections where they can't get their demo to show at the polls. Being out of power and having a idiot in the White House who will attract constant ridicule from the mainstream culture (a variation on the alt-right talk radio that inspires the right) will help immensely in reversing that, but they still need to stop with the identity labeling they have done to themselves and get back to being the party of the little man - black, white, brown or whatever.
I don't think the demographic argument will hold true. I'm shocked by how many young Hispanics, or at least people with Hispanic surnames, belong to the same Conservative Instagram groups that I do. Hispanics are very socially Conservative people, and it seems that they become more politically Conservative the longer their families live in the United States. That is completely anecdotal, but it could explain why Trump didn't bomb with Hispanics as expected. He did even better with Hispanics than Mitt Romney!
They would be wise if they ran someone honest and competent.
In other words, the exact opposite of who they found for 2016.
Instead of looking for a "white male" or the first female president, or the next black president, or the first Latino, or the first Chinese/Japanese transvestite who was formerly Buddhist..... how about they just nominate the best person for the job?
It's almost impossible for Democrats to do that after using identity politics as their overall strategy for the past few decades.
Here's what it comes down to. Trump and the republicans need to deliver jobs to the rust belt states that will folks there to prosper. They have at least two years with minimized interference by the democrats. If they can start to deliver that in a meaningful way and are seen as a success in those areas then it's clear sailing longer term. But if don't deliver and are seen as failing. Then all the dems have to do is roll out a palatable canidate with a decent jobs plan to win. In essence. right know it's all on the republicans and trump to preform.
Very true. As long as the economy is thriving, Trump has a good chance of winning again. I think the alleged "lock-in" votes Democrats have may cross the aisle if Trump proves competent.
No. They need a 90% plus black vote along with a strong turnout.
However, without a black on the ticket can't see this happening. Keith Ellison is likely being groomed for a future run at the top spot.
My guess is the Dem party is also thinking of ways to convince Michelle Obama to get into politics.
A black candidate might draw more black voters than a white one, but Ellison would chase away far more white voters than black ones he attracts. In fact his being a Muslim might be a real turn off for black Christians too. Absolutely his former Nation of Islam association will be a deal breaker for the masses of potential voters.
Michelle Obama would appeal to the party faithful but her husband's baggage would be a major drag. People would fear another 4 years of him. Michelle has some of her own baggage as well that doesn't play well with the middle of the road folks.
Unless the Democrats get away from identity politics that demonizes whites in general and white men in particular, they will keep losing relevance.
After the past 8 years, any black candidate is going to be scrutinized more than Obama was as to whether they are racists. Obama's racism will be an obstacle for those that try to follow him.
I think that the OP makes many good arguments. However, I don't think that Tim Kaine would be a strong candidate, since he is so boring. (He proved to be a lackluster addition to the ticket, and he faltered badly during the VP debate.)
The way I see it, the Democrats can win the White House in one of two ways. They could indeed try to appeal to the white working class (instead of looking down on them), but they will need a dynamic candidate (such as Tim Ryan) as opposed to a boring one. Or, the Democrats could double-down on the identity politics strategy, but--in order to do so successfully--the party would have to place at least one minority on the ticket. I could totally see Kamla Harris becoming the 2020 Democratic nominee and also see her choosing Julian Castro as her running mate. (For the country's sake, I hope that the Democrats don't continue to play the identity politics game; however, there is a way that identity politics could still yield electoral benefits for them, which is the point I am trying to make.)
In 2016, the Democrats followed an identity politics strategy but failed to place a minority on their ticket. This proved to be a fatal mistake. Obviously, the identity politics agenda turned off the white working class voters in the Rust Belt states. Yet at the same time, none of the minorities (who have become the bread and butter of the Democratic base) were excited about voting because two white people were on the ticket.
A black candidate might draw more black voters than a white one, but Ellison would chase away far more white voters than black ones he attracts. In fact his being a Muslim might be a real turn off for black Christians too. Absolutely his former Nation of Islam association will be a deal breaker for the masses of potential voters.
Michelle Obama would appeal to the party faithful but her husband's baggage would be a major drag. People would fear another 4 years of him. Michelle has some of her own baggage as well that doesn't play well with the middle of the road folks.
Unless the Democrats get away from identity politics that demonizes whites in general and white men in particular, they will keep losing relevance.
After the past 8 years, any black candidate is going to be scrutinized more than Obama was as to whether they are racists. Obama's racism will be an obstacle for those that try to follow him.
Very true. Ellison will be the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans, especially in this age of terrorism concerns.
There are a large number of black Christians in states like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, etc. too, so you may be onto something there.
I think that the OP makes many good arguments. However, I don't think that Tim Kaine would be a strong candidate, since he is so boring. (He proved to be a lackluster addition to the ticket, and he faltered badly during the VP debate.)
The way I see it, the Democrats can win the White House in one of two ways. They could indeed try to appeal to the white working class (instead of looking down on them), but they will need a dynamic candidate (such as Tim Ryan) as opposed to a boring one. Or, the Democrats could double-down on the identity politics strategy, but--in order to do so successfully--the party would have to place at least one minority on the ticket. I could totally see Kamla Harris becoming the 2020 Democratic nominee and also see her choosing Julian Castro as her running mate. (For the country's sake, I hope that the Democrats don't continue to play the identity politics game; however, there is a way that identity politics could still yield electoral benefits for them, which is the point I am trying to make.)
In 2016, the Democrats followed an identity politics strategy but failed to place a minority on their ticket. This proved to be a fatal mistake. Obviously, the identity politics agenda turned off the white working class voters in the Rust Belt states. Yet at the same time, none of the minorities (who have become the bread and butter of the Democratic base) were excited about voting because two white people were on the ticket.
The problem with the "double down on identity politics" thing is that it doesn't result in long-term success. Look at what happened with Obama. In the 8 years that he has been President, the Democratic Party resulted in loss after loss despite his generally favorable approval ratings. It seems that a popular Democratic president, like Obama, doesn't necessarily buoy those seeking lower offices.
Republicans, on the other hand, have focused on lower level races, and it has been quite successful. It has also created a "bench" that preps the stage for many rising stars within the party. The Republican "bottom-up" approach seems to work better than the Democratic "top-down" approach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
