Democrats need to learn that you can do both. You can attack Republicans for being attached to Trump at the hip AND you can present a compelling alternative. But more than anything, they need some specifics: elect us and we will do this.
It’s not enough just to say you believe in a stronger economy.
So in the hours since Handel secured a seat in Congress, some national Democrats have found a silver lining there, arguing that the fact that the race was competitive shows the party has a chance to make real gains in the 2018 midterms. But others on the party’s left flank argued that despite the relatively strong performance of Democratic candidates in this year’s special elections, the party needs to put forth a much stronger message going into the midterms.
Why can’t it be both? Why is there a but here? Do both.
Not ONE ad connecting her to trump…or that she appeared with him in April…or that she supports the wall, tax cuts to the rich and repeal of ACA…
If this shit continues into 18’ mid terms the dems will never regain jack shit…
Sure. Everyone loves this particular narrative, so why not. Let’s have a big ol divide on our side too and that way we can fight the GOP from an even more weakened position.
Silver Lining Or Messaging Fail?
They ain’t mutually exclusive…
When a team loses year after year, they generally fire the manager. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but sticking with a losing manager almost never does.
This sounds like it is going to become a Democratic fight club thread. In one corner establishment Dems who are convinced that all Dems have to do is ride the anti-Trump wave to victory as young people come out to vote, and on the other corner “hard left” progressives who want a positive Democratic agenda in addition to the anti-Trump message if there is any hope that young people will vote.
Silver Lining Or Messaging Fail?
Or merely more grist for the infernal narrative mill of the chattering class? I’m not biting.
Yeah I’m probably not going to play, either.
How about this? Democrats aren’t going to win every fucking district. Some districts are just Republican districts. The far left is attempting a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, so they necessarily need you to believe every seat is absolutely winnable. Screw facts. They need you to believe that every loss is the fault of either the DNC, some woman or a minority, and it’s always, always, always because the candidate wasn’t liberal enough. It’s never, ever because some seats are just Republican.
Who are these people because I don’t know anyone who believes this? And if you’d paid even an iota of attention to this race you’d know that isn’t the campaign Ossoff ran.
It is a messaging failure, in the most simple of ways: the Dems do not do a great job of attaching policies to problems.
Say what you will about Trump - he had an answer for everyone’s problem. Sure, they were entirely bullshit - but it shows the effectiveness of proposing policies that address problems and emphasizing how the solution to said problem is said policy.
People are concerned about health care. So attack that problem - enhancing Obamacare is the solution. Period. Sure - highlight how disastrous GOP policy will be, but immediately pivot back to why you’re better, and refuse to even directly address unfounded criticism. Never retreat.
Trump? Trump never failed to reassure people about how he’d take care of them. There’s a lesson to be learned there.
While that’s true, plucky, in order to retake the House, the Dems are going to need to pick off some Republican seats. Not all or even the majority, but some.
If we pad our margin by +15 across the board, we win the House and the Senate. Yes, we need to pick off Republican seats, but the seats we’ll be looking to pick off next year won’t be R +20 seats.
Perhaps we just need to accept that a large percentage of Americans actually want to live in a country with low wages, lack of healthcare, poor roads, poor schools, institutional racism, a toxic environment, continuous war, and low taxes.
It’s easy to overthink it; there may literally be nothing more to it than what I’ve stated above.
Although I’m still baffled that anyone who would say “I’m not for a living wage” could get elected to anything, I think it may be encouraging in a small way. By all rights GA-6 should’ve been an extremely easy win for the Rethugliklans. It wasn’t.
As I’ve been saying - if they had to rely on the near fatal shooting of a Congressman to win that district, they are in deep deep trouble.
The seat was R+20 for Price as an incumbent, but only R+1 for Trump. It should have been winnable as an open seat and I don’t think the candidate was a bad one. I think the Dems need leadership that looks fresh, rather than back to 2008. It actually doesn’t matter nearly as much whether they are “progressive” or “centrist”, so long as they can credibly appear new. I just don’t think Pelosi is the right figure to lead the Dems to regain the House. Typically when a Speaker’s party loses the majority, they step down.
You really can do both. The issue is the GOP are better at buzz words. The economy is a complicated thing but not to hear them tell it most of the time.
The goal should be to tie the GOP to Trump, whatever health bill they get through and whatever else they do. Provide alternatives and come off as adults against a madman. And a party that puts loyalty above individual citizens.