What must Democrats do in order to win in 2018?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jun 22, 2017.

  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    The Democrats have most of mainstream news on their side. They’ve got MSNBC and CNN. And Joe I think its you who’s confused about branding. You should always remember that

    “In almost every instance the signs of decline were readily available through consumer research, employee surveys or competitive comparisons but were ignored until they grew into an unavoidable disaster. Company executives missed the opportunity to right the ship because they stopped focusing on winning in the marketplace.”https://www.forbes.com/2010/04/07/toyota-general-motors-branding-cmo-network-mike-linton.html

    Evidently that’s what went wrong with ‘popular’ brands like Toyota and GE. But you seem to believe in this is the idea, so how would you do it Joe? How would you re-brand the Democratic Party? Obviously you don’t think the party needs to change so I imagine that none of your ideas will consider tinkering with the product itself, just getting it a new suit and a flashier ads is that it?

    Yes Joe both parties are similarly challenged EXCEPT the Republicans are the ones in power and the Democrats are not. Republicans have both houses, legislative positions and governor seats. Listening to you the Democrats are not only doing a great job so why aren’t they popular? I mean if people felt their policies really benefitted them then why are they fed up with Democrats?

    Sorry for mistaking you for a registered Democrat I apologize, its just that you seem to defend them very heavily and even in the face of their overwhelming failures.

    Look at both parties? Why? This ahead asked about how the Democrats can win 2018! I’m simply pointing out that the party hasn’t done the soul searching necessary to win significantly in 2018. There is nothing to see in the Republican party. They are doing all the things they said they wanted to do. They are doing all the things their fringe base and partly that of their majority are asking of them. There’s nothing to see there because they’re just being themselves, they're not presenting anything new in character since the Tea Party retuned the party. What’s the Democrats excuse? Much like both parties I think you are missing the bigger picture, which is that neoliberal and neoconservative politics are radicalizing the electorate. Neoliberal and neoconservative policies made a socialist candidate viable and allowed Trump to take over the Republican party with the help of an extreme narrow base. Middle of the road policies aren’t working for people, Obamacare helped a little but since it cannot stem rising costs its a failure so now they’re asking for universal health care. If the Democratic Party doesn’t change fast, if it doesn’t put out their old guard to pasture (Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein) all the old buzzards, then they will decline or the base will elect more Progressives and take over the party. Neoliberal policies are a FAILURE. And Joe its this 20 something generation you have to look towards and they don't want anything to do with the Democrats as they are now. They're the ones who flooded stadiums to listen to Bernie and only 18% of them think there is anything worth supporting in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party isn't losing ground because of the opposition, they're losing ground because of what they've become. No one to blame but themselves and yet they fail to take responsibility.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    *post was a mistake*
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    No, they don't. That's ridiculous.
    Both those stations, for example - and they are the two most favorable for Dems - are fully complicit in the Republican "bothsides" issue framing and Republican vocabulary establishment in the large majority of their news delivery and punditry.

    CNN in particular has been practically in Trump's pocket - they covered his campaign almost as an auxiliary publicity feed, with extended live and unedited broadcast of his rallies (the time they broadcast a half hour of dead air with an empty podium someplace in North Dakota, waiting for Trump to appear, while Sanders rallies in key States where he was desperate for name recognition went without coverage, has become an iconic moment in US media analysis)

    - and MSNBC has filled its air time with the likes of Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough (extended hours), Greta Van Susteran (hired from Fox News), even the execrable Hugh Hewitt now.

    There is essentially nobody on MSNBC to the left or progressive direction of the Democratic Party rightwing establishment - the Clinton crowd - and at least four hours of daily programming solidly to the right or conservative direction of it. That's on top of the aforementioned vocabulary and framing issues.
    You have overlooked the role of the news and pundit media, and the corporate right's dominance of same.
    You have overlooked the role of voter suppression and electoral manipulation, and the corporate right's predominant influence in same.
    You have overlooked the behavior of the Republican Party, and the influence of its funding sources - the authoritarian corporate right.
    These are key and predominant issues faced by any political agency that seeks to defend the country and its political traditions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    There is that identity politics again! You would rather we lose everything to republican, to people that are open to outlawing abortion even in the case of rape, simply because Bernie top priority is not specifically women! If you care about women so much you would suck it up and vote for what ever can win against the likes of pro-life bible thumping republicans, just as I sucked it up and voted for Hillary in the end. Most of all if we are to gain democrats in red districts, some of them will be pro-life, but that is a pro-life democrat replacing a pro-life republican, that is a radical improvement.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    And the trend continues, at least if the rumors - which have been accurate for the last couple of years regarding MSNBC - prove accurate once again:
    http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02...g-rachel-maddow-8-pm-replace-chris-hayes.html

    MSNBC has replaced more liberal with less liberal hosts in every move they've made for the past few years - including replacing higher rated and larger audience hosts with lower rated and smaller audience hosts (there was no audience demand for expanded Morning Joe hours, for example, and there was large demand and high ratings for Keith Olbermann).
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    The only reason why the press hooked into Trump was because he brought them ratings. As Les Moonves, executive chairman and CEO of CBS, said at the Media and Telecom Conference in San Francisco “I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us,” he said at the event. “Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

    What has lead to this profit driven mainstream media? De-regulation among other things. There's a good Mother Jones article with Robert W. McChesney author of "The Problem with Media: US Communication Politics in the Twenty- First Century"http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/10/problem-media/

    That's the state of the media but its difficult to say CNN was in Trumps pocket when Wikileaks exposed the following

    On May 18, CNN.com published a pro-Hillary Clinton op-ed by Maria Cardona, a CNN political commentator. Titled “Why Sanders must take the high road,” the piece was published in the aftermath of an out-of-control Nevada Democratic state party convention. The author remonstrated Sanders fans. Maria Cardona, a political commentator for CNN, is a Hillary Clinton supporter and Democratic Party superdelegate. She is a principal at the Dewey Square Group, which does work for a super PAC supporting Clinton. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.

    And, perhaps the Democratic National Committee’s. What CNN.com did not include in its disclaimer is that Cardona pre-checked a draft of the op-ed with the DNC. That revelation comes from the mass of emails released by WikiLeaks and indexed here. On the morning of May 18, Cardona sent a draft of the op-ed to the DNC under this subject line: “Subject: URGENT – DRAFT CNN OPED ON NV.” Her request was in the top line: “I want to make sure it is not to heavy handed. Please let me know asap! Thanks!!” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...hecked-op-ed-with-dnc/?utm_term=.c2026e93d51b

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME? REALLY? You want to blame Trump and ignore the role of Democrats in Sander's coverage? Either you paid zero attention to what was disclosed by Wikileaks or you're missing the big picture. The Right aren't the only ones with their own mouth piece, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is nothing more than a Democratic Party pundit, same as the ones who speak on behalf of the Republican Party. Joe Scarborough was quite fair with Sanders from I remember and even said that the Democratic primaries are rigged, they argue over it. 2:50 minutes in they are all going on about how Bernie could win if not for the Democrats use of super-delegates http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/joe-dem-primary-system-rigged-against-voters-663318083925 You should really watch the video!

    Which is why I find it amusing when Democrats like Hilary and others, JoePistole included, go on about how un-democratic the electoral vote without even a hint of irony considering how the DNC runs its primaries. You can't accuse the media of Republican bias when

    "Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions for GOP presidential hopefuls Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz and the man who ultimately got the nomination, Donald Trump."

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/ne...ded-on-questions-for-trump-other-republicans/

    I mean come on now!
     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    As a woman I agree with you. What's going on in the country is BIGGER than our little identity groups. If we don't deal with neoliberal and neoconservative economic and political system shafting ALL of use, gay or straight, right or left, then the nation is doomed and Democracy will be dead. I don't accept any Democrat going on about Sanders on women's issues because the Democrats have failed to champion those rights on the ground for over ten years. To hell with them!
     
  11. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,151
    Oh, I see, BOTH sides are just as bad?
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Well according to Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio “Our brand is worse than Trump”

    He also said a few days before on Morning Joe

    “We’ve got a lot of energy in our base, which is very exciting for a lot of us to see that on the ground, But you’ve got to beat the Republican and you’ve got to carry this very toxic Democratic brand on your back, too. That’s a tough thing to ask a candidate running for Congress.”

    Now I'm thinking a party member who's been voted into the House of Representatives may know what he's talking about, a rare moment of truth. I'm sure the party will repay this honesty by withhold money come his next election.
     
    ElectricFetus likes this.
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    So?
    The press hooked into Trump. And that's how he won. The Democrats did not have major media support in that campaign. Trump did.
    No, it isn't. CNN was in Trump's pocket, which is an observation based on what CNN actually did all day every day during the campaign. So was the large majority of the rest of the media, including a majority of the actual news and pundit presentation of the New York Times, MSNBC, etc.

    Like this:
    On Morning Joe

    - a rightwing Trump-promoting (during the campaign) show which runs, every weekday, longer than Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes put together and without the matching Chuck Todd or other loyal opponent analogs, on the most liberal major market TV station there is -

    a guy who knows what he's talking about tells you that the media - the establishers and purveyors of political branding - are not on the Dem's side, and especially not on the side of the liberal, libertarian, and left body of Dems (collectively the main body, and the center of the Dem voting base as well as a majority of the American public).

    He's right, and you know it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    They ran the ads because the ads were paid for and MSNBC is a corporate owned channel. Were they only supposed to show Clinton ads? Care to address the Wikileaks report on the DNC and CNN? Or is it too outside your neatly conceived narrative? And if the arena of ideas is based solely on having a pundit, a media bullhorn speaking for something then its no longer news my pet but propaganda. That's what Fox, MSNBC and CNN engage in, propaganda but instead of focusing on how to get corporate interests out of the press of restoring more balanced reporting and fleshing out of ideas instead of punditry, you're suggesting that all the Democrats need is better, well oiled propaganda to meet that of the Republicans. And you wonder why the country is in hell right now. Liberals, Democrats need to stop whining and fix the problems within their party, none of which were caused by Republicans. Why is it so difficult for the Dem's to take responsibility? So strange. You still never answered how it is that Bernie Sanders was able to grow a massive movement without a stitch of help from the MSM. If the MSM were really that powerful Bernie would have been a blip, he would have had no reach and yet he had massive reach and yet he did. But Democrats who get more than their fair share of air time think they are failing because of the media? LOL! Its the party stupid, its the party.

    Speaking of which. The Miami Herald posted an interesting article on this thread topic

    Without the advantage of the presidential bully pulpit, it falls upon the Democratic congressional leadership and the Democratic National Committee to frame a vision that will attract and motivate voters. At a time when the country desperately needs a loyal opposition and citizens are highly motivated, both have failed miserably.In the six months since Donald Trump has become president, Democrats have offered no ideas, no strategy, and no message beyond opposing Trump. We ridiculed Republicans for not developing a plan over the past eight years to replace Obamacare, yet where is the Democratic plan for infrastructure improvement, tax reform, fixing Obamacare, climate change, housing, and more? Yes, we are the minority party in Congress and our legislation won’t pass, but the optics of offering solutions are important, and so too are the optics of not offering solutions.

    Let’s look at the House Democratic congressional leadership. The top three positions are filled by people in their 70s. Since last week’s special election in Georgia — which Democrat Jon Ossoff lost — there has been party buzz about whether Nancy Pelosi should continue as Democratic minority leader. This is important because she is on television every night as the public embodiment of the Democratic Party. She has been the Democratic leader in Congress for 14 years, but for only four years has the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. House. Pelosi says that she, “is worth the trouble,” is a great fund-raiser, and a master manipulator of legislative intricacies.But Pelosi is two other things: She’s a loser and she’s selfish. Is Pelosi really the only one who can raise money or articulate Democratic principles? And what good is filling the coffers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee if the party doesn’t win.

    The Republicans aren’t kidding when they say they are thrilled to have Pelosi as the opposition leader. Just to prove it they spent millions of dollars on TV ads in the Georgia election that simply tied the Democratic candidate to Pelosi. It may not be fair but she has become a divisive symbol to voters. Pelosi is not bigger than the party, and she has had her shot. Remember, politicians rarely relinquish power voluntarily.House Democrats can’t do it alone. They need their Senate colleagues and both need the Democratic National Committee to support their vision and to strengthen the party’s political infrastructure. However, it seems like Party Chairman Tom Perez has been invisible since his election. There is also a growing chasm between the centrist wing and the more liberal Sanders/Warren wing.

    The Sanders people have reason to distrust the national party given its actions before the Democratic Convention and what they view as a slap down of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison by the Clinton/Obama party operatives.
    It is true that Ellison would have been a flawed choice for party chairman given his track record on Israel, but the perception of a rigged party persists. The disruptive scene at the Democratic State Convention in California between the various factions last month hopefully is not a harbinger of things to come. Perez did appoint Ellison as his deputy chair, but the both have work to do.

    And speaking of selfish, there is the ongoing, nagging problem of Hillary Clinton trying to re-litigate the results of the 2016 election. Every time she speaks, it only serves as a reminder to people of the failures of her campaign and the Democratic Party to articulate issues of importance to the American people. Worst of all, like Pelosi, Clinton sucks the oxygen out of the room, making it harder for younger elected Democrats to get air time and make their voices heard. She should take her cue from President Obama, who exemplifies dignity over whining, while he bides his time to speak out.

    I don’t know how other Democrats feel about the party, but my emotions alternate between depression and anger. If they want to inspire people, they need to offer ideas. I was given the opportunity at a young age to affect the direction of the party, but what I see now is leadership standing in the way of the next generation of American leaders. If they won’t get out of the way, younger Democrats need to kick the door down — the country can’t wait.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article158531664.html#storylink=cpy
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,151
    Jebus Christmas, I'm talking about policies not bleeding branding.
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Yes I know that's what you meant and as you can see this is also what I have been saying throughout this thread. I mentioned Ryan because he begged mentioning. What does it mean when a representative of the Democrat party makes a statement like that? I'm just saying. He's being honest, he's not blaming the media or gerrymandering, electoral votes or the big bad Republicans or Progressives, he's placing the blame right at the foot of the party.
     
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,151
    It means nothing to me.
     
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Ok.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    What "ads"? Nobody's talking about any paid ads. Trump ran very few. He didn't have to, he was already swamping the airwaves with favorable pro bono publicity handed to him (and nobody else) by every major media outlet - including the New York Times and MSNBC, as mentioned, and with CNN's contributions so flagrant some examples (such as the empty podium in North Dakota event) have become standing jokes, icons of bad news coverage.
    I just did, you miss it? You quoted the post.
    Essentially, I count actual behavior and observed event far more heavily than the supposed implications of reported deals, or what somebody claims to have been somebody else's opinion, and so forth. If you want to argue that the negative Trump opinions held by some of the newsroom employees at CNN outweigh the overwhelmingly dominant day in day out nature of the network's actual on air news feed and coverage and pundit presence, you need heavier ammo than that.
    You didn't like the answer:
    But maybe you missed it as cleanly as you missed the various Democrat policy offerings and legislative proposals and so forth over the many decades - like this:
    You mean you don't know? You bang on about the Democrats lack of this and that, and come to find out you have no idea what the Democrats have been doing.
    Here's a recent example, currently blocked - like the rest - by Republicans hiding their incompetence from public scrutiny: http://www.missourinet.com/2017/05/...o-save-health-care-exchanges-under-obamacare/
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Oh you mean that covering him so heavily was like an ad for Trump. Fair enough but we already know that news agencies followed the ratings at the expense of balanced reporting of each candidate. I'm sorry but from what I've observed Trump and his antics were covered but the media also favored Clinton to the point of fawning over her. They covered the email scandal but there was no way to avoid that.

    As far as this statement "Democrats have offered no ideas, no strategy, and no message beyond opposing Trump. We ridiculed Republicans for not developing a plan over the past eight years to replace Obamacare, yet where is the Democratic plan for infrastructure improvement, tax reform, fixing Obamacare, climate change, housing, and more?" That's from the editorial in The Miami Herald by Mark Abrams. Its his words not mine, check the post again I posted his entire op-ed. Its a Democrat speaking about his own party. I guess that poor journalist and Democrat just doesn't know about all those great plans that haven't seen the light of day, plans so great Democrats are losing seats like Kojak lost hair.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,897
    Regardless of motive, they did what they did. CNN was in Trump's pocket, practically an auxiliary publicity agency for the guy. The rest were similarly and significantly biased.
    Clinton received mostly negative coverage, and less coverage. Trump received mostly positive coverage, especially by adopting his framing of Clinton, and more coverage.

    Clinton's email "scandals" were minor, blown far out of proportion, and covered incessantly using Republican campaign framing and vocabulary - which created many false impressions and negative ones.

    Trump's various scandals were major, were downplayed, were covered as less compromising and less indicative than they were, and were covered largely in Republican vocabulary and framing - which created many false impressions and positive ones.

    I'm sure the news people themselves favored and fawned over Clinton personally, especially as Trump was abusing them to their faces and treating them with public contempt, but that doesn't change what they did and how they covered the campaign in fact.
    He's not a journalist, his name is Mike, he's a Florida Democratic Party official gone into private financial consulting (a dubious combination) who was opposed to Hillary Clinton's candidacy from the beginning. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article61164382.html
    He is trying to get rid of the Clinton crowd in the Democratic Party, and with that goal his hyperbole serves its purpose - it's perfectly true that the fact most people cannot answer that question itself makes his point. But the claim implied is wrong - many Dems have many plans ready and waiting - and his motive is suspect: he apparently wants to push the Democratic Party farther right, away from the Bernie crowd and more toward what he and many such business and finance interests like to call "the center" - i.e. midway between their views of the Republicans and their views of the Democrats. Where financial consulting firms will get tax breaks and regulatory relief, say.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,514
    It might mean he is someone who challenged Minority Leader Pelosi and lost, and is criticizing her leadership in hopes of getting another try. You ... uh—

    —you kind of left that part out. Let me guess, you're being honest.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Pelosi has sate on the democrats losing thousands of political seats, losing all power in goverment, to a pig boar no less. Anyone can criticize pelosi freely.
     

Share This Page