Last week, a series of articles help explain the obstacles Democrats face returning to power. A piece by Aaron Blake of the Washington Post described the problems Democrats face in the 2018 elections. Donald Trump won 30 states and 230 Congressional districts compared to 205 for Clinton. To take either the House or Senate Democrats will need to win areas that just rejected them in November.
At the same time, an analysis by one Congressman seems to conclude that the party should shift its efforts away from rural district and more toward suburban ones. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney says, “[T]he three biggest predictors of the partisan bent of a House district are the percentage of it that is rural, how much of its population has received college degrees and how diverse it is.” There’s certainly some truth in that statement, but the biggest single factor in any election is the political environment.
In another piece, progressive Democrats protested a moderate group’s role at a DCCC retreat. Activists criticized Third Way for “their role in the destruction of the Democratic Party” and said they deserved no seat at the table. As the article points out, the two factions have been feuding within the party as long as it’s been around.
Democrats have a long way to go before they’re back in power. To get there, they need to compete in as many districts as possible instead to determining which ones to write off. In addition, they’ll need candidates who can win in some pretty conservative places. So instead of seeking orthodoxy, they should be building a bigger tent and challenging Republicans everywhere.
The closing scene in the movie Bridge on the River Kwai seems to capture so well so many moments in life and politics that it comes to my mind frequently these days – certainly when I watch the behavior of the new leadership in the White House and certainly when I watch much of the debate in the Democratic Party captured in many of the comments above. The English doctor looking at all the destruction that surrounds him simply says “madness, madness.”
Tom
I may know who you are, and based on your writings I think I do, I think to put it in nutshell we have two factions here, one who has a primary loyalty to the brand name Democrat another who has a loyalty to some kind of progressive movement. In a way its like Chicago in 1968 all over again. But in the end as the Bible says you cannot serve two maters and there is alot of tension between the two sides.
There is no way the Democratic Party can make any come back until the party takes the concern of white and black middle class. these folks could care less about most of these social issues when you begin to answer their worries about stable jobs, safety, and their kids education. We once were the party of hope now we just want to make it legal to marry your dog it seems. Everyone is so worried that they might hurt someone’s feelings, grow up and let’s get this country up and running again.
Why must there exist a dichotomy of urban vs rural? Is there not room in the party for those from both areas? I posit there is. Republicans and the likes of Jesse Helms used tobacco as the wedge to start the split between rural and urban NC. Democrats were proposing controls on tobacco and it was marketed in Johnston County and other places as a direct assault on their livelihood. It worked. The same thing was done to and with coal miners in West Virginia. Some of the poorest, most blighted, most desolate places in this country and they voted overwhelmingly for Trump. That ladies and gentlemen is known as having a good bullshit story.
So while this ball is being slapped back and forth and turns are being taken debating where the impetus should be with regard to this particular aspect of social classification, remember that the Republicans are playing their games, pointing out all these things that, while it might make life better in the long term, is going to negatively impact the indigenous population; rural or urban. Pandering to their audience. And if that should start to wane, throw in some anti-abortion/voter fraud/Muslim immigrant invasion scare rhetoric.
Your right, it’s not true, but that doesn’t matter one iota. People just have to believe it.
There is a certain group within the progressive movement that does not want the party to grow away from them. I have run across these folks and they really are not Democrats in the real sense they are only interested in there narrow agenda.
Willard I have noticed you have a fight with Christianity. That is your choice to make but I can tell you that its a losing fight in so many ways and I do not know of too many folks who want to make it an electoral one.
The “narrow agenda” to which you refer is known as the Platform of the Democratic Party. And those who support it are know as Democrats.
You, sir, do not get to decide who is, or is not, a “real” Democrat. That is defined by support, or non-support, of the Party platform.
And no, we do not want the Party to “grow away” from that.
Party platforms are for the most part written in community colleges but a small group of folks on Saturdays in May. When I was active in the party the platform was often traditional and non controversial . Most candidates for office could support them. Today it is not the case. The Democratic party is about getting people elected who run under the title Democrat. It was not about writing platforms which often times were not only hard to sell to voters but are either issues many candidates consider low priority issues or issues they do not even favor. Now you can say what you want to but back in may time Democrats won many elections including in rural areas. If the party is going to get its majority back I am not sure it is going to trying to sell what you are trying to sell, and at some point in time the party establishment is simply going to get tired of losing and not care how they change.
Now in the end I am not asking you to give everything up, but if you continue to be as closed mined about those in the party who disagree with you, then you are not only going to hurt the party but you are going to damage your cause as well.
I am sorry but we are not back in your or anyone elses time. We are in the present and the present does not look anything like “that time” , not the 80s or 90s and not eve n the earliest few years of this century. Yes the days of Jim Hunt and the Legislature in those days were heady time. NOT relevant today. And yes a big tent is a great idea but tactically moving toward the suburbs and xburbs first. Not to say tacking to rural areas is a waste its just realistically a heavy lift in todays reality.
As for the third way, they like the blue dogs are not what we need now.because we cannot as a party afford the luxury….How many Manchins do we want or need. Just to the one is more than enough in my view . Actually my preference would be that he join the party he seems to like to vote with most often. And at the end of the day…rather than moaning about what bad shape we are in and backbiting why not get our asses to work .
I guess where you and I disagree is I think Joe Manchin is everybit the Democrats you are and I think he should stay in the party and his followers are not welcome but belong in the party and they should not have to give there views to be here either.
All can say that if u r way does not get Democrats elected soon the party will get tired of what you are saying in a hurry.
I am not particularly fighting for the party. The party won’t take a stand on this. I know it’s an impossible task to convince people to actually engage in this topic. However, it needs to be stated that while the democrats appear to support the underclass their support is tepid at best. Look at Hagan run from ObamaCare; or Wassermann-Schlutz’s support of payday loan sharks; or Donna Braziele’s defense of locking Bernie out, or the ‘superdelegates, etc. I am sure the party is beyond repair. Regardless who runs the DNC it will be the same ole same ole.
My argument isn’t with the party (that’s a lost cause), but it is with christians who claim one thing and do another (and with Dems who say one thing and do another). Since that christian attitude is so entrenched in the rural areas, why waste resources, which takes us back to the original comment.
There is no question I have a problem w/ christians. We all should. 66% of them found their savior in TrumPutin. If the so-called ‘real’ christians had any chutzpah they’d start calling out the Falwel’s Perkins, Buchanan’s, Franklin Grahams. But alas, they’ve not got it. They allowed Jesus to be usurped. I was involved with the church for many years. They’re acting no differently now as they did 30’s ago.
I’m sure you’re correct about the political nature of my disgust. But, shall we stand idly by. I’m no fan of christians, but I do follow the teachings of Christ. If he can go to the temple and tear things asunder, surely I can follow his actions with words. DeVos wants to use public ed as a ‘battleground’ to “advance God’s Kingdom; falwell jr wants to have the church continue is discriminatory ways. So, I WILL continue to point out christians who haven’t a clue about Jesus. His words aren’t ambiguous or confusing. It’s those that followed him who’ve mucked up the message.
I am in the camp of Patrick Maloney. The change away from rural communities isn’t going to take place overnight. I live in one of those. However, the truth is these communities are dying off, literally and figuratively. Those remaining are so entrenched in the christian mytholgy that I see nothing but wasted $’s. Until trumPutin does something that will wake up ‘christians’, this area is a lost cause. I say go where the growth is.