What can the democrats do to save their party?

Here are some things they are doing wrong.

1. Promoting sanctuary cities.

2. Making more than two genders a science.

3. Promoting global warming like it's fact.

4. Blocking Trump from making this country great again by voting everything he does down and even bribing/blackmailing some republicans to do it too!

5. Bringing the biggest racial tension/divide since slavery into this country by making everything into racism instead of dealing with consequences of your action.

6. Promoting illegal immigration by renaming it to "undocumented immigrants".

7. Rioting whenever they don't get there way.

The list goes on and on, how do you think they can bounce back before next election?

We've got users on here who claim they're already the second coming of Stalin era Socialists and others who claim they're already an undercover arm of the Republican party.

This should be fun.

Do nothing. Trump's administration is tearing the republican party apart. All the democrats have to do is nothing, don't do anything stupid and just let the incompetence of this administration carry you to the top.

Keep in mind that is all they have to do, not what I want them to do, there are huge problems with the party itself but they seem minor compared to what is currently going on.

I am aware that this is a typical troll post from this forums biggest troll, but I decided starting a discussion could still be beneficial.

Distance themselves from the far left would be a good start, much like the Republicans should with the right.

Other then that? They need good representatives, as currently they strike me as science denial zealots with piss poor leadership. Less feels and more logic would be a good start.

Which is also what the Republicans would need ironically. Basically they need to reaffirm the party, retake it from the loony bins that took it away. As the political parties currently seem little more then laughing stocks, grown children trying to run a country with a "my way or no way" mentality expected by a kindergarden.

Overturning 10+ years of degradation is hard to do, so sane finances, politics, a good strong leader and a clear message, will take a damned good group of politicians. Currently I would settle for simply one of those.

1. Democrats say "Sanctuary City", Republicans say "Pardon the racist"

2. It literally is a science. Multiple sciences, actually.

3. I believe it is called "climate change" now, bruh :D And it promotes itself, it's just too bad no one is paying attention.

4. They're doing it to themselves fine on their own. No help needed from Democrats.

5. See Number 4 above

6. Republicans are probably some of the largest employers of illegals in the country. Trump sure was/is...

7. OK, you can have that one...but are those pricks really democrats?

I Might have fed the troll but, dammit, you make it so fun @n64dd

P.S. you know I love you.

Clinton was literally an 80's-style Republican on paper, outside of a few social issues, but you can forgive those. For the most part, a red-blooded traditional Republican should have loved her but the frenzy caught that group so off guard. Also, democrat :P

But ultimately I totally agree with you, both parties have become so enticed with the extremes they have forgotten that pretty much everyone is in the middle. We all dabble in the extremes, indulge our political id from time to time, but for the most part we are all moderate I feel. Even if we are not, we can accept moderate policies.

They're talking about getting Franken to run I'm just like "Dear God, no. Please no. No no no no no NO!" I mean, I really like Franken as an end-game, but right now...not so much.

I love you too, and yes to number 7. They really are democrats.

Add that to my list. Democrats point at everything but themselves when they lose.

Do nothing....Trump and the Republicans are self destructing...........

Kind of like how Trump was self destructing before the election?

And yet he's losing the fringes of voters. He can't repeat with only his base. Not going to happen.

It wasn't going to happen last time either. Seeing the pattern here?

Just keep doing what you're doing. We'll be controlled by the Democrats soon. Which is better at least than what we now have. Continue on with your fantasies by all means...........

Only seven? Weak.

7. Because Charlottesville SO didn't happen.

Start listening to the people in the middle and not the highest voice shouting on the left side?

Exactly like that. the only difference is that voters will not be as apathetic in 2020. They will go to the polls. If Trump wins reelection and the numbers of voters at the polls don't change...shame on America.

@LJS9502_basic: Brooks pretty we encapsulated why that's the case: "When you have an intraparty fight about foreign or domestic issues, you think your rivals are wrong. When you have an intraparty fight on race, you think your rivals are disgusting."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opinion/trump-identity-politics.html

Democrats can´t save themselves until they stop trying to please the far-left and the liberals idea that no one in the right group should ever feel offended.

Also they need to come to terms with Obama's failure to unite the country and start to move back to the middle.

Which all can come with the right candidate and right now no one in the democratic party stands a chance of being anything else but a "not Trump" candidate.

Watch trump damage his own reelection chances over and over again for the next 3 years or so. The democrats can also come up with alternative policies that can appeal to the general electorate more while the republicans and trump continue to hurt themselves.

Yes if the Democrats were paying attention they know what they need to say to win...........

Won't disagree with that.

Saying it is not enough , they need the right candidate to say it.

Not a dried up old spinster who is more a librarian than a president.

Nothing really other than focus their efforts on every single district and elect a better candidate. Their positions are fine.

Oh look, blatant sexism.

1. Not real.

2. Not real.

3. Undeniable fact.

4. Absurd.

5. Absurd.

6. US Constitution.

7. See domestic terrorism.

So, because this list is a joke, lets get serious here.

Its very simple how the democrats solve their problems, but they wont do it because they are actually republicans. But if we are to imagine how this could happen its very simply, adopt Bernie's plans. They are all favored by the majority Americans, including a very large percentage of conservatives and over 70% of independents. If they had a guy who talks the talk and walks the walk, they would never lose power and it might even force conservatives to become an honest party once again.

Bernie rofl.

As usual you can't come up with a well thought out response.

Besides, you should love Bernie, he is arguably the reason why trump won.

Whats wrong with Bernie?

He's the only candidate who is not owned by corporations and the only candidate we could trust to do whats best for us the tax payers instead of the already rich and corporations.

If the democrats ran Bernie, they would have had a record win. In fact, every person (personally) i know who voted for Trump, only did so because Bernie was not a candidate. The support he gets from democrats, progressives, independents and even conservatives is unmatched. He would win West Virginia right now.

"Arguably" as in, not at all, but one can make any claim they want?

We know why Trump won. Because when you offer up a republican in place of a democrat, they will not get the progressive and independent vote.

He sold out to Hillary.

Whats "put", and how much did he get for it?

Oh, you mean "out"... .yah, many of us didnt like that. But we know he did so in order to try to have some kind of say in the direction our nation went. He's still one of the very few completely uncorrupted politicians we have, and walks the walk. What he did is a difference in direction to take, which is hopefully something you encounter with most people. But overall his ideas are supported by the vast majority of Americans, including a large percentage of conservatives (as they should be if youre a real conservative).

He sold out. End of story. Glad you completely destroyed your own argument.

He didnt really "sell out", he simply tried to position himself best to get some of his ideas enforced.

Had he started taking money from corporations or corrupted politicians and than started proposing legislation that was completely opposite of what we support him for... that would be selling out. There's multiple ways to address the situation, he picked one that i was not a fan of but many were........ so...... yah. If you find yourself agreeing 100% with someone or supporting every little thing they do, you're the fraud, not them.

But none of this addresses you laughing at the idea of Bernie being one of the people who could save the democratic party. You seem to want to avoid that even about 30-40% of your own party supports him and that if he was running, he would decimate any republican he ran against.

You literally just said that "many of us didn't like that" when I said he sold out.

Come back when you are not arguing with yourself.

Right... but i dont need to like everything a person does in order to support them, and if they don't do everything i like, it does not mean they "sold out".

What are you 5?

Have you gotten past the terrible 2's yet and realized the world does not beat to your drum?

He sold out. NEXT!

I knew tons of people who refused to vote democrat because they were mad at the DNC for what they did to Bernie. That doesn't take into account all the people who still wrote him in during the general or voted for other more progressive candidates. So completely dismissing the idea as dumb is a bit ignorant imo.

I'm dismissing it because he sold out to Hillary completely and it was a complete failure on all levels. People write in Mickey Mouse on ballets.

#rekt

No its not.

Even if we move away from that argument, its simply someone taking part in our democratic process. We are supposed to have multiple people with different ideas, competing for our vote. If a candidate fails to do that, its of their own making (unless we are looking at an organization so corrupted that they ensure others lose). And its hard to find a better example of someone who didnt give a shit about going out and getting democratic, progressive and independent votes. If Hillary even partially resembles a progressive or democrat even, and would have cared enough about the average person, the middle class, to go and speak to them a few times a year. She very easily could have won. Shit, George Bush jr. tried to get the progressive vote more than goddamn Hillary did.

It sounds like you're under the impression that had Bernie not been around, all those people who refused to vote for Hillary in 2008 as well (Bernies fault?) and who had no interest in propping up a corporate war monger, would have voted for her anyway. You saw how many of those votes were lost with Obama, it followed the natural voting path had Obama had a third term or we replaced him with Hillary.

The DNC gave people this corporate republican who calls herself a democrat, who did not even try to talk to middle America, and everyone knew how corrupted she was (as we can see in 2008 as well. This was not new for her. She didnt speak to people because she knows the more she speaks, the more people dislike her and see right through her lies). We take that and see that she wont get any extra votes aside from the people who will vote democrat no matter what. Then we look at Trump and he gets the people who will vote republican no matter what, plus he was the only one of the two going out and having conversations with the working class of America. THESE are the reasons why she lost and not at all because Bernie Sanders chose to take part in something he had every right to. Hillary first lost to a black guy with a Muslim sounding name, in America, 7 years after 911. And then she lost to "grabem by the pussy", reality show star who knows nothing else in this world except real estate. Its a trend, and it has nothing to do with Bernie.

The only way youre accurate in saying what youre suggesting is by technicality. Because technically we can say this about anyone and anything participating in our democratic republic. Basically going with the idea that everything affects everything. But if youre trying to suggest something real, this does not hold up.

Like the dried up old man we have now that doesn't know what he's doing?

By the way....you misused the word spinster. We should take a collection to get you a dictionary.

I am under that impression because that has been my experience with most of the liberals I know in person. You can go on and on about how horrible of a candidate hillary was because it is true, she was horrible, but it seems like you are giving reasons that also contributed to her not getting elected and presenting them as proof there was no other reason which is a bit off imo. Keep in mind that I didn't intend to give off the impression that I think Bernie was the only reason she lost because I know that would be a ridiculous thing to try to claim. I just believe it was a huge part since the party itself was split over these two candidates and the DNC favoring one rubbed a lot of would be voters the wrong way.

Hillary had to earn votes and she failed at this. Its not the first time this happened and if she runs in 2020, it wont be the last. The results will be the same becasue we know too much about her. You should have no problems removing "bernie" from the conversation of blame because we've seen this before and everyone paying attention, knew exactly what was going to happen. That she would either lose, or barely win, because she would fail to get any voters outside of the "i always vote democrat because i cannot think" crowd.

So again, you seem to be making this poor assumption that these people who clearly would not support Hillary (as demonstrated with previous elections and polling long before and during Bernie), would go ahead and do so anyway.

Even if this is what you want to say, how can you say that is on Bernie? Did he do that? Did he rig the DNC?

The DNC advertises itself as a piece of a democratic republic and that your vote is what matters... until its not really up to your vote and they will rig it how they see fit. Why are you not saying that this is clearly on Hillary and the DNC? Bernie would have demolished the orange teletubby.

So why is it not the other way around? why not tell the right wing lunatic to thank Hillary, the DNC and their fake democracy for ensuring we were left with president retard?

Bernie did not rig the system against himself.

Bernie did not force Hillary to never speak to anyone who didnt give her at least 200k.

Bernie did not force her to have a platform that more closely resembled a republicans than a democrats.

Bernie did not force her staff to literally come up with the game plan of going after republicans instead of democrats in swing states.

Bernie was not needed for her to continuously poll as a top 2 least liked presidential candidates of all time, only behind an orange buffoon, who was at least going out and telling labor workers who's jobs continue to vanish, and wages continue to decrease and health care costs continue to rise, that shit wont happen if he is elected. Lie or not, its more than she did. Who did she go after in these states? Well, she made phone calls to republicans who made 120k+a year.... brilliant strategy as a democrat... cant fucking imagine how she lost. If definitely must have something to do with the guy who merely said the things that 70%+ voters already supported.

So stop with this bullshit. Bernie or not, if Hillary was not a joke of a candidate, she would have won. Exactly like in 2008. Had she taken up one single thing that progressive supported... single payer. 15 min. wage. expanding SS. Stop fracking. Hell, she could have simply spoke out against DAPYL... not even being against the pipeline, just saying that oil companies should not be able to use our police as private entities who work for them and not the people.. just one of the things progressives have been screaming for far longer than Bernie was in the spotlight. You know, the vary things that got Obama elected. And chances are, she would have won. Just by doing one of those very basic democratic things. But she couldnt do it, becasue shes not a democrat and even worse, shes a loser.

The majority of people don't care what party they are voting for. They care about who they are voting for. The minority is actually these people who vote democrat because they say they are democrat and thinks everyone else does this as well. I consider myself progressive democrat socialist marxist and ive voted for a democrat once (by name. Obama once and only once). And as you cited with the people you know, ill cite that with the people i know, all of those who are liberal democrats, want nothing to do with the democratic party and would never vote for anyone like Hillary or vote democrat simply because. And most of these people are in states where it would very much matter if they voted, but because the democrats are actually republicans and Hilary is really at the helm of this, none will vote a democratic scumbag until those scumbags start giving us ideas we can get behind and demonstrates they will enact them.

Im assuming you voted for Hillary.... so tell me... what did she do to earn your vote?

EDIT: Humm... apparently youtube is spying on me becasue this just popped up in my "hey you wanna watch this?" tab. youtube.com/watch?v=Dc6OKebEdZo

I think you are misunderstanding my point man, I am not saying he did this on purpose and is responsible himself, I am saying his campaign and the support behind it was a relatively big cause, nothing more, nothing less. I never said it was his fault alone that she lost or that he is only to blame (I voted for Bernie and didn't vote in the general so your assumption was way off), I was saying his success and popularity with voters worked against her in the general after the DNC screwed him over. I apologize if I didnt explain this enough originally since I didnt care because I responding to a troll anyway. It is her fault that she lost, I even stated she was a horrible candidate in my first post but you seem to think me giving an opinion on ONE reason why she lost means I think that is the only reason when that is not only ridiculous, but untrue. As I stated before I didn't mean to give the impression that I think that the only reason she lost, so I'm not sure why you went on a rant stating others reason why she lost when I wasn't arguing again them in the first place.

As a closing point, I have come to think of you as one of the more logical and informed posters on this forum but calling something that you clearly can't prove is false "bullshit" is really childish man.

Maybe i was a bit too aggressive with how i was saying things in my response.....

Ive already proposed the idea that maybe this is some nebulous thing that can be said with a degree of accuracy simply because everything affects everything. Along the same lines we could say the traffic affected the outcome of the election. We could say anything did and it favored person X, Y and Z. And if this is the way you want to go im fine with it and i'd agree. Its simply not worth mentioning because its immeasurable and impossible to fully understand. IF this is what you want to say, whatever.

But it does not seem like its what you want to say, right? While youre not applying it as some major cause for her loss, or as a single cause, you do consider it to be more considerable and substantial than the vague notion thing... right? If this is not what you're saying, please correct. But i do think i understand what youve been saying. But i wonder if you are applying what ive been mentioning... Your last sentiments of this post was: "but calling something that you clearly can't prove is false "bullshit" is really childish man."

Whether you like my choice of wordage or not is rather irrelevant imo, so i wont really address that aspect of it.

But what do we say about claims and assertions? "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

The most evidence you provided of your claim was anecdotal. It was how some people you knew felt or what they did. While i tend to not use anecdotal evidence to prove or demonstrate something, im not super dismissive of it either. I will always take it into consideration and if it matches what else we've seen, then i wont add it to the pile of evidence, rather put it off to the side as a post-it note in the same area of evidence.

So, the things i kept bringing up about how poorly she polled, the 08 election, Bernie not forcing her to do this, that and the other thing, and how voters respond to this position she takes, etc. These are all things i could source and provide citations for. Given all you've said ive made the assumption that you recognize them and don't need me to do this. This is all evidence that works against your proposed idea.

Its not direct evidence, but its definitely related, the best we have, and it seems to accumulate.

So given that you've made a claim without evidence, and im betting we are both aware that there is (most likely) no measurable evidence out there that would help it. And that the evidence we do have (the things i continued to mention) that does relate to the topic and can at least add to the conversation, points that point to the direction of the claim not being true, or at worse having far less substance.

So word usage aside. Given the no evidence claim, the counter evidence within the retort and knowing how this concept has been used by our media as an entirely fake talking point that we've seen even pro-bernie people latch on to (and we saw how it was falsely used against Nader as a political tactic to further remove third parties from taking part in our democratic republic), what would you expect my conclusion to be?

LOL drop the political correctness, stop catering to professional victims and get rid of corrupt criminals like Hillary Clinton.

Again with the twisting of facts.

If Bernie is so well liked then why didn't he win the primaries.... Not to mention most of his key support was with the young and far-left progressives

At least he is not Warren or Clinton.

And again with the reading problems i see.

Because the DNC rigged it against him? Because its a corrupted organization that was triangulated by republicans during the 90s and now represents corporations and the donor class over the people?

And no, all polling data showed us he was the most liked and desired candidate of the three. Some states polled him over 20% above Trump, and i dont think there was a single state he fell below him or Hillary. I could be wrong on that, there might be one or two with some obscure poll, but i dont think there was. Those added... what? 10 million votes that Obama got across like mainly six states, some polls had Bernie polling so high that he was projected to nearly double that and a good chunk was within states that Obama did not get. The data shows that it probably would have been the most lopsided victory in US history. The same data, which im sure you'll talk about when it suits your argument, also told us that Hillary only polled about 2% better than Trump and that was only in three quarters of the polls or so. Which seemed to be very accurate given the results. Maybe off by 0.5-1%. Definitely within the margin of error.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

You can follow the rabbit hole of states and different polls if you'd like, but i doubt you will. You didnt bother checking to see if you were correct the first time around, no reason for me to think you will the second.

And how did they rig it against Sanders? and before you begin with super delegates , remember that Clinton won 34 states and got a pretty decent margin in the popular vote. And Obama faced the same problem but the people spoke and the super delegates followed.

Also favoring a candidate is not a crime and while it can seem unfair, the people still have the finale say, so while i have am sure you are correct as to Trump being less popular than Sanders, Sanders still was not able to convince the majority of the democratic voter base of that and lost.

Also if anyone dream of him running in 2020, they need to wake up and smell the age.