CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, the Democratic party used to be far more vile and ruthless than anything that you stick on Trump. Remember Tammany Hall?
The reason the Dems can't be an opposition right now is because the Dems refuse to take a good long look at themselves and figure out what they need to do to clean house. Unless you honestly believe that Clinton was an absolute saint and every single one of her policies was handwritten by the lovechild of Theodore Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.
This. Every side makes mistakes. Maybe not the same mistakes(either between parties, or over time), but if you believe that the Democrats ability to feel shame is actually a weakness, well...that brings up other potential beliefs. Generally, understanding things more completely, and an ability to do more provide advantage, not disadvantage. Exceptions exist, but these imply other things are awry.
Even disregarding Trump, Democrats have been taking a beating. Trump isn't responsible for all of that, and his particularities therefore cannot be responsible for all of the Democrat losses. Sure, in any particular race, the candidates themselves do matter to some degree, but across a spread of them, individual differences are not as important, and we can address the ideologies and strategies themselves a bit more directly. Sure, you've got down-ticket effects, but those definitely don't explain everything.
Do democrats need to stonewall more? Dunno. I don't think merely stonewalling a lot more would have resulted in a significantly different composition of congress. I don't think Clinton lost because she was short on stubbornness, for instance.
sardia wrote:I also remember the the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Both of those groups who used the Republican and Democratic names are dead. That said, do you disagree on the statement "Democrats can't stonewall/delay Republicans because they collapse under public pressure." Why is introspection required to gum up the gears of governance? Filibuster does not require you to be a saint, sinner, or atheist. Yes Democrats need to reexamine themselves, but that seems tangential to blocking the Republican agenda.
Obstructionism does not, in itself, guarantee support. Sure, if you're opposing unpopular things, cheers. But if you're opposing popular things, likely not. So, sure, the Republicans endlessly dragging up The Affordable Care Act to bash it, focusing primarily on the unpopular mandate, was viable. That doesn't mean all obstructionism is.
Obstructionism is merely a strategy. If you're not using it on behalf of the mob, you remain the disconnected ivory tower elites that are hated. It's a familiar role for Democrats, sometimes, but that doesn't make it safe. Or helpful.
How responsible is Clinton for Democrat's coalition? She should have been smarter and picked a different group? Or did she pick the same groups that Trump did, but with a poor performance? That line is half true at best. Democrats have this issue of packing into cities for years now. It's no surprise it continues to happen. Obama won even though it happened to him in 2012. No reason to think Clinton couldn't either.
Part of it is merely that Clinton's a poor candidate, yes. But both can be true. Romney lost in part because he was a poor candidate, sure. He also lost because he came across as some rich, elitist, unpopular sort. That's largely why he was a poor candidate.
Obama totally did win in the cities, but he won many other areas too. Trump won a lot of areas that broke for Obama earlier. Sure, Clinton's not responsible for earlier demographic shifts, but she did fairly little to overcome weaknesses in the way that Obama did. That's one reason why she was much weaker as a candidate.
sardia wrote:We know what Democrats could have done, ran a nonClinton, skew their economic talk to a small fraction of the country, and focused on the 2012 states.* If so much is dependent on the campaigner, Could McCain have won 2008?
I mean, probably. If he was facing Clinton instead of Obama, I'd say his odds would have been much better.
Sure, most of the vote is pretty partisan and pre-determined, but even a coupla percentages this way or that can have a huge effect on the map. So, in practice, the candidate still matters.
sardia wrote:What fraction of the country's GDP is the Midwest?
Depends on how you define "Midwest". I'm gonna go with llinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. That seems most reasonable, I think, even though states like PA have similar concerns.
Approximately 20%. Which, for 12 states, is a little lower than average, but still a decent amount. If you consider how many people outside of those states have similar concerns, it becomes obvious that those voters are not easily ignored. Or at least, not wisely ignored.
That said, if we're looking at Bernie in particular...I think Bernie had some appeal in areas where Clinton didn't, sure, but I believe Bernie fans conveniently ignore other areas where Bernie was weaker. Looking at his strengths, but not his weaknesses. Bernie would have probably also lost, the campaign would merely have been different. He's a useful person to learn from, but not a savior.