GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 21 19, 7:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 3:59 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
33anda3rd wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
The thing is, Democrats don't have to "win" the rural areas. They just can't perform so badly there that the rural areas cancel out the cities. I mean, if Democrats could perform well enough to consistently only lose that Steve King district by 3% like they did this time, they *should* be able to win statewide elections in a place like Iowa pretty consistently, you'd think.


This is what I'm trying to say. It's easy to sneer at rural people as stupid racist hicks who can be waited out in a demographic war of attrition, but how long have we been hearing that now? How well did that strategy work out in 2016? US govt. has two very conservative features in the Senate and the Electoral College that give these geographic areas disproportionate power. How will liberals overcome that? A constitutional convention? Maybe Puerto Rico a state? Adding Supreme Court justices? Good luck with all that.


A couple by-the-numbers ideas.

First, Trump won a LOT of suburban votes in 2016, not just the racist hicks in deep red states went his way. We saw him get his ass kicked this week when that suburban trend turned on him. 2018 Midterms, in a nutshell: suburbs and women turn on Trump.

By the 2010 Census, the US population is:
71.2% urbanized areas (up 2.9% from 2000)
9.5% urban clusters (down 1.2% from 2000)
19.3% rural (down 1.7% from 2000)

From 2000 to 2010 our population grew by 22 million people. In that span, our urban population grew by the same 22 million people. Rural America is literally dying off to the tune of almost 10% over a 10-year span.

If you only make up 1/5 of the population, and every 10 years you lose a point and a half of your %, you can be waited out in a few decades on a national level. Hence we see Dems overwhelmingly win popular votes (Hillary, the Congressional races this week, the Senate races this week, the Governor races this week.) To the points of the EC and the Senate, here are states in the US that are markedly below the 71.2% national rate of urbanization (everyone under 2/3 urban):
Alabama 59%
Arkansas 56.2%
Iowa 64%
Kentucky 58.4%
Maine 38.7%
Mississippi 49.4%
Montana 55.9%
New Hampshire 60.3%
North Dakota 59.9%
South Dakota 56.7%
Vermont 38.9%
West Virginia 48.7%
Wyoming 64.8%

That's 26 Senators, 6 of whom are blue--VT, NH, 1 in ME and 1 now in WV. So it's basically 20 slam dunks for the GOP from rural areas.

The states we see as traditionally red states where the urbanized areas, cities and 'burbs, make up 2/3 or more of the state are (with # of GOP senators in ( ) ):
Texas (2)
North Carolina (2)
South Carolina (2)
Utah (2)
Tennessee (2)
Oklahoma (2)
Nebraska (2)
Missouri (2)
Louisiana (2)
Kansas (2)
Indiana (2)
Idaho (2)
Georgia (2)
Florida (1, with an undecided election)
Arizona (1, with an undecided election)
Alaska (2)

There are 32 Senators in there. The Dems need to pick off like 7-8 those. If they do the GOP cannot control the Senate, the map and math fail them. These 32 seats in the second group are where opportunity exists and are the only seats the Dems might end up with from this group are in races headed toward recounts or very late results thanks in part to this semi-Blue Wave of suburban and female rejection of the POTUS and GOP. These are the seats to go for. How? By the DNC raising a metric [expletive] ton of money and putting it into huge well-oiled machines in Phoenix in AZ, Miami/Tampa/St Pete/Jacksonville in FL, Indianapolis/Gary in IN, and so on. Get Obama and Mrs Obama and Oprah and Will Ferrell in those cities now. Have Ryan Gosling appear at a voter engagement event in a white-leaning Atlanta suburb. Start opening offices, start recruiting volunteers, start community engagement programs, start town hall meetings, start talking to the people in these areas about the things that are important. In the places where the local leadership is tired old party people who don't get anything done, replace them where you can. Get voters registered. Get same-day voter registration measures on the ballot in every one of these states where it's possible by getting petitions going now. Rally the people who can support you now, get them invested both emotionally and with their time and sweat. That's it. Do that, win the cities and suburbs by bigger margins via massive turnout and a good message for those people and their needs (educated suburbanites don't tend to fear immigrants but do fear guns) and you can forget about pandering to the racist rural redneck.



1) Millions of blue voters live in that list of red states you are totally writing off. Even the very reddest states still get like 30% of people to vote Democrat pretty consistently. There are districts within those states at the state level and even federal level that are solidly blue. If you abandon them, you may lose those areas. Also, when that next "wave" election happens, you could possibly flip some of these states. Not competing in those may limit your upside when that wave comes. Hell a Democrat just became governor of Kansas. Kansas!

2) Even in "safe" blue states, Republicans occasionally win. See: Rauner, Bruce. As in my point above about there being blue districts in red states, there are also red districts in blue states. Again, you might be able to flip those red districts in a wave election. I just feel like you need a 50 state strategy. Compete everywhere. Don't take anything for granted.

3) A lot of the stuff you list in that last paragraph as far as strategy goes is good. I don't think bringing in Oprah or Obama to rallies will make much of a difference though. There is no substitute for doing the hard work of organizing from the bottom up. To be fair, some of the stuff on your list there (such as the get-out-the-vote stuff, for example) would be part of bottom up organizing. But when I say "organize", I really mean to build an institution like a labor union to make people feel like part of a community. This is why I feel like the DSA is on the right track. They are starting renter's unions and things like that in many places, even in smaller cities. Good candidates can come out of those organizations and have a built-in constituency. People might not be sure how Oprah is going to help them, but they will absolutely remember that gal that helped them avoid getting evicted from their apartment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 4:04 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
wart57 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
I agree with you, GK. I do want to clarify, I'm not advocating waiting for rural America to die as a strategy. I'm advocating a urban/suburban strategy because rural America already is dying and there are not enough votes there for it to make a difference. I'm also not advocating an anti-rural platform, but a platform that's good for everyone, including rural Americans, that will help them even when they don't vote for it.

I don't believe, though, that you have to contest the rurals. How do you cater a message to them on immigration, an issue that should mean absolutely zero to them, that doesn't simultaneously alienate educated suburban women? In this exercise, for me, it's a given that rural America generally is people who are uneducated, fearful, racist, xenophobic. How do you create a message to them that makes them feel good that doesn't turn off people already a lot more likely to vote for you, even when "a lot more likely" is 48% instead of 2%?


It's a tall order, to be sure. Recruiting really great local candidates is a start. Pushing a progressive, worker-friendly agenda at the national and state levels is part of the equation. A slate of legislation towards comprehensive immigration reform so the Dems can legitimately claim to be addressing people's concerns is another part of it. Rural people, particularly in the agricultural sector, are not total strangers to immigrants. There are reasonable people out there who know and like immigrants, and in fact need them to operate their businesses. Go after those people. Yeah, we're never going to get through to people with white nationalist sympathies. Forget them.


I have been saying this all along, but nobody will listen. Stop lumping all Republicans in with the idiot White Nationalist's.

If you look at the measures that passed - you can see a pattern.

Rural voters are going to vote for things that help them and their families, better health care options, and minimum wage hikes help them directly. Candidates who they think want to take their guns, their religious freedoms, and their hard earned money away will get voted down. It isn't all about racism.


So then why do they not vote for the candidates who are in support of those things? If it's not the message of fear* and racism from the right, what is it that makes them vote against the party that's for better healthcare and a system that features more economic equality? Why vote against the party that says "we need to create clean energy jobs" that might employ you and vote for the party that says "coal is unfairly maligned, we're going to stick with a pro-coal platform even though it's a dead industry and no one builds factories that use coal anymore"?

*Fear = they want to take your guns. Fear = they want to take your jobs. Fear = they are invading our country. Fear = some weirdo who thinks he's a she wants to diddle your kid in a public bathroom.

This is IMO why they need to be left behind not in economic policy, healthcare policy or general governmental practice, but in electoral politics. People who will vote against their own best interests and the best interests of the country as a whole out of pure fear and ignorance, who make up a very small fraction of the country and who see that fraction grow smaller by the decade, will ultimately make themselves irrelevant politically.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 4:21 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
pioneer98 wrote:
1) Millions of blue voters live in that list of red states you are totally writing off. Even the very reddest states still get like 30% of people to vote Democrat pretty consistently. There are districts within those states at the state level and even federal level that are solidly blue. If you abandon them, you may lose those areas. Also, when that next "wave" election happens, you could possibly flip some of these states. Not competing in those may limit your upside when that wave comes. Hell a Democrat just became governor of Kansas. Kansas!


I don't see that as a big risk. I'm not talking about changing platforms substantially, I'm talking about a similar platform to what the Dems had this season and last, the platform that 30% in Iowa already votes for, and I think that 30% would not be turned off. I'm talking about making extraordinary, difficult, roll-up-the-sleeves and sweat turnout efforts in places with the most people likely to get out and vote for you on largely the platform you've been running on.

pioneer98 wrote:
3) A lot of the stuff you list in that last paragraph as far as strategy goes is good. I don't think bringing in Oprah or Obama to rallies will make much of a difference though. There is no substitute for doing the hard work of organizing from the bottom up. To be fair, some of the stuff on your list there (such as the get-out-the-vote stuff, for example) would be part of bottom up organizing. But when I say "organize", I really mean to build an institution like a labor union to make people feel like part of a community. This is why I feel like the DSA is on the right track. They are starting renter's unions and things like that in many places, even in smaller cities. Good candidates can come out of those organizations and have a built-in constituency. People might not be sure how Oprah is going to help them, but they will absolutely remember that gal that helped them avoid getting evicted from their apartment.


Great points.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 12 18, 8:53 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star

Joined: June 15 06, 6:11 am
Posts: 4814
Location: Minneapolis
Why Dems should make Stacey Abrams Speaker of the House

Quote:
Two years into the Trump administration, norms and traditions in Washington are fading, creating new opportunities for change. Democrats can use the speakership to create space for dynamic new candidates, particularly those who fought gallantly in deep-red states and lost on Election Day. The new speaker should not be chosen from among those hardened insiders who “worked their way up” through party structures; that sort of politics as usual is what voters rejected Tuesday.

Instead, the party should choose someone talented and galvanizing, suited to the moment.

With Republicans in control of the Senate and the White House, the speaker will be the face of the Democratic Party. This person ought to be visionary, inspirational and speak to a changing set of priorities among the Democratic electorate. These qualities, more than tactical maneuvering or parliamentary mastery, is what Democrats need in the age of Trump. Abrams, a highly qualified lawyer whose campaign was a target of structural and intentional voter suppression, is exactly who Democrats should elevate to this highly visible role.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 12 18, 9:01 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 16878
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
This would be completely awesome. Or, hey - why not one of the Obamas? It might be shattering norms, but unlike what we see out of the executive branch on a daily basis, it's entirely Constitutional.

Gashouse wrote:
Why Dems should make Stacey Abrams Speaker of the House

Quote:
Two years into the Trump administration, norms and traditions in Washington are fading, creating new opportunities for change. Democrats can use the speakership to create space for dynamic new candidates, particularly those who fought gallantly in deep-red states and lost on Election Day. The new speaker should not be chosen from among those hardened insiders who “worked their way up” through party structures; that sort of politics as usual is what voters rejected Tuesday.

Instead, the party should choose someone talented and galvanizing, suited to the moment.

With Republicans in control of the Senate and the White House, the speaker will be the face of the Democratic Party. This person ought to be visionary, inspirational and speak to a changing set of priorities among the Democratic electorate. These qualities, more than tactical maneuvering or parliamentary mastery, is what Democrats need in the age of Trump. Abrams, a highly qualified lawyer whose campaign was a target of structural and intentional voter suppression, is exactly who Democrats should elevate to this highly visible role.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 12 18, 9:20 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 16878
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
The more I think about it, the more Barack Obama, Speaker of the House of Representatives would be the absolute perfect move for the Democrats.

Our democracy is hanging by a thread. Let's get the struggle out into the open. The House has the power of the purse and the power to indict the President. What more powerful symbol could there be that the Democrats plan on weilding the Constitutional powers given to the House by making him Speaker?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 14 18, 8:43 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24339
I’ve come around to thinking it’s best to keep her for now. I suspect she’s malleable, the Speaker role is probably a bit overrated anyway, and I don’t trust the guys most interested in ousting her.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 14 18, 9:26 pm 
Offline
is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
User avatar

Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
Posts: 27872
Location: at the gettin' place
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
The more I think about it, the more Barack Obama, Speaker of the House of Representatives would be the absolute perfect move for the Democrats.

Our democracy is hanging by a thread. Let's get the struggle out into the open. The House has the power of the purse and the power to indict the President. What more powerful symbol could there be that the Democrats plan on weilding the Constitutional powers given to the House by making him Speaker?


That's a good way to tip the scales towards Civil War Part 2. Trump would turn the ugliness up to 11 and all of the QAnon stuff would become completely mainstream among republicans. Obama can't play any active role in a hypothetical Trump downfall or they will lose whatever is left of their minds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 14 18, 9:47 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 16878
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
cardsfansince82 wrote:
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
The more I think about it, the more Barack Obama, Speaker of the House of Representatives would be the absolute perfect move for the Democrats.

Our democracy is hanging by a thread. Let's get the struggle out into the open. The House has the power of the purse and the power to indict the President. What more powerful symbol could there be that the Democrats plan on weilding the Constitutional powers given to the House by making him Speaker?


That's a good way to tip the scales towards Civil War Part 2. Trump would turn the ugliness up to 11 and all of the QAnon stuff would become completely mainstream among republicans. Obama can't play any active role in a hypothetical Trump downfall or they will lose whatever is left of their minds.

Yup. Let's rip this pus-infected wound open and clean it out without delay or anesthetics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 15 18, 5:17 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 16878
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
It's time for Nancy and Steny to want to spend more time with their families.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group