We need to start fixing "the mistake" in 2018 and replace it in 2020. The Democratic Party’s Billion-Dollar Mistake Steve Phillips The Democratic Party is at risk of repeating the billion-dollar blunder that helped create its devastating losses of 2016. With its obsessive focus on wooing voters who supported Donald Trump, it is neglecting the cornerstone of its coalition and failing to take the steps necessary to win back the House of Representatives and state houses in 2018. In the 2016 election, the Democratic Party committees that support Senate and House candidates and allied progressive organizations spent more than $1.8 billion. The effectiveness of that staggering amount of money, however, was undermined by a strategic error: prioritizing the pursuit of wavering whites over investing in and inspiring African-American voters, who made up 24 percent of Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2012. In spring 2016, when the progressive independent expenditure groups first outlined their plans for $200 million in spending, they did not allocate any money at all for mobilizing black voters (some money was slotted for radio and digital advertising aimed at blacks, but none for hiring human beings to get out the vote). Predictably, African-American turnout plummeted. According to new census data, 59.6 percent of eligible black voters cast ballots last year, down from the 66 percent who voted in 2012. The problem cannot simply be attributed to the absence of Mr. Obama on the ticket: A slightly higher percentage of black voters, 60 percent, turned out for John Kerry in 2004, than cast ballots last year. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the tens of thousands of African-Americans who voted in 2012 but didn’t vote in 2016 far exceeded the minuscule losing margins for Hillary Clinton. Nonetheless, Democrats seem to be doubling down on their 2016 strategy. In January, the Senate Democratic Caucus trooped to West Virginia for its annual retreat. According to published reports, the senators heard from panels of voters who had once voted for Mr. Obama but then chose Donald Trump. The Democratic National Committee’s “Unity Tour,” featuring the committee chairman, Thomas Perez, and Senator Bernie Sanders, included visits to overwhelmingly white states like Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska and Utah. Meanwhile, African-American women — who voted at a rate of 94 percent for Mrs. Clinton last year, the party’s most loyal voting bloc — had to write a letter to Mr. Perez demanding time and attention. In Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District special election last month, the Democratic nominee, Jon Ossoff, raised a record $23 million and spent dollar after dollar to cast himself as a moderate in a failed attempt to appeal to Republican voters. The Democratic Party’s fixation on pursuing those who voted for Mr. Trump is a fool’s errand because it’s trying to fix the wrong problem. Although some Democratic voters (in particular, white working-class voters in Rust Belt states) probably did swing to the Republicans, the bigger problem was the large number of what I call “Obama-Johnstein” voters — people who supported Mr. Obama in 2012 but then voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, last year (according to the exit polls, 43 percent of them were nonwhite). In Wisconsin, for example, the Democratic vote total dropped by nearly 235,000, while Mr. Trump got only about the same number of votes as Mr. Romney in 2012. The bigger surge in that state was for Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein, who together won about 110,000 additional votes than the candidates of their respective parties had received in 2012. And in Michigan, which Mrs. Clinton lost by fewer than 11,000 votes, the Johnson-Stein parties’ total increased by about 202,000 votes over 2012. The Democratic Party committees and its allies are likely to spend more than $750 million on the 2018 midterms. Will they spend it fruitlessly trying to lure Trump voters, or will they give uninspired black Democrats a reason to vote and offer disaffected Obama-Johnstein voters a reason to return to the fold? Democrats have an opportunity in 2018 because of the significant enthusiasm gap between the parties. By concentrating their firepower on inspiring, organizing and mobilizing people who voted for Hillary Clinton to vote again in 2018, Democrats can take back the House and also win the governor’s office in six key states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — for a fraction of their $750 million budget, less than $100 million. In the congressional special elections and primaries for governor this year, just 39 percent of the Republicans who voted in the 2016 presidential election came back out to vote this year, while 57 percent of Democratic voters returned to the polls. That’s a normal pattern for midterm elections: The in-power party almost always sees a sizable drop-off in enthusiasm. Too many Democrats sit out midterm elections (in 2014, drop-off was slightly over 40 percent). Those infrequent but Democratic voters hold the key to the balance of power in America. Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House, and there are 28 Republican-held seats in districts Hillary Clinton won or nearly won. If Republican turnout drops by the 36 percent that it did the last time a Republican held the White House, Democrats need to get 951,000 drop-offs to vote again in those 28 districts. Civic engagement experts have found that an effective canvassing and mobilization program costs about $50 per infrequent voter who actually casts a ballot. By that metric, it would cost $47.6 million to get enough infrequent voters to the polls in the 28 congressional districts that will determine which party holds the House. In the six battleground-state contests for governors, the cost to bring out the necessary number of infrequent voters is $42.1 million. The country is under conservative assault because Democrats mistakenly sought support from conservative white working-class voters susceptible to racially charged appeals. Replicating that strategy would be another catastrophic blunder.
If Democrat leaning voters are not motivated by Trump administration to show up in 2018, Democrats deserve to lose because the people they are trying to represent deserve the GOP congress and Trump white house, it is that simple.
That's the beauty of Democracy. You are supposed to have the mix of both sides to try and come to a happy medium. However.... If the Democrats ran everything for 30 years, we'd look alot like Canada, or Sweden, but on a larger scale which might not be affordable with the large population we have... Not the end of the world, but it raises economic questions for sure. If Republicans ran the country the past 30 years, there is no doubt in my mind that we would have an autocratic oligarchy with almost no social programs. We already have a pretty blatant Oligarchy in alot of ways with the likes of the Koch brothers, the Mercers, etc. running the party, but haven't had a true Authoritarian yet to seize power. I do see a need for conservatives to balance out what a Democratic government would do without limitations on social & other government expansion programs. That's the happy medium I think we need with a country this large. But there is a clear distinction in what is going on the past 20 years with the Republican party vs. the Democrats. We know what we have with the Democrats, and we know what we have to keep in check. We see no end in sight as to how far the Republican part of 2017 will go to achieve their goal of absolute power for the Koch brothers, the Mercers, and co. Not to mention they , SO FAR, all cower to the whims of a wannabe dictator who believes he is above the law, and is currently working to prove he is. They also are the party actively trying to destroy the most important part of our Democracy... free and fair elections. -Paul Weyrich - Founding Father of the Conservative Movement and founder of the Heritage Foundation .............. There is absolutely a need for both parties in our government, but there is an ocean of difference in what one party is doing to our country vs. the other.
Pointing out Trump's hypocrisy (many of Trump products manufactured outside America, many Trump buildings made from Chinese steel, Trump businesses hire foreign workers) regarding "Made in America" is not an attempt to attack the value of encouraging products to be made in America. If anything, shining light on where we as a country can put more into making the slogan real will do more than red baseball caps could ever (especially if those caps are made outside America).
NO need to do anything because the republican party is imploding. It's imploding as we speak. Believe me! When this happens it will be YUGGGE! Believe me! America will be great again. Believe me.
While I would like to not pay taxes, social security and medicare, it will end up the same as the Democratic pipe dream. Bankrupt and broke for everyone but the elites.
Some people think they can solve this issue by voting in a super elite that is after one thing and one thing only , look out for his interest.
These segments chose to criticize president Trump - as in president of the Trump Organization, not President of the United States. The criticism against Trump's decision to increase the allowance of H-2B visas is warranted - that is a decision he made as President of the United States, not president of the Trump Organization. It is also a decision which conflicts with his "America First" rhetoric. I'm certain the blue-wall voters can understand the difference between decisions Trump made as president of the Trump Organization (i.e. manufacturing, steel imports, foreign workers, etc) and decisions he is making as President of the United States (not amending the H-1B lottery, abandoning "the wall", increasing immigration enforcement, increasing H-2B visas, etc).
I agree. The hypocrisy argument about Trump's America First policy is like when a conservative says you can go ahead and pay more to the government if you don't like tax cuts. An American First policy undertaken by an individual company is likely to be financial suicide. A policy that binds all companies can be effective without putting any of them in financial harm's way. I still don't like the policy but a hypocrisy criticism isn't a very valid one.
Sorry... if Trump the CEO can't follow the initiatives that Trump the POTUS sets forth, then no other CEO should feel the need. And if Trump the CEO doesn't agree with Trump the POTUS... that is still hypocrisy. Just because Trump was a businessman" before becoming president doesn't release him from doing "the right thing".
If Trump is just going to use the bully pulpit to shame companies into "doing the right thing" all on their own, I agree it is hypocrisy and moreover very unlikely to be successful. If we change actual government policy in ways that make companies buy/hire more domestic for their own self-interest, that's an entirely different thing, and not really hypocritical. Then there would be no question of CEOs feeling the need to follow. They'll just do what's best for the shareholder, like always.
I think Dems need to ease off the gas on the civil rights movement. As noble as equality is, I think they wasted too much energy on something that proved to be not ready.
It is their way of trying to get African American and Latino votes, they are not really all noble for equity, because it is easier than solving actual underlying problems in those communities. Then you have the GOP which does not care about minority groups at all.
Unless it's Florida Cubans, voting reasons. In the end, poor and middle class all lose out. The Bob mcnairs of the world will donate to their party. The Lex alexanders of the world will donate to their party. While everyone is arguing with each other, Bob and Lex are both in the same yacht, perrys, no socks, chatting about how that cheap b*stard Crane might just win himself a world series. damn that's weird just thinking that Mr. Alexander is no longer the owner. =(
My party needs new leadership. Here's an excellent suggestion - Senator Kamala Harris. She's a deeply experienced Senator from California and is the state's former Attorney General, who recently got some good publicity asking tough questions while on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harris has the charisma and intelligence, in my humble opinion, to run a powerful campaign not only for the Democratic nomination for the upcoming 2020 election, but in the general election, as well. I think she's good enough to win if she runs. I hope she does. I'll have other suggestions later, but Senator Harris is a start and a good one, in my opinion.
Agree big time. She is from California which I am sure will be used against her ("She has California values") but balancing her with a middle America or Southern VP candidate would be a strong ticket. Someone like John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, Mark Warner, or Sherrod Brown. That is a ticket that could do well.
