Democrats: Why do you keep losing elections?

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

Oookay....

Democrats haven't lost that many elections. They did win two Presidential elections, and this one was very close - with the Democrat winning the popular vote, and losing by the narrowest Electoral College victory in decades.

They are losing lots of local and gov elections for a few reasons.

1) Anticipatory balancing. When there is a President of one party, people tend to vote for legislators from the other party to keep things in check.

2) Gerrymandering. While both parties do this, Republicans have done more, which results in winning more frequently.

3) Emphasis on local elections. Gerrymandering is possible because Republicans and conservatives put a lot of effort into local elections, whereas Dems have focused more on national.


Some of this may naturally change, e.g. Republicans will probably have tough going in 2018 (see pt 1). Dems are also likely to focus on local elections.

IIRC the courts are looking at gerrymandering, but it's hard to say if they will change anything.

I'd also think that if Trump's administration continues to melt down and underperform, that might have an effect in 2018 or 2020. We'll have to wait and see.

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

Well, for one thing there is a cyclicality to majorities. But the present bout is due to the overshoot in pc, civil rights and liberal policy legislation and all that. This has upset a large number of people and the chickens might now be coming home.

Visbek said:

Oookay....

Democrats haven't lost that many elections. They did win two Presidential elections, and this one was very close - with the Democrat winning the popular vote, and losing by the narrowest Electoral College victory in decades.

They are losing lots of local and gov elections for a few reasons.

1) Anticipatory balancing. When there is a President of one party, people tend to vote for legislators from the other party to keep things in check.

2) Gerrymandering. While both parties do this, Republicans have done more, which results in winning more frequently.

3) Emphasis on local elections. Gerrymandering is possible because Republicans and conservatives put a lot of effort into local elections, whereas Dems have focused more on national.


Some of this may naturally change, e.g. Republicans will probably have tough going in 2018 (see pt 1). Dems are also likely to focus on local elections.

IIRC the courts are looking at gerrymandering, but it's hard to say if they will change anything.

I'd also think that if Trump's administration continues to melt down and underperform, that might have an effect in 2018 or 2020. We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Since 2008:


"The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency."

"Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session."

"Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16."
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama | Fox News

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

Because they skew their primaries and field weak neoliberal candidates who don't represent anyone but the wealthy, and lean heavy on identity politics, Republican lite foreign and economic policy, negative campaigning and social justice as a smoke screen for their lack of broadly supported economic justice and populism as that would cost their donors far too much.

There's a reason there's a pending sea change in the Democratic party: because the third way Clintonistas that officially hijacked the party in the 90s off the back of big money have lost in every way it is possible for them to lose, including their mandate to rule. As a consequence, it is being reclaimed by the true progressives within who are tired of seeing the party inch further right-ward economically towards the economic elite and away from constituents.

Democrats have definitely not done well in three of the last four elections. (Although the last one was kind of a push. They gained in the House and the Senate, while the Presidential race was basically tied. Although that Senate map and the House were a bit overextended for the Republicans. And though less relevant, they did win the popular vote substantially.) But it's really nothing out of the ordinary. Republicans went through the same phenomenon in 2006 and 2008, and were in a slightly worse position than Democrats are now. Obama crushed McCain in a much bigger landslide. They managed a super majority in the Senate. And they had a bigger lead in the House.

Which is why I think the Republicans need to be careful about overplaying their hand here. Because they control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a ton of state governments, it superficially looks like their in a dominant position. But they didn't get there by dominant margins in most cases. They need to be cautious of repeating the same mistakes the Democrats made in believing their large victories meant that the public was wholly behind everything they wanted done. Especially when the Republicans in Congress and President Trump have severe political differences on some issues. They should certainly use the dominant position their in to advance the policies they think are right, but they should be smart about it, and mindful that there is not overwhelming public support at their backs.

Visbek said:

Oookay....

Democrats haven't lost that many elections. They did win two Presidential elections, and this one was very close - with the Democrat winning the popular vote, and losing by the narrowest Electoral College victory in decades.

They are losing lots of local and gov elections for a few reasons.

1) Anticipatory balancing. When there is a President of one party, people tend to vote for legislators from the other party to keep things in check.

2) Gerrymandering. While both parties do this, Republicans have done more, which results in winning more frequently.

3) Emphasis on local elections. Gerrymandering is possible because Republicans and conservatives put a lot of effort into local elections, whereas Dems have focused more on national.


Some of this may naturally change, e.g. Republicans will probably have tough going in 2018 (see pt 1). Dems are also likely to focus on local elections.

IIRC the courts are looking at gerrymandering, but it's hard to say if they will change anything.

I'd also think that if Trump's administration continues to melt down and underperform, that might have an effect in 2018 or 2020. We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

It's good to see trumposter republicans bragging about what happened before 2017 when they probably don't have a clue as to how the GOP won in 2010. The GOP has 27 of their 36 governors up for reelection in 2018, 14 that are term-limited. 23 US House members represent CDs won by Clinton, along with 36 more that are on the radar.

Until the DNC settles on its chair and deputy chairs, they remain behind the RNC which is already settled. When GOPs bring up 25 DEM senators that are up in 2018, I remind them that the GOP won 22 of 24 in the past election. The key remains winning as many state legislatures in the next two terms before the 2021 remaps .

Anagram said:

Democrats have definitely not done well in three of the last four elections. (Although the last one was kind of a push. They gained in the House and the Senate, while the Presidential race was basically tied. Although that Senate map and the House were a bit overextended for the Republicans. And though less relevant, they did win the popular vote substantially.) But it's really nothing out of the ordinary. Republicans went through the same phenomenon in 2006 and 2008, and were in a slightly worse position than Democrats are now. Obama crushed McCain in a much bigger landslide. They managed a super majority in the Senate. And they had a bigger lead in the House.

Which is why I think the Republicans need to be careful about overplaying their hand here. Because they control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and a ton of state governments, it superficially looks like their in a dominant position. But they didn't get there by dominant margins in most cases. They need to be cautious of repeating the same mistakes the Democrats made in believing their large victories meant that the public was wholly behind everything they wanted done. Especially when the Republicans in Congress and President Trump have severe political differences on some issues. They should certainly use the dominant position their in to advance the policies they think are right, but they should be smart about it, and mindful that there is not overwhelming public support at their backs.

Click to expand...

Are the Democrats doing anything wrong that's contributing to these lost seats?

Visbek said:

Oookay....

Democrats haven't lost that many elections. They did win two Presidential elections, and this one was very close - with the Democrat winning the popular vote, and losing by the narrowest Electoral College victory in decades.

Click to expand...

While Trump's victory was indeed a shocker, it is worth noting that the Dems did manage to gains seats in the House (6, I think) and the Senate (2, I think).
I would also note that, at least here in Cali, a lot of the elected GOPers are moderate types who are unlikely to support many Tea Party type initiatives.
While the Repubs definitely control the government right now, there appears to be some potential pitfalls ahead.
As you say, we'll have to wait and see how GOP control plays out.

JC Callender said:

Are the Democrats doing anything wrong that's contributing to these lost seats?

Click to expand...

I think they made plenty of mistakes, especially the first two years. The way they passed Obamacare, and some of the other bills when they controlled both Houses. And their general disdain for their opposition, which they believed would not seriously challenge them due to their recent dominant victories. And then after 2010, when they lost the House, they basically didn't pass anything for 6 years. They'd claim that this is the obstructionist Republicans fault, and that's partially true, but it certainly wasn't good optics. They also put up a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign for president in 2016, that basically personified their problem. A big part of her campaign was basically not being Trump.

But of course, a lot of this is cyclical as well. Almost every president's party does terrible in the midterms, with a few unique exceptions like 1998 and 2002. And Democrats held up ok in 2012 and 2016. I don't even think there's really strong evidence of a systemic problem with them electorally. If they don't make any gains in 2018, then that would be time to worry for them.

radioman said:

While Trump's victory was indeed a shocker, it is worth noting that the Dems did manage to gains seats in the House (6, I think) and the Senate (2, I think).
I would also note that, at least here in Cali, a lot of the elected GOPers are moderate types who are unlikely to support many Tea Party type initiatives.
While the Repubs definitely control the government right now, there appears to be some potential pitfalls ahead.
As you say, we'll have to wait and see how GOP control plays out.

Click to expand...

Some trumposter republicans and their lawmakers are trying to minimize the DEM disasters of the the last FOUR elections with disinformation and actually gently criticizing trump to lull Democrats to sleep before 2018 and to look
good to the folks back home.

Just losing the POTUS is an absolute disaster, if nothing else, as we saw in 2001 and as we see with trump's cabinet, especially sessions. DEMs had there chance to take the Senate and blew it, which will have lasting repercussions. Now DEMs have a horrible map to defend in 2018. The GOP house is on the defensive and trying to look normal in front of their town halls and DEMs have a great opportunity here.

The next few weeks should be interesting with Congress on vacation and protests planned. We know trump will keep tweeting, which will keep things stirred up. Until the multiple camps in the DNC get their acts together, DEMs remain in real trouble. Since the Ellison/Perez fight DNC fight is splitting the party along Bernie/Hillary lines, I suggest a compromise with Mayor Buttigieg of South Bend with the other two as deputies .

NIMBY said:

The next few weeks should be interesting with Congress on vacation and protests planned. We know trump will keep tweeting, which will keep things stirred up.

Click to expand...

He can't help himself. He's an addict.

Until the multiple camps in the DNC get their acts together, DEMs remain in real trouble. Since the Ellison/Perez fight DNC fight is splitting the party along Bernie/Hillary lines, I suggest a compromise with Mayor Buttigieg of South Bend with the other two as deputies .

Click to expand...

I dunno, Linc......that last name would make him an easy target for wise-cracking GOP operatives.

NIMBY said:

The next few weeks should be interesting with Congress on vacation and protests planned. We know trump will keep tweeting, which will keep things stirred up. Until the multiple camps in the DNC get their acts together, DEMs remain in real trouble. Since the Ellison/Perez fight DNC fight is splitting the party along Bernie/Hillary lines, I suggest a compromise with Mayor Buttigieg of South Bend with the other two as deputies .

Click to expand...

Let's be clear about the fact that the Dems are in trouble in the first place not because of the intraparty schism (though yes, it will contribute to the party's woes if the dust doesn't settle in time), but because of the disastrously tepid third way Clinton style neoliberalism that brought about the intraparty schism in the first place, even before Bernie's candidacy, and increasingly disenchanted people since Obama's election (remember Occupy Wallstreet? that was foreshadowing). One would have to be willfully ignorant to conclude that false progressivism, false populism and a refusal to commit to economic justice did not contribute immensely to recent Dem electoral defeats, nevermind the party's skullduggery per wikileaks and Clinton's egregious and obvious weakness (which didn't stop her from being nominated with the extensive assistance of cronies in the DNC even as they swore impartiality). The loss of the so-called Rust Belt 'blue wall' (and Trump's consequent victory) says it all.

Surrealistik said:

Because they skew their primaries and field weak neoliberal candidates who don't represent anyone but the wealthy, and lean heavy on identity politics, Republican lite foreign and economic policy, negative campaigning and social justice as a smoke screen for their lack of broadly supported economic justice and populism as that would cost their donors far too much.

There's a reason there's a pending sea change in the Democratic party: because the third way Clintonistas that officially hijacked the party in the 90s off the back of big money have lost in every way it is possible for them to lose, including their mandate to rule. As a consequence, it is being reclaimed by the true progressives within who are tired of seeing the party inch further right-ward economically towards the economic elite and away from constituents.

Click to expand...

I do recall Jimmy Carter's son running for election here in Nevada. He had no connection to the state at all and was just a shameless carpetbagger.

Visbek said:

Oookay....

Democrats haven't lost that many elections. They did win two Presidential elections, and this one was very close - with the Democrat winning the popular vote, and losing by the narrowest Electoral College victory in decades.

They are losing lots of local and gov elections for a few reasons.

1) Anticipatory balancing. When there is a President of one party, people tend to vote for legislators from the other party to keep things in check.

2) Gerrymandering. While both parties do this, Republicans have done more, which results in winning more frequently.

3) Emphasis on local elections. Gerrymandering is possible because Republicans and conservatives put a lot of effort into local elections, whereas Dems have focused more on national.


Some of this may naturally change, e.g. Republicans will probably have tough going in 2018 (see pt 1). Dems are also likely to focus on local elections.

IIRC the courts are looking at gerrymandering, but it's hard to say if they will change anything.

I'd also think that if Trump's administration continues to melt down and underperform, that might have an effect in 2018 or 2020. We'll have to wait and see.

Click to expand...

Hillary didn't win anything.... she received more votes in a race no one was trying to win...the race she was trying to win she lost...

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

They won the last two presidential elections, and the Republicans have been trounced a few times too. So what's your point?

jet57 said:

They won the last two presidential elections, and the Republicans have been trounced a few times too. So what's your point?

Click to expand...

Well, you don't have the Presidency, you don't have the Senate, you don't have Congress, and you've lost tons of state offices. Basically, you've lost everything, that's my point.

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

JC Callender said:

Since 2008:


"The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency."

"Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session."

"Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16."
Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama | Fox News

Click to expand...

The Democrats keep governing ever further left, when the country still is a center-right nation.

Remember statistics and the population bell curve? Yeah, they are running to the left, where there are fewer voters to vote for them.

jet57 said:

They won the last two presidential elections, and the Republicans have been trounced a few times too. So what's your point?

Click to expand...

The average American doesn't think the way you post.

People dislike pettiness, and you seem to make it your daily endeavor

Most of my liberal family and friends wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you are off the rails with your BS.

JC Callender said:

Well, you don't have the Presidency, you don't have the Senate, you don't have Congress, and you've lost tons of state offices. Basically, you've lost everything, that's my point.

Click to expand...

Right, but the Dems have had all of those as well. And I'm not "you" okay? Nor do I represent "they".

RetiredUSN said:

The average American doesn't think the way you post.

People dislike pettiness, and you seem to make it your daily endeavor

Most of my liberal family and friends wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you are off the rails with your BS.

Click to expand...

What "pettiness" are you talking about and what is "off the rails"?

RetiredUSN said:

The average American doesn't think the way you post.

People dislike pettiness, and you seem to make it your daily endeavor

Most of my liberal family and friends wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I don't mean to be harsh, but you are off the rails with your BS.

Click to expand...

huh? I think you quoted the wrong post/thread?

ARealConservative said:

huh? I think you quoted the wrong post/thread?

Click to expand...

Calamity or Jet57 ..............................same same

RetiredUSN said:

Calamity or Jet57 ..............................same same

Click to expand...

Meh. Calamity starts more threads.

JC Callender said:

Why do you believe the Democrats have been losing so many elections over the past several years in Congress, Gubernatorial, and now President? And any ideas on how to fix it?

Click to expand...

Well, the best goal they could reach (but almost certainly won't) would be to get rid of the Electoral College. The GOP would never go along because they know full well that the only reason they have so much power in government is that the family values conservative message and "get government out of my medicare" message appeals most strongly to low-population high-landmass areas. The denser an area, the closer people have to live with different people, the more liberal it tends to be overall. Get rid of the EC and you make it way harder for the GOP to get in the WH.

Failing that, there's a lot of old faces with the same old slogans and same old "ideas" that ought to be replaced.

Whether or not that happens, they also need to come up with a new purpose and message. "Hope and Change" didn't really change anything and Obama ended up a fairly typical center-left President on most policy matters, despite all the screaming about "socialism" that surrounded Obamacare (but curiously not Trump's "insurance for everyone", amusingly enough).

In particular, they need to find a way of expressing the sentiment that the concept of treating people fairly and perhaps giving half a **** about one's fellow man isn't just for loser ***** liberals. (I find it strange that they would have to do it given the supposed Christian-derivation of so much of social conservativism, but I guess certain parts of the bible only apply to certain people. Go figure).

Overall, it's high time to be more than not the Republican.




Anyway, I'm not sure the situation is so catastrophic for them at the moment. This country always swings back and forth across the 50/50 line. The Dems just held the Presidency for 8 years, got to appoint a few justices. Now the GOP is taking more power. It'll swing back.