The leaders of the Democratic National Committee announced they plan to learn absolutely nothing from their embarrassing loss to President-elect Donald Trump.
Exactly what is it they’re supposed to learn? I’m tired of this generic self-flagellation and blame game that says exactly the same thing every loss, but gets rounds of back slapping when the exact same tactics net a win.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The reason we lost is because people didn’t vote. Not because they voted for trump. So some apathetic MFs handed trump the win. We should ask them why they allowed that to happen.
E: y’all downvoting a legit question and position? Pretty hypocritical to push aside someone asking a real question about change so the question doesn’t get seen. We want change, but we don’t want anyone to ask us what it should be?
Do you think the dems should learn anything from this or should they do the same thing again next time and pray the apathetic people change on their own?
If dems want to win they have to find a way to motivate those apathetic people instead of just telling them they are stupid.
What dems should learn is that they need to offer something that clearly improves people’s lives. Universal healthcare or Medicare for all would be a great position to run on and 16 years ago I thought the dems were going to move in that direction but now it seems they’ve given up on the idea.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The first thing that comes to mind is that Democratic politicians should remember who their core voting block is. They need to give up on the triangulation nonsense. Republicans already have their Anointed One and will never vote for a shoddy imitation, and that very act of imitation is driving away the progressive vote.
I feel like you answered your own question there: they should have run a better candidate. A more appropriate candidate, one who appeals more to the needs of those apathetic Americans, would naturally have resulted in higher turnout.
State level electoral reform will allow a bigger spectrum of political parties to represent those unengaged voters. It will also allow those voters to make the democrats their backup pick if their preference didn’t win.
More people represented means more voters. More voters means more democratic votes. Why is the democratic party saying no to these easy votes?
Exactly what is it they’re supposed to learn? I’m tired of this generic self-flagellation and blame game that says exactly the same thing every loss, but gets rounds of back slapping when the exact same tactics net a win.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The reason we lost is because people didn’t vote. Not because they voted for trump. So some apathetic MFs handed trump the win. We should ask them why they allowed that to happen.
E: y’all downvoting a legit question and position? Pretty hypocritical to push aside someone asking a real question about change so the question doesn’t get seen. We want change, but we don’t want anyone to ask us what it should be?
Do you think the dems should learn anything from this or should they do the same thing again next time and pray the apathetic people change on their own?
If dems want to win they have to find a way to motivate those apathetic people instead of just telling them they are stupid.
What dems should learn is that they need to offer something that clearly improves people’s lives. Universal healthcare or Medicare for all would be a great position to run on and 16 years ago I thought the dems were going to move in that direction but now it seems they’ve given up on the idea.
The first thing that comes to mind is that Democratic politicians should remember who their core voting block is. They need to give up on the triangulation nonsense. Republicans already have their Anointed One and will never vote for a shoddy imitation, and that very act of imitation is driving away the progressive vote.
Don’t campaign on maintaining the status quo when the status quo sucks
I feel like you answered your own question there: they should have run a better candidate. A more appropriate candidate, one who appeals more to the needs of those apathetic Americans, would naturally have resulted in higher turnout.
State level electoral reform will allow a bigger spectrum of political parties to represent those unengaged voters. It will also allow those voters to make the democrats their backup pick if their preference didn’t win.
More people represented means more voters. More voters means more democratic votes. Why is the democratic party saying no to these easy votes?
Because the dnc exists to keep left leaning parties from ever gaining traction in this country