Pragmatism, "Half-Loaves", Small Measures, Policy wonkiness is how we got Trump

[Yavin4]

Yes, the Russians played a role. Yes, Republicans have gone totally to the darkside, etc. However, the real problem is that the Democratic party has not offered the American people a bold, forward-looking vision that resonates with the public through multiple election cycles.

Ask yourself, what was Bill Clinton's big policy legacy that Democrats throughout the country could rally behind?

Obama's ACA left a terrible legacy with one huge exception, selective expansion of Medicaid. That expansion alone led to a massive mid-term victories in the House in 2018. The lesson here is that the one big policy idea that the Democrats put into law over the past 40 years is what got them huge wins over the Republicans in 2018 and continues to be a electoral force in our favor.

Yet still, there are Democrats that still run on being pragmatic, go for the half loaf, etc. It's hard to rally people to vote for you based on "Pay-Go".

[empedocles]

1. 2018, 20 red Congressional seats, was anti-trump, not blue aspirations

Hillary had 3 million+ votes. Arithmetic

[gopiscrap]

12. yup

[Meadowoak]

2. +1000

[Recursion]

3. Then why did Clinton win voters who were concerned about the economy?

Sorry, the data for your claim just aren't there.

Clinton won voters concerned about "the economy" or "jobs" by 10 points

She won voters from households making less than $50K a year by 12 points

Where she lost was voters who listed "immigration" as their top concern -- by 30 points

There just weren't enough voters interested in big policy ideas: that was exactly the problem.

[Yavin4]

4. "Clinton win voters who were concerned about the economy" of the people who did vote.

Less people voted in 2016 than in 2012.

[Recursion]

6. Because people were comfortable. That's the problem

It's the same reason we aren't going to be able to run on economics this time: it's the best economy of people's lives.

[NewJeffCT]

8. 7.5 million more people voted in 2016

than in 2012

Clinton received almost the same number of votes as Obama in 2012, but Trump received 2 million more votes than Romney and both the Libertarian and Green voters got a lot more than in 2012. Plus, McMullin got a good amount of votes in Utah.


2016
Clinton 65,854
Trump 62,985
Johnson 4,489
Stein 1,457
Other 1,884
Total 136,669

2012
Obama 65,916
Romney 60,934
Johnson 1,276
Stein 470
Other 489
Total 129,085

[lapfog_1]

5. fear not hope

and most voters think they want change... until they get it.

[themaguffin]

7. Stuff has to actually, you know... pass Congress. Even getting the ACA through was a miracle

so context matters.

Sorry, but I find your premise as a fallacy.

[marylandblue]

9. We might as well hang it up then, because there will never be a major progressive change

acceptable.to the right. But either Trump or a future dictator will just ignore Congress and give the right what it wants

[themaguffin]

11. This all or nothing approach is what is pointless.

I don't care what the right accepts. Some look at the ACA what could have been. Others

...like the 20 million Americans who otherwise didn't have health insurance...

have health coverage.

It doesn't mean that we don't work to improve it. It doesn't mean that we don't work for single payer. But most of us had health insurance and were not in dire situations to just trash it because it's not the progressive dream.

Social Security excluded minorities when it first passed. That is appalling, but politics is ugly and ultimately Social Security was expanded.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[marylandblue]

13. If we look back, FDR proposed all sorts of bold new plans.

Some passed, some didn't and some were shot down by the courts. But if we greet every bold new plan with, "It has to get through Congress, so forget it," we've lost before we've begun.

Also, McConnell made clear he will block ALL Democratic proposals whether bold or incremental. So what's the point of incrementalism? it won't work either.

If the above is true, then only the executive branch can get anything done at all, and that leads to authoritarianism.

In my view, our only hope is build a big new electoral coalition based on economic populism to break the logjam. Trump's base is, I think being misunderstood. It is a coalition of social conservatives, economic
conservatives and disaffected economic populists. Remember, Trump ran against "elites" and promised to bring the good jobs back and fix healthcare. After Trump's failure in those areas, Those people may switch back to an economic populist message in big numbers.

[themaguffin]

14. It's not about "incrementalism"

It's about working through what can be done at the time.

I totally agree on your view of what trump's base is.

There many voters who are not that ideological that can be won with the right message.

The message must offer an alternative and hope, but it can't be over the top. We can't over promise.

We must be bold but reality based.

[Yavin4]

10. Which is why we need to build majorities in congress

And you cannot build majorities with incrementalism.

[themaguffin]

15. Majorities are needed period.

[stillcool]

16. you build majorities..

from State elections. State elections that are free and fair. Progress prior to perfection always.

[Yavin4]

17. You build majorities with enthusiastic voters

To build that enthusiasm, you need to give them something to vote for and protect.

[stillcool]

18. the real problem is that..

people like me, are more interested in reading benign posts on the internet, than actually doing something constructive. I'm so fortunate to live in the state I do, which makes it easier for me to excuse my lack of activism. I could give a sh*t about Bill Clinton's legacy. I want to have just a teeny bit of hope for the future, anywhere I can get it. People are elected in the states where they live. Blame them all you want for being products of their environment, but they are not the problem We are.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Nope, the problem is that white Americans are a lot more responsive to politics based on racism...

than most Democrats like to admit. THAT is how we got Trump.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. I reject your premise

People upset about progressive incrementalism would more logically vote for candidates whom are bolder, not vote for (or to enable) somebody whom helps push regressive policies. Anybody whom sits on their hands and refuses to vote for the more progressive candidate or, worse, vote for a candidate whom represents the exact opposite, in a race because they're not getting all of what they want when they want is simply lost IMHO. True progressives whom understand how the system works will vote for the most progressive candidate they can in every race they can and continue to organize and support efforts to expand progressive programs. Anything else is insanity.