70% of the US Did Not Vote Republican -- How Will The Democratic Party Represent Them?
Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2016, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)
There's no use doing a postmortem without applying the lessons to future plans of this party.
Our plans must be solid, led by competent people.
As part of this going forward thinking, we should discuss the current party platform, potential leadership philosophy, how to better spend party funds and how this party connects with moneyed interests worldwide.
I've been a full donor, voter, campaigner, but am no way in on current party leadership thinking. I was a Bernie, then Hillary supporter, and so I have some ideas about how the party should proceed with its Sisyphean task of enfolding new members nationwide.
One idea is that Democrats have to keep the DLC leadership at bay by bringing Bernie campaign people into leadership positions. The next idea follows from the first: build from state levels on up -- put more money into state gubernatorial and state house elections, win back the House and Senate.
The problem with the last idea is that, even if we could win back both Congressional houses by the mid-term, so much that Obama accomplished would have been undone, so much momentum of anti-scientist, anti-climate and fascist-leaning geopolitical mess would exist, that Democrats would still look impotent, and thereby be unable to keep the party from its downward spiral of public influence.
The "better together" philosophy needs to be a more realistic motto, such that the 70% who didn't vote have a real alternative to the Republican governance model. I hope the party can act in ways that appeal to them.
I've got more to say but am interested in what fellow Democrats here think.
Thanks for hanging in with DU, everyone. We have a lot to offer this party, and I hope we can get it to listen.
