Where does the Democratic Party go from here?

[The Penguins]

After losing the presidential race and failing to win majority in either the House or the Senate, what does the Democratic Party do now? Trump looks posed to select the next Supreme Court Justice and possible 3 others due to their age. What can the Democratic Party do to rebuild their strength? 

[TheMCBros99]

Wait 2 years, worst case 4?

[silencedotmid]

2018 is the first year the Democrats can actually try anything. All of the House and a third of the Senate will be up for election, and if Trump's presidency is a stinker, all they need to do is put up some competent senators and take over Congress. That'll at least stall some of Trump's plans.

 

As for 2020, they've got to find a new candidate. Hillary's got too much baggage and Bernie is too old and unpopular with the moderates. The Democrats need a strong candidate who is unlike Trump in every regard, from physicality to policies. My personal fantasy is that Michelle Obama will run, but that's a pipe dream right now. The Republican Party is going to embrace outsider far-right candidates like Trump from now on, so the Democrats need to get a candidate who a)capture the votes of the establishment democrats b)capture the votes of the Berniecrats and other independents, and c)capture the votes of the people who will inevitably get fucked over by Trump.

 

So in short, the Democrats just need to wait for Trump to inevitably fuck up real badly, and just make their campaign a reaction to him. And oh boy, I sure hope they succeed this time.

 

The Supreme Court will fuck us all over in the meantime though. Expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned, environmental policies to be discarded, and your rights to generally be eroded.

[#NewWizard]

They lay down and rot

[HarryG]

Iran and Obamacare will likely be gone before they get a majority again, that's a huge blow

[silencedotmid]

Iran and Obamacare will likely be gone before they get a majority again, that's a huge blow

The Iran president has already come out saying that he's not gonna let the Iran Deal fall through. Obamacare is screwed though, as is Roe v. Wade probably.

[Keroro1454]

The Supreme Court will fuck us all over in the meantime though. Expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned, environmental policies to be discarded, and your rights to generally be eroded.

 

No way Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Unless he can get a 6 person majority, there's no way he'll pull it off. Even Roberts opposes overturning it, which means he'd need: the 3 Republican ones that would agree to overturn it, plus two more would have to die (Ginsburg is on her way out but it'd be tricky to get another one; also I could totally see the Democrats pulling a "Weekend at Bernies" with Ginsburg if she kicks the bucket) and then he could appoint the 3 others he would want. The ruling is heavily entrenched as it stands right now, I wouldn't count on it collapsing.

 

Environmental policies are definitely going to be hurt. I wouldn't say expect a "resurrection of coal", as coal's death was the fault of the market, not policy, but I would expect any domestic policies to be overturned and the Paris Accords are basically null now.

 

Alright I'm devastated and disgusted by this as well but hyperbole gets nowhere. Realistically even with a Republican-run House and Senate Pence won't be able to push through any overrulings on gay marriage and the likes, as the Republicans would like to exist next election and doing anything of that caliber is political suicide.

 

 

The Iran president has already come out saying that he's not gonna let the Iran Deal fall through. Obamacare is screwed though, as is Roe v. Wade probably

 

I don't think he gets a choice, both Trump and Pence (Who will be handling presidential opinion for foreign and domestic cases) are outspoken against the deal. Trump is already in close contact with Netanyahu. I see this and China being the serious issues of Trump's foreign policy- working under the assumption he doesn't change Syrian policy (And given his knowledge on the matter I wouldn't be surprised) and considering Russia as a separate entity than "hostile confrontation".

 

ACA is definetely going under, the question is whether it's going under the knife and going to be changed, or if it'll be under the sea and sleeping with the fishes. Not quite sure what the plan is here, Trump has said repeatedly they're going to destroy it but I'm not sure the elected Republican party is on board with such a drastic option. Of course, this is assuming that it's even possible for him to just get rid of it, which is highly unlikely.

 

See above comment.

 

 

 

One issue the Democrats are going to face though is the issue that they will be forced to become the "Party of No" that they labelled the Republicans as if they want to preserve any of Obama's legacy. This will hurt their Senate and election chances arguably more than it hurt the Republicans, though this is in part because of the fact the Republicans won on this exact belief that the government needs to be opposed at every turn, whereas the Democrats don't have this demographic and won't be able to appeal to its Republican counterpart simply because of basic party lines.

 

 

It's going to be a wild ride folks, buckle up.

[HarryG]

The Iran president has already come out saying that he's not gonna let the Iran Deal fall through. Obamacare is screwed though, as is Roe v. Wade probably.

I don't know about Roe v. Wade, they'll have to decide if an almost guaranteed loss of the woman vote is worth that decision in this situation particularly. Now, when Trump replaces Scalia, and then Ginsburg either dies or retires (As cold as it may sound, she is 83 and average life expectancy for a woman is 88 right now, coupling that with the fact that she may retire), you have a 6-3 Supreme Court conservative majority. Down the line, that is a very surefire way to get Roe v. Wade repealed. I will agree that Obamacare likely will not survive past this 4 year or even 2 year term. 

[Sniper Noob]

They need someone who is both competent, and can bring about a movement similar to Bernie's. Hillary could do the first, but not the second, and that's why her campaign ultimately failed.

 

Personally, I would like to see someone like Elizabeth Warren run. She is not only competent and strong in her positions, but is also tangent to the Bernie movement and extremely well-liked among most Democrats. Maybe I'm biased since she represents my state, but I would have voted for her above both Bernie and Hillary. A Warren/Michelle Obama ticket could be a powerhouse move if they decided to do it.

[Twins_Mercury]

I don't know about Roe v. Wade, they'll have to decide if an almost guaranteed loss of the woman vote is worth that decision in this situation particularly. Now, when Trump replaces Scalia, and then Ginsburg either dies or retires (As cold as it may sound, she is 83 and average life expectancy for a woman is 88 right now, coupling that with the fact that she may retire), you have a 6-3 Supreme Court conservative majority. Down the line, that is a very surefire way to get Roe v. Wade repealed. I will agree that Obamacare likely will not survive past this 4 year or even 2 year term. 

 

Ginsburg said she would not retire if trump won.

[HarryG]

Ginsburg said she would not retire if trump won.

That's a logical step of course, however the fact that she is very close to the other exit lane for a Supreme Court Justice is undeniable. The Democratic Party's future may rely on her health, as a matter of fact. I think the near future for the party is in serious jeopardy if Ginsburg dies during Trump's time as President.

[Hyperqube]

I don't think he gets a choice, both Trump and Pence (Who will be handling presidential opinion for foreign and domestic cases) are outspoken against the deal.

People seem to forget that this is an 8-party agreement (not just the U.S. and Iran)

 

The U.S. doesn't have the power to unilaterly blow up the current deal, while if it would leave it, I can only immagine how bad that would be for the U.S. (it shows the U.S. is untrustworthy - putting pressure on every other international treaty)

 

 

They need someone who is both competent, and can bring about a movement similar to Bernie's. Hillary could do the first, but not the second, and that's why her campaign ultimately failed.

 

Personally, I would like to see someone like Elizabeth Warren run. She is not only competent and strong in her positions, but is also tangent to the Bernie movement and extremely well-liked among most Democrats. Maybe I'm biased since she represents my state, but I would have voted for her above both Bernie and Hillary. A Warren/Michelle Obama ticket could be a powerhouse move if they decided to do it.

How about Michelle Obama?

 

If anything, these elctions have shown competence/strength/experience isn't what one needs, but the ability to convince the voters there's a better way.

Having no politcial carreer she has very little skeletons in the closet, she's a pationate speaker, and can probbably play on the "good old days, when her husband was pres" feeling.

[Sniper Noob]

How about Michelle Obama?

 

If anything, these elctions have shown competence/strength/experience isn't what one needs, but the ability to convince the voters there's a better way.

Having no politcial carreer she has very little skeletons in the closet, she's a pationate speaker, and can probbably play on the "good old days, when her husband was pres" feeling.

 

She's great, don't get me wrong, but she's not qualified to run as president. As much as your point about persuasion vs. experience is true, I myself couldn't vote for someone in that way. I think paired with Warren, who does have legitimate experience and is still very well-liked by the left, she'd be much more suited for a VP role. 

[#NewWizard]

^just lol if you think Pocahontas could win. How about electing someone who is not century old and also doesn't have history of scandals.

[Sniper Noob]

^just lol if you think Pocahontas could win. How about electing someone who is not century old and also doesn't have history of scandals.

 

That's why Warren would be good. Trying to claim that she wouldn't win because of that stupid Native American thing is foolish, especially in light of the two people we just had running for president and their actual history of "scandals." If you had any actual knowledge on the subject aside from your Fox News headlines you would know that not only is she younger than Trump (which is completely meaningless by the way, another stupid argument), but also extremely well-liked within the Democratic party. She is capable of energizing the youth vote within the party, and can gather the same "anti-establishment" support that Bernie did. I have no doubt she would win against Trump, and probably against most Republican candidates.

[silencedotmid]

She's great, don't get me wrong, but she's not qualified to run as president. As much as your point about persuasion vs. experience is true, I myself couldn't vote for someone in that way. I think paired with Warren, who does have legitimate experience and is still very well-liked by the left, she'd be much more suited for a VP role. 

"Not qualified to run as president" will never again be a viable reason to dismiss someone's campaign now that we've elected a man with zero political experience.

In our current anti-intellectual culture war, experience is generally a weakness, a period of time that leaves you open to attack.

 

Warren/Obama would be sick as hell though.

[Keroro1454]

Warren/Obama would be sick as hell though.

 

There was definitely a misogynistic underpinning in this election though, trying to push not one but two women into office may be harder than you'd think.

[Sniper Noob]

There was definitely a misogynistic underpinning in this election though, trying to push not one but two women into office may be harder than you'd think.

 

I agree there was some misogyny going on, but I don't think that was even a significant portion of why Hillary lost. People hate her for a wide variety of reasons, and being a woman is only a small part of it.

 

"Not qualified to run as president" will never again be a viable reason to dismiss someone's campaign now that we've elected a man with zero political experience.

In our current anti-intellectual culture war, experience is generally a weakness, a period of time that leaves you open to attack.

 

Warren/Obama would be sick as hell though.

 

That's true, but for me personally I still have standards and would rather vote for someone with real experience.

[3.50]

There was definitely a misogynistic underpinning in this election though, trying to push not one but two women into office may be harder than you'd think.

No.

 

Hillary, while being literally (and not really arguably) one of the two worst candidates in American history, managed to win the popular vote, and very nearly the Presidency. And to see how the country felt about Republican vs Democrat, see the House and Senate. 'murrica is tired as hell of liberals and their shit. A Republican candidate SHOULD have beaten her easily, and yet she almost won.

 

Yes, there was some misogyny from the fringes. Trump is a populist demagogue, and he brings out the worst in people. But no, her gender didn't change anyone's mind about her. The facts are against that, solidly. Only people who already rejected her policies and/or character brought that up. She was the worst candidate her party has ever nominated, thrust into a cultural climate that is very, very fed up with the shit she represents. And she still won the popular vote.

 

If she was even a tiny bit less thoroughly tied to corruption, she'd be our President right now, and by a landslide.

Don't even think about using the m-word like it was or would be an actual factor.

 

Edit: to see how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male, look at Obama. Do some research into how much he influenced numbers in a positive or negative direction, as opposed to the "generic" Democratic candidate. You'll find it was measurably positive, mostly because he was a good speaker, and the people were more impressed by that than by the fact that he wasn't a white male. Then look at Sarah Palin--until she made it abundantly clear that she was an utter fool and corrupt to boot, people (particularly in the Republican party, who you'd most expect to object) loved her. Americans are a lot of things--but when we vote for the President, at least, we put aside a person's race and gender.

[Professional Map Painter]

 

[Hyperqube]

Edit: to see how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male, look at Obama. Do some research into how much he influenced numbers in a positive or negative direction, as opposed to the "generic" Democratic candidate. You'll find it was measurably positive, mostly because he was a good speaker, and the people were more impressed by that than by the fact that he wasn't a white male. Then look at Sarah Palin--until she made it abundantly clear that she was an utter fool and corrupt to boot, people (particularly in the Republican party, who you'd most expect to object) loved her. Americans are a lot of things--but when we vote for the President, at least, we put aside a person's race and gender.

You do realise the rest of your paragraph doesn't reyuor initial sentence, right?

 

to see how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male, look at Obama.

 

Obama isn't born in the U.S.

-- accoring to 1 in 4 americans

 

Obama is a Muslim

-- according to nearly 1 in 3 americans

Those are statistics for the numbers for americans. not just the stereotypical conservative southerners. How many presidents have the U.S. had, and how many white male presidents had to deal with such Bullsh*t? Yeah - THAT is "how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male."

[#NewWizard]

You do realise the rest of your paragraph doesn't reyuor initial sentence, right?

 

to see how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male, look at Obama.

 

Obama isn't born in the U.S.

-- accoring to 1 in 4 americans

 

Obama is a Muslim

-- according to nearly 1 in 3 americans

Those are statistics for the numbers for americans. not just the how 'murica ACTUALLY reacts to someone who isn't a white male."

 

People don't even take these questions seriously. I for sure wouldn't lmao. If a poller asked me if Ted Cruz is zodiac killer. I'd say yes.

[Lib3l]

People don't even take these questions seriously. I for sure wouldn't lmao. If a poller asked me if Ted Cruz is zodiac killer. I'd say yes.

That's different he is the zodiac killer

 

[Hyperqube]

People don't even take these questions seriously. I for sure wouldn't lmao. If a poller asked me if Ted Cruz is zodiac killer. I'd say yes.

 

Tell that to Matthew Hill, Richard Shelby, Roy Blunt, Jean Schmidt, Nathan Deal, Sarah Palin, Tracey Mann, David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Andy Martin, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann, Joe Arpaio, Mike Coffman, Orly Taitz, etc ...

 

Tell it to federal legislators who proposes legislation aimed at requiring future presidential candidates to release copies of their birth certificates.

 

Tell it to the 17 lawsuits seeking to have Obama removed from presidency over the matter

 

Etc ...

[F CHARLIE]

What they need to do is focus on correcting the Republican gerrymandering that occurred after 2010.  As far as the presidency goes, they should always be seeking a charismatic, hopefully populist, candidate who is still a Democrat.