What are the Democratic Party's PR/optics weaknesses?

[Higgins]

Let's take a blunt examination into where the Democratic Party is optically weak.

For example, I think the Dems have an optics problem with regard to the police. I think they're often perceived as anti-cop. There is a reason the GOP has been able to beat the "law and order" drum since 1968.

[choclatechip45]

Linda Sassour. All of her press is bad for democrats she is also one of the only democrats I will never defend.

[This is Eharding, guys]

There are none worth seriously examining.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

[This is Eharding, guys]

There are none worth seriously examining.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

That 8 point lead needs to come with an asterisk explaining that because of gerrymandering, geography, and to a lesser extent voter ID laws that the Democrats need to win the national congressional PV by roughly 7 points to take back the House (according to an estimate by 538).

8.2 points is greater than 7 points.

[This is Eharding, guys]

There are none worth seriously examining.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

That 8 point lead needs to come with an asterisk explaining that because of gerrymandering, geography, and to a lesser extent voter ID laws that the Democrats need to win the national congressional PV by roughly 7 points to take back the House (according to an estimate by 538).

8.2 points is greater than 7 points.

Being 1.2 points ahead of the number needed to retake the House should be kept into perspective rather than just navel gazing at an 8.2 lead and thinking you're safe for 2018.

Come on, even you're optimistic for 2018. This is concern trolling.

[Technocracy Timmy]

There are none worth seriously examining.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

That 8 point lead needs to come with an asterisk explaining that because of gerrymandering, geography, and to a lesser extent voter ID laws that the Democrats need to win the national congressional PV by roughly 7 points to take back the House (according to an estimate by 538).

8.2 points is greater than 7 points.

Being 1.2 points ahead of the number needed to retake the House should be kept into perspective rather than just navel gazing at an 8.2 lead and thinking you're safe for 2018.

Come on, even you're optimistic for 2018. This is concern trolling.

OP's question wasn't even concerning congressional elections (given that it's posted in the 2020 presidential election forum) so yeah, even if I'm optimistic about 2018 that doesn't mean it's proof the Democrats don't have PR problems going into the next election. Obama and Bill Clinton both won reelection even though their Party got hammered in their first midterms.


Anyways getting back to the OP: A lot of 2020 depends on if the Obama-Trump cohort in the Midwest gives Trump or the GOP a second chance in 2020. It also depends to what extent they voted for Trump on cultural issues and what they were exactly. All Economics is felt in a cultural way so if these voters feel as though immigrants, Mexicans, Muslims, feminists, LGBT peoples etc. whatever it may be is what's keeping them down then they could deliver the Presidency to Trump or Pence in 2020.

The real PR problem the Democrats have is that they're not seen as the Party of the working class. They're instead seen as the Party of specific marginalized groups (single women, LGBT, minorities, etc). That image needs to be broaden to include any and all working class stiffs if they want to form a national coalition again.

[SoLongAtlas]

Seen as too technocratic, urban only, SJWs, pandering for immigrant votes whether legal or illegal without deference to laws or borders, weak on defense, too institutionalist instead of realist in terms of international relations.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic party doesn't have a PR weakness. The problem is a fatally flawed neoliberal ideology.

[AN63093]

I think it probably depends on what states the Dems wish to win on their path to the White House and what coalition they wish to form.

For example, while VirginiaModerate is not altogether inaccurate in his depiction of the current Democrat stereotype, is this such a bad approach if the Dems truly believe "demographics is destiny" and the goal is to win the coasts, flip FL and MI by boosting minority turnout and write-off working class whites?

In such a case, I don't think the Dems need to change their messaging at all; they just need an affable, charismatic minority candidate that's not under investigation like Clinton was.

There may be downsides to this approach; e.g., one could argue it would only accelerate our current trend towards more polarization and party voting by racial stratification.  But I'm not all that convinced that the Dem party is particularly concerned about this, and if the goal is simply to win elections, than I'm not sure they should be.

[Beet]

I think it probably depends on what states the Dems wish to win on their path to the White House and what coalition they wish to form.

For example, while VirginiaModerate is not altogether inaccurate in his depiction of the current Democrat stereotype, is this such a bad approach if the Dems truly believe "demographics is destiny" and the goal is to win the coasts, flip FL and MI by boosting minority turnout and write-off working class whites?

In such a case, I don't think the Dems need to change their messaging at all; they just need an affable, charismatic minority candidate that's not under investigation like Clinton was.

There may be downsides to this approach; e.g., one could argue it would only accelerate our current trend towards more polarization and party voting by racial stratification.  But I'm not all that convinced that the Dem party is particularly concerned about this, and if the goal is simply to win elections, than I'm not sure they should be.

The Republican party benefits from "racial" stratification, not Democrats. Whites will remain the majority of the electorate for decades, and are more efficiently distributed at all levels of government. The Democratic party's interests are aligned with those of the Republic-- racial depolarization. The GOP is on the retreat on economic issues--as we've seen in the latest health care debate-- and Democrats should try to press this advantage.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think it probably depends on what states the Dems wish to win on their path to the White House and what coalition they wish to form.

For example, while VirginiaModerate is not altogether inaccurate in his depiction of the current Democrat stereotype, is this such a bad approach if the Dems truly believe "demographics is destiny" and the goal is to win the coasts, flip FL and MI by boosting minority turnout and write-off working class whites?

In such a case, I don't think the Dems need to change their messaging at all; they just need an affable, charismatic minority candidate that's not under investigation like Clinton was.

There may be downsides to this approach; e.g., one could argue it would only accelerate our current trend towards more polarization and party voting by racial stratification.  But I'm not all that convinced that the Dem party is particularly concerned about this, and if the goal is simply to win elections, than I'm not sure they should be.

I think the "demographics are destiny" style line of reasoning you're presenting the Democrats could go down on (the bolded part) will lead to what you described below: increased racial polarization (particularly with non college whites swinging even further to the GOP if there's not a recession in 2020). Obama spoke a lot about kitchen table issues in 2008 and 2012 and didn't make his candidacy about his race. Clinton on the other hand did make her candidacy about empowering women and saying that she was an outsider candidate solely because of her gender.

If I was a GOP strategist and I didn't care about the long term or morals, I'd just tell Trump or Pence to run a very racially polarized campaign in 2020 (if the Democrats go down the path you're describing) as a way of increasing their share of the white vote. Try to get white liberals in particular to stay home on the argument that Democrats only care about identity politics and nothing about people's economic woes. The income, wealth, and social mobility statistics for African Americans and Latinos are so poor compared to even many working class whites that the best short term strategy for the GOP to win is to increase their share of the white vote.

It's not a good idea in the long term however.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Obama made a mistake to not pass comprehensive immigration reform in Dem Congress and 60 vote Senate with Arlen Spector's defection and Obama, just like Bill Clinton went over budget, as the reason for this bind.

I think they have learned from this and I'm 2020, assuming they win in a census year, they run the table on immigration, PR statehood, DC statehood, ending the legislative fillibuster

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

Well then it's a good thing actual Democratic politicians focus far more on infrastructure and renewable energy and no Democratic politician has ever called for that stuff you call revolting. Furthermore none of that involves federal policy.

[Devout Centrist]

--lack of a charismatic leader
--mismatched messaging, though this is changing
--over reliance on consultants and data
--needs to invest more into local politics
--legacy of OFA led to severe budget problems for the DNC and state parties, messaging suffered as a result

The other takes here are way off the mark.

[Famous Mortimer]

That they favor foreigners over citizens.

[Devout Centrist]

That they favor foreigners over citizens.

Never ceases to amaze me just how you consistently get things wrong. It's really impressive at this point.

[Voice of low info America]

Among non-ideological whites, Democrats are perceived to be cynical politicians who divide the electorate to win, embracing new groups and abandoning old ones as the political winds change. Naked examples of this include Hillary coming out in favor of SSM in 2013 and then having the gall to call people with religious disagreements with SSM as homophobes and bigots in 2016.

[Kamala]

That they favor foreigners over citizens.

Never ceases to amaze me just how you consistently get things wrong. It's really impressive at this point.

[RFKFan68]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

What Democrat has publicly stated this? It sounds like you described a 35 year old woman who is a perpetual graduate student in Oregon that doesn't shave her armpits and eats a diet of granola and twigs.

[Coraxion]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

You should worry about the candidates, not the candidates' supporters.

[Devout Centrist]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

What Democrat has publicly stated this? It sounds like you described a 35 year old woman who is a perpetual graduate student in Oregon that doesn't shave her armpits and eats a diet of granola and twigs.

You managed to make a worse take than he did. How is that even possible?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

You should worry about the candidates, not the candidates' supporters.

But the supporters say something about the candidates.  That's why I despised it when both Trump and Hillary got support from radical groups.

[Devout Centrist]

The social justice warriors who claim the moral high ground and play identity politics.  That is literally the sole reason why I stopped voting for Democrats in 2014.  The concept that individuals are nothing more than their immutable physical characteristics is truly revolting and disgusting.  I still want all the liberal policies of infrastructure and renewable energy.  However, the "we need safe spaces surrounded by trigger warnings to protect us from the micro aggressions due to presence of the cis-gendered, white privilege, male privilege, patriarchy privilege" crowd is revolting.

You should worry about the candidates, not the candidates' supporters.

But the supporters say something about the candidates.  That's why I despised it when both Trump and Hillary got support from radical groups.

What radical groups supported Hillary?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

So do you believe that if elected Hillary would've sought the execution of all white males or something?