What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

As I say I think the rallies actually serve a few useful and important political ends. I think it's the sort of thing we'd instinctively get pre-mass media because that was the normal way of doing politics. And this includes pre-Trump, but I think one of the political purposes they've served is as an important part of how he has expanded his and the GOP's base:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtrdjewaQAMvjQg?format=jpg&name=900x900/[img]

I think in a way it's perhaps particularly telling that the biggest swing is with non-white voters with no college education because they were perhaps the group most seen as a group the Democrats just turn on/off at elections. I think it is very different - and in many ways more of a throwback (powered by social media) - than the Dick Morris/Democrat approach of micro-targeted policy to appeal to soccer moms.

I think that's part of the internal fight within the Democrats is people and networks that have built their careers and influence in one of mode of politics possibly becoming redundant. But I also think it's why some of them struggle with how to respond to Trump because the idea of a broad spectrum message is just not how they've done politics for at least the last 30+ years.

Edit: But yes, also make it fun if you can. I think the Democrats have become the party for people who are really interested in politics and even - God forbid - have opinions about policy (the least important thing in politics). I think the Republicans basically appeal to people who aren't interested in politics, in part perhaps because they make it look fun, and that's a good place to be in a democratic society.

On the fun point it's different but I always think of the mass parties in the post-war era in Europe - where the different parties would have clubs where people would go and dance. Sir John Major met his wife in the local Conservative Club (now just a normal bar). But there were Labour working men's clubs all over the country, lending libraries and reading groups organised by Liberals, Conservatives and Labour (and the unions) - it was like that across Europe. It's not the same and was always different in America - but there is an element of joining a gang or club with Trump and MAGA that I think can't be overlooked.

[grumbler]

Outnumbered how? Registered members?

Votes cast in the last election.

How many of the people who voted for Trump were actually Republicans?

[Legbiter]

As I say I think the rallies actually serve a few useful and important political ends. I think it's the sort of thing we'd instinctively get pre-mass media because that was the normal way of doing politics. And this includes pre-Trump, but I think one of the political purposes they've served is as an important part of how he has expanded his and the GOP's base:
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtrdjewaQAMvjQg?format=jpg&name=900x900/[img]

I think in a way it's perhaps particularly telling that the biggest swing is with non-white voters with no college education because they were perhaps the group most seen as a group the Democrats just turn on/off at elections. I think it is very different - and in many ways more of a throwback (powered by social media) - than the Dick Morris/Democrat approach of micro-targeted policy to appeal to soccer moms.

I think that's part of the internal fight within the Democrats is people and networks that have built their careers and influence in one of mode of politics possibly becoming redundant. But I also think it's why some of them struggle with how to respond to Trump because the idea of a broad spectrum message is just not how they've done politics for at least the last 30+ years.

Edit: But yes, also make it fun if you can. I think the Democrats have become the party for people who are really interested in politics and even - God forbid - have opinions about policy (the least important thing in politics). I think the Republicans basically appeal to people who aren't interested in politics, in part perhaps because they make it look fun, and that's a good place to be in a democratic society.

On the fun point it's different but I always think of the mass parties in the post-war era in Europe - where the different parties would have clubs where people would go and dance. Sir John Major met his wife in the local Conservative Club (now just a normal bar). But there were Labour working men's clubs all over the country, lending libraries and reading groups organised by Liberals, Conservatives and Labour (and the unions) - it was like that across Europe. It's not the same and was always different in America - but there is an element of joining a gang or club with Trump and MAGA that I think can't be overlooked.

Aye, all well and true lad, but we kinda be needing you down on the more lively Saturday green..

[Admiral Yi]

What I'm looking for Shelf is advice that can be operationalized.  What's the blueprint, what's the business plan, what are the concrete steps that need to be taken?

[Sheilbh]

I've said my ideas on this a few times.

I think the tens of thousands turning out for Fighting Oligarchy rallies by Sanders and others is a sign there's appetite. I think other Democrats should get involved. Even if, like Senator Slotkin you say Democrats shouldn't use words like "oligarchy" because people don't know what it means - then fine have separate rallies around the country to try and engage people in your political movement.

They should speak to Howard Dean about his 50 state strategy as DNC chair which I think was a really important part of their victories in 2006 and 2008 - I always think when people talk about Obama to Trump states that one thing that doesn't get mentioned was the shift from Dean's strategy of party building in all states to narrower and more narrowly presidential/political under subsequent chairs like Kaine and Wasserman Schultz. But build the party - and the infrastructure.

I've said before but there's been hugely successful political organising across the US on issues the Democrats would associate with. Whether that's increasing the minimum wage, protecting abortion rights, protecting or expanding Medicaid - and those organisers have been getting results in states that are either red or went that way at the last election. Democrats should be looking at using them as a tool for mobilisation - they are campaigns reaching beyond Democrat voters on issues they feel they "own". How can they make the most of that common issue and then try to expand it out. And it'll involve Democrats working with types of people they might not otherwise in the way the party works at the minute - I think that would be very, very healthy.

Stop getting donor money just into Super PACs and campaigns and put it into the type of institution building you see on the right: the Federalist Society, the National Review, assorted other right-wing magazines and "institutes" at universities and think tanks across the US. The right have built a pipe line of idea, to cadre, to media commentator. There's no equivalent on the left, not least because that sort of thing isn't well-funded (or is within the "traditional" institutions of media and academia with all of the constraints that introduces). I think it's the infrastructure that's needed not the current strategy of trying to fund a Joe Rogan for the left.

Those would be my suggestions on the operational side of things. As I've said before I think a bit problem here is that the Democrats have the lowest approval rating in the history of that question and the sense I get is that they are really, profoundly unpopular in a way that I don't think they quite get. From what I've read I think there's a huge trust issue. I've said what I think they can do on that more ideological/trust front.

Edit: Also just to Tamas' points - I think another very real benefit of this is that activity is helpful for morale. and I think Democrats and others who are anti-Trump definitely need to keep their morale up.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks Shelf

[Tamas]

Even though I think there's a risk of overthinking it (Trump's was a close victory, certainly not the demolition that would warrant Democrats packing up and giving up), on the high level I agree with those saying (I think Sheilbh said the same thing) that whatever the recipe is for defeating the reactionary fascist Right, going back to what worked in the late 90s isn't it. The Harris campaign showed that's what the Democrats tried in my opinion (and I also thought it'd work).

Dominic Sandbrook summarised it very well and briefly on election night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb9PWCtCRJM

[Sheilbh]

I agree and on the overthinking point I think there's people around Trump who are behaving as if they won like FDR - and explicitly making that comparison. It's absurd. They didn't and they're not translating their agenda into legislation. It's through executive orders and the administrative state (including appointments). Admittedly because Congress has basically ceded a lot to the presidency in the past few decades that's not an insignificant amount of power - but it's neither the mandate nor the mechanism for massive lasting change. In a way I think the cultural/corporate "vibe shift" is possibly as or more significant.

[HVC]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLL0RYqyIug

 

[Razgovory]

I agree and on the overthinking point I think there's people around Trump who are behaving as if they won like FDR - and explicitly making that comparison. It's absurd. They didn't and they're not translating their agenda into legislation. It's through executive orders and the administrative state (including appointments). Admittedly because Congress has basically ceded a lot to the presidency in the past few decades that's not an insignificant amount of power - but it's neither the mandate nor the mechanism for massive lasting change. In a way I think the cultural/corporate "vibe shift" is possibly as or more significant.

I think it is very troubling that, despite being a rapist, a felon and a racist, the number of people who voted for him increased each time he ran for President.  Not only that, the number of Black and Hispanic people who voted for him increase each time he runs.  Trump is a piece of shit and a terrible person, why does he keep getting more votes every time he runs?

[Sophie Scholl]

The system has been breaking down for decades due to intentional and unintentional efforts. One party (Trump) is promising change and the other is promising the status quo. Even though the change Trump and co. are promising is awful, it is at least addressing the dire necessity of things needing to change. Even though Democrats actually made some progress during Obama and Biden's terms, they proceeded to market themselves as the status quo, everything is ok and will be fine party and it has killed them. I think that "Hope" and "Change" messaging Obama ran on in 2008 especially is one of the reasons he was so incredibly popular.

[Sophie Scholl]

You cannot see attachments on this board.

[Razgovory]

Well the Democratic party is the party of government and elites, though nobody really wants to admit to this.  The party's base, affluent white professionals, have demanded, and gotten, some rather radical change in cultural sphere.  They are often quite loud about economic changes but these are frankly are superficial.  They rail against billionaires while being some of the prime beneficiary of inequalities, and in many cases the drivers of inequalities.  It really, really doesn't help that these inequalities are often justified by shifts in cultural attitudes.  The losers of our modern economy are often seen to deserve their poverty.

[Admiral Yi]

You had me until the last bit.

They hate rednecks because they are oppressors, not because of contempt for poverty.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump is a piece of shit and a terrible person, why does he keep getting more votes every time he runs?

He lost the election in 2020.  He got more votes because the total number of voters was much larger in 2020 then in 2016. But he lost the popular vote by 7 million.  In comparison he only beat Harris by 2 million.

The simplest, Occam's razor explanation is that when the memory of Trump's awfulness as a President is at his most sharp, people reject him.  When that memory fades and is filled with other concerns like higher prices, people drift back to him.