Yes, Democrats can win in rural districts, like Oregon's Second Congressional District.
But they must fix the parts of the Democratic brand that voters hate.
 |
| Candidates for Congress from yesterday's post |
I concluded yesterday's post with what I had hoped to hear:
There may be room for a red-district Democrat to surprise voters with a shift in the policies that reshape the Democratic brand. In a democracy there is no shame in supporting things that are popular, even if it changes the orthodoxy of a party brand.
The simple reality is that the Democratic brand is toxic in much of rural America. Understand that. Absorb that thought.
 |
| Rural area of my farm at Table Rock. It gets even redder in more rural areas. |
Democrats are doomed to lose the Senate, and usually the Electoral College, if they are not competitive in rural areas. The Democrat does not need to become MAGA-lite, or become Trumpy, or become dog-whistle-racist. The Democrat does not need to start talking about bipartisanship or "crossing the aisle." They don't need to brand themselves as "purple."
In fact, sounding like a mushy compromiser makes things worse by communicating that the Democrat has no principles. At least in Oregon's Second District, the incumbent, Cliff Bentz, is a genuine, reliable toady for whatever Trump wants, even when it hurts his district. He is a bad U.S. representative, but he is rock-solid loyal to his master.
The Democrat needs to position herself as a reform Democrat. Democrats need reform so they can fix their brand. A reform Democrat is a real Democrat, one willing to face the truth about the party and risk being criticized for doing so. (Notice that Trump did exactly that with the GOP, daring to criticize the Bush dynasty in 2015.)
Start with the immigration issue. Declare that Biden and Democrats messed up badly on immigration. Say it clearly. Admit that Democrats failed to enforce the laws and keep good public order and thus let immigration get out of hand. The Biden administration, with the tacit consent of Democrats in national office, allowed mass uncontrolled immigration by people who gamed the "amnesty" claim, having learned that the U.S. would allow them to remain in the country for years, maybe decades. People wanting to come here took the hint and came, about three million a year of them, a giant spike in immigration numbers.
 |
| New York Times chart and headline |
 |
| Fox image of Lukeville AZ border crossing, December 27, 2023 |
There is something clarifying and cleansing about confession. Tell the simple truth: Democrats were wrong. That goes a long way toward a "reset" of a flawed brand.
The candidate might say what President Obama said: that the laws should be enforced, people here illegally must go home and apply for entry. In a context of respect for the law, people with DOCA status may be able to stay lawfully, but there will be deportations, as there were while Obama was president. Democrats will fail with the public until they accept that.
Having frankly endorsed a policy of law-abiding order, the candidate can then criticize Trump's police-state rough-justice policing strategy. Trump's tactics give a Democrat an opportunity to make immigration a winning issue.
The Democratic brand will change when there are spokespeople and candidates advocating change, not mushy excuses for a failed status quo. The candidate should expect criticism from fellow Democrats. "You sound like Trump!!!" The Democratic candidate should welcome that criticism. It means people are paying attention. No need to say you are moderating or compromising, because you are not. You are re-defining good policy for good Democrats. You are not defending the indefensible; you are not stuck in a policy rut. Tell the critic who says you sound like Trump:
No, I sound like a Democrat who wants our immigration system to work. We can do this the right way or we can do this Trump's way. Trump uses police state tactics. Trump attacks our Second Amendment rights. I sound like a real Democrat, because real Democrats and real Americans want our laws obeyed.
That is one issue.There are others. Reform is an opportunity to rethink what is not working. Policies that are so unpopular that the public chooses Donald Trump as the alternative are a sign that something must change.
The agents of change are the candidates for public office who proudly say they are Democrats and that they voice new defensible and popular policies. They can win the future because they shape it.
Tomorrow, another issue: How to handle Obamacare.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
Hilarious. The premise of "chaos" is a Republican talking point just like "woke".
ReplyDeleteThe "illegal alien problem" would be solved overnight with a few CEO prosecutions. Of course the economy would collapse, but at least you could shrug off the obvious racism, so much for that.
In the meantime Trump raids the Treasury and sets up himself and his kids as royalty, but never mind..."The Immigrants!!"
This is EXACTLY the kind of criticism I hoped and expected I would get and which any candidate who follows my advice will get. 1. Call the immigration problem a mere Republican talking point, and therefore not real or serious. 2. Dismiss the idea that the crowds at the border, then sent to northern cities as "chaos" i scare quotes. People who were unhappy by crowds of people on sidewalks, overtaxed social services, emergency hotels filled, etc, are just imagining it. Those preincts that shifted five to ten points red are just soreheads. Shame on them. Deplorable! 3. Complaints about immigrants is mostly either racism or distraction from other issues so it can be ignored.
DeleteAnd in reality, it was ignored. What was the result? The result is a giant red-shift, including among people essential for the Democratic coalition including Hispanics and Asians. They did not think they were imagining it.
This comment is exactly why Democrats are in trouble, it is why change will be hard,, and it is why I don't expect all or maybe any of the four candidates to take my advice. Better to pretend this is just a problem due to the fact that a majority of voters are simply wrong.
Hmmm...Big Lies work...until they don't. I think the Republican demonizing of immigrants gave a lot of people an excuse to ignore the real problems, inequality, climate, healthcare, and they clearly haven't gone away. In the meantime, I wouldn't advise abandoning Progressive values and end up back at "both parties bad".
ReplyDeletePeter could start the process himself, by not gratuitously using the word, “herself.” If we are not supposed to use language that is “exclusionary,“ then we should also not do it in the other direction.
ReplyDeleteLanguage like this comes across as liberal virtue signaling, and it is obnoxious to many people, including the rural people Peter is talking about, and to me.
The four candidates are female. I have not gotten accustomed to using plural pronouns to follow a singular subject. I debated what to use. "He-Him" would be the old default. "Him or Her" would be an awkward way to be non gendered. The fact that MT felt excluded by the use of "her" shows that the old convention of assuming male was in fact not neutral. (EG All men are created equal.) MT disproves his own point by calling it mere virtue signalling. The pronoun mattered. It wasn't just virtue signalling. So I went with the gender of the people who are candidates, all female. Therefore female pronouns. It is this kind of picky, prickly, easy-to-offend behavior that the opponents of politically correct speech cite to explain why they oppose it. Why are women and woke people so touchy??????? So MT, who I know to be male, is a nice piece of irony here, doing exactly what he dislikes. Unless--- Unless maybe he is being sarcastic, and he knows full well he is being the persnickety person he says does virtue signalling and that I am missing his obvious joke. That is the trouble with parody in comments. Sometimes you really don't know how to take it.
DeleteYou make a good point, Peter. Sometimes I read too quickly and miss important details, such as all of the candidates you were talking about were female.
DeleteI ran into so much obnoxious, political correctness and wokeness at Portland Community College that I am actually very touchy about such things. But it seems that I got it wrong this time.
That was me, inadvertently posting as Anonymous.
DeleteThere are two types of immigrants: those who come into the country legally, and those who come into the country and stay illegally.
ReplyDeleteToo many times our broadcast, print, and social media fail to recognize there is a difference.
There should be no justification for "illegal immigration".
Our political leaders sometimes fail to understand the difference.
I am a first generation descendent of immigrants. My Father was born in the USA of legal immigrants from then Czechoslovakia. My Mother was born in a different part of Czechoslovakia, legally emigrated to Canada, and then married my Father in 1951. She became a permanent, legal resident after marrying my Father, and eventually became a naturalized US citizen.
I know what the process is for entering a foreign country.
I've traveled the world for work as well as pleasure. I know how to get a passport, business visas, tourist visas, as well as any other documentation required to enter a foreign country.
I also know how to carry documentation whenever I travel.
And yes, I was once almost denied entry into a Canada because of what I said when I answered a question the Canadian border agent asked me at the Toronto Airport. I was visiting our Toronto subsidiary to meet our sales people and to provide training on our new products they would be selling. Yes, I was subjected to secondary questioning, and all was cleared up without issue.
But back to the subject at hand...
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and we have laws to determine who can come into the country to visit, work, and even live here permanently. I'm sure that many readers here are descendants of immigrants, whether they realize it or not.
Over the years the laws for immigration have been changed, mostly for the good, but not always. Lack of enforcement is inexcusable, and the cause for many of our problems today.
I think some people are forgetting that we are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are native American, someone in your ancestry came here from another country. Immigration is good. They bring in different cultures. Different ideas. Different FOOD!!! Mexican food. Chinese food. Italian food. Latino food. Japanese food. Indian food. French food. Cuban food. Jewish food. When you're deciding on dinner out, what kind of food do you feel like? Lots of choices. That's where you see the influence of immigration the most. It's been a good thing and everyone benefits. I know I benefited. My ancestors came in from Greece around 1915. If they hadn't, I'd probably be plucking chickens somewhere in the hills of Greece.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats can win Congressional District 2, and pigs can fly.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Democrats can win. Not this time. But candidates could change the brand of the Democratic party a few clicks on the dial. Currently the brand is toxic in rural areas. That could be fixed.
Delete