Democrats: always a tough sell…

I’ve spent some time on twitter discussing the 2016 election, and the fine line between critiquing the Clinton campaign (which, IMHO, was terrible) and Hillary Clinton herself (yes, I STILL think that she would be a good president) and going over the various factors that worked against her (sexism of some, Russian collusion, Comey’s ill timed letter, and yes, Trump’s campaign skill, which, IMHO, was underrated).

I might post a link to that long twitter conversation because it started with hostility and ended with understanding; I found myself actually liking the people I was talking to. That is always a good thing.

And so that was true…Obama understood the showmanship side of campaigning AND had the knowledge and deportment to be a good president. Trump has only the showmanship to get elected.

But think about what a tough sell the Democrats have. Read the Facebook feed of liberals sometime. What do you see:

1. People advocating for the poor
2. People advocating for those with criminal records (as my IL-House representative is…and she too has a criminal record)
3. People advocating for someone with this disability or that challenge

On the other hand, Republican politicians usually preach “success” and “achievement”. They deride liberals as those who want to take from the successful and give to the losers and slackers.

Now riddle me this: which “club” would YOU rather belong to? And when someone speaks, who would you take more seriously: someone who is chronically on welfare or someone who has some professional success?

Now, yes, there are those with Nobel prizes in subjects (science, economics, medicine) who are liberal and one doesn’t get more successful than that. And many of my liberal friends hold advanced degrees and/or professional credentials. So we have some success on our side too. But the politicians never say “vote Democrat to become more like someone with an advanced degree”; it is almost “vote Democrat to help out some single mom or someone making minimum wage”. Advocating for those on the lower runs of society will always be a very tough sell, IMHO. And at the national level, we are going to need a Bill Clinton /Barack Obama caliber politician to pull it off.


April 20, 2017 - Posted by | Democrats, politics/social, social/political |


  1. Agree with you that Dems have horrible messaging – because it’s so easy to draw the contrast that you just did. I think US is the most individualist country in the world – we’ve peddled the American dream – you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps etc which is a good message. But then we have overcompensated for those who won’t – not the ones who can’t. There will always be a small part of a society that needs help. But most people need the old adage of teaching them to fish instead of fishing for them. If independent studies were done on how government programs have helped, i think we’d see that when we don’t teach and fish instead, dependency goes up. We’ve lowered expectations in increased excuses. Many factors have contributed to this – but we need to figure it out in a hurry. I believe that when people don’t have to pay for something, they don’t have to care how much it costs. As much as i want universal healthcare, this is the thinking we’d have to overcome. Yes, i have a business person brain – but there are plenty of nonprofits that are using this benefit/result/cost analysis to be effective with their dollars (Gates Foundation is one of them).

    I still disagree that Hillary would have been a good president – a good manager, yes. But too many R’s hate her and I don’t see this Congress working with her at all, like Obama, she could throw THEIR ideas on the table and still be rejected. Management is different that leadership – you and i know that Trump is a disaster, but he was able to lead enough people to the polls to win the presidency. And not one word that came out of his mouth was couth, decent, uplifting, hopeful, sane, intelligent, coherent. Obama could do the talking but had trouble with implementation because – I think – Reid and Pelosi are polarizing.

    So why do you think Hillary would be a good president?

    Comment by Lynn Dempsey | April 20, 2017 | Reply

    • I think that she is very knowledgeable and knows the inside game. She also would have known, from the get-go, that the Rs would merely obstruct her or attempt to do so. Pres. O thought that they could be reasoned with, especially if he presented them with their own ideas.

      Comment by blueollie | April 20, 2017 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: