I think we can agree on ignoring actual racists.
I’m just trying to find a way to get something more than a one vote majority in the Senate.
Its not looking good right now.
Yes, rural America is definitely a niche population wise. But the rules of the game are what they are. And you need a super majority to change them.
Perhaps if newspapers and tv stations from rural areas would go to diners in places like South Philly or the gayborhood and talk to regular people it would help them to understand their feelings and needs? To not focus on their own tiny places that are unrepresentative of the majority?
I suspect, as much as I’d hope for the opposite, the internal struggle won’t do much damage to the party - because they’ve already given in to the extreme wing. There’s really no place more extreme left for them to go - they’re openly embracing conspiracy theories, white supremacy and blatantly rejecting democracy, after all.
Do you really think that nine or ten more Joe Manchins in the Senate will deliver the changes that are needed (prominent among them fixing the disproportionate power of rural districts and states)? That’s what your suggestion would most likely result in.
80% of Americans favor increased funding on infrastructure. A majority favor universal health care and early childhood education (kindergarten).
Heck, a majority wanted us out of Afghanistan, but you wouldn’t know that by the press coverage when Biden got us out of there 
These are just a few examples of the DNC platform that they’re trying to get through…
The idea that the DNC just needs to “tailor their message” better to reach the people I think you’re talking about seems weaker and weaker with every passing day. It doesn’t matter how you say, “we want you to have health coverage and for your kids to be safe and have a place to go learn the three r’s” if all those people are listening to is biased media outlets screaming that “the left are lizard people who eat babies,” and they’re oblivious enough to believe it.
That’s a pretty specific claim, about a specific institution, with a public record—almost as if one should be able to cite it 
And the views of rural people are already significantly over represented because of the over representation in Congress by rural states. If you want to make change - change that.
Disempowering the majority further is a great way to suppress that vote - which you need to win.
Yes to all of it, but this specifically. Why do I need to tailor my message to people who literally don’t want other people to be able to vote?
Who make up a large percentage of the GOP right now…
Maybe pass the voting acts in congress, which were stopped by… “moderate” Democrats!!!
But those aren’t REAL Americans who matter! /s
And the people who are being most represented from that group are rich landowners who own massive ranches, not rural people who struggle to put food on the table…
I regret that I have but one like to give to this comment.
Whenever I think they can’t go any further, they show me I’m wrong…
At this point, they’re not really changing to be more extreme or irrational (they’re already there), they’re just being more honest about who they are. I.e. recent moves by the Republican party challenging the legality of contraception in the US? Not at all surprising - it’s just the logical next step given who they are.
The best and most reasonable way to do that is to eliminate the distortions to the system that prevent it. Pass the voting acts, get rid of gerrymandering and the electoral college. Get rid of the filibuster, which is the never intended result of a clerical fuckup.
Let’s do that rather than attempting to distort our policy, social, and economic goals to reach out and try to win over people that can’t be won over.
And guess what? Those people? They will still end up benefiting from that success!
ETA: @smulder 's post farther down just reminded me. Ranked choice voting! Let’s do that too
If they were actually terrified of losing what they have they would vote blue every time, or even be pushing for a third party to the LEFT of the Democratic party. They want to hurt people, and they will vote for anyone who promises to do it. That’s how you get one-issue voters who only care about abortion and want to punish women. That’s how you get Trump being idolized for vowing to build a wall, separating immigrant children from their families and calling Black Lives Matter “a symbol of hate”. People who are terrified of losing everything they have do not spend their meager money to go out to the capitol in an attempt to lynch politicians and overturn an election. Insecure they may be, but the security they want is white male supremacy, not anything remotely reasonable.
Nice bow bow!
There is a third option and a fourth option and a fifth option, but they’re not covered by the media and they seldom win anything
“First past the post” elections mean larger parties can blame smaller ones for their problems, and it’s hard to build support for a small party when it never wins and always gets blamed for stuff
In just this example, liberals are looking forward to the conservative party splitting, because having multiple conservative parties will be bad for conservatives and help liberals win
Smoke 'em, Cook 'em, Eat 'em. Kuru is a thing and empty G is riven with it.
… or proportional representation?
Winning 10% of the vote should mean getting 10% of the seats. It’s a solved problem, if they’d just do it. It’s not an incomprehensible mystery that no one can figure out.
