Wednesday, November 7, 2018

The biggest lesson from the election, what did the Democrats do wrong?


The biggest lesson from the election, 
what did the Democrats do wrong?


I am a physics teacher.
It is not just a profession.
It is not just a job title.
It is a “diagnosis”.
My profession defines my way of thinking, my way of processing information and making decisions, even the way I look at the world in general.
For example, when I watch politics, I see it through a prism of science and natural laws.
I think about mechanisms which would help a certain political group achieve certain political goals.
I view various politicians the same way I view my students.
Every teacher knows that some students “get it” from the very first explanation, from the first time they see an example of a problem to solve and the process that does it.
But some students would need to see it twice, or maybe even three times before they finally get a good grasp of the explanation of the method needed to solve a problem.
And the Democrats are not the former ones, they are the latter ones.
They didn't do their homework after the loss in 2016. And I suspect they aren’t gonna do their homework this time again.
While everybody is celebrating the Democrats taking the House, which is a very good political achievement, I want to concentrate on the missing opportunities.
I want to describe – again – and again the method which, if the Democrats would be smart/brave/risky/innovative enough, would lead them for taking the Senate, too.
That method is called “Embracing the 3-rd party candidates”.
Of course, in order to work, every method, including this one, has to be applied correctly, or it will lead to the opposite result, or at least will not let to achieve the goal.
This is how the method works.
At the beginning of a race, about a year before the election day, a democratic candidate(s) and a 3-rd party candidate make an agreement. They announce that they have differences with each other, but they have much more in common in the opposition to the Republican candidate so, at the end of the race, they will let the best candidate win against the Republican. If needed, they will put aside their differences in order to defeat the Republican candidate. And a week or two before the election day the 3-rd party candidate (because I believe that for a while it is going to be a 3-rd party candidate) will announce that he or she doesn't have enough votes to win and will ask the supporters to vote against the Republican, which means for the Democrat.
This strategy would lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
This strategy also would lead to the victory in Arizona if Kyrsten Sinema and Angela Green would make such an agreement.
Also, this strategy could help to hold on Missouri and Indiana.
And the Republicans could also start using this approach. For example, they could win Montana.
/ This line is added on November 12, after it was announced that (1) Kyrsten Sinema won, and (2) Angela Green called on her supporters to vote for Kyrsten Sinema - so, the strategy did work, even when some of the Angela Green supporters still vote for her! Now there is a proof. /
Data show that for the Democrats to win having the majority of the votes is simply not enough.
The Democrats have twelve million more votes but still do not have the Senate.
It is a clear sign that they have to start thinking outside of a box, start using innovative political strategies, and have to start doing it before the Republicans get the same ideas (who are very inventive people). Winning in politics requires more than just campaigning and promoting ideas. Republicans know that very well.
Whining and pointing fingers at the Republicans is not enough.
In 2016, the Democrats didn't do their homework, and that is why they didn't get the Senate in 2018.
The question now is, will the Democrats do the homework this time?

P.S. This is the only strategy which eventually could put an a political map an actually powerful 3-rd party.
The political mission of the third party is not electing third-party candidates, but helping the best candidates to be elected.
If some day from now the best candidate will be the third-party candidate, that will be just great!
But in the current elation cycle or cycles ahead expecting that a non-Republican or a non-Democrat would have a good chance to be elected is just not realistic (so far the number does not grow above 2 well-known politicians).
And the motto of the third-party is “We are the realists who help making the future better!”
This approach requires humility, humbleness, and even sacrifice, because one has to spend a lot of energy on helping others to get elected. But in return the party gets noticed, then gains respect, then trust, and then - only then - it can count on electing its own members en mass.