Why Do Democrats Continue To Win

Why do democrats continue to focus way too much on social issues if it's causing them to lose?

Social issues like what?Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Act in 2010? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? The Iran Nuclear Deal? Killing Osama bin Laden?“Too focused on LGBTQ+, BLM and other social issues.” is basically a Republican talking point intended to pander to the class and race and cultural insecurities of conservative (mostly white, often older) voters - “look at those Democrats, favoring black people and gay people and Spanish-speaking people and Muslims and not properly taking care of upstanding real white Christian Americans like us.”Credit where credit is due - it’s a talking point that works. The GOP may be bent on destroying worker protections and environmental protections and any limits on predatory capitalism, but they’ve promised to stop anyone or anything that might upset the cultural hierarchies that have held sway in the US since roughly the end of Reconstruction. Lots of people groove to that, it seems.Democrats can’t take that space back. First, they shouldn’t try, because “let’s support structural inequality because that’s what works for Republicans” is lousy moral calculus, regardless of whether it wins elections. Second they would fail, because a Democratic Party that tosses “social issues” (i.e. minorities or women being treated as full and equal citizens) in the dumpster in hopes of gaining back some of the blue collar white vote will turn itself into a fringe party, as the Republican / Evangelical / Big Business alliance is going to keep a lot of that group no matter what Democrats do, and the Democrats would lose two or three votes for each one they gain.Original question:Why do democrats continue to focus way too much on social issues if it's causing them to lose?My town is largely blue collar democrat. Yet the majority voted for Trump. Are the democrats too focused on LGBTQ+, BLM and other social issues to where the blue collar working class they used to represent abandoned them?

How does liberal Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown continue to win reelection in Ohio which seems to be trending more conservative and Republican?

3 reasons.Trends take time. I live in Louisiana. Louisiana was a blue state for a LONG time. Why? The Democratic party was the party that suppressed Reconstruction and disenfranchised blacks. This policy lasted until the 1960’s. Since the 1960’s Republicans’ have taken over the south. Louisiana was one of the last to change over, having largely Democratic rule until the 1990’s. Blue Dogs were the mainstay.So Ohio is likely much the same. While the political climate might be slowly changing, change takes time. It also takes the right leaders. It took Kennedy and Johnson’s Democratic presidencies to flip the way people look at Democrats and Republicans, particularly in the South. The leaders in Ohio have to be able move people.Ohio’s population is like many other states. The Democratic centers usually lie around urban areas, the farther you get from a city, there is more red. But as in many other states, those red areas are sparsely populated. A county with 10k registered voters doesn’t function the same as a county with 500k registered voters. The red 10k county doesn’t hold as much weight as the blue 500k county. And you have to have 50 of those 10k red counties to equal one 500k blue county.Ohio is one of the rare states where people still seem to vote their conscience rather than straight down party lines. And that is a beautiful thing. It says that people will THINK rather than just pushing the red button or blue button. That’s an educated populace. For that reason, not only may the state take longer to completely turn red, it may NEVER completely turn red. And that is 100% OK - no, it’s great! People making decisions based on logic and reasoning is what we need more of. Whether or not this is truly the story in Ohio, I don’t know. But it would be great if it were the case.

Do democrats need racism to win elections?

Racism is not necessary to win elections but it works and therefore attracts a base in areas where it is a multi-race target. Where racism is part of the cultural history, it doesn't work or serve any significant purpose.TheAll political action is based on creating a target for communal hate. When the hatred has no basis, it generally destroys the haters. In the case of racism the Bible works for those not focused only on the new testament and popular misrepresentations of its mandates.In the old testiment, the Prophetess Miriam kept attacking her brothers African wife — Moses would have been annoyed with his sister, but we are told that it was GOD HIMSELF who got angry and personally punished Miriam. If there were believers, both in the Bible and Judgement Day, they would certainly grasp the idea that they had better distance themselves from racism.Of course there are other verses that reinforce the anti-racism idea. But nobody cares about the Bible — unless it can be used for hate and bigotry, as we see with anti-gay and anti-abortion activists. It is funny that the side identified with atheism and agnostics is the side whose whole agenda is, or can be interpreted as, Biblically based. While the Bible wavers tend to violate it on a daily basis… but then, that's part of SAINT PAUL'S JOKE.