I don't know how they fight against a cult like following and the rampant disinformation out there...facts, logic, and truth don't seem to mean much these days.
To that point don't we sort of kid ourselves thinking there is a potential knight in shining armor out there that if they wanted to do this or that could just change everything?? Doesn't that sort of remove responsibility ourselves as a society? Like I just think there is a misconception about smoked filled rooms with billionaires, celebrities, etc. all pulling the strings behind the scenes when really it is you, me, and everyone else that wants things to be better in this country. Not trying to remove any criticism of the people who technically hold positions in the ACTUAL Democratic party like the DNC chair, Hakeem Jefferies, and Chuck Schumer... all of which have about as much power as you and me right now other than occasionally getting invited to join MSNBC and able to divert a few million dollars from a bank account into some candidate races at the state level. I just don't think people really comprehend that the DEMOCRATS aren't really a thing right now.... there is an even bigger vacuum now than the Republican Party had in 2012 when the party was re-made in Trump's image a couple years later. The right didn't just wait around to see what Riance Preebus and Michael Steele were going to do.... they sort of went all in on the cult of MAGA, and the rest is history. If we want a powerful pro-democracy political movement and party to emerge we have the choice to get involved and either remake it ourselves, or rebrand it.... which I think is the most likely thing that will happen in 2027 in the lead up to 2028 when candidates emerge. Because The Democratic Party is really just a name at this point. We can call it whatever you want, but in the end what it is is a giant coalition of people in the United States who are pro-democracy, and believe in some basic freedoms & principles around healthcare, women's rights, voting rights, and other dignity of life areas of policies. The coalition HAS TO hold in 2026 and in 2028 in order to put Trump and this authoritarian movement in the dust, and it does not succeed unless people get off their butts, and stop wishing this unicorn would just break out of their stable and do something different. The Democratic Party is not a sacred cow... but the pro-democracy coalition is... and that coalition doesn't exist without all of us getting activated in some way, and new voices emerging with an insane level of energy behind it. (sorry for the long rant)
I don't think that there is a simple single solution. I think that the Democrats do need to return to having their bread and butter be economics though.
I thought I'd stop by and remind the No Kings protestors that their candidate for President (Kamala) did not need to win a primary last year. She was selected. King move? But please lecture us more about democracy! LMAOOOOOO GOOD DAY
The big question to ask ourselves is.... who is "They"?? Do people even really know what the Democratic Party is right now, or are we fooling ourselves into believing there are white knights held up somewhere who have the power to do things, but just refuse to do it, or are just too incompetent?? Kamala Harris' campaign lost. She's gone. The DNC functions as more of a banking center for distribution of funds to local races. Hakeem Jefferies and Chuck Schumer only hold the power of MINORITY votes for bills in the house and senate which the ruling party does not need therefore they have no power. So who is the "they" that is tasked with fighting the rampant propaganda? Who is the "they" that is supposed just show up on the airwaves, and counter this fascist regime, and the billionaires that are beholden, and profiting off of this corrupt regime?? I just don't think people really realize how dire things really are, and also are excusing themselves from the personal responsibility they have as well. Anyone who says "The Democrats need to...." needs to realize that THEY are "The Democrats" too.
I am not sure what you mean, please explain. If you are saying that waiting for a knight in shining armor is a losing proposition - the only real success that the Democrats have had in the White House over the 40 years is two incredibly charismatic leaders that changed the direction of the party -- Clinton and Obama. I think that at least some of it is the influence of billionaires, celebrities and podcasters. The Republicans under MAGA have also done a very good job of cobbling together marginalized groups that were either not involved in politics or not consistently Republicans - the anti-vaxers, the conspiracy weirdos and the man-o-sphere. That is not entirely true - they have access to the media, and they suck at it. Gavin Newsome, Crockett and even AOC and Sanders find a way to be on television and energize some people. Pelsoi, Schumer and Jefferies have not and do not -- and they have attempted to prevent other more radical candidates from having a position of power. The Republicans made the decision to not shut down the Trump train. The establishment listened to the voters for better or worse. I am not sure that the Democratic Party would/will do that -- they didn't even primary when Biden was pushed out. I agree with this -- but there still has to be a leader that people will get behind. There are people getting off their butts -- but more need to. The reality is that if someone emerges to lead, there will be more people and more people will feel energized. I agree with you. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party is a shell, that can be kicked to the side of the road if they do not rewrite whom they are.
Source? This is great, in paragraph 1, you assume people have really good information about what Democrats are up to and what Trump isn't up to, and in paragraph 2 you say that "many Americans..feel that the Democrats don't support the working class" when the objective reality is that we just had the most pro-worker administration since FDR - and the current Regime is literally trying to kill the working class and make them as miserable as possible. I don't mean that hyperbolically either, it is their goal Basically, your seocnd point invalidates your first. Obviously if 1 were true, than 2 would not be true. Anyway then you spirall off into a bunch of pablum in this fantasy world where only teh Democratic Party has agency and not anybody or anything else and blah blah blah. It's the system taht is broken and destroying itself. No TV ads will fix that.
Source? Do you talk to people, do you listen to people? As for your second paragraph - that is great, but enough Americans don't agree with you. The Democratic Party is losing young male voters, they have lost large amounts of voters making under $50,000 a year and they have lost high school graduates that did not go to college........ all of these groups of people objectively do not agree with you. If the Democrats want to win these voters, they need to do a better job of appealing to them. You can go on and on about "most pro-workers administration since FDR" but it didn't resonate with the very voters it supposedly was protecting.... and again, that is either piss poor messaging and candidates ... or the voters don't agree with your assessment about the Democratic Party in USA. As for the "blah blah blah" part - you are terribly arrogant for someone that has been consistently wrong when it comes to judging the pulse of the American people and the political outcomes at the Federal level. Until you consider the fact that perhaps you are out of touch, then you will likely continue to misread the room. I am a man that has many flaws and has made many mistakes - but times change, people change - and you have to keep up Sam.
You would be right IMO. The Democratic Party has largely been leaderless for a decade and is currently leaderless with outdated dinosaurs and tepid morons at the top. For all the talk of Trump and his corruption (and he is corrupt)....... the Democratic leadership needs to be honest, there hasn't been leadership since Obama, and the Democrats ran a man in 2024 that was unable to function in a single debate, and then when they replaced him late in the game, they picked someone without a primary! Those are both big deals, in most elections a party doing that would get absolutely crushed.
Sam, I am typically in agreement with you, and I agree that we are almost-if-not-completely beyond messaging. It feels like a 20th century argument as we're well into the miserable and crumbling 21st century. Like, let's put on a great convention show with well-written speeches, record some good TV ads, and people will vote for us -- not so much. But speaking of 20th-century thinking, the Democratic party is also led by that centuries leftover politicians right now, ready to send out fundraising emails in the face of astounding misdeeds from the regime and their goons. I think @Nook is right in that a ton of people at least feel that the Democratic party doesn't get them or have much on offer. I mean, if we're making nice powerpoint decks about all the things Biden did for the working class, that's great, but it doesn't quite land in a huge number of cases. (I always saw Hillary's messaging as delivering bullet points to an electorate that wanted a few promises and slogans.) Yes, we know many reasons that facts don't land now. But whatever the cause, its a vibe > fact thing. On a recent left/right/center show on NPR, I heard someone put it succinctly. The Democratic party became the support-institutions party over several decades, just as a lot of people starting losing faith in institutions in general (or were, of course, bludgeoned with the right wing messages that institutions are awful). By institutions, I mean federal agencies, the healthcare system, universities, and so on -- the things I would say make necessary contributions to society and culture in general, but things that are definitely run by a meritocracy, college or over-educated group of people. The left wing went from stick-it-to-the-man to let's be the play-by-the-rules party and maybe just adjust the man's HR training each fiscal year. I just don't think you and Nook are too far apart. You wouldn't worry about messaging in your top ten list, and okay, I get that, but it is something democrats could take seriously, if there's much of any hope at all. Completely removing the gerontocracy of the party would be a great start for better vibe crafting, IMO. Now, if you think people like Nook are way too optimistic about us having real midterms, I would agree with that. I would say, "we'll see," but we literally won't. We'll see like 20,000 different versions of what is happening and yell at each other about one another's misperceptions, based on all current trend lines and the bot pandemics to come.
I'm as socially liberal as they come but I think Democrats need to stop focusing on social issues that only effect small minorities. They can't fight every cause. You have to choose your battles and fighting for whether a trans kid can play sports is the wrong batter to fight when you have all these poor working class people who happen to be white needing to feel that someone is fighting for them. They don't get an easier path to college, they don't get DEI programs helping them get jobs or promotions. they don't qualify for scholarships that blacks or hispanics get. I'm not against these programs, but the democrats kind of lost the plot when Obama came into office even when some of these "deplorables" helped get him into office. They feel left out and Trump panders to them even though he doesn't doesn't give a crap about them. Theo Von hits the nail on the head with this routine
You should unpack this statement 1) Who are "Democrats" here? Elected Democrats, the DNC, State parties? Something else? Does this mean all? Most? Some 2)Define "stop focusing" - what does this mean? Voting for bills? Giving speeches? Does it mean signing on to the GOP ethnic cleansing campaigns *just a tad* to prove bona fides? 3) and, kicking myself, but which "social issues - small minorities" are you talking about here? I didn't watch the Theo Von bit but I'm almost certain I can tell you exactly what his thesis is .
I have a few larger points 1. Treating policy positions or the core of who you are as an armchair political strategist - like the Democratic Party has largely done from 1992 to 2024,and largely the way WE, the PUNDITS, and the media at large TALK about it is disastrous. Every aspect of "Hey they should nominate somebody who can appeal to the Law & Order wine moms & pick up a seat in whatever county, and so therefore you have to VOTE FOR THE LAKEN RILEY ACT" leads you to a land of a thousand dumb incoherent decisions that amount to less than the sum of their parts. There is no guiding principle politically even if policy wise you deliver when in power (like Democrats largely did from 2021-24, and like Trump is given a free pass from doing). The best piece on this was written earlier this summer here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ews-democrats-elections-strategist-brain.html 2. Related to this (and I think mentioned in the article) - treating public policy preferences as immutable thing that is handed down by God that you must *react to* and triangulate towards is not always for the best. 10 yearsy ago most Republcians did not care about trans rights - nobody really did, it was a non-issue for most people. Saying a transgender person deserved basic human rights was not controversial. There were a few freaskhow republicans who pushed bathroom bills and they were treated with distaste and contempt. NOw, add in 10 years of for-profit trans hate speech on the issue delivered via social media brain poison by LibsofTiktok, Turning Point USA or whatever and now it's one of their primary motivations - for even existing as a party. Opinion is malleable. Segregation was popular until activists made it untenable. Furthermore it's reflexive - by taking stands on policy, you move the public, by being a coward and accepting dishonest bad faith framing, you don't get ****, you get 30 ****ing years of the political press asking for a Sistah Souljah moment. 3. We are in the middle of a fascistic regime, that has effecitvely captured/coopted the Media, business, tech (largely because control of those institutions are vested in a few ultrarich cowards), young charismatic politicians or messages there are comforting to think about but we're not going to nominate or vote our way out of it it doesn't work that way. Most of us (and me, I lie to myself) think a few elections are going to turn things around. Nope, it is increasingly clear that our system is rotted and dreaming that we are going to save it was a folly. Frankly many revelations (like Epstein and his free flowing relationship with the wall st elite) make it seem like it's not even worth saving. I don't know how we get there - it probably involves a lot more stuff like No KIngs & the Disney boycott after Kimmel and ciitizen heros makeing ICE agents ostracized from decent society; but - the whitehouse was just bulldozed, so the realm of things you "can't" do is wrong; whatever comes after the Trump era can't be another version of the Biden era, it has to be an absolute break. Tactically, Bernie Sanders was a buffoon, and probably still is in many ways, but in terms of smashing the oligarchy, I can't think of any other way oput of it and hoping for them to be benign rather than antisocial dignity vampires - didn't work.
@Salvy @glynch @RB713 @CrixusTheUndefeatedGaul she could be a king or queen And she can be black or Indian The woke people don’t follow the rules of gender or race correctly I mean they also think fat is healthy which most of the are Fat wokes
