Democrats: “Understood. We must try harder to win over the center-right.”
The message to Democrats is clear: (insert your agenda here)
Boring
This is BS. People saying Kamala was too liberal, or too centrist, she was riding too much on Biden achievements or not enough etc etc.
The real reason for this is that majority of people no longer get their news from MSM, they get their news from social media which are hevily slanted for trump. Not only GOP understands how influential those are, but they are helped with foreign entities who are free to use these media as well.
This also isn’t just happening to US but also to Europe.
The fucking solution is to get your family off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc. it is a cancer and essentially hacks their brain.
You might think that social media is great, because everyone can have a voice. This might be true for sites like Lemmy, but in other places what you post is irrelevant, because their algorithm controls what others see. It is very clever, because they can hide behind freedom of speech to not restrict the sites, while essentially still having full control of what it is shown and zero consequences.
With AI they don’t even need people anymore they can generate content themselves and say it is a real user.
Why do you think companies involved in social media are also heavily invested with generative AI?
Wait, so apparently Americans don’t want neoliberal economic policies so they didn’t vote for Kamala, but instead voted for Trump and his neoliberal economic policies?
This shit is stupid and old already. It reeks of people using unhealthy coping mechanism to deal with the idea that the average American shifted even further right.
Trump’s economic policies aren’t neoliberal so much as mercantilist. He wants tariffs and trade wars. (There’s obviously also a dash of fascist policies where he wants companies to serve him.)
The average american doesn’t know what neoliberal economic policies are, but the average american can feel the impact of neoliberalism on a daily basis. Convincing people you have a solution to what everyone knows is wrong (even if your solution is even more neoliberalism and blaming minorities, the old reliable) is what get people in booths.
Conversely, saying things are fine the way they are is the easiest way to lose an election.
What killed Biden and Harris was the outright denial of what people were feeling.
“The economy is hurting us!”
“What are you talking about, Jack? We have the best economy ever! Look… inflation is only 3% (on top of 3%, on top of 9%), we’re doing GREAT! Not a joke! I’m serious!”
1/3 of voting age Americans voted for Trump (that 3rd wants fascism)… 1/3 for Kamala, and 1/3 stayed home… A lot of the 1/3 that stayed home did so because they don’t want neolib policy, and probably a lot of the 1/3 that voted for her also don’t want neolib policy. There’s very little to support the idea that anyone “shifted right”… They shifted home when they weren’t given an option to vote against genocide and other neolib bullshit
No. The majority 40% didn’t vote, and roughly 30% votes for trump and Harris.
Okay, but my point remains unchanged
No 1/3rd never votes and there’s no point in trying to get their vote
Except quite a few voted last time and then not this time… So we know they do vote sometimes
Fuck 'em
This is why democrats always lose elections. This attitude right here.
The people that like trump like that shit. The people that vote dem, at most, tolerate it but the harder they lean in that direction the less enthusiastic their base is about voting for them
It goes beyond just that. I think a Democratic presidential candidate could do well addressing elitist thinking in general. I think they could do quite well with a pledge not to appoint anyone to their cabinet or to a court that graduated from an Ivy League school. One of the reasons we keep seeing the same shitty approaches is that both parties recruit heavily from the same handful of schools. This they’re recruited from the same social circles. I would suggest that candidates just flat out state that they’ll be filling all their major spots with people who got their education at state schools.
Simpson’s Skinner meme, “no, it’s the voters that are wrong”
Both can be true.
They shouldn’t have existed ever. Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. My spelling may be off.
“Nothing will fundamentally change” + “there is not a thing that comes to mind.”
Two killer statements.
To be fair Biden’s “nothing will fundamentally change” is a lot better with context. “There’s not a thing that comes to mind” is fucking inexcusable though.
To be fair Biden’s “nothing will fundamentally change” is a lot better with context.
To be fair, it became clear over the course of 4 years that it was correct at face value.
But who will pay for our campaigns if we don’t lick the boot of oligarchs?
Before the 1980s that used to be the unions paying and funding campaigns. The reason Democrats started chasing and boot-licking oligarchs. Is because the unions stopped funding elections and campaigns at the rate they had been before the 1980s. If you can figure out why that was. There were two solid hints given. Then we could probably understand why they’re seeking funding from oligarchs. And how we should probably go about changing that.
People love to complain about Democrats begging for oligarchs money without understanding why. Which helps the oligarchs. And gives them even more control over the DNC than they would have otherwise. I’m not saying we should accept the oligarch funding and ownership. But until we come to terms with why that came to be and address it appropriately. It won’t end anytime soon.
It sounds like you’re saying we need to bribe our politicians to get them to represent us. Is that what you’re getting at? Because I fundamentally disagree with that concept.
You can disagree in principle, but that’s what liberal democracy is, and that’s what participating in it in any meaningful way entails.
Perhaps that is why many choose not to participate
Only if you consider funding bribing. Was it bribing when the unions financed the Democratic party before 1980?
Yes. All money needs to be removed from politics with the same amount given to all candidates to run with and dark money investigated and prosecuted. Politicians shouldn’t be NASCAR teams, and lobbying should be called what it actually is.
I agree. The irony is that we’re going to need money and resources to do that. I would rather it wasn’t from oligarchs. The question is then who from. Democrats have “technically” broken fundraising records repeatedly with small donors. Every 4 years. Which is a tiny meaningless record. Republicans and conservatives spend MULTIPLES of that 4 year aggregate EVERY YEAR. On campaigning and messaging.
It was recently revealed that many conservative media personalities and influencers . People like Tim Poole were being paid millions of dollars a year. To put out one barely edited propaganda video a week. To put that in perspective, over the course of two weeks. With 1/5th the effort of a left leaning media personality like Sam Cedar. They make more than he does in a year. In just two weeks. This isn’t isolated either. A big group were found to be unregistered foreign agents of Russia because of this. And Russia didn’t invent it. Our own oligarchs have been patronizing conservative media outlets and influencers like this for decades.
How do we compete with that? Serious question.
Strict campaign finance laws, where all political donations go to a bipartisan elections department and then are split equally between all candidates in graduated stages from the primaries through until the general election. No contributions to candidates directly, no PACs or Super PACs (they can exist but fund everyone equally), no ads paid for outside the provided war chest. Any dark money found results in IRS forensic audits and criminal penalties for the campaigns.
If you want more money for your “side”, you get it at roughly 50% of what you put in. The “other side” gets the other half. Should still drive donations, including mega-doners, because their candidate still gets more money for ads and campaigning. This also allows 3rd party candidates to compete equally at all stages. If we can get graduated polling too this should spur a further plurality of viable candidates.
Political commentary from news and independent “journalism” on places like YouTube would still be covered under free speech, but audits are allowed to look into them being dark money ads with the above consequences for the campaigns.
Foreign ads are what they are unfortunately, but the IRS is good at finding US money laundering through offshore institutions. Make sending money to foreign assets to be spent circumventing these laws especially steep. A few campaign managers and money managers getting 20-life or going to Gitmo for laundering campaign money through Russian agents should help curb some shenanigans.
They should stay in their current path and fade off into obscurity
Who do you think would occupy that power vacuum? Because, just like spreading open your butthole in outer space while in orbit, shit will blow out.
Next time there should be a populist movement to write in a progressive candidate. Why couldn’t a populist candidate overrun the DNC like Trump did with the RNC?
My state didnt even have spot where I could write someone in.
Because Trump does represent a lot of the policies that Republican party support. Christian nationalism, low taxes for the rich, white supremacy.
It was apparent when the Alaskan governor ran for VP. (I forgot her name.) It consolidated behind Trump because he was a buffoon who could be manipulated to get their main aims to be fulfilled.
None in the DNC would want anyone other than a establishment candidate to be theirs. This was true when Hillary was nominated, when Biden was nominated and also when Harris was nominated.
Biden would have lost too if not for the previous 4 years of Trump. With Harris promising to continue putting finger in her ears and walking the same path which might have given respite if people could have let it continue 4-8 years. But who knows if they would have lived to see those days.
Because it’s hard for actually intelligent people to worship a moron.
Edit: actually you’re right… we could have had Bernie.
It would be relatively easy to take over the DNC (and the state and local parties), but very few people outside the establishment know how politics within the party works
Look, this chap has all fair points and your favourite deity knows I’d be the first to “put an end to” neoliberalism, but again, it’s all opinion. I haven’t seen anything telling us:
- who voted, and for whom
- and why
- and whether leopards are already eating faces
Best we got are some anecdotes about some Latino voters discovering that Trump considers them brown people too, but I’d be far more interested in actual hard numbers. Anyone who knows some?
Hahaha, good one. I’m sure that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
Harris and Biden aren’t even neoliberal lol. The message was also not clear because the margins of victory were small. We know Trump is going to tank the economy like last time. It’s a fact. All of his idiot supporters will keep claiming some sort of perceived benefit because of all the other horrible shit he’s going to do that don’t affect in the positive whatsoever, but they will PERCEIVE a win.
The message was also not clear because the margins of victory were small.
Yes, but remember: Their opponent was Trump. They should’ve cinched this election.
You can always rely on Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The post mortem is still on-going but there are two conclusions that ring true for me (so far anyway):
-
Harris failed to reach middle-Americans: she didn’t make many statements about how she was going to tackle inflation and help the average American. Instead she spent WAY too much time trying to secure Republican endorsements.
-
As a result, voters stayed home. Many of middle America aren’t politically active. In the same way, they don’t see themselves being affected by Trump’s policies (for right or for wrong). Many of these voters did vote for Obama but couldn’t be bothered to vote for Harris.
Trump is the first Republican president to win a plurality of votes what 20 years? Trump ran a campaign of “ImMiGrAnTs ArE tHe PrObLeM!1!1!1”. He was so unhinged that voters should have voted against him. The numbers so far show that he won a similar number of votes as he did in 2020 so it’s looking like his base came out to vote but Democrats didn’t.
Republicans fall in line.
Democrats fall in love.
We need better candidates.
Republicans fall in line.
Democrats fall in love.
We need better candidates.
Democrats seem to think they can run shitty candidates and lecture people into falling in line.
True, say what you want about Trump but he perfectly captures the hearts and minds of the people voting for him. It’s all passion and gut instinct, the Dems get too cerebral.
Wouldn’t it be great if Pete ran 2028?
If he was running in 2028, he would have declared victory in the Iowa caucus by now.
-
I guess it doesn’t matter at this point but it’s always weird to me that opponents can’t seem to acknowledge that Trump is a formidable political opponent. He’s good at talking to and engaging some groups of Americans which is why he managed to win twice.
That’s the thing: It’s some groups. Trump has extreme political appeal with people who will reliably show up to vote for him, but to everyone else he’s a boogyman who motivates them to vote against him. Because of that he gives his opponent enough of an advantage to counteract the effect he has on his voters, but an incompetent candidate who can’t make good use of that advantage (which isn’t accomplished by yelling “I’m not him” all the time) will get unceremoniously steamrolled. It just happens to be that the DNC is hilariously incompetent.
He’s beloved by nazis
The party must return to its progressive roots. A new economy is needed with new rules and new roles
As in slavery is a great way to bring culture to those black slaves?
You are a strong contender to clinch the gold medal if the Olympics had mental gymnastics.
They’re referring to the roots of the Democratic party, as the more conservative and slave supporting party. The Democratic party is old, and until relatively recently was the further right party in the US. Which also helps explain why the Republicans are red, traditionally a left color, and Dems are blue, traditionally a right color. While it’s not really relevant to modern politics, and bringing it up like they just did is more of a historical bit of trivia, it’s not really mental gymnastics, it’s more of an “akshually” moment. The Democratic party does not have progressive roots, its roots are deeply, deeply conservative and right wing, and should be acknowledged.
