America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 40,153 comments
- 1,823,208 views
- 3,799
- Hoboken, New Jersey
So much this.
I used to be under the impression that Democrats lost because their policy positions were too centrist as opposed to progressive/left and that they failed at consistently messaging. While these are certainly factors, I think an even bigger reason is a general observable lack of passion and fight among Democratic candidates. And this is where Bernie shines, because he actually has believed in something decisive for decades, something that excites both mainstay Democratic voters, and those who don't really participate much in politics. Though his "Oligarchy Tour" has already been massively successful, it's really a shame that Bernie is fighting this fight alone, without any support from almost all of the elected Democrats. And Harris' silence is even more shameful; while its understandable that Biden would be relatively quiet given his advanced age, it's reprehensible that Harris genuinely seems to have 2026 and/or possible 2028 aspirations yet has completely given up even attempting to fight fascism and promote the values she ostensibly believes in now that she lost. Which brings me to my main point:
I seriously worry that the Democrats are failing right now because many elected Democrats don't actually want to win Here's why:
The democratic party is not a conventional political party with unifying policy goals, beliefs or values. It is a networking club for mildly socially liberal ivy-leaguers and former "gifted kids" who want high-paying high-status careers in media, consulting, lobbying, law, tech or finance. That’s goal one. Winning elections is ancillary and not as important. Most of these people are independently wealthy and privileged enough to be totally insulated from the consequences of bad governance and state policy. When Democrats do get their people elected, the goal of being in political office itself is not to exercise power or enact a coherent policy agenda. It’s a stepping stone to gain enough clout for a more lucrative career later. That’s why they keep running the same script no matter how many times they lose. Winning isn’t the goal. They’re there for themselves, not for you. It’s the Iron Law of Institutions: The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, while they are fascists who will harm the country, have ideological goals they work towards achieving. Democrats do not, they are entirely about the grift and maintaining their own power/wealth.
The fact that AOC was snubbed for longtime centrist Gerry Conolly, a milquetoast septugenerian literally battling cancer, for chair of the House Oversight Committee- one of the loudest and most powerful positions to counter Trump- exemplifies this point. It's obvious that AOC is the much more bold, energetic, determined, and savvy voice against MAGA, even if her own policy positions are too far to left for some in the party, she's perhaps the most popular Democrat outside of Sanders. Yet, Connolly, who has no charisma or name recognition at all still got the job. Why? Because the Democrats care more about honoring established procedures and seniority than actually winning, as Connolly was "promised" the position by being loyal and deferential to the party establishment, and refusal to give anyone considered progressive or outside of the party mainstream any influence whatsoever.
Party leaders like Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, Hoyer, etc, as well as the consultant class, get to remain powerful and wealthy regardless of whether Democrats win or not. Corporate and ultra-rich donors still seem to reliably churn out money regardless of whether the political climate is favorable to Democrats. So if Democrats keep losing, those who actually run the party and make decisions are still unthreatened. While Democrats actually believe in, and are capable of, governance, it takes much less effort and risk to be the perpetual opposition than to actually govern, especially in a fractured political party where the political headwinds have increasingly moved populist, risking alienating and upsetting elite donors which the party relies on.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,083
- Mile High City
That is the perception among the right. If you knew anything about Harris (or Walz), you'd know that's not right. And also, you ignore that America WANTS this, and won it for themselves.
Last edited:
- 3,799
- Hoboken, New Jersey
Danoff
Premium
- 34,083
- Mile High City
I don't think that makes sense.
Strittan
Premium
- 4,116
- Sweden
- Strittan
How come 83(!) year old Bernie Sanders is the most passionate and well spoken leftist in a country of 300+ million? To me that says something about America, but exactly what I’m not entirely sure. Maybe you simply don’t like social justice very much over there?
Last edited:
- 51,698
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
It’s this.
Politians like her explaining to people at a basic level. Look, there are many people standing up. People are waiting for someone else to do the work when it’s the people that have the power. That’s the real woke movement. Waking up and stop waiting for hand outs and make sure the representatives do their job in speaking for the people.
Many have their eyes too fixed on easy money and don’t see how easy it is to give up their freedom. Look at those fools that took the PPP loans and are getting locked up for not repaying the loans. Not even reading clauses to see how those loans could have been forgiven. A majority of people need to read and listen. Many don’t realise their rights and/or realise they actually do have power.
I feel many don’t go to rally’s because they think it’s about someone just speaking, the crowd say “yay” and then nothing happens afterwards. Not understanding that the crowd has to do their part and put in the work.
- 5,706
- United States
- rising_glass1
Speaking of Elon, did you see that press conference where his son told Trump to shush? Here it is. Me and my mom were baffled and shocked how a little child could be disrespectful to the President. Lol, Trump didn't even defend himself. I bet some people were shocked about this. Elon says he wants to be the President one day, well how so if he spends 20 hours of his day gaming and working on projects about sending things/probes to Mars.
I was thinking about this when I was eating dinner, that's why I brought it up.
Last edited:
- 35,486
- Downtown North Dakota
- Cy-Fi
When Trump starts respecting other people, I'll be more inclined to respect him. Until then, not a chance. He's a horrible human being.
What is he supposed to say to a 4 year old child? Especially when cameras are rolling?
Under current laws, he can want all he wants but he can't. If you weren't born in the US, you can't be president.
He pays people to do both of these things for him. He just takes the credit for it.
- 3,799
- Hoboken, New Jersey
I disagree. I voted for Harris and would do so again in a heartbeat if she's the 2028 Democratic nominee. Sure, she ostensibly believes in most of the right things (and all of the fundamentals unlike the GOP- democracy, peaceful transition of power, rule of law, egalitarianism, etc) but she hasn't demonstrated any real, observable passion for these causes. Her silence since Trump won is completely inexcusable, and frankly a middle finger to the Democratic constituency. This should immediately disqualify her given the fact that she's exploring running for CA governor in 2026, or a 2028 presidential run. You don't, as the potential de-facto leader of an entire political party, just get to go back to hiding and then start preaching again once it's campaign season. All of this comes off as behavior as someone who wants the power, perks, and security of being in office, but doesn't want to fight the fight, take risks, and decisively stand for something that excites and motivates people. And to beat fascism in 2028, if there's even a fair shot to begin with, requires at the very least a start from scratch.
If you think that it's just lefties like me who are mad at the Democratic Party right now (I mean, when are they not) this time, you're mistaken. Democrats all across the ideological spectrum have noticed how weak and quiet the party has been since Trump's victory and are appalled. Jeffries and Schumer and other top-level Dems are acting as if just because Trump won the popular vote and the GOP now controls both the house and senate, that the entire GOP agenda must be popular with a majority of Americans and that the party really shouldn't fight against it too hard or loudly. It's like the entire party leadership is listening to John Fetterman right now. The fact that there is very little the Dems could actually do to block Trump's agenda is completely irrelevant. They still ought to be as loud, brash, and unapologetic as they can be in not only opposing Trump but proposing a better alternative. For christ sake, they should stop with the flowery politician speak and start calling Trump and the GOP evil and pedophiles and un-American. You think Trump and the GOP just gave up after Biden won four years ago? Of course not, and the GOP incessantly talking about stolen elections and WOKE and Bidenflation only helped them win four years later. Because it actually energized people, as bat**** as these narratives are. And I do think that a portion of the Dems' lack of drive in opposing fascism is not just a failed strategic decision, but literally because party leaders, due to their own wealth and incumbency benefits, are completely insulated from Trump's disastrous agenda. For them, nothing really changes.
To clarify what I mean by the Democratic party being a "networking club for mildly socially liberal ivy-leaguers and former gifted kids", I'm not advocating for the party to eschew intellectualism and candidates who are highly accomplished. Though I do think that more of these types, in a growing populist political climate skeptical of perceived "elitism", should be relegated to bureaucratic and behind-the-scenes roles as opposed to being presidential, senate, and house candidates. I remember a Michigan county Democratic party chair (don't have the link, unfortunately) remarked that part of the reason the Democrats are losing the midwest/rust belt is because the candidates are always "the best of the best" in terms of accomplishments, thus inadvertently coming off as out-of-touch to many voters, who don't have college degrees and already feel left behind. What I'm saying is, the party needs more "ordinary Joe" candidates who are loud advocated for what they believe in- perhaps union leaders, activists, community organizers, and even just regular people who are outspoken and know how to skillfully use language and build coalitions. More candidates like Bernie, AOC, and how Fetterman used to be- they don't all even need to be particularly left wing either to pull it off. There's a difference between the role of a politician and a policymaker.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,083
- Mile High City
That's it. That's your evidence of your wild accusation? That she's been quiet? I note that Walz has been just as quiet and you didn't stick to the same accusation about him. You need to think through your argument a LOT more.
Really? Irrelevant? You think that the democrats should be screaming about the same positions that lost them the entirety of the US government and presided over the collapse of the institutional integrity of the nation?
Worked great already right? Surely this will persuade people.
Yes, the democrats could lie and spread misinformation and somehow that would win over people who already bought the previous one. Again, think through your argument.
Well that's not true at all. Not even a little.
Because Bernie and AOC are just within a hair's breath of being wildly popular among the America that just voted for Trump. [/s] Give me break man.
I'm not willing to throw stones at the strategy of just-let-Trump-own-the-dumpsterfire for the time being other than to say that it is risky. Your proposed solution of feeling the bern or being more like one of the most hated public figures in existence among right wing voters does not feel well considered.
There is only one real course of action, and it's not politics.
Last edited:
