Should Democrats make any changes to their current approach to regain favor and support from voters?

[Gatsby]

He's the most powerful leader. Did you have some other people in mind? If so, who?

The problem for Democrats isn't that Chuck Schumer is personally that extreme. (I think he is temperamentally toward the moderate end of the party, and politically he's in the middle of the party.) The problem for Democrats is that the preferred ideological goals of the Senate Majority Leader simply don't matter that much. Sure, he can probably quietly kill an embarrassing left-wing bill if he needs to, but he can't do much else. It's not as though replacing Chuck Schumer with Bernie Sanders or Joe Manchin would drastically change the direction of the party.

Democrats have gotten themselves in a bind because they have chosen to cede about half of all Senate and House seats to the Republicans rather than contesting them. They'll have a name on the ballot, but they mostly don't even try to win those seats. This means the party as a whole has gotten further and further left, as they've simply chosen to ignore the wishes of larger and larger swaths of America.

We should bring back the smoke-filled rooms instead of having Democratic primaries, at least for the red states/districts. Just pick a good candidate and tell the voters who the nominee is, rather than letting them pick. Democratic primary voters in red states are obviously not capable of picking winners.

 

[gbg3]

He's the most powerful leader. Did you have some other people in mind? If so, who?

There is no one at present and that's a huge problem for the Dems. I guess AOC and Newsom are the ones drawing the most attention - and I'll leave you to your own opinion of whether or not they will be the next winners and successful leaders of the Dem party.

 

[gbg3]

Yeah, that's the problem. They are playing dead to avoid taking positions and actually fighting for a party platform. It's the Carville Strategy.

Frankly, I don't think Jeffries is capable of "fighting for a party platform". Jeffries simply doesn't have what it takes to be in a leadership position.

 

[Gatsby]

I noticed you switched from gender reassignment surgery for children (which doesn't happen) to puberty blockers (which only happens during puberty to delay the onset of Secondary Sexual characteristics, thus allowing people to make a rational decisions with the help and counseling of subject experts).

And this is only an issue on the edges of political discussions because of resource scarcity caused by neoliberal economics, which compel people to find cultural scapegoats and outlier distractions. People wouldn't care about the medical decisions of families in a vacuum or in a healthy society and economy.

The evil neoliberals forced you to advocate for puberty blockers. They are very sneaky like that.

 

[bomberfox]

While democrats should not abandon people like trans people, the race can be won by focusing on different priorities. Neoliberalism is on the way out, quit with the fake abundance mantra and become new dealers again.

The working masses who toil everyday instead of earning solely by ownership and gambling must recognize their interests and regain their ability to better their lives.

Those who make fortunes by gambling and ownership are taking far far too much power and influence that people think they are smarter than people who actually do engineering and scientific work. All they have to do is get rich then say “oh i had an interest in physics when i was younger” and people believe the shit they spew.

Celebrity worship has become a disease.

 

[aociswundumho]

Pure disingenuity; no one of any relevance on the left is advocating for full fledged socialism; the Norwegian model which is favoured among progressives, is not that.

So you support capitalism along with a large welfare state, correct?

Pure disingenuity; no one of any relevance on the left is advocating for full fledged socialism;

Mamdani (who will soon be the new poster boy of progressivism) wants it, and is on video saying the end goal is to seize the means of production.

 

[bomberfox]

Yeah, that's the problem. They are playing dead to avoid taking positions and actually fighting for a party platform. It's the Carville Strategy.

I cant remember Carville backing a winning candidate since Clinton.

 

[Along Came Jones]

The problem for Democrats isn't that Chuck Schumer is personally that extreme. (I think he is temperamentally toward the moderate end of the party, and politically he's in the middle of the party.) The problem for Democrats is that the preferred ideological goals of the Senate Majority Leader simply don't matter that much. Sure, he can probably quietly kill an embarrassing left-wing bill if he needs to, but he can't do much else. It's not as though replacing Chuck Schumer with Bernie Sanders or Joe Manchin would drastically change the direction of the party.

Democrats have gotten themselves in a bind because they have chosen to cede about half of all Senate and House seats to the Republicans rather than contesting them. They'll have a name on the ballot, but they mostly don't even try to win those seats. This means the party as a whole has gotten further and further left, as they've simply chosen to ignore the wishes of larger and larger swaths of America.

We should bring back the smoke-filled rooms instead of having Democratic primaries, at least for the red states/districts. Just pick a good candidate and tell the voters who the nominee is, rather than letting them pick. Democratic primary voters in red states are obviously not capable of picking winners.

Schumer . . . at least for the day . . . is an albatross.

In the face of widening news of impending work without pay and delayed medical care for the military and other beneficiaries with special needs, Republicans are having a field day correctly and righteously lambasting Schumer for a comment he made in a Punchbowl News interview.

“Every day gets better for us,” Schumer asserted.

 

[aociswundumho]

The majority of the people that are NOT captured by radical right-wing extremism and fascism are looking for solutions and are not finding them in the Democratic party. That's the problem. There is no political home for people that don't want neoliberal capitalist slop.

Well, without capitalism there is no civil society, because no capitalism means no property rights.

 

[j brown's body]

What changed was that Democrats then spent the following 9 years publicly embracing Nonbinary Pansexual Throuple Pride For Kids. So of course Republicans are going to needle them with policies to highlight how insane they've become.

Like...if Republicans all decided to follow Candace Owens and believe that the earth was flat, I'm pretty sure that Democrats would suddenly become a lot more interested in the NASA budget. Not because they actually cared that much about NASA, but to get Republicans to go in front of TV cameras and declare the earth was flat, as often as possible.

InIncorrect. The Dems already supported trans. There was no change there. What changed was the GOP taking it up in their culture war.

Back in 2016, 85 corporations boycotted NC for passing a bathroom bill. They just kept riding it and riding it as the Dems did little or nothing in response. Activists did, but the party leadership didn't.

Pretty sure you agree with Republicans on trans. Thus, Im not sure you're the best onrpe to advise the Dems on it as you seem to want them to surrender it.

 

[Surrealistik]

So you support capitalism along with a large welfare state, correct?

That's what the Norwegian (or Nordic) model is, with an additional focus on robust organized labour.

Mamdani (who will soon be the new poster boy of progressivism) wants it, and is on video saying the end goal is to seize the means of production.

He also identifies as a democratic socialist, none of which is reflected in his policies, much like in the case of Sanders, which is ultimately what matters.

 

[aociswundumho]

He also identifies as a democratic socialist, none of which is reflected in his policies, much like in the case of Sanders, which is ultimately what matters.

Except for his government-run daycare centers, government-run grocery stores, and 200,000 government-owned housing units.

 

[Dans La Lune]

The evil neoliberals forced you to advocate for puberty blockers. They are very sneaky like that.

The problem with Surrendercrats is that they don't believe in anything, other than themselves (and maybe not even that). They are more cowardly than Trumpers, who at least fight for what they believe in, however malformed and malicious.

Surrendercrats and Popularists submit to right-wing framing and try to find a sweet spot, politically, that doesn't detract from their affluence. These are the people who'd criticize MLK for being too divisive during the Civil Rights era.

And these are the kind of people running the Democratic party. That's why Democrats are unpopular.

 

[rahl]

Well, without capitalism there is no civil society, because no capitalism means no property rights.

Actually, capitalism has nothing to do with property rights. The state is what guarantees your property rights. It’s why there has never been your beloved stateless libertarian utopia society at any point in human history. It’s unworkable nonsense.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Well, without capitalism there is no civil society, because no capitalism means no property rights.

You have that completely backwards. Without civil society there's no capitalism. An without that society and some form of governing system, there are no property rights.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's what the Norwegian (or Nordic) model is, with an additional focus on robust organized labour.

Great, so you consider yourself to be a supporter of capitalism. Welcome aboard.

 

[Gatsby]

A winning platform for Democrats: "We will protect abortion rights, expand Medicaid, and reduce the deficit by raising taxes on rich people."

 

[j brown's body]

The problem for Democrats isn't that Chuck Schumer is personally that extreme. (I think he is temperamentally toward the moderate end of the party, and politically he's in the middle of the party.) The problem for Democrats is that the preferred ideological goals of the Senate Majority Leader simply don't matter that much. Sure, he can probably quietly kill an embarrassing left-wing bill if he needs to, but he can't do much else. It's not as though replacing Chuck Schumer with Bernie Sanders or Joe Manchin would drastically change the direction of the party.

Democrats have gotten themselves in a bind because they have chosen to cede about half of all Senate and House seats to the Republicans rather than contesting them. They'll have a name on the ballot, but they mostly don't even try to win those seats. This means the party as a whole has gotten further and further left, as they've simply chosen to ignore the wishes of larger and larger swaths of America.

We should bring back the smoke-filled rooms instead of having Democratic primaries, at least for the red states/districts. Just pick a good candidate and tell the voters who the nominee is, rather than letting them pick. Democratic primary voters in red states are obviously not capable of picking winners.

The problem for the Dems is they are too moderate and you seem to think the solution for their problem is to remain moderate. The party members are more left. You can't change the membership, only the leadership.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Except for his government-run daycare centers, government-run grocery stores, and 200,000 government-owned housing units.

How does capitalism solve Food Deserts?

 

[aociswundumho]

An without that society and some form of governing system, there are no property rights.

Property rights not only predate the state, they predate humanity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/territoriality

 

[Dans La Lune]

Property rights not only predate the state, they predate humanity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/territoriality

LOL. Dinosaurs were truly the first libertarians.

 

[Gatsby]

InIncorrect. The Dems already supported trans. There was no change there. What changed was the GOP taking it up in their culture war.

Here is the Democratic Party platform from 2012, when Obama was reelected. The word "trans" never appears, and "LGBT" appears only twice (in the context of marriage rights, anti-discrimination laws, and serving in the military). Completely reasonable stuff. Barack Obama was not campaigning on Drag Queen Story Hour or transing the kids or housing male rapists with women. All of that insanity started in the mid-2010s, around the time Obama was leaving office.

2012 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Back in 2016, 85 corporations boycotted NC for passing a bathroom bill. They just kept riding it and riding it as the Dems did little or nothing in response. Activists did, but the party leadership didn't.

Like it or not, Democrats are going to be associated with left-wing activists and Republicans are going to be associated with right-wing activists, especially if the activists are numerous and/or powerful. Unless the party explicitly distances itself. Having crazy left-wing activists and silent Democratic Party politicians just makes voters think you're doing a good-cop, bad-cop routine.

Pretty sure you agree with Republicans on trans. Thus, Im not sure you're the best onrpe to advise the Dems on it as you seem to want them to surrender it.

Yes, Democrats should stop pushing this stuff because their position is bad. But also because their position is horrendously unpopular.

 

[aociswundumho]

How does capitalism solve Food Deserts?

Food deserts are how the market responds to bad government policies. Poor people need low prices, but government licensing, permitting, zoning, and other red tape make it too expensive to operate a store. Governments which refuse to punish shoplifters - while at the same time prohibiting the store from taking physical action against thieves - also drastically raises costs and prevents grocery stores from turning even a small profit.

Mamdani's stores are going to get robbed blind, assuming there's anything on the shelves to steal, thus making you commies look foolish once again.

 

[rahl]

Property rights not only predate the state, they predate humanity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/territoriality

That’s not property rights. Thats survival of the fittest. Without the state, I can take your land from you.

 

[Surrealistik]

Great, so you consider yourself to be a supporter of capitalism. Welcome aboard.

Who said otherwise?

My capitalism is most certainly not your failed Argentinean capitalism though.

Except for his government-run daycare centers, government-run grocery stores, and 200,000 government-owned housing units.

Ah yes, all very well known 'means of production'.