Should Dems move to the Right of Biden?

[Bonnot]

AOC is not going to run for potus in 2028. But whomever does should run on those things, along with prosecuting every criminal of the Trump regime; rehiring all fired fed workers; erasing every Trump EO in one week.

This should include judges from scotus down.

 

[Gatsby]

Your definition of a social issue dem is a Republican’s definition.

OK? Then you want the same kind of candidates that I do.

They’re both progressives that didn’t attack the party from the right as you would have had them do.

I have no objection to nominating more Ossoffs and Warnocks in purple states, or candidates like Andy Beshear for president. Yes. More of that please.

 

[Gatsby]

Drag queens are not transgender and having them reading books to kids makes reading fun so kids are more likely to read on their own.

Do kids actually find this fun, or do their woke parents find it fun to take Instagram pictures of Drag Queen Story Hour so that other woke parents can tell them how stunning and brave they are.

Why is having drag queens reading to children the hill that Democrats need to die on? Believe it or not, there are actually important issues that Democrats could be talking about instead. Donald Trump just bombed Iran, and Republicans are gearing up to blow a gigantic multi-trillion dollar hole in the deficit with tax cuts for the rich. Maybe Democrats should give a little bit of ground on the literal clown shows and focus some attention on that other stuff instead.

 

[Lisa]

Do kids actually find this fun, or do their woke parents find it fun to take Instagram pictures of Drag Queen Story Hour so that other woke parents can tell them how stunning and brave they are.

Why is having drag queens reading to children the hill that Democrats need to die on? Believe it or not, there are actually important issues that Democrats could be talking about instead. Donald Trump just bombed Iran, and Republicans are gearing up to blow a gigantic multi-trillion dollar hole in the deficit with tax cuts for the rich. Maybe Democrats should give a little bit of ground on the literal clown shows and focus some attention on that other stuff instead.

You claim to be a neo-liberal but the tone of your posts is pure MAGA. You're not fooling anyone by claiming to being a liberal because you are not a liberal.

Drag queens story hour is a non issue for democrats, if only the GOP would just let it go, but you would not dare criticize the GOP for their obsession with drag queens and additionally transgender people.

 

[aociswundumho]

AOC is not going to run for potus in 2028.

Why not? She'll be 39 in 2028, which makes her young and extremely popular.

 

[Gatsby]

You claim to be a neo-liberal but the tone of your posts is pure MAGA. You're not fooling anyone by claiming to being a liberal because you are not a liberal.

I don't really care what label you want to apply. My posts speak for themselves. If it helps people with weak minds to affix some political label to people's posts to correctly categorize them as a Good Guy or a Bad Guy rather than address the merits of the ideas, then by all means use whatever you want. Maybe you should go with Nazi, I hear they were pretty bad guys!

Drag queens story hour is a non issue for democrats,

And yet here you are, taking time out of your day to defend it and make sure Democrats don't give one inch of ground on it.

if only the GOP would just let it go,

Why would they let go of an issue where Democrats insist on making themselves look ridiculous? The GOP is delighted every time you do this.

but you would not dare criticize the GOP for their obsession with drag queens and additionally transgender people.

Nope, it's perfectly rational for political movements to not interrupt when their opponents are beclowning themselves. Literally beclowning themselves, in this case. The GOP is playing it perfectly by just handing you the mic and letting you have the floor.

 

[Lursa]

Running republican lite candidates only get Republican elected and/or Republican policies implemented.

If that's what you imagine would be necessary then you recognize the fact that the Democratic message needs to be defined and promoted. It's certainly not "Republican light."

Is that all you can think of for the Dem platform?

 

[j brown's body]

Do you get that the national Democratic Party is not popular in red states?

Oddly, their ideas generally are, but they aren't.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Oddly, their ideas generally are, but they aren't.

I still think that if Harris adopted M4A as her main goal, she would have won. Give people something they want. EVERYBODY hates our healthcare system.

 

[Gatsby]

Oddly, their ideas generally are, but they aren't.

Then there's a disconnect. If the ideas are popular but the candidates advocating for them regularly lose elections, then one of the following must be true:

1. Their ideas aren't as popular as you think they are.
2. Their ideas are popular individually (e.g. more health care spending, more education spending, more public housing, more transit, more climate investments, more childcare, more everything) but are unpopular cumulatively (e.g. each one adds to the perception that Democrats are going to spend all your money on unfocused goals). In which case they should just pick one or two of them and stick to those.
3. Their popular ideas are low-salience with voters (e.g. cheaper college) whereas their unpopular ideas are high-salience with voters (e.g. obsessive focus on identity politics).
4. There's a perceived competence gap unrelated to their specific proposals (e.g. that Dems will drop the ball on border security or inflation or policing, and then try to gaslight the voters into believing there's no problem).
5. There's a perceived ideological gap unrelated to their specific proposals (e.g. no matter what a specific Democratic senator campaigns on, most of the time he'll vote however Chuck Schumer wants him to vote.)

I'd recommend that Democrats who want to get elected in deep red states just run as non-crazy, centrist Republicans, and maybe add one or two of the popular Democratic ideas to their policy mix. The good news is that it's true that some Democratic ideas probably can be popular even in red states. The bad news is that Democrats seem to be unwilling to just run on a couple of those popular ideas and drop all the unpopular stuff.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Then there's a disconnect. If the ideas are popular but the candidates advocating for them regularly lose elections, then one of the following must be true:

1. Their ideas aren't as popular as you think they are.
2. Their ideas are popular individually (e.g. more health care spending, more education spending, more public housing, more transit, more climate investments, more childcare, more everything) but are unpopular cumulatively (e.g. each one adds to the perception that Democrats are going to spend all your money on unfocused goals). In which case they should just pick one or two of them and stick to those.
3. Their popular ideas are low-salience with voters (e.g. cheaper college) whereas their unpopular ideas are high-salience with voters (e.g. obsessive focus on identity politics).
4. There's a perceived competence gap unrelated to their specific proposals (e.g. that Dems will drop the ball on border security or inflation or policing, and then try to gaslight the voters into believing there's no problem).
5. There's a perceived ideological gap unrelated to their specific proposals (e.g. no matter what a specific Democratic senator campaigns on, most of the time he'll vote however Chuck Schumer wants him to vote.)

I'd recommend that Democrats who want to get elected in deep red states just run as non-crazy, centrist Republicans, and maybe add one or two of the popular Democratic ideas to their policy mix. The good news is that it's true that some Democratic ideas probably can be popular even in red states. The bad news is that Democrats seem to be unwilling to just run on a couple of those popular ideas and drop all the unpopular stuff.

Dems don't run on the unpopular stuff. Republicans are just very good at creating wedge issues. I have friends who are convinced that trans athletes are rewriting the record books at every school. Post-birth abortions, while not even close to a thing, is a winning talking point on the right. Some of the blame simply has to go on the right here. Winning elections by conning the rubes works, but at what cost? Now we have an idiot felon in office, because Republican politicians have traded their integrity for a ride on trump's coattails.

 

[Gatsby]

Dems don't run on the unpopular stuff. Republicans are just very good at creating wedge issues. I have friends who are convinced that trans athletes are rewriting the record books at every school.

"I am in favor of athletes competing with their biological sex." That's all any Democrat has to say, then it's not an issue. Also they shouldn't do any photo-ops with drag queens, or advocate for child mutilation, or list their pronouns in their Twitter bio. It will stop being a wedge issue as soon as Democrats stop playing into it. You can say Democrats don't run on it, but there are countless threads on this forum of people defending men playing in women's sports. There are probably some people reading this comment and trying to resist the urge to chime in right now. (And they'll probably fail - they just can't help themselves.)

Post-birth abortions, while not even close to a thing, is a winning talking point on the right.

Is it? Republicans have been trying to make it a thing for years and no one outside of anti-abortion activists seems to care. Abortion is a winning issue for Democrats; let the Republicans talk about it all they want. It doesn't seem to be an issue that has any traction.

Some of the blame simply has to go on the right here.

"Blame" is a weird word to use for them adopting a winning strategy. If someone beats me in a chess game, I don't "blame" them. They did what they were aiming to do, and they outplayed me.

Winning elections by conning the rubes works, but at what cost? Now we have an idiot felon in office, because Republican politicians have traded their integrity for a ride on trump's coattails.

Step 1 for Democrats winning elections: Stop thinking of voters as rubes, and stop assuming that anytime Republicans win it was because they tricked the voters. Sometimes the voters elect Republicans because they agree with the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate on the issues that are important to them.

 

[Hamish Howl]

If unapologetically progressive issues are super popular with the public, then what is your explanation for why we don't have 95 Bernie Sanders clones in the Senate?

This sort of question is why you don't get invited to progressive parties.

 

[Gatsby]

Republicans: "When we lose, it was because the Deep State rigged the election."
Democrats: "When we lose, it was because the DNC rigged the primary, or because the Republicans tricked the voters, or because the Super PACs and media smeared our candidate."

Some people will do any sort of mental gymnastics to avoid confronting the much simpler explanation that their candidate lost because the voters genuinely preferred the other candidate. It might make them feel better in the short term, but deluding one's self leads to misdiagnosing the problem and making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Republicans: "When we lose, it was because the Deep State rigged the election."
Democrats: "When we lose, it was because the DNC rigged the primary, or because the Republicans tricked the voters, or because the Super PACs and media smeared our candidate."

Some people will do any sort of mental gymnastics to avoid confronting the simpler explanation that their candidate lost because the voters genuinely preferred the other candidate. It might make them feel better in the short term, but deluding one's self leads to misdiagnosing the problem and making the same mistakes over and over again.

I figure Trump won because of 45 years of anomie. People have a constant barrage of media telling them that everything is ****ed up, sooner or later they go looking for a strongman to fix everything.

Only in America would they find someone so utterly incompetent as Trump to do the fixing.

And now they're going to get what they've been begging for. How to fix it? I have no idea. I'm not entirely interested in fixing it. It is too fascinating, like watching the end of The Bridge Over the River Kwai, except there are an endless number of rail cars going over the bridge forever.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

"I am in favor of athletes competing with their biological sex." That's all any Democrat has to say, then it's not an issue. Also they shouldn't do any photo-ops with drag queens, or advocate for child mutilation, or list their pronouns in their Twitter bio. It will stop being a wedge issue as soon as Democrats stop playing into it. You can say Democrats don't run on it, but there are countless threads on this forum of people defending men playing in women's sports. There are probably some people reading this comment and trying to resist the urge to chime in right now. (And they'll probably fail - they just can't help themselves.)

The problem with that strategy is that it is what the Republicans do that is so vile - picking on a small, powerless group for the sake of getting a few votes. You bail on trans kids, and next you bail on the whole LGBTQ community, then you bail on minorities. That's not the Dem brand.

Is it? Republicans have been trying to make it a thing for years and no one outside of anti-abortion activists seems to care. Abortion is a winning issue for Democrats; let the Republicans talk about it all they want. It doesn't seem to be an issue that has any traction.

These wild claims obviously do get some traction. Interview a trumpie and there is a good chance that they believe post-birth abortions happen (esp. in California). There is no shortage of videos out there making trump supporters look foolish defending their crazy beliefs. Heck, you just claimed that Dems "advocate for child mutilation," which is simply not true.

Abortion is a winning issue when framed honestly. Framing matters. ACA - very popular, even among trumpies. Obamacare? They hate it.

"Blame" is a weird word to use for them adopting a winning strategy. If someone beats me in a chess game, I don't "blame" them. They did what they were aiming to do, and they outplayed me.

Blame is a suitable word here. We have just gotten too used to politicians lying to us, but trump has crossed lines that used to be off-limits. Claiming that Ted Cruz' father was linked to Kennedy's assassination? That lie alone should have made him unelectable, but trumpies have a real appetite for his lies.

Step 1 for Democrats winning elections: Stop thinking of voters as rubes, and stop assuming that anytime Republicans win it was because they tricked the voters. Sometimes the voters elect Republicans because they agree with the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate on the issues that are important to them.

And sometimes those voters believe all sorts of crazy stuff, and vote on those crazy beliefs. We aren't debating things based on the facts, we are now debating the facts themselves.

 

[Gatsby]

The problem with that strategy is that it is what the Republicans do that is so vile - picking on a small, powerless group for the sake of getting a few votes. You bail on trans kids, and next you bail on the whole LGBTQ community, then you bail on minorities. That's not the Dem brand.

OK but then you *are* running on the unpopular stuff. If you think that letting men compete in women's sports is so essential that there can be no giving ground, fine, but it's unpopular and you're going to take a political hit for it.

These wild claims obviously do get some traction. Interview a trumpie and there is a good chance that they believe post-birth abortions happen (esp. in California). There is no shortage of videos out there making trump supporters look foolish defending their crazy beliefs.

Yes but no one outside of right-wing circles believes that post-birth abortions are happening.

Heck, you just claimed that Dems "advocate for child mutilation," which is simply not true.

The problem with that theory is that, unlike the post-birth abortion thing, there are dozens of threads right here on this forum in which leftists advocate for sex-changes for minors. The Biden Administration took it all the way to the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to force states to allow sex-changes for minors. Many, many sitting Democratic members of Congress are on record supporting that...I think it's over 100 at last count.

If Democrats want to double down and decide that sex changes for minors and men in women's sports are core to their identity and worth losing elections, fine. If they want to disavow that stuff and say that it's not true that Dems advocate for it, fine. But they can't do both at once. When Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouth, it doesn't convince voters that they hold mainstream views on this subject. It just convinces voters that Democrats are trying to deliberately hide their unpopular views, which is correct.

Abortion is a winning issue when framed honestly.

It's just a winning issue for Democrats, period. Republicans can try to frame it however they like. The more time Republicans spend talking about abortion, the more they lose (except in the reddest states). Just as the more time Democrats spend talking about transing minors, the more they lose. If either party wants to lose less, they can simply drop their unpopular issues.

Every time Republicans try to claim that Democrats are in favor of post-birth abortions, they are also reminding voters that Republicans want to ban abortion. Great, keep them talking about that.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

OK but then you *are* running on the unpopular stuff. If you think that letting men compete in women's sports is so essential that there can be no giving ground, fine, but it's unpopular and you're going to take a political hit for it.

Again, they aren't running on it. It's a wedge issue created by the right. "Giving ground" means taking the wrong side and abandoning the group.

Yes but no one outside of right-wing circles believes that post-birth abortions are happening.

But people in right-wing circles do believe it, because they have been lied to and manipulated. Add up the rubes that believe various lies and it starts to add up.

Demonizing Democrats is definitely a thing in the South, and has been for years. It's all based on BS that they feed to the rubes - Dems are socialists, Dems want to tax you to death, Dems are snobby elites, Dems are corrupt, etc. Gaslighting their voters has been part of the Republican playbook for as long as I can remember.

The problem with that theory is that, unlike the post-birth abortion thing, there are dozens of threads right here on this forum in which leftists advocate for sex-changes for minors. The Biden Administration took it all the way to the Supreme Court in a failed attempt to force states to allow sex-changes for minors. Many, many sitting Democratic members of Congress are on record supporting that...I think it's over 100 at last count.

Framing. Dems don't advocate for sex changes for minors; Dems advocate for doctors and families continuing to be able to make those tough decisions, and not the government. There is a small but not insignificant number of people affected by this stuff, and Dems are basically in favor of staying out of their business. The same goes for abortion - it is a health issue that should be between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business in their business.

If Democrats want to double down and decide that sex changes for minors and men in women's sports are core to their identity and worth losing elections, fine. If they want to disavow that stuff and say that it's not true that Dems advocate for it, fine. But they can't do both at once. When Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouth, it doesn't convince voters that they hold mainstream views on this subject. It just convinces voters that Democrats are trying to deliberately hide their unpopular views, which is correct.

The dishonest framing isn't the Dem's fault. That is squarely on the Republicans, who run on wedge issues and little else.

It's just a winning issue for Democrats, period. Republicans can try to frame it however they like. The more time Republicans spend talking about abortion, the more they lose (except in the reddest states). Just as the more time Democrats spend talking about transing minors, the more they lose. If either party wants to lose less, they can simply drop their unpopular issues.

I think you are completely wrong here. If issues were framed differently (i.e. honestly), Republicans would lose a lot more. What are their core issues? Tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, get rid of immigrants. Simple enough, and not very popular positions with most. But toss the rubes a tiny, temporary tax cut, paint very useful regulatory bodies as useless wastes of money, and claim that immigrants are welfare-taking criminals, and those bad positions somehow become very popular positions among the rubes.

Every time Republicans try to claim that Democrats are in favor of post-birth abortions, they are also reminding voters that Republicans want to ban abortion. Great, keep them talking about that.

No, they are "reminding" their voters (by lying) that Democrats are evil baby killers. And it obviously works, especially in the south where the rubes are the rubiest. If they could win without lying, they would do so.

 

[NatMorton]

You have zero understanding of any transgender care for adults or teens so you cannot prove a word of your claims of child mutilation. There is no such thing as trans ideology and you or any other conservative cannot prove otherwise. This is a medical issue and should be left in the hands of MDs and PhD's who have decades of education and experience treating transgender patients.

Drag queens are not transgender and having them reading books to kids makes reading fun so kids are more likely to read on their own.

^^^ Democrats, this is your problem.

 

[Perotista]

Well yes, her campaign was fundamentally reducible to abortion and Orange Man Bad, and as we've seen time and time again, this is simply not adequate to carry a campaign, no matter how odious Trump may be.

Considering Biden’s overall job approval of 39% which history shows no sitting president has won reelection or that sitting president’s replacement won the election, the fact Harris came as close as she did is amazing. With Biden’s numbers one would have expected a landslide win for the GOP, more like 1980 than a close election. That didn’t happen. Which probably says more about Trump than Harris, Biden or the Democrats. The historical list:

1952 Truman 33%, his replacement Stevenson lost to Eisenhower

1968 LBJ 43%, his replacement Humphrey lost to Nixon

1976 Ford 45%, Ford lost reelection to Carter

1980 Carter 37%, Carter lost reelection to Reagan

1992 G.H.W. Bush 34%, Bush lost reelection to Bill Clinton

2008 G.W. Bush 28%, his replacement McCain lost to Obama

2020 Trump 43%, Trump lost reelection to Biden

2024 Biden 39%, his replacement Harris lost to Trump.

 

[StillBallin75]

Democrats constant shifting to the right is how we got here.

Anyone who doesn't see that has the IQ of a turnip.

 

[Logophile]

Kamala could have followed through and continued to message on the substantive things she was talking about early in the campaign that would directly attack cost of living such as tackling greedflation, (un/anti)competitive industries, and collusion both digital and otherwise (software/algo actuated rent collusion is a huge problem for example) rather than burying these policies in a PDF on a website no one will read, and it likely would have won her the election given its closeness. People close to her apparently dissuaded her to drop these issues out of fear of alienating donors and corporations, but, as we've seen, their support wasn't about to clinch the win.

Harris was never going to win as part of a bald faced lying administration that tried to hide her boss' mental deterioration. She was part of it, and that finished her, along with the baby bombing in Gaza and the border swamping

 

[Surrealistik]

Harris was never going to win as part of a bald faced lying administration that tried to hide her boss' mental deterioration. She was part of it, and that finished her, along with the baby bombing in Gaza and the border swamping

Losing the swing states by a mere 1-3% while she largely ignored the single most important issue per the electorate according to just about every poll out there, from the start of the campaign season to its end would beg to differ.

 

[Logophile]

I did engage. You’re offended that I told you your question was dumb, because it is and had no bearing on the conversation. Here: yes, America is the most racist country. We have the most wealth, access to education of any country in history. Thus that our population is still choosing candidates based on race alone is even worse than some uneducated s-hole somewhere. Now tell me but but in Africa there’s still slavery or some stupid factoid you heard on Lou dobbs

Were not a racist nation. That's why you lose, because of the incessant gas lighting and lies and the deliberate promotion of polarization through memes

 

[Lisa]

^^^ Democrats, this is your problem.

Its a problem to say this is not a political issue but instead a medical issue, so politicians should stay out of what they dont understand. Politicians arent Drs and psychologists. It has only been politicized to pander to conservative rubes who also dont understand medical care.