They will be the establishment no matter what they do lmfao. Can't claim to not be unless they choose to go the Republican route of lying their asses off
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
370 points (97.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
5677 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Kamala raised over $1 billion dollars for her campaign, most of which was from small donors.
If that doesn't tell the Dems they don't need oligarch money, nothing will.
Then they spent it on high per hour political consultants who paid Beyonce to perform
Except Beyonce literally didn't perform for Harris?
They know that. Problem is the WANT billionaires money too ^^
That's a mere pittance compared to what the wealthy actually spend on conservatives and messaging. That's 1 billion dollars every 4 years. Fox news, daily wire, OANN, and all the myriad of other propaganda outlets churn through more than that a year.
Yes, but we're not talking about conservatives.
The Democratic party has a problem, and that problem is what Democratic voters want doesn't align with what Democratic donors want. The voters want progressive policies passed, while the donors want the same neoliberalism that keeps them rich. And trying to appease one of those groups obviously alienates the other.
If any Democratic politician truly wants to help the American population, the fact that Kamala raised so much money in such a short amount of time, and the fact that many states passed progressive policies even though they voted for Trump, should tell them that they don't need to kowtow to the wealthy because the voters will support them. Unfortunately, I don't think they're going to learn that lesson.
Republicans, of course, don't have this problem because their voters and their donors all want the same thing.
The whole point of this was asking why Democrats are catering to wealthy conservative donors instead of progressive or left leaning voters. I just stated the reason why. The 1 billion dollars collected from small donors every four years for a presidential run is nice. But it's nothing compared to what the wealthy dump into messaging and campaigning constantly. Until such time as small donors can even come close to remotely matching that. Sustaining entire media Outlet ecosystems to counter the propaganda from conservatives. Democrats aren't going to give up trying to get some of that wealthy conservative money
What happens to the amount they didn't spend?
they're in debt
Maybe if they go bankrupt we can start a new party that cares what its voters think and doesnt shit the bed so often.
nothings stopping you right now
Money, time, and connections are pretty big things you need to start a new political party.
It's not like advertising a garage sale. I like your spirit though.
another party failing won't make any of that easier
X for doubt on that. Im sure they've said that though. That's a lot of really expensive campaign parties for a three month run
It was celebrity money, you know, the same people that were telling people they were "just like them."
load more comments
(2 replies)
They have, they were just as beholden to money interests as the Republicans...
Like that'll ever happen.
The party is held by a group of political elites who are all about the establishment and power.
There needs to be a new party, a labor party, to represent the working class Americans.
I agree.
I voted for Harris because Dems are supposed to be the establishment. Supposed to be a return normal boring politics.
That's obviously not going to work. Now we need an actual working class, under a few million dollar a year takehome party.
I've said this before, but I think it needs to be repeated:
The populist, anti-elitist lane on the left is wide open. I don't know that a mainstream "Democratic" party can take that lane, and I don't know if we should bother trying to drag them there. However, what I can say is that there is going to be some significant hay to make in that field.
I think Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Katie Porter, anyone who has been rat-fucked by Democrats should all abandon their identification with the Democratic party and become independents. And in the time that he has left, at their lead, should be Bernie Sanders, who never needed to be told about the consequences of running with milquetoast policies.
Even if they caucus with Democrats, true progressives need to show them that their votes aren't a given, and if they want them, they need to take a step towards their legislative priorities. Giving up our votes without leverage, giving in to the Washington groupthink: THIS LOSES ELECTIONS!
We shouldn't focus on redeeming the Democratic party. Let them sink. Focus on getting good quality, reliable progressive populists elected. The Democratic party is a fucking anchor and we're better off without it. Let those unwilling to let go of that Washington groupthink sink with it.
Split the non Republican vote so you leave the door wide open for them? That's the problem with first past the post...
While this strategy may feel good, it makes the minorities Republicans want to hurt the cost of doing business. Even if Democrats can't deliver on anything substantial in the short term voting for them in elections is useful.
First, it reduces the harm done to minorities. Second, it demonstrates there is a progressive voter block the democrats could shift closer to. Third, assuming we get more elections and the Democrats aren't all in jail, it creates time for a progressive, like the Democrats your argument listed, to co-opt the Democratic Party. Like what Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats.
Rather than trying to achieve moral victory over Democrats, let's leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt.
I instead see them not learning a damn thing and putting up Nancy Pelosi as the Presidential candidate for 2028.
Will she achieve lichdom in time?
Acting as if she hasn't already! There's a reason that dude went after her husband with a hammer and not her. He knew better than to mess with a lich.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There simply won’t be another election.
The whole point is a cow’s opinion. It doesn’t matter.
There simply won’t be another election.
That is a possibility. The US elected fascists who now control all three branches of the federal government. However they do not have a two-thirds majority in congress or control two-thirds of the states. So it will be difficult for the fascists if they choose a purely legal route. However, since they are fascists, they might use violence to get what they want. We won't know until they try.
In the event that we still have elections and Democrats can still participate we should leverage power and vote for Democrats in those elections. This will reduce the harm done to minorities by fascists who want to kill them.
I wanted to add to your point, because people in this comment section are attempting to write off future elections unless Democrats completely meet the demands of progressives. This isn't something Democrats are likely to do. But the people who will be harmed by hypothetical future Republican administrations would prefer if Democrats were clogging up the works and knocking fascists out of power at the very least.
It's "moo".
Bit late init
Hear fucking hear.
Wasn't there a recent conspiracy theory that the establishment doesn't want Trump (hence the assassination attempts) because he's an easily manipulated loose canon who doesn't follow orders like a good shill should lol?
Point being that dems lost this election because they are inherently more pro establishment and have been for a while.
I think that there is one issue which Trump will deliver the Dems what they really want, and they won't stand in his way as he does it: liquidating Palestine entirely. In the next ten years if nothing is done by Arab nations, the UN or the US left, Israel will likely declare war on the Palestinian Authority itself, exiling or killing its leaders if they do not submit to Israeli sovereignty over the entirety of Palestine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Democrats don't learn lessons.
Democrats are the establishment that needs to be laid out to pasture and replaced
Monster grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength to change the things I can, and the Noodle to know the difference.
RAmen
I suggest we all get together and form a party. We can hold it somewhere well known; maybe a waterfront, or harbor. I hear Boston is a nice place. Very patriotic even. We can even have refreshments; maybe a nice tea? Who’s in?
Counterpoint: anybody not cheering for Fox News' talking points sufficiently enthusiastically is declared "socialist" and all but suggested as target for public lynching (or in some cases actually the target of a lynch mob storming the capitol) and the masses have been drilled into going berserk at hearing the right keywords, regardless of what happens in reality.
Calling an attempt to break this information monopoly over half the nation an uphill battle is the epitome of understatement.
Honestly, Fox News is going to call anyone against them a socialist. That's just what they're going to do. There are even some Republican policies which can be construed as socialist, such as public spending on schools, even private schools.
The average voter really doesn't care about if something is socialist or not. They clearly don't care if something is fascist. They only care about the perception of how it will affect their life.
If you tell people they're not going to have to pay for healthcare ever again, or that cannabis will be legal, or that you will fix the massive wealth gap, they will vote for you. Nominal Republicans would even vote for you. The downside of using the word socialism like that, is that Fox News that has removed the meaning of socialism from their base, meaning that actual socialism will not seem like such a big deal.
Being called socialist isn't even the issue. My point is that a news monolith has spent decades radicalising half the country and at this point there are enough cultists that will mercilessly tear down anybody Fox&Co paint a target on. Until there is a solid defense against such a hate machine, no party will flourish on its merits as long as Fox-drilled stooges will only be fed a caricature of any opposition Fox designates as the enemy. Even your perfect ideal candidate would lose the election. The boogeyman Fox would paint them to be would be so repulsive and half the country would never even hear their ideas anyway, except what skewed perspective Fox would blast the viewers with 24/7.
My point is that they're construction is inherently self-destructive. They have made their base extremely susceptible to populism.
If a populist candidate from the other direction arises, a large portion of the Fox News base will support them. You mark my words. Just think about how quickly they turn against Fox News when they don't do what they want
Isn't that what Trump is saying he is? I mean, they're both claiming to be "against the machine..."
"These bonobo monkeys must become Rhodes scholars" is a more believable headline
He's annoying, but he's right.