Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

So your solution is to tack left?

Sort of. You need to have a bold status quo disrupting vision. Since this is the Democrats, it would need to be left tacking.

Posted

He's right in that this election was lost because it was mismanaged by Biden's handlers who refused to acknowledge a decline in accuity and while I wouldn't go so far as "shouted down" people trying to bring it up (though there was a ton of you "YOU JUST DON'T FORFEIT INCUMBANCY ADVANTAGE HIGH GROUND!!"), that is ultimately what sunk the election. No real primary of candidates to determine who the people would vote for, a last minute feel to the switching horses midstream, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Biden should have signed an EO to lock down the border. Easy win.

He also should have distanced himself from the trans in sports and bathroom issue. It is a losing proposition for the majority of the country. These are two own goals. 
 

Have you considered trying to engage with reality?

Biden ramped up deportations to record levels and he and Kamala (and all other Dems running in 2024) ran as fast as they could from trans issues. And yet millions of people, including you, believe otherwise. Why do you think that is? It sure as shit has nothing to do with what the candidates actually said or did. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Of course I'm not fucking happy with the results. I'm saying that the shitty results are the results of your proposed solution because the campaign strategists that run political campaigns for Democrats have been doing what you propose since fucking 1992.

I'm not really sure what he's proposing.  To me the lesson learned is that a very progressive approach to economic and welfare issues is a politically winnable strategy as long as you don't lead with certain identity issues that may not be as politically expedient.  (Bernie instead of Hillary).  If you're going to propose a new New Deal, you need to decide whether it makes sense to adda trans rights rider or couple it with affirmative action policies.  

You can remain radically progressive on identity and social issues, but perhaps the best approach is to support legal protections while not making them a cornerstone of the platform. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Biden should have signed an EO to lock down the border. Easy win.

He also should have distanced himself from the trans in sports and bathroom issue. It is a losing proposition for the majority of the country. These are two own goals. 
 

Maybe. But those are only big issues because the right wing media space made them big issues. If the Democrats had done those things they would have just found other issues.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I'm not really sure what he's proposing.  To me the lesson learned is that a very progressive approach to economic and welfare issues is a politically winnable strategy as long as you don't lead with certain identity issues that may not be as politically expedient.  (Bernie instead of Hillary).  If you're going to propose a new New Deal, you need to decide whether it makes sense to adda trans rights rider or couple it with affirmative action policies.  

You can remain radically progressive on identity and social issues, but perhaps the best approach is to support legal protections while not making them a cornerstone of the platform

 

Name one Democrat running for a statewide or national office who has ever made identity or social issues a cornerstone of their platform. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Democrats popular and an actual party just aren't feasible politically because it goes against their donors, even if it would be popular among their voters.

I’ll add one more thing-I tend to think of Democrats donors and voters as mostly interchangeable, at least should be the goal.  That said, the Democratic Party method of arriving at solutions, party platform, etc., appears to floated into “let’s try to give or respect each of our disparate constituent group” rather than have a bedrock value base and ask constituent groups to get behind it.  
 

They are leaking voters because they’ve become the party most associated with inaction (even if that’s unfair, as they would rebut).  
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So campaigns are about two things: 1) turning out your base, and 2) winning the undecideds. You hurt both goals by trying to triangulate around some imagined optimum collection of "centrist" or "moderate" positions. That shit turns off your base and gets a lot of them to stay home and it tells the undecided voters that you don't really believe in anything. That you don't care about anything. Undecided voters love "change" candidates because those candidates give the impression that they'll care enough about something to get shit done.

Issues largely don't matter, how you message them does. The Dems are absolute dogshit at messaging them. 

I probably should have read this before my last post because you got to the same point with better reasoning.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Biden ramped up deportations to record levels and he and Kamala (and all other Dems running in 2024) ran as fast as they could from trans issues.

Do you think Biden and Kamala did a good job of communicating any successes on the border?  Agree on the running from trans issues - they could have been more supportive while still providing a more directed message on the idiocy of the anti-trans morons. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Do you think Biden and Kamala did a good job of communicating any successes on the border?  Agree on the running from trans issues - they could have been more supportive while still providing a more directed message on the idiocy of the anti-trans morons. 

I think they communicated to voters as well as they possibly could have that they wanted to stop immigration and had negotiated a very "strong" immigration bill and that Trump killed it. So the question is how did their communication fail? On this issue, I don't think the failure was in their ability to communicate how seriously they took immigration. I think the failure was in the decisions they made years before to give in to Republican framing on immigration as negative, which contributed to a drastic change in public sentiment against immigration.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

What I can't figure out is why anyone talks about democrats in the present tense.  People like Chuck Schumer, they aren't interested in being a real opposition to what is going on.  They are happy to provide a non-threatening facade of choice in exchange for secondary power and influence post-Republic, but they aren't really going to try to organize any sort of meaningful stand against anything.  The Democratic Party, at least in its current form, is a senescent forest of old, unhealthy trees that is stifling the growth of the grass (roots movements) beneath its canopy.  It needs a good cleansing fire to make way for the growth of something new.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

Corey Booker speech is just theater to me. He’s not impacting any of Trump’s policies by his marathon speech, he is just going to speak about how shitty Trump is until Booker passes out or something? 
 

Totally agree Trump is shitty but not sure what this long form speech is going to accomplish. 
 

I guess you put Senate on pause for a day or two but as Trump seems to do nearly everything vis executive order not sure what a Senate delay accomplishes. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think they communicated to voters as well as they possibly could have that they wanted to stop immigration and had negotiated a very "strong" immigration bill and that Trump killed it. So the question is how did their communication fail?

The strong bill was obviously too late in the game.  And they didn't have someone who was doing the photo ops at the border that would have shown some vigor and reminded people that it was a priority.   

Posted
17 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The strong bill was obviously too late in the game.  And they didn't have someone who was doing the photo ops at the border that would have shown some vigor and reminded people that it was a priority.   

100%, the optics were not there and Biden did not speak out strongly enough here. An EO would have gone a long way. Kamala Harris was put in charge and did not even visit the border until it was too late.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

100%, the optics were not there and Biden did not speak out strongly enough here. An EO would have gone a long way. Kamala Harris was put in charge and did not even visit the border until it was too late.

Again, Republican lies worked. She was NOT put in charge of fixing the border (This is a SECURITY function). She was instead tasked with the Herculean effort of addressing the "root causes" in Central America (This is a DIPLOMATIC & DEVELOPMENT AID function).

The goal was to help those countries strengthen their economies and security situations so their citizens could build "successful lives at home rather than abroad."

Democrats need to adopt an ELI5 mentality when communicating with the American public. Explain clearly AND take concrete action in a visible way. It's how they regain trust with the working class. If they can't do both of those things, then GOP lies will work because our news media is lazy and will just regurgitate those lies.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Gavin Newsom is breaking from the party on trans in sports. Yes it's a fringe issue, but matters to our voter base which is largely comprised of mouth breathing trogolodytes.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-breaks-with-democrats-on-trans-athletes-in-sports-00215436

This goes to the heart of what wildcat is arguing about accepting the framing of the GOP message.

"Breaking from the party"? 

I think if a recipient of federal funds or an entity engaged in interstate commerce can show that a trans athlete has an unfair biological advantage in an athletic event then they can ban the trans athlete form competing against non-trans athletes.  I'd even give them the relatively low "rational basis" test for their biological proof.  

Is that "breaking from the party"?

 

Posted
32 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Gavin Newsom is breaking from the party on trans in sports. Yes it's a fringe issue, but matters to our voter base which is largely comprised of mouth breathing trogolodytes.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-breaks-with-democrats-on-trans-athletes-in-sports-00215436

Why are you posting this like it's new? Have you happened to see what's happened to Gavin's popularity in the month or so since this podcast aired? 

Quote

According to a recently released Capitol Weekly poll, Governor Gavin Newsom’s new podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom” only made 13% of voters have an improved perception of the Governor, with a huge 26% saying that it harmed their perception of Newsom.

The only reason that undecided voters think trans girls in sports matters is that both Republicans and Democrats keep fucking telling them it matters. It's as much on you for validating Republican propaganda as it is on the Republicans peddling it.

You know what will tell those voters it doesn't matter? When a Republican brings it up, just fucking ask why they're so desperate to give a pedophile a job looking under teenage girls' skirts.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

How is that supposed to move the needle?

I doubt it will, but it seems like it'll probably be more effective than repeatedly validating Republican propaganda. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Red Five said:

The current evil regime is going around removing anything not straight white and male. But yeah, it’s the Dems who have the problem with identity politics.

But but but but that's only because Dems did identity politics first! It's not like white supremacist patriarchy has been the cornerstone of conservative politics for the entirety of American history. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

I disagree.

We won in 2020 by representing change. 

We lost in 2024 by defending the status quo when voters wanted change. 

And we set up ourselves for failure in 2016 and 2024 by allowing identify politics to lead over issues people actually care about. 

Feels like you've been suckered in by Republican bullshit.  Particularly with your last sentence. 

 - We won in 2020 by representing change?? What? We nominated the longest running Congressman in US History. The guy who was VP for 8 years. An old, white guy. Based on the 2016 and 2024 results, I think it's more likely the Democratic nominee won in 2020 because of COVID. That's it. No COVID, Trump would have been re-elected. 

- We lost in 2024 because a significant portion of Americans have lost their moral compass and become red-pilled pieces of shit. 

- REPUBLICANS allowed identity politics to lead over the issues people care about. There's a reason that "every accusation is a confession" is repeated so many times in this forum. It's all projection from the right, especially after Trump entered the political arena.

I understand why you think Democrats are losing the game, but here's the deal. The game is rigged. Initially it's been rigged due to the institutional failure of the Electoral College. But now the game is further rigged because some of the constituents are now cheating. "If only the Dems were more centrist, then I would vote for them." Bull. Fucking. Shit. Liars. All of them. They duped us. They licked up all the disingenuous bullshit from the GOP and are now trying to spit in our face. Fuck them. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Longest solo filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest single-person filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[113][114]
  Senator Party Date (began) Measure Hours &
minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (SC) Democratic   August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 (filibuster) 24:18
2 Alfonse D'Amato (NY) Republican   October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (OR) Independent   April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Cory Booker (NJ)[a] Democratic   March 31, 2025 Protest against Trump Administration (filibuster) Ongoing
5 Ted Cruz (TX)[a] Republican   September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) (filibuster) 21:18
6 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (WI) Republican   May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
7 William Proxmire (WI) Democratic   September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
8 Huey Long (LA) Democratic   June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
9 Jeff Merkley (OR) Democratic   April 4, 2017 Supreme Court confirmation of Neil Gorsuch (filibuster) 15:28
10 Alfonse D'Amato (NY) Republican   October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
Posted
58 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Feels like you've been suckered in by Republican bullshit.  Particularly with your last sentence. 

 - We won in 2020 by representing change?? What? We nominated the longest running Congressman in US History. The guy who was VP for 8 years. An old, white guy. Based on the 2016 and 2024 results, I think it's more likely the Democratic nominee won in 2020 because of COVID. That's it. No COVID, Trump would have been re-elected. 

- We lost in 2024 because a significant portion of Americans have lost their moral compass and become red-pilled pieces of shit. 

- REPUBLICANS allowed identity politics to lead over the issues people care about. There's a reason that "every accusation is a confession" is repeated so many times in this forum. It's all projection from the right, especially after Trump entered the political arena.

I understand why you think Democrats are losing the game, but here's the deal. The game is rigged. Initially it's been rigged due to the institutional failure of the Electoral College. But now the game is further rigged because some of the constituents are now cheating. "If only the Dems were more centrist, then I would vote for them." Bull. Fucking. Shit. Liars. All of them. They duped us. They licked up all the disingenuous bullshit from the GOP and are now trying to spit in our face. Fuck them. 

 

I disagree. That was a very winnable election.

Voters here and in Europe, fed up with inflation and rampant immigration, were demanding change.

We ran the most incompetent, bizarre campaign in years. A president, unable to form coherent sentences in the debate, is finally forced to drop out. Biden could have announced he wasn't running again two years ago and given us a real chance to find the best candidate. Instead, we got the most dysfunctional campaign we've ever witnessed. Kamala didn't represent the change.

We need to clean the slate and find the next Bill Clinton, the next Obama, etc, as many people on this thread are already pointing out. 

Posted
1 minute ago, TreatyOak said:

I disagree. That was a very winnable election.

Voters here and in Europe, fed up with inflation and rampant immigration, were demanding change.

We ran the most incompetent, bizarre campaign in years. A president, unable to form coherent sentences in the debate, is finally forced to drop out. Biden could have announced he wasn't running again two years ago and given us a real chance to find the best candidate. Instead, we got the most dysfunctional campaign we've ever witnessed. Kamala didn't represent the change.

We need to clean the slate and find the next Bill Clinton, the next Obama, etc, as many people on this thread are already pointing out. 

what you mean is the fear campaign and lies about inflation worked on a docile populace who have zero understanding of such things, despite the US navigating inflation better than any nation on the planet and had the most stable economy in the world during Biden's term. But yeah, dude fucking stutters so I guess we have to go with the syphilis-brained fascist because reasons. admit it, you don't know what you're talking about. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

I disagree. That was a very winnable election.

Voters here and in Europe, fed up with inflation and rampant immigration, were demanding change.

We ran the most incompetent, bizarre campaign in years. A president, unable to form coherent sentences in the debate, is finally forced to drop out. Biden could have announced he wasn't running again two years ago and given us a real chance to find the best candidate. Instead, we got the most dysfunctional campaign we've ever witnessed. Kamala didn't represent the change.

We need to clean the slate and find the next Bill Clinton, the next Obama, etc, as many people on this thread are already pointing out. 

I agree that Biden should never have run for re-election.  I don't remember if he ever said it, but it was implied that he would be a stopgap POTUS. 

There is no "next" Clinton or Obama. Half of this country stopped fighting for it and bent the knee to Trump, the GOP, and Musk. 

Jesus Christ himself resurrected into a Country Club Senior Champion's body would be labeled a commie libtard. 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, 6th Street said:

I like how you're going around giving negative reps lol

i like how @wildcat09 is absolutely cooking in this thread on the last two pages.

Cry about neg rep more, everything s/he said is spot-on.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Longest solo filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest single-person filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[113][114]
  Senator Party Date (began) Measure Hours &
minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (SC) Democratic   August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 (filibuster) 24:18
2 Alfonse D'Amato (NY) Republican   October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (OR) Independent   April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Cory Booker (NJ)[a] Democratic   March 31, 2025 Protest against Trump Administration (filibuster) Ongoing
5 Ted Cruz (TX)[a] Republican   September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) (filibuster) 21:18
6 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (WI) Republican   May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
7 William Proxmire (WI) Democratic   September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
8 Huey Long (LA) Democratic   June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
9 Jeff Merkley (OR) Democratic   April 4, 2017 Supreme Court confirmation of Neil Gorsuch (filibuster) 15:28
10 Alfonse D'Amato (NY) Republican   October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14

He's about to hit the 24 hour mark.

  • Drool 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

what you mean is the fear campaign and lies about inflation worked on a docile populace who have zero understanding of such things, despite the US navigating inflation better than any nation on the planet and had the most stable economy in the world during Biden's term. But yeah, dude fucking stutters so I guess we have to go with the syphilis-brained fascist because reasons. admit it, you don't know what you're talking about. 

People unable to pay their rent, or unable to feed themselves, or a twenty-something who is drowning in college loans, and can't find a job due to the fact that people all over the world can apply to their jobs, didn't care that we had the most stable economy in the world. They just knew they were hurting. The markets were up. So were their expenses. 

Most Americans are pretty normal types who just want things to function. More of them voted for Biden in 2020. They could have and would have voted for the right Democrat candidate with the right message and ideas in 2024. I sure hope we find the best candidates moving forward.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I thought Gavin Newsom wanted to be president.

I guess not.

Hey, at least he went from Steve Bannon to jumping on the Abundance bandwagon. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, tchookem said:

Yeah, it's the Dems that run on identity politics. Meanwhile, the Trump guy in my neighborhood has 7 flags attached to his fence. Nobody has their identity wrapped up in politics more than a Trump supporter.

If you want to say that the Dems haven't met the needs of middle class, I won't argue, but if you want to say the Dems are the ones who are too focused on identity politics... well, that's bullshit.

Any Trump vote who says they didn't vote Dem because of the identity politics is using that as an excuse for believing all the bullshit about immigrants or trying to hide that they hate women.

I never mentioned the Republicans. This thread is the Democratic thread, hence I have focused my discussion on the topic. 

Posted

This illustrates the problem dems had imo

IMG_0149.thumb.png.2e94604642f5884f485f3dcc84f34445.png

 

say 2.5 M voters switched from D to R. 
 

what kept 4.5 M at home? The post mortems I have seen say the national party apparatus was completely out of touch with what local leaders were telling them pretty much everywhere. That has to change. How? I don’t know 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...