The New Democratic Platform

[LCHorn 2639]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But Democratic candidates can't help fight that by ducking the culture war issues; they already do that and it's that ducking that contributes to that very feeling among many people.

To echo this, that was his main point (not necessarily on the merits of trans rights, itself), but that she didn’t adequately respond to a voters perception that her priorities would favor this over their own economic concerns.  
 

This is a little bit adding my own analysis (on what he said), but I think he would agree that a) female candidate of color, b) running as a Dem, c) short campaign timeline so only a limited amount of messaging can be broadcast made it harder than it should have been to test what voters needed to be told about candidate Harris and her priorities that would move them to supper her.  
 

The whole thing is worth a listen because Miller (who is gay and therefore a little more intimately familiar with voter data when LGBT issues are involved) is willing to debate the guests and not just take on faith an analysis that might feel true but could be overlooking something in search of that explanation (like your point about the swing state/trans advertising).  
 

Anyway, bringing this back to the OP, I don’t think there are any grand takeaways here besides don’t skip a primary season again (which is team Biden’s fault).  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13539]

7 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

Promise free universal healthcare, paid for by tough negotiations with healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies that will result in everyone paying less than they were thru private insurers.  Bumper stickers that say “Candidate Name 2028: FUCK INSURANCE COMPANIES” would be effective.

free universal healthcare could be subtitled, "worse healthcare for all".

the problem isn't that the US pays too much for drugs, which we do, the problem is that the rest of the world is a free rider for these drugs. Pass a law that we will pay the median price negotiated by other western countries. Force them to cover more of the costs and profits of the pharm industry. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Egalitarianism as a concept is very popular and defending women, minorities, and gay and trans people as part of the fight for egalitarianism against the billionaires trying to divide us so they can treat us all like chattel should not be a hard message to sell.    

This sentence captures what the problem is.  Are billionaires really trying to subdivide us into groups beyond the haves and the have nots?  By slicing and dicing people into genders and races and sexual identifications, we are dividing ourselves. 

Let's stop.   I think trans people are in a unique situation but as far as others, we should help those who are economically disadvantages and stop putting them into groups. 

Dems should pursue radically color and sex blind policies that are based solely on economic need.   They should also favor all forms of social inclusion but not politicize appropriate social behavior.

[LCHorn 2639]

25 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

stop putting them into groups. 

Ezra Klein was on PSA and talked about how this came to be-the Democratic Party is overly beholden to single issue groups from the left and they exaggerate the support for those individual issues as a result.  It’s one reason (and just picking on this because the Republicans used it so effectively) they are afraid of antagonizing the trans rights community by running candidates more willing to signal unfriendliness to their favored issues.  

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

7 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

they are afraid of antagonizing the trans rights community by running candidates more willing to signal unfriendliness to their favored issues.

The key is whether not putting trans rights on the front burner "signals unfriendliness".   

Dems need to get over that fast.  I feel like I would fight really hard for various trans rights issues.  I think they are particularly put upon these days.  But there is existential shit going on right now that I would like us to prioritize.  As well as economic and educational opportunity.

[LCHorn 2639]

4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The key is whether not putting trans rights on the front burner "signals unfriendliness".

Sean Harris’s point was the failure to break with them is signaling to independents that you agree.

Ezra Klein would also remind us this isn’t just on trans rights-this is a hole host of Dem culture issues and is why the party itself has become toxic.  You have to align yourself with BLM, the socialists, the HRC, the unions, etc., and there is so little room for dissent that it makes it hard to run as anything but a party loyalist.  

[wildcat09 29453]

56 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Dems should pursue radically color and sex blind policies that are based solely on economic need.   .

That's basically what they've been doing for the past several decades.

Quote

They should also favor all forms of social inclusion but not politicize appropriate social behavior

What does this even mean?

For fuck's sake people, can we talk about what Dems actually do vs what a bunch of people who are literally financially invested in pretending they've been doing something else (and need to stop it) pretend they do?

[Mdhorn 6090]

31 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The key is whether not putting trans rights on the front burner "signals unfriendliness".   

Dems need to get over that fast.  I feel like I would fight really hard for various trans rights issues.  I think they are particularly put upon these days.  But there is existential shit going on right now that I would like us to prioritize.  As well as economic and educational opportunity.

The right created trans problems as a red herring. Look squirrel.  The left needs to address, ignore, or attack the issues that have the right screaming red herring.  Really, there is no third choice though, because people didn't care about 34 accounts, multiple court trials, rape, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, government overthrow, national security, or anything else.  So what are Democrats supposed to do?  They tried to work for the people such as relieving college loans, affordable pharmaceuticals and housing, rights for trans, women and marijuana users, environment and the populace said fuck all that.  We can overthink it but Democrats have a major image problem, and while a crisis that the Republicans will create will definitely help, we'll need to survive.  

[Mdhorn 6090]

1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

Ezra Klein was on PSA and talked about how this came to be-the Democratic Party is overly beholden to single issue groups from the left and they exaggerate the support for those individual issues as a result.  It’s one reason (and just picking on this because the Republicans used it so effectively) they are afraid of antagonizing the trans rights community by running candidates more willing to signal unfriendliness to their favored issues.  

There are no trans issues--there's no sex change operations in schools or prisons.  There's no trans rapes in bathrooms or anywhere.  If it wasn't this, it would be some other fake issue.  Democrats need to own some issues--mainly, we need to break up the Republican monopoly over the airwaves or fake information.  

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

15 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

That's basically what they've been doing for the past several decades.

No, I don't think so.  Dems would tell you that at the root of their policies they are trying to achieve color-blindness but the focus is on policies that to me seem to stress overstatement of racial differences.  Look at these two links:

HEALING THE SOUL OF AMERICA - Democrats

Fact Sheet: U.S. Efforts to Combat Systemic Racism | The White House 

I'm saying the Dems can be lots less preachy and more focused on actual programs that provide economic assistance to all disadvantaged without making the focus on race.  In other words, combat systematic racism by combating systematic poverty.  This election shows that the division lines are class and education and not necessarily racial so the dems should market the policies towards class (opportuinty). 

My point is that focusing purely on economic disparities domestically, dems can achieve more equality without giving the other side the weapon of attacking  them for "identify politics". 

Yes, and its absolutely hypocritical argument but that's where we are.  

EO 13985 sets up a comprehensive structure of equity committees and the like in federal government.  You tell me if the definition of "equity" under EO 13985 is as "color blind" or blind to identity politics as it could be.  

Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

My argument is that the definition should have been.

Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2853]

15 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this even mean?

I wrote:  They should also favor all forms of social inclusion but not politicize appropriate social behavior.

I meant:  Dems should continue to make sure no individuals are excluded from educational or any other opportunities currently protected by discrimination laws and the Constitution but they need to not knee jerk attack every racist or sexist or anti-trans comment out there.  The haters are going to hate, and they aren't going to act right.  So what do the Dems get out of pointing out there are assholes in this world?  Nothing.

 

[Captainant 27970]

15 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

There are no trans issues--there's no sex change operations in schools or prisons.  There's no trans rapes in bathrooms or anywhere.  If it wasn't this, it would be some other fake issue.  Democrats need to own some issues--mainly, we need to break up the Republican monopoly over the airwaves or fake information.  

Dems need to stop living off of sucking corporate cock for sustenance. Their "for the people" rhetoric rings hollow when they constantly sell out workers or fail to show up and defend the little guy

[TwiceHorn 31676]

22 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

A somewhat different argument that I think could have more merit is that trans issues plus other cultural issues (DEI, etc. like you note), while not individually salient, contributed to a diffuse feeling all across the country that Dems don't really care about "you" (whoever "you" happens to be).  But Democratic candidates can't help fight that by ducking the culture war issues; they already do that and it's that ducking that contributes to that very feeling among many people.

 

Yeah, that was the fundamental brilliance of the fucking trans ads.  They didn't really conclude that one position was right or wrong, just that Allred, Harris, or whoever was "too liberal for [you]."  That mitigates the cruelty of the anti-trans message and makes it more about "they're focused on issues that you don't really care about."

[TwiceHorn 31676]

15 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

There are no trans issues--there's no sex change operations in schools or prisons.  There's no trans rapes in bathrooms or anywhere.  If it wasn't this, it would be some other fake issue.  Democrats need to own some issues--mainly, we need to break up the Republican monopoly over the airwaves or fake information.  

Correction, there has been one, exactly one, sex change operation in federal prison.  Court ordered as medically necessary in 2022. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/federal-court-orders-first-gender-affirming-surgery-trans-prisoner-rcna25377

However, I doubt that the surgery actually took place, because BOP is excellent at finding ways not to provide extraordinary health care to inmates.  They fucking release them before it comes to that.

[Captainant 27970]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That mitigates the cruelty of the anti-trans message and makes it more about "they're focused on issues that you don't really care about."

And that's a super effective tactic because even though it wasn't an issue he was focused on, the useful idiot boomers that lack criticality just believed it and got outraged at it

[wildcat09 29453]

35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And that's a super effective tactic because even though it wasn't an issue he was focused on, the useful idiot boomers that lack criticality just believed it and got outraged at it

And the key is that Democrats validated the frame of the GOP attack. What was Allred's response? It was "no I don't want boys in girls bathrooms, but..." Generating that response was half of the point, if not the main point, of the ads in the first place.  The voters he was trying to reach didn't believe anything before the "but" and it de-motivated the Dem base. Democrats are so fucking conditioned to playing defense and letting Republicans frame every argument that they don't know any other way to do politics (this is why Republicans to this day are so incredibly furious about Obama actually using Romney's "47% are takers" line against him).  

Allred should have counterattacked with ads that Ted Cruz wanted to look up little girls' dresses and was trying to divide Texans to distract from his corruption.  Would it have made him win? In this election, probably not, but he would've done a lot fucking better and a similar strategy from Harris and other Dems may have been enough to get her over the top.

[Captainant 27970]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

And the key is that Democrats validated the frame of the GOP attack. What was Allred's response? It was "no I don't want boys in girls bathrooms, but..." Generating that response was half of the point, if not the main point, of the ads in the first place.  The voters he was trying to reach didn't believe anything before the "but" and it de-motivated the Dem base. Democrats are so fucking conditioned to playing defense and letting Republicans frame every argument that they don't know any other way to do politics (this is why Republicans to this day are so incredibly furious about Obama actually using Romney's "47% are takers" line against him).  

Allred should have counterattacked with ads that Ted Cruz wanted to look up little girls' dresses and was trying to divide Texans to distract from his corruption.  Would it have made him win? In this election, probably not, but he would've done a lot fucking better and a similar strategy from Harris and other Dems may have been enough to get her over the top.

Yeah the whole mantra of "when they go low, we go high" just means you get constantly undermined. Lowest pad height wins and all that

[CooterBrown 18089]

On 11/25/2024 at 5:12 AM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If you do this, I would say you should give people the ability to borrow from this for certain things, like the down payment on a first home or higher education. You can put stipulations as to what kind of higher education (no for profit college, but trade school should be allowed) or stipulations on the home purchase. That would give a lot of folks a leg up that would be needed. 

I say no because it's a slippery slope. It's meant to be a retirement safety net and nothing more. Once you let someone access the money for any reason, the end recipients of that money (colleges and home sellers) will do everything they can to take advantage of it.  Colleges can then justify increased tuition because everyone would have access to the fund.  Housing prices would increase because anyone could afford a down payment.  The public would complain they don't have enough access to the money, Congress will give them more access and pretty soon, so much of the money is drained prior to retirement that it fails at its intended purpose.   As it is, it is highly beneficial and close to cost neutral.  

[Texas Jeff 1978]

On 11/25/2024 at 10:08 AM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I meant that 1M is that line that makes you the 1%. There is a recent study on Adjusted AGIs, and for a lot of locations, that is the number that is now required to be part of the 1%.  I am saying that you set that at the point in time, then you adjust each year for inflation.  I think a lot of folks that make 400k to 999k are doing well, but they are not building wealth.  It is hard to build wealth in locations where the cost of living is incredibly high, even if you make really good money.

I would be amazed that someone making $400k to $999k can't build wealth.  Here's a chart showing US household income by percentage.  Only the top 3% are above $400k.  The bottom 97% make less.

One problem with being in those higher income brackets is that you are much more likely to live close to someone making a lot more than you.  If you are in the middle, everyone in your neighborhood is about the same.  Folks on the right see people close to them that are making significantly more.

Maybe you make a lot more than your neighbor and that person feels they are not "wealthy" because you fly first class while they are in coach, but maybe you feel you are not "wealthy" because you are in first class and they have a private jet.

You are all wealthy compared to the guy riding Greyhound, but maybe you don't feel it.

[Pancho 45427]

Probably need to change the title of this thread…

 

Apparently a new PSA episode is out with the Harris campaign staff and it is….not great Bob.

The Obama bros were right for that moment, but they shouldn’t touch another campaign.

[G650 14301]

So Dana Millibank wrote an actual insightful article for a change.

 

Quote

Opinion
Democrats don’t have a working-class problem. America does.

Extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power gave rise to FDR’s New Deal — Democrats should be no less ambitious now.
10 min
1497
A worker descends from scaffolding at the U.S. Capitol in 2023. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)
By Dana Milbank
November 29, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EST

It’s that time again. Every election that ends in a Democratic defeat seems to produce the same breathless analysis: Democrats have lost the working class!

In 2004, we heard that “working-class Americans, once the core of the Democratic Party, are voting Republican.”
Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for answers to the election’s biggest questions

In 2016, we were told: “Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more.”

And now, inevitably, headlines over the past three weeks have been revealing the same startling discovery all over again:

“Democrats’ working-class exodus sets off reckoning within party.”

“Why Democrats lost their working-class coalition.”

Follow Dana Milbank

“Is This the End of the White Working-Class Democrat?”

This is getting tedious.

It’s not that the conclusion is wrong as much as it is woefully outdated. Working-class voters, roughly defined as those who aren’t college educated, haven’t been reliable Democratic voters since the New Deal coalition dissolved — decades ago. So why do political analysts keep concluding that the Democrats have, all of a sudden, lost the working man and woman?

I asked someone who has studied the voting attitudes of the working class as much as anyone alive: Michael Podhorzer, the former political director of the AFL-CIO and a prominent figure in progressive politics. He said political analysts have been claiming that Democrats have just lost working people “every election for the last 50 years,” based on the “idiotic assumption” that all workers without college degrees, or nearly two-thirds of the adult labor force, can be lumped together into a single category — “working class” — with the expectation that they have a shared identity as workers and will vote accordingly.

“The idea that working people would vote for Democrats goes back to the New Deal era, when being a worker was an actual identity that [Franklin D.] Roosevelt and the Democrats appealed to by saying that when corporations want to do bad things to you, we’re on your side,” Podhorzer notes. Back then, Democrats did get about 80 percent of the working-class vote, because Democrats emphasized the class conflict. But “in the current two-party structure, where both parties are dominated by billionaires and corporations, there isn’t an actual place for working-class identity.”
Story continues below advertisement

They no longer vote their interests as “workers” but cast ballots for all kinds of different reasons. They shifted several points away from Democrats between 2020 and 2024 — but so did many different groups across the electorate, mostly because they were unhappy with the Biden administration’s performance on inflation.
Opinions on the future of work
A high school diploma is rarely enough anymore. Chicago thinks it knows what might be.
Opinion
A high school diploma is rarely enough anymore. Chicago thinks it knows wha...
Federal workers are going back to the office — any year now
Opinion
Federal workers are going back to the office — any year now
The case for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay
Opinion
The case for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay
Will gains from the spectacular ‘she-covery’ last?
Opinion
Will gains from the spectacular ‘she-covery’ last?
Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office.
Opinion
Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office.
Biden is bringing federal workers back to the office. It’s about time.
Opinion
Biden is bringing federal workers back to the office. It’s about time.
15 ideas to revitalize ‘lifeless’ downtowns in the work-from-home era
Opinion
15 ideas to revitalize ‘lifeless’ downtowns in the work-from-home era
Beyond quiet quitting: Tips for leaving a job you no longer want
Opinion
Beyond quiet quitting: Tips for leaving a job you no longer want
The pandemic is over. Excuses for allowing offices to sit empty should end, too.
Opinion
The pandemic is over. Excuses for allowing offices to sit empty should end,...
No wonder work ethic is waning. Colleges leave students unprepared.
Opinion
No wonder work ethic is waning. Colleges leave students unprepared.
Want a ‘lazy girl job’? Think again.
Opinion
Want a ‘lazy girl job’? Think again.
My company introduced a four-day workweek. Guess what happened?
Opinion
My company introduced a four-day workweek. Guess what happened?
Scaling back remote work at federal agencies is a long overdue step
Opinion
Scaling back remote work at federal agencies is a long overdue step
Companies hate remote work — till it’s time to fire you
Opinion
Companies hate remote work — till it’s time to fire you
U.S. cities are failing to address the remote-work revolution
Opinion
U.S. cities are failing to address the remote-work revolution
Where are the workers, really?
Opinion
Where are the workers, really?
D.C.’s downtown is comatose. Here’s how to revive it.
Opinion
D.C.’s downtown is comatose. Here’s how to revive it.
What readers told us about how the pandemic changed their work lives
Opinion
What readers told us about how the pandemic changed their work lives
It’s no secret why workers are less productive
Opinion
It’s no secret why workers are less productive
Care work is in crisis. That’s a disaster for the rest of the economy.
Opinion
Care work is in crisis. That’s a disaster for the rest of the economy.

The reductive analysis of working-class voters abandoning Democrats is particularly maddening because it misses what’s actually happening to them, which is a crisis much bigger than the temporary fortunes of a political party. This is less a Democratic problem than an American problem — but Democrats have a fresh chance to try to fix it.

For nearly a half century, and particularly over the past two decades, corporate America has plunged workers ever deeper into job and income insecurity. Employers, benefiting from weakened labor laws and lax enforcement of those that remain on the books, have been forcing workers into erratic schedules, hiring them as contractors or temporary or gig workers and stealing their wages. It’s no coincidence that all this happened while labor union membership, which peaked at one-third of the workforce, shriveled to the current 10 percent.

With the decline of unions and collective bargaining, pay has stagnated and pensions have disappeared. Wealth inequality has soared, earnings have become less dependable, and most workers report that they feel stressed, unappreciated, disconnected and distrustful of their employers. They are surveilled on the job, sanctioned for expressing themselves and subjected to dehumanizing workplaces. “Here most of us are, toiling under the authority of communist dictators, and we do not see the reality for what it is,” writes University of Michigan philosophy professor Elizabeth Anderson. The financial collapse of 2008 and the coronavirus pandemic only deepened the insecurity and misery.

Voting patterns, not just this year’s but this century’s, reflect the discontent and instability. In nine of the last 10 federal elections, one party or the other has lost control of the White House, Senate or House. Voters, desperate for a fundamental change, punish the incumbent party and then, inevitably finding no relief, punish the other party two years later. Politics has become a depressing game of ping-pong, with no enduring wins.

“We’ve never had a period since at least the late 19th century where there have been so many knife’s edge elections,” Podhorzer tells me. “So, coming out of every election, Democrats assume all we need is fine tuning, because we barely lost. We have to get past thinking we’re going to message our way out of this moment. It’s so much bigger than that. And it ignores the fact that, for all of the 21st century, we’ve been seeing that voters just want a different system, a more profound change.”

Even some on the right have begun to argue for a revival of labor unions and New-Deal-style government intervention to undo the damage of the past half-century of neoliberalism, the era of the unfettered free-market that began with President Ronald Reagan. The conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari argued in his 2023 book, “Tyranny Inc.,” that the current “domination of working and middle-class people by the owners of capital, the asset-less by the asset-rich,” has “drained the vigor and substance out of democracy, facilitated massive upward transfers of wealth, and left ordinary people feeling isolated and powerless.”

In the short term, Democrats could change nothing and they’d still probably do well by default in the 2026 midterms as disenchanted voters once again punish the incumbent party. President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a popular mandate: The latest figures show he got below 50 percent of the popular vote, Harris lost by about 1.6 percentage points and Democrats may have actually gained a seat or two in the House. And he’s already overreaching with outlandish nominations and announced plans to start a trade war with Canada, Mexico and China.

But in the long term, doing nothing would be a huge mistake — for the party and, more importantly, for the country. We are, in some ways, back to the extreme income inequality and unchecked corporate power over workers that gave rise to the modern labor movement in the 1930s and the New Deal’s government-regulated capitalism, which led America to three decades of broadly shared economic prosperity after World War II. What’s needed to relieve workers’ pain this time is no less ambitious.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Wagner Unemployment Bill at the White House in Washington on June 6, 1933. (AP)

Ahmari called for government to encourage “a labor market in which most sectors are unionized, while workers in those few industries that resist unionization enjoy higher minimum wages.” And this conservative thinker waxed nostalgic for the New Dealers: “Those leaders left behind a political map for building a better economy and a more authentically free society. They guided us, above all, to workers’ countervailing power: the indispensable lever for improving the lot of the asset-less and for stabilizing economies otherwise prone to turbulence and speculative chaos. The supreme challenge today is to forge a similar left-right consensus.”

Of course, that won’t be happening anytime soon. Trump channels populist anger, but he directs it at migrants and foreigners instead of corporations. The billionaire president-elect has chosen a billionaire commerce secretary, a billionaire interior secretary and a billionaire education secretary and has tapped the world’s wealthiest man to run his government-efficiency task force. This oligarchy is planning to impose more of the same policies that caused workers’ problems in the first place: extending tax breaks for the rich and further rolling back business regulation, employment law and union rights.

As Bernie Sanders can attest, Democrats, too, have long resisted a return to their populist roots, going back to when President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and his Democratic Leadership Council recruited corporate donors to fund the party. But this moment could be different. Gallup’s latest polling shows that approval of labor unions is at 70 percent, up from 48 percent 15 years ago, after the financial crash. Sixty-one percent say unions mostly help the economy, up from 39 percent in 2009. The favorable impression of unions has grown at the same time Americans’ confidence in most other institutions — business, church, the media, the presidency, Congress — has been going the other way.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) issued a memo last week with polling from his home state showing that 82 percent of people — including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents — agree that one of the biggest problems facing the country is that corporations and economic elites hold too much power and government is doing too little about it. “Democrats have the opportunity to call Republicans on their bluff and prove to the American people that we are the ones on the side of the workers,” he wrote. “But that’s only possible if we have the courage to pick fights with powerful corporations and billionaires and fight against the status quo.”

That is a gigantic “if.”

The consumer advocate Ralph Nader, through his third-party presidential campaigns and his hectoring, has tried for years to push the Democrats toward a $15 minimum wage, a return to the progressive tax system of the 1960s, a revival of private pensions and the National Labor Relations Board, a hike in Social Security benefits paid for by higher payroll taxes on the wealthy, and much more. But at this point, he tells me, he has no optimism that the party can change itself: “They’ve drained it out of me.”

I understand the cynicism. For ages, Democratic leaders have tried to have it both ways, calling for marginal improvements to the tax code but shying away from anything that might repel the corporate interests that are also in their coalition. But, at some point, the worsening suffering of tens of millions of workers must convince them to take the risk.

And — who knows? — maybe if Democrats take that risk it will free them, and all of us, from the dreary cycle of the past two decades in which frustrated voters turn from one party to the other and then back again, never finding the change they are seeking. And then, for the first time in decades, maybe working people will again vote reliably Democratic, because Democrats will have restored their working-class identity.

Or maybe such an effort will fail. But isn’t it better to do the right thing for the country regardless of what it does to the party?

 

[Bullneck 19315]

[956 Worldwide 34907]

I think that Democrats might start asking whether “fuck America and Thanksgiving” is ever going to beat stupid ultranationalism in a national election. I’d propose that leadership needs to make it known that shit like this gets you on the House Administration committee for life.

[StassneyHorn 6692]

On 11/16/2024 at 3:38 PM, CooterBrown said:

Here's my contribution to the platform.

For every US citizen at birth, the government invests $10,000 in a Total US Market Index fund for them in a Roth IRA that does not vest until age 65.  There is no access to the account for loans or early withdrawals.  If you die before 65, it goes back in the pot. There are no beneficiaries for this fund.  This will help offset the costs for those who can't enter the work force due to disabilities.  At 7% annual growth, it would be $812,000 at age 65.  With 3.5M births per year, it would cost $35B annually.  The investment amount is adjusted annually for inflation. However, this is not a gift, it is the government fronting each individual $10,000 at birth.  When an individual starts working, the first $10,000 they pay into social security pays back the fronted money before they start accruing social security contributions so the program mostly pays for itself.  It does not replace social security.

 

 

  

Cory Booker has proposed baby-bonds in the US as a way to address wealth gap racial disparity. I believe the UK had Child trusts for a bit, now they’re put in Junior ISA accounts with requirements to invest in UK companies. Absolutely a great way to address retirement issues if an individual can wait and wants to use it for that, but after 18 years it would be an incredible way to lift someone out of poverty.

Fun topic to look at. I think making it available after 18 years old, would do more good than waiting until 65. The 18 year old receiving it at that time would a face to face introduction to how compound interest works and would hopefully be more likely to start their own 10k investment decision in the market at that time.

[Bozo_Casanova 26669]

Platforms don’t matter. JFC.

[ChiTownDoc 21216]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think that Democrats might start asking whether “fuck America and Thanksgiving” is ever going to beat stupid ultranationalism in a national election. I’d propose that leadership needs to make it known that shit like this gets you on the House Administration committee for life.

Yes, you just got beaten to a pulp on these type of takes vs ultra nationalism, as you properly put it, but apparently no lessons were learned.  I have very little hope for the Dems.  We always knew they were bad at 'playing politics' but the stakes were never this high - at least not in our lifetimes.  And now it's not 'playing'.  You don't play boxing, as they say...

[berlinerbaer 678]

Ben Wikler announced his candidacy for DNC chair today, and he is really impressive. He's led the Wisconsin Democrats since 2019 and helped bring the party back from the brink in that state. Most notably, WI Democrats flipped the state supreme court and unfucked the GOP gerrymander that was in place. Yes, Trump just won there but WI was the bluest of the 7 swing states, Tammy Baldwin won reelection, and the GOP supermajority in the state leg just got broken. 

He also knows media., working as a producer for Move On, Al Franken's gig, and a writer for The Onion. Yes, The Onion.

Jamie Harrison's only claim to fame was raising a boatload of cash to ultimately lose to Lady G by 10 points.

Ken Martin, who has led the Minnesota party, is also a strong candidate. 

[LCHorn 2639]

4 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

He also knows media., working as a producer for Move On, Al Franken's gig, and a writer for The Onion. Yes, The Onion.

How he built back the Democratic Party in Wisconsin is important, too.  Yes, the Wisconsin state party wanted to win elections, but Wikler sold the stake holders on building up the county and local parties first.  It’s playing the long game in a way I’ve wished donors for the Texas Dems would insist upon.  

Edited 38 minutes ago by LCHorn