326
Democratic strategist calls for ‘new generation of leaders’ as party plots response to Trump’s victory
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
326 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19275 readers
2876 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Vote for who? The democrats were unelectable this election and will remain unelectable until they ditch their corporate status quo nonsense. This isn't to say Trump is a better option, but the GOP and DNC were never competing on the same level and thinking they are will only lead to more Trump or Trump wannabes because no matter how much you (or anyone else) tell people to vote people won't vote for the current DNC.
The answer is that you vote in the primaries to shift the party left as far as you can, and then you vote in the general for whatever version of that party you end up with that time around. You don't sit on your ass in the expectation that they will come to you; you make them come to you.
The primary that the DNC messes with to get the candidate they want every time? Or the one they skip or cancel when it doesn't suit them? Not saying people shouldn't vote in primaries, but the DNC is way beyond being fixed by actions like this.
The person you are responding to loves this and is gloating.
Primaries. Plural. As in there are a whole bunch of them. Not just the one for president.
You don't start at the top. You get your candidates in from the bottom up, and then you go for the top jobs.
Look, you only have two options here; fix the party you have, or come up with a realistic plan for building a new one that can somehow be electorally viable. So unless you really think you can offer a clear and actionable path to the latter, you're stuck with the former.
3.) Pass electoral reform at the state level so people can be free to vote outside the two party system and still have their vote counted against Republicans.
Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe in freedom?
I mean I'm not American so I can't do much except watch and yap on the internet, but I do think making a new party and starting local is a lot more viable than changing the DNC. At least that way the fossils at the top won't be fighting you at every turn.
The DNC plays favorites with those too so...
The US' two party system is a result of our first-past-the-post voting system. We need to change the system first or else all leftist third parties will act as spoilers for the Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
The two-party system guarantees a party duopoly, but it doesn't say anything about which parties become part of that duopoly so it's possible to depose one of the two big parties in a certain election like what Bernie did in Vermont. Now at least for a while you'll end up splitting the vote, but you'll need to accept that much if you want to get anything done because the DNC will absolutely not, never pass election reform or shift left.
Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans have been entrenched for decades. The first-post-the-post system played out long before we were even alive.
Bernie is not deposing the Democratic party, but co-opting it. He caucuses with the Democratic Party. We need to fully co-opt the Democratic party which is what Bernie tried to do in 2016 and 2020. This is what Trump has done to the Republican Party with the MAGA movement.
Until we change the system, third parties will always split the vote. It's a mathematical certainty.
There are numerous examples of rank choice voting being implemented in America in blue states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States
The Democrats have been incrementally shifting left since Clinton. Biden was our most progressive president since at least Carter by virtue of being the least conservative. Democrat Supreme Court justice nominations and appointments led to gay marriage being legalized.
If people on the left vote for Democrats, the Democrats will shift left. If people on the left spend their time denying themselves their most useful strategy to gain political power during elections, voting for Democrats, then the Democrats will shift right. edit: typo
Doesn't mean it can't change now. No, lemme rephrase that: It has to change or y'all are absolutely fucked.
Bernie is independent. He's not a democratic, yet he's winning elections in Vermont without "splitting the vote". That's what I meant by having deposed them.
For local office, and only two states doing it for state office. This doesn't mean much for federal office, which is where you will see resistance from the DNC.
Yeah, and they decided that was too much snd tried to go back to the right while thinking they'll still get progressive votes, when progressives by your claim were supposed to have leverage. Biden also led the US's support for Israel's genocide, again when progressives were supposed to have "leverage". They're shifting left one step and back three, as seen by Harris's support for that idiotic border wall and democrats coopting Republican immigration policies.
The way we do that is by voting for Democrats and telling other people to vote for Democrats.
Exactly. He is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He hasn't deposed the Democrats, they are still here, in fact Bernie works with them. The goal is not to get rid of the Democratic Party, but to control it.
My point is that the claim that
is demonstrably false. Democrats have passed election reform which means they can pass it again at the federal level. Things that gets done at the federal level can find their root at the state level, such as gay marriage.
Because people didn't vote for them.
I do not claim anyone has leverage over political parties via voting. There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum. People who vote have power. People who do vote have given up their power.
Biden was following 70 years of US policy. To be clear, Biden is complicit in Israel's genocide of Palestinians. But the idea that a US President would drop a long standing ally is not a serious one. Especially when taking into account that the ally is Israel and Biden is a life long zionist. Biden was undermining negotiations with Israel during the Obama administration.
Biden is not representative of non-zionist Democrats. Unfortunately thanks to the useless strategy of non-voting we are going to see a lot more zionists in power in Congress for at least the next two to years. This will have devastating consequences for Palestine and the Middle East in general.
Also again, there is no leverage. Only political power. There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum. Without something to pivot on there is no leverage. There is no reason why non-voters or third party voters would compulse any mainstream political party to do anything when there are voters that can be targeted.
The Democrats take one step forward to the left, while the Republicans take three steps back to the right. The Democrats refusal to embrace any populist narrative or any narrative at all means they can never shape the discourse. All they can do is try to comprise on the issues laid out by the Republican's narrative. The Democrats need to be co-opted by a socialist and progressive movement and then be given a populist narrative to win votes.
Jessica Cisneros says hello.
Democrats of course because they are the furthest left, by virtue of being the least conservative, viable party we have. They are the only political tool available because of our first-past-the-post system.
Democrats cannot be leveraged by not voting for them. They have to be pushed to the left by voting for them. If they see there is a large block of socialist and progressive voters in the electorate they will move to capture these voters.
Until leftists learn to see their vote as a routine utility based decision they will not have any political power. To not vote is to give up power. Getting better candidates comes from grassroots movements between elections.
If we don't want to live under fascist rule then as long as we still have elections we need to vote for the Democrats. We need to tell people to vote for the Democrats and explain why. If anyone has the energy to argue on the internet then they can argue for the most useful approach we have.
No one thinks the Democrats are a great political party. But voting is the means of liberating ourselves from Republican rule in a two-party system. If people won't vote for Democrats then they will be ruled by fascists.
People will vote in their own self-interest. The amount of energy that goes into trying to make the most useful things people could do during elections, vote for Democrats, seem useless is of course to the benefit of the owner class and Republicans.
Counterpoint: Progressives (and many other groups) voted for Biden in large numbers for the DNC, and what came out of that was the 2024 shitshow and a lame duck president. The DNC thinks, only partially correctly, that as long as progressives don't have a viable third party they'll be forced to vote blue like it or not and that as a result the party can shift right as much as it wants. You say that voting for them gives you leverage, but what good is leverage that you can't use?
Fewer numbers than in 2020. Biden got 81,283,361 votes in 2020. Kamala only got 75,000,783 votes in 2024.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/president-results
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-results
The Democrats look at who votes. Democrats don't think about leftists, because as far as Democrats are concerned people who don't vote don't exist. The Democrats want political power and they are willing to chase voters, not non-voters, to get it.
They don't just think they can shift right, they think they have to shift right in order to win. If leftists can't be asked to vote for Republicans or Democrats then the Democrats thinks they are a lost cause.
It is not about leverage. It's about power. Voting gives people power not leverage. If a group votes for a political party then that political party caters to that group. If a group doesn't vote then political parties chase other groups that do vote. Grassroots movements can get better candidates between elections.
This whole idea of leverage has been demonstrated to be false in this election. There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum. Democrats should be clambering to get leftist votes right now according to the hypothesis of leverage, but the evidence shows the opposite, the Democrats are frantically looking for moderate and conservative votes.
Political parties have to be shoved in the desired direction. The way to shove political parties during elections is by voting for them.
No you don't get me. The party platform shifted to the right in 2024 despite getting progressive votes in 2020. By your hypothesis this shouldn't have happened. Progressives voted for the DNC in 2020 and yet were abandoned by them in 2024.
That aside your assumptions here are game theoretically false. You cannot get someone to act in your best interest if you promise to support them no matter what they do. It simply doesn't make sense, as we have seen from how the DNC treated progressives this election.The DNC doesn't follow leftist (or really working class) votes because they're behold to their corporate donors (and because they're led by fossils who should've retired or died decades ago), not because it's successful electoral strategy.
This ignores the incremental shift to the left by Biden after the 2020 election which supports my arguments and refutes your argument.
The Democrats won in 2020 when more people voted for them and shifted left.
The Democrats lost in 2024 when fewer people voted for them and shifted right.
The 2024 election is the evidence that refutes your argument's position. People didn't vote for Democrats and the Democrats are now looking for moderate and conservatives who voted. It was the people on the left claiming they wouldn't vote so it's reasonable that leftists are making up part of the difference in the popular vote count.
People always act in their self-interest. The goal is to get people to understand that voting for the viable mainstream political party that is the furthest to the left is the most useful strategy to forward their self interest.
The evidence from this election in fact demonstrates my argument to be correct. My argument is that if progressives don't vote they won't be catered to by Democrats. Progressives didn't vote and now they aren't being catered to by Democrats.
While both parities are beholden to the owner class, the corporate donors can only provide money to seek out votes. Democrats still need a voting base to cater to. The votes are still the essential resource to win elections as that is what is counted in an election. We still need to co-opt the Democrats to get a socialist and progressive agenda to get rid of the owner class.
The DNC doesn't seek out leftists because leftists don't vote. The DNC seeks out people who vote.