Democratic Party - Clueless & Feckless - is the D party done?

[MrSquished]

Seriously done with dems.. might as well be indy at this point.

Nancy is just posturing for the billionaire/ corporate donations that would stop if AOC was the leader.

I like a lot of Dem Politicians, and policies, and AOC did get a bunch of votes. It's the entrenched older leadership that needs to go, and their entire communications department.

 

[manly]

Question: Now that you know that Kamala loses, if you could, would you rewind time and cancel the Kamala campaign and let Biden have a shot at it?

All signs are that Biden would have gotten trounced.* If so, Dems probably lose another Senate seat or two, and a few more House seats.

That may not sound like much but it could've been even worse than it already is. Right now the House margin is so close that the GQP probably can't govern, if recent history is any guide.

Not that anyone cares, but that would have also downgraded Biden's legacy from "above average" to average-ish.

* Let's be real, he'd lost the donors, the party elders, and most of the electorate. So his only plus side vs Harris is that he's an old white man. Harris lost the Rust Belt trio by a little bit; in mid July Biden was losing all three by a LOT.

 

[KMFJD]

good old genocide joe

 

[fskimospy]

good old genocide joe

View attachment 113957

Have to say it’s been darkly funny for those morons in Michigan only belatedly realizing that Trump is in fact much worse for Palestine than Biden or Harris.

 

[brycejones]

View attachment 113957

So the “open border” and non enforcement of immigration law claims from the GOP were just complete horseshit?

 

[ivwshane]

So the “open border” and non enforcement of immigration law claims from the GOP were just complete horseshit?

Yeah but a better candidate would have overcome all that propaganda/eye roll

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah but a better candidate would have overcome all that propaganda/eye roll

Imagine thinking the actual candidates don't matter in a political contest.

That is MAGA level dumb. I mean there is no nice way to put it since it has been explained already. Holy shit. You literally understand absolutely nothing about politics. This is coming from a lot of the Biden stans as well. Just nuts.

 

[Indus]

So the “open border” and non enforcement of immigration law claims from the GOP were just complete horseshit?

Power of twitter and its bots.

Until the left create it's own echo chamber.. this will keep happening.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Power of twitter and its bots.

Until the left create it's own echo chamber.. this will keep happening.

Agreed with the power of Twitter bots. I was downvoted elsewhere (not here at ATPN) for saying the sale of Twitter to Musk should not go through because of the social harm it would cause. Yes a $44B payout to shareholders is great ROI, but they are not the only stakeholders in the sale and/or continued existence of Twitter. There is no CFR that says a CEO must maximize shareholder value only and above all else.

Now, if the purchase had fallen through, would that have changed anything? Hard to say for sure. But i doubt Twitter would be nearly as bad as it is now.

Also, I'm not sure you could make an equivalent left-wing echo chamber, because you'd need left wing places that flat out like and for them to be somewhat mainstream for the left wing. There are super far left websites but they are nowhere near the median, while Fox is very much the median of the right and in the business of lying outright.

 

[ondma]

Imagine thinking the actual candidates don't matter in a political contest.

That is MAGA level dumb. I mean there is no nice way to put it since it has been explained already. Holy shit. You literally understand absolutely nothing about politics. This is coming from a lot of the Biden stans as well. Just nuts.

Or imagine policies dont matter, or failure to execute them effectively. Obviously, there is a lot of "all or nothing" thinking going on in this thread. Of course both the candidate and the policies matter. (and BTW, I never said the candidate didn't matter. You seem to love to put words into peoples mouths) You have to have policies that effectively appeal to voters, not have a lot of policies that offend them, and then execute those policies effectively. You also have to have a candidate that appeals to the voters, and can refute the MAGA disinformation.

Basically, it was a perfect storm of s..t for the Dems in 2024: inflation in the aftermath of covid, international unrest in GAZA and Ukraine, immigration and backlash against DEI/gender politics. A more effective candidate might have refuted these concerns more effectively, and certainly would have been less directly tied to the perceived failures of Biden, but there were still serious issues facing the Dems.

 

[MrSquished]

Or imagine policies dont matter, or failure to execute them effectively. Obviously, there is a lot of "all or nothing" thinking going on in this thread. Of course both the candidate and the policies matter. (and BTW, I never said the candidate didn't matter. You seem to love to put words into peoples mouths) You have to have policies that effectively appeal to voters, not have a lot of policies that offend them, and then execute those policies effectively. You also have to have a candidate that appeals to the voters, and can refute the MAGA disinformation.

Basically, it was a perfect storm of s..t for the Dems in 2024: inflation in the aftermath of covid, international unrest in GAZA and Ukraine, immigration and backlash against DEI/gender politics. A more effective candidate might have refuted these concerns more effectively, and certainly would have been less directly tied to the perceived failures of Biden, but there were still serious issues facing the Dems.

You do realize you're responding to a quote of mine which wasn't even directed at you? Which directly implied a different candidate wouldn't have mattered?

And your entire response is also a bunch of nonsense to things I never said. I never said there weren't serious issues going on that Democrats had to overcome. Try to figure out who's responding to whom and who said what.

 

[ondma]

You do realize you're responding to a quote of mine which wasn't even directed at you? Which directly implied a different candidate wouldn't have mattered?

And your entire response is also a bunch of nonsense to things I never said. I never said there weren't serious issues going on that Democrats had to overcome. Try to figure out who's responding to whom and who said what.

I was responding to post 373.

 

[MrSquished]

I was responding to post 373.

Gotcha, you quoted a different one.

But your post totally implied the same thing, it was all the other factors and the candidate didn't matter, which is the point I've been making, without discounting all the other factors, so it was directed at my argument.

Let's face it, a different candidate could have won, this was no blowout at all, which includes all the realities about a right wing mediasphere to inflation and everything in between. Biden fucked us from potentially finding that candidate, and that's just a simple fact.

 

[dlerious]

Interesting take

 

[nickqt]

Interesting take

I think civic disengagement is a side effect of
1. Massive liberal policy success from 1933-1980.
2. The average American's lack of historical perspective due to social studies instead of actual history being taught in primary schools.
3. Social media spheres of influence funneling people into convenient and "safe spaces" to agree with each other (this includes conservative shitholes like Twitter).

1. The creation of the US middle class and desegregation stems from liberal policies of FDR and following liberal politicians (Ike and even Nixon to some extent). This success has led to people losing the desire for civic engagement as things seemed to be on autopilot in terms of making society better and more fair for most people.

2. Actual history is not taught before college. Instead, it's social studies...little units about short era of history that are heavy on names and dates, and is not what history actually is: connecting time periods and movements from the past to the present. If you don't understand that the US middle class only existed because of big gub'mint, then you're more likely to agree with rich fucks that big gub'mint is bad...because you don't even know how bad things were the last time rich fucks owned and operated the entire government for themselves.

3. No one is stopping anyone else from going to an in-person membership group and debating people who you disagree with. That said, that sounds fucking exhausting, and because things have seemed like they were on autopilot for the first half of my lifetime, let's just let auto-pilot take care of it. Social media engagement is just that. Unless it's used to create physical, meatspace groups, it's just an echo chamber. Yes, that definitely includes Twitter.

So, now would be a good time for people to engage with politics instead of hitting a donate button and voting once every 12-48 months. And meeting in meatspace is probably the best way to start ground-up organizations that will reach the 36% of people who don't participate in elections.

So, who is going to create the group? The Democratic Party? That's not their job, they run campaigns.

So, who is to fault for civic disengagement? Good people who do nothing...but vote and hit the donate button.

 

[MrSquished]

The Democratic party needs to shape the fuck up really fast. They let Biden's seniority allow him to steamroll a primary when it was obvious it was a mistake - both from his aging and from the fact his own party's base didn't want him to run again by huge margins, and his overall numbers sucked. And they pull shit like this shutting out a young and engaging, smart, eloquent, and media savvy AOC from a key position in order to install this fucking muppet. Fuck the Dem establishment and fuck the neoliberals encouraging us to move more right which includes dumbfuck moves like this shit show. Not only does this guy look like he could be the third muppet in the balcony, that they other two make fun of all the time, but more importantly, he sounds like it. D party is heading towards being a joke land.

 

[Indus]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1874291240411468080

Maybe the Dems should have just let Trump be Trump instead of trying to throw a billion dollars down the drain.

 

[gothuevos]

Or maybe it was inflation, immigration, international unrest and reaction against overemphasis on identity politics/gender issues. Nah, that couldnt be it.

I'm sure Gavin Newsom will drive these points home in 2028.

 

[gothuevos]

The Democratic party needs to shape the fuck up really fast. They let Biden's seniority allow him to steamroll a primary when it was obvious it was a mistake - both from his aging and from the fact his own party's base didn't want him to run again by huge margins, and his overall numbers sucked. And they pull shit like this shutting out a young and engaging, smart, eloquent, and media savvy AOC from a key position in order to install this fucking muppet. Fuck the Dem establishment and fuck the neoliberals encouraging us to move more right which includes dumbfuck moves like this shit show. Not only does this guy look like he could be the third muppet in the balcony, that they other two make fun of all the time, but more importantly, he sounds like it. D party is heading towards being a joke land.


View attachment 114064

"I don't really care. Do you?"

Put a fork in 'em, they're done.

 

[hal2kilo]

"I don't really care. Do you?"

Put a fork in 'em, they're done.

What a Fn defeatist.

 

[MrSquished]

"I don't really care. Do you?"

Put a fork in 'em, they're done.

I say the things I say to fight for change, not to give up. The Dem party has to pass the torch and evolve faster. We don't need nonstop defeatism like you though.

 

[ondma]

Gotcha, you quoted a different one.

But your post totally implied the same thing, it was all the other factors and the candidate didn't matter, which is the point I've been making, without discounting all the other factors, so it was directed at my argument.

Let's face it, a different candidate could have won, this was no blowout at all, which includes all the realities about a right wing mediasphere to inflation and everything in between. Biden fucked us from potentially finding that candidate, and that's just a simple fact.

So Trump beat Hillary as well. Do you think she was a bad candidate??
I just dont like to see the loss blamed on one person. That can lead to complacency, and the idea that all it takes is a better candidate. It is sort of like the quarterback getting blamed for losing the Superbowl (yes this election was the political equivalent of the SB, and the Dems lost it badly) when the whole team played badly.

 

[MrSquished]

So Trump beat Hillary as well. Do you think she was a bad candidate??
I just dont like to see the loss blamed on one person. That can lead to complacency, and the idea that all it takes is a better candidate. It is sort of like the quarterback getting blamed for losing the Superbowl (yes this election was the political equivalent of the SB, and the Dems lost it badly) when the whole team played badly.

No Hillary was not a great candidate because the Republicans had been working on tearing her down for years and it was unfair but that was baggage.

You're making up things that I'm not arguing about. Somehow in your mind because I say the candidate matters and we were fucked out of a chance to select the candidate in the proper way, I don't think there were any other variables in the election. I mean I've spoken at length about the right-wing media sphere and the propaganda and how the Democrats are on an unfair playing field with the media, and how it's so much easier to appeal to hate versus rational thinking. And on and on.

Stop making things up I'm not saying.

But the candidate absolutely matters quite a bit. It's an important part of the equation just like all the other things. And I'm arguing against people who are denying that completely.

 

[ondma]

No Hillary was not a great candidate because the Republicans had been working on tearing her down for years and it was unfair but that was baggage.

You're making up things that I'm not arguing about. Somehow in your mind because I say the candidate matters and we were fucked out of a chance to select the candidate in the proper way, I don't think there were any other variables in the election. I mean I've spoken at length about the right-wing media sphere and the propaganda and how the Democrats are on an unfair playing field with the media, and how it's so much easier to appeal to hate versus rational thinking. And on and on.

Stop making things up I'm not saying.

But the candidate absolutely matters quite a bit. It's an important part of the equation just like all the other things. And I'm arguing against people who are denying that completely.

Personally, I thought Hillary was the most qualified candidate in any election in recent history. (Actually much more qualified than Obama, but lacking his charisma). And again, I specifically said both the candidate and the platform matter. I think our main difference is that we disagree on how the Dem platform should evolve. You feel strongly that they need to double down on more liberal policies, while I just a strongly feel that they need to move toward the center to win back at least some of the middle class working voters and the rural vote. A little patriotism wouldn't hurt either, along the lines of "we may have things that need to be corrected, but we are still a great country" instead of dwelling on every injustice, real or perceived. .

Edit: and do you think the Reps will not come up the the same sort of damaging information/disinformation against any candidate the Dems will put up?

 

[manly]

Personally, I thought Hillary was the most qualified candidate in any election in recent history. (Actually much more qualified than Obama, but lacking his charisma). And again, I specifically said both the candidate and the platform matter. I think our main difference is that we disagree on how the Dem platform should evolve. You feel strongly that they need to double down on more liberal policies, while I just a strongly feel that they need to move toward the center to win back at least some of the middle class working voters and the rural vote. A little patriotism wouldn't hurt either, along the lines of "we may have things that need to be corrected, but we are still a great country" instead of dwelling on every injustice, real or perceived. .

Being qualified and being an attractive, strong candidate are two different things. DJT proves that (at least for GQP voters) the qualifications don't matter that much.

By and large, Americans liked neither Hillary or Kamala Harris. Clinton led wire to wire and arguably should have won the general; she ran a bad campaign. IMHO Harris ran a somewhat good whirlwind campaign, but lost by a small but clear margin. She never had a chance, for a variety of different reasons that begin with racism and misogyny.