It won't happen. Every election in the last 25 years, including midterms, where the democrats tried to play to "moderate republicans", they got wiped out.

Her fascist border plan, embrace of genocide, and her running mate Liz Cheney were all great in their opinion? Wow. I need to talk to some Dems sometime.

She didn’t get elected because America is racist AND sexist.

This talking point is just so Democrats have an excuse to keep AOC out of the 2028 race in favor of some centrist turd barge.

The blue bubble is as heard to burst as the red bubble. My mom lives on msnbc. There is not a moment that its not on just like my dad lives on fox. They are completely in their own different worlds made of fiction. Dad thought there was no way Trump could loose to Biden just as my mom thought there was no way Hillary/Harris could loose to Trump. Both had no moment of realisation, no moment of reflection just disbelief that they live in a bubble. Its always someone else's fault. Dad blamed the Democrats and mom blames the left.

To me it's obvious that Chomsky was right about manufacturing consent.

And thinking like this is why the democrats are going to continue to lose, and minorities and women will continue to get fucked for it.

Democrats, it’s the economy, stupid.

Harris has a lot of flaws, but America is absolutely racist and sexist, and Trump couldn't have won otherwise. .

Your family is correct. America is racist and sexist. Asl yourself, after that debate and the several Trump fumbles on the campaign trail. Would you vote for him or Harris? Regardless if you thought she was perfect or not.

If you voted for Trump, you obviously didnt care about policy when every indication points to his being objectively worse. And I’m ready to argue that all day.

Disagreeing with something doesnt make it disinformation. What were the big lies being spread about Kamala that affected the voter base? I'm not on social media, the only thing I watched was the live interview she did on fox, and she was rude and deceptive. Is an uncut interview disinformation?

The Democrats message was literally "The Cheney's like us!" and "ithe economy is fine, the GDP has never been higher!" while everyone's lives are objectivly worse than they were 2 years ago. What messge do you think people wanted to here?

CITATION NEEDED

America is a democracy, is it not? In a democracy the voters decide who leads them. There's nobody to "overrule" them. If you want to lead them you have to convince them to vote for you, you can't declare them "wrong" and take power anyway.

Don’t worry though, we won’t have to worry about voters soon, right?

Are you saying that'd be a good thing? That seems to be what you're suggesting, but this also seems to be sarcasm.

Do you think the voters should be overruled when they vote Republican but not when they vote Democrat?

Voters have agency. Let's tell them how they will be voting and do nothing to appeal to them.

If they were too insignificant to listen to, they are too insignificant to blame. Your party lost because your party is shit on purpose.

I voted for Harris and of course Trump is worse, so spare me the only talking point any of you have.

Votes can't be wrong by definition, they are opinions. But if you accepted that you would have to get off your pedestal wouldnt you, and thats no fun. Go ahead and puff up your chest and brag about how obviously stupid so many people are.

Don’t deny voters their agency by saying they can’t make wrong choices. They can and did.

Don’t deny Dem leaders their agency by saying they can’t make wrong choices. They can and did.

Both things are true.

That's fine, I wasn't saying the second thing was false. I wasn't saying anything about the second thing at all.

The Democrats don't get to choose what electorate they're trying to convince. They must convince the American electorate. You can say whatever you want about the electorate but that doesn't change the Democrats' one job.

Wouldn't surprise me either. Just understand that my point wasn't that we should go back to the regressive social ideas of that era, but more so that we should return to supporting/expanding the welfare state at the expense of reducing the wealth of billionaires.

The fact that you so proudly claimed to not want to read yet decided to respond anyway makes you pretty out of touch. That last bit is just icing on the cake since they never claimed that.

You’re certainly out of touch if you won’t even read the explanation as to why you lost.

But I expect little else from the Khive.

k then I'm not ready any of yours past "Im not reading all that". Or any of your other comments either.

RCV was on like 5 ballots last election and failed in each one. The VOTERS didn’t want it.

If the electorate doesn’t know a party’s platform, that’s the party’s problem. It’s literally their job to scream it from the rooftops.

And all I saw was democrats, like motherfucking Henry Cuellar, throwing the LGBTQ under the bus. Especially trans people.

not in focus (such as screaming incoherently about trans people)

why is "trans people" always the example the centrists bring up, like its some sort of totem. Trans peoples rights are not exactly on very many peoples top 10 list of concerns, and I doubt many people could even name the rights trans people are fighting for and dems are supposedly helping with. Trans people are 1% of the population. If thats all we have for a convincing argument we're doing politics wrong.

I learned that Joe should have dropped out earlier and allowed proper primaries. You will miss "genocide joe" ;)

And I await the apologists to come out and tell me how he had to do it this way, they only had a super majority for a few weeks. Sure if the republicans have the slimmest majority they rewrite the tax codes and give away trillions to the wealthiest, and if they are in the minority they still somehow get their policies passed. But when democrats have power, well you see, government takes time. They can’t possibly just have the bill ready and call for a vote, you see, that’s just not how it works.

Every single time!

I still find it frustrating to hear this line every single time. Like somehow every single member of congress during that time was hyper focused on the ACA bill, couldn't have pushed for their own legislation to be pushed forward.

I've had plenty of wake up calls, and every time I do, someone calls me weird for the dog whistles becoming fog horns.

And I await the apologists to come out and tell me how he had to do it this way, they only had a super majority for a few weeks.

They will all be miraculously absent when Republicans change the senate rules to get rid of the filibuster.

I honestly wonder if at this point, candidates would be better off pursuing progressive legislation by running a Republicans.

Ideological purity doesn't matter worth a shit to Republicans. See Republican voters loving the ACA while hating Obamacare. The party that is supposedly pro free market now openly endorses tariffs and regulation on business to advance a host of culture war bugbears. Republicans are not libertarians; the base especially isn't ideologically opposed to government programs.

I could see a progressive running for the Republican nomination, a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt. And since the Republicans have become the party of the working class, while Democrats are the party of lawyers and big business, the attack lines write themselves. "Democrats are in bed with the insurance industry!" "Democrats want to pick your pocket instead of giving you healthcare!" "Democrats can't pass a health plan without lining the pockets of their donors!"

The Republican party has proven itself to be much more susceptible to disruption from outside charismatic figures. The Republican base has far more control over the Republican party than the Democratic base does of the Democratic party. In 2016, the establishment Republicans tried to shoot Trump down, but their base overpowered them, and Trump took over the party. Bernie tried the same thing in 2016 and 2020, but the DNC was far more powerful and able to resist this outside takeover.

I really think that now may be the time for a return of progressive Republicans in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt. Promise to fix healthcare and break up big businesses left and right. Throw a bone to the right by promising to exclude illegal immigrants from the healthcare law (which they would never be eligible for anyway.) Hell, you could even write it so it didn't exclude coverage for abortion and trans healthcare. If someone points that out, just lie and say that your plan does include these exclusions. It's not like the truth on such things matters anymore. Sell it in simple terms the common man can understand.

I really do wonder if at this point, progressive candidates might gain more traction by running as Republicans. The Republican party is not ideologically libertarian, and it has proven far more receptive to outsiders and new ideas than the Democratic party.

I remember watching the debates during the Obama campaign and thinking "this guy is just as pro big business as the republicans". The only candidate who was talking about the need to limit the political power of corporations/finance was Ron Paul.

They pivoted from "Trump is a weirdo" to "Dick Cheney likes us!" like the absolute morons they are.

iirc technically Obama reduced counting of drone strike civillian casualties, Trump just stopped counting all together.

thanks

did that motivate you to not vote for Harris?

That’s true. But the Republicans certainly won’t either. The Democrats haven’t earned American Muslims’ trust, but to run into the arms of the party that loudly and constantly demonizes Muslims at every opportunity as a result makes no sense.

I would understand a lot of people in Michigan disengaging from politics (although that would probably objectively make their lives worse in the long run). I can’t see them supporting Republicans though.

Counting deaths alone in Gaza and the West Bank ignores all the Palestinian refugees that have been forced to leave Palestine altogether; in either case, Israel wants to settle the rest of Palestine to cement their claim to it and control over it.

Just gonna say that the numbers you're using are direct casualties. When you include indirect casualties, such as the people who died to famine or disease due to conditions caused by the war you get numbers upward of 200k.

Indeed only people who use it to buy a house. If everyone has 25K more, then housing prices go up by 25K.

Government built housing is how the UK solved the problem last time. Then Thatcher sold it off and there hasn't been any real interest in doing it again despite all the same problems coming back.

Non profit housing, be it through companies owjed by the municipality or cooperatives who provide housing to their members are very effective means to limit rents and provide housing.

In many European countries it used to be normal for a large part of the rental market to be in the hand of such entities or even housing built to be buyed to own by lower middle class families.

Incidently rents started exploding after a lot of these got privatized in the 80s to 00s.

That's why you only cap rents on buildings that have existed for some time.

Businesses do not plan for 30 years or more in the future. If landlords can't make an acceptable rate of return within 30 years, they're not going to build a new house or apartment building.

So you can attach rent control provisions to buildings that are over a few decades old, and it will have zero impact on the financing and construction of new housing. It will only affect buildings after they've long since been built and paid for.

You do have to worry about rent controls discouraging landlords from keeping buildings maintained. But that's why good rent control doesn't cap rent, but simply limit the rate of increase. If a landlord can afford to keep a building maintained today, they will be able to keep it maintained in the future, even if rent increases are capped to the rate of inflation.

If anything, smart rent controls like this actually encourage the construction of new housing. By limiting rent increases on old buildings, you encourage landlords to knock them down and replace them with bigger and newer buildings that can be rented at any rate. In unregulated markets, landlords can increase profits by colluding to suppress the construction of new housing stock. Why invest the money in new buildings if you can just increase the rents on existing buildings by conspiring to prevent new buildings from being built? Smart rent controls mean that if landlords want to see their profits increase at any rate higher than inflation, then they will need to actually build new housing units.

You don't get to just blame the opposition for making sure nothing got done. Especially when the other party manages to succeed when they have power.

Politically supporting Palestine is a terrible move for either party outside the Dearborn area in Michigan. There isn't a relevant mass of people that actually care, Lemmy is a massive echo chamber of a minority position on this.

I want you to support the Socialist Party

Haha

Sure, but the subject of this thread is whether Democrats have learned lessons from this. The Democratic Party can also make decisions, and ideally it'll make some decisions that attract more votes next time.

I’m not a trump supporter but in his previous term, trump was the first president in [a bunch of decades] to not initiate a formal conflict (police action, etc.).

Yeah he says and does some stupid shit, but he’s not as big a warmonger as Obama, Clinton, Carter, etc.

This is the way.

Who's whining (Apparently Predicting that bigots will downvote = whining) ?? all I see is people who cannot stand the bitter truth & apparently you are the arbitter of what is off-topic & what is not

Not that it matters, because at the end the point is very simple, you leftists never learn & are in denial about your losses (yes I know Democrats are liberals)<br> Hence you'll keep on losing, until you're dust; Hell, even you leftists when push comes to shove behave like/devolve into right-wingers & use their talking points

Why believe when I can prove

This is going to be interesting, if you reject this then it'll be clear that you are not interested in having a proper debate UPDATE: None of you watched the video did you, then make peace with your defeat.

Says the person who is made out of shit, but then calling you shit would be an insult to shit

Oh There's no need to "Believe", that would imply there's no factual evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve9ZZNfytns

This not just a US thing, it's a global thing No such thing as a "Patriarchy" (If women are in power in a patriarchy then it isn't much of a patriarchy now is it, also feminists demand men to be tied down to their gender roles while demanding women to be exempt from their, when they should be demanding to free both genders)

Gynocentrism on the other hand is very real

I would have said they tried to stop one and turned a blind eye to the other (Russia, and Israel)

but I dont really think anyone in power truly gave a fuck about stopping Russia either, it was clear from the getgo that the plan was not to help Ukraine win, just make sure they dont lose.

Yes, but it’s different. Do you really not understand how simple the calculus is for people who are not politically and or philosophically engaged?

To know that you’d need to be paying attention. Most people are not paying attention, they only remember they had more money back then.

Listen you can either accept that the vast majority of people are simpletons and try to make this out to be more complicated than it is, or you can understand why Trump won and use that to win next elections. Trump won because he understands that they are simpletons and engages them as such.

Yeah, in 2016 it was so close any singular failing could have been the one that turned a win to a loss, but after this last one it's multiple.

And they all sort of reinforce themselves. Seeing Democrats abandon one political principle and then seeing them being weak on one that's close to home will make you less willing to accept it's just a messaging choice. And all of that on top of the general economic malaise and lack of punishment for bad people in positions of power and something you might have let go becomes the final straw.

And yet Trump toured Michigan promising (and making good on said promise, surprisingly) an end to the war.

You'll find many outlets reporting on this all citing the same poll, but here's one.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/harris-gaza

And angry people in denial who STILL feel a need to parade their concern like it's a fucking medal.

Firstly, I should clarify that I'm looking at % margin, not absolute, as it better accounts for voter turnout.

Secondly, if you want to go by absolute votes, then it's worth noting that more people voted for Harris than voted for Hillary or Obama (who both won the popular vote).

She had the 3rd highest vote count in history, but that means nothing when she lost to Trump with the 2nd highest vote count in history.

She was battling Trump at the height of his popularity and needed the same turnout as 2020 Biden, but that simply wasn't going to happen. As I said previously 2020 Biden had Covid19 on his side, and didn't have the baggage of this election (I.e. Gaza).

Biden abdicating his candidacy to Harris was a brilliant opportunity for her to lift off the baggage Biden was carrying into the 2024 election (which he was predicted to lose), but she didn't - and as such she lost as predicted.

Her loss had nothing to do with her being a woman, and much more to do with Democrats being out of touch and relying on Republican fearmongering to get people to turn out.

the lack of criticism for how centrist and shitty joe biden, just like hillary and kamala, is kind of exactly what i'm talking talking about. they all three suck in basically all the exact same ways. of all the candidates to run in 2020 primaries, he was basically the worst one. kamala was actually more progressive than him. but yet, here we are. arguing that he ran left of Kamala's 2024 bid. and before you bring up palestine, they've all been shit on that subject since 2006 at least, so drop it. that's not why kamala lost at the end of the day. it's that joe biden was allowed to win as a mediocre white man in 2020, but kamala had to do everything perfect to be viable in the eyes of those 19 million voters who stayed home, especially in the swing states where people absolutely mobilized to get out the vote for an overtly fascistic and racist orange candidate

BIDEN IS A TALL WHITE MAN. THAT'S WHY HE WON. THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN IN THIS IDIOT INFESTED COUNTY.

1. MAN
2. WHITE
3. TALL

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.