When fighting Bernie, Dems are fighting with a base that is already aligned with them - ie one that they do not have a strong fear of alienating with their positions or attacks.
When fighting Trump, Dems usually fight with the idea that there is a significant group of ‘moderates’ which can be swayed in this country, and thus cannot be offended under any circumstances.
The problem is that there are ‘moderates’ in this country that can be swayed, but that the civility politics approach of the Dems does jack shit to lure most of them. They vote on vibes, and Dems try to avoid any vibes at all, to be the most milquetoast, least unacceptable choice possible to present.
They haven’t even considered that maybe 50% of the US population doesn’t vote because they feel like neither party has their interests at heart!
If they swung further left and got an actually progressive candidate who wants to fix the problems in this fucking country, I’m willing to bet everything that they’d win.
Hell, what got Obama in office was precisely the fact that he campaigned on hope and progressive ideals! He didn’t end up sticking to those ideals though, but that’s another story.
You’re telling us the stories that the Democrats tell us, but they know and we know that it’s fiction. Democrats, politicians of all kinds, always risk alienating some voters when they make major policy decisions. That’s unavoidable, and to pretend that the only group that matters is the invisible center is obviously fallacious, which we’ve seen time and again. I would say that’s what we learned in 2000, 2004, 2016, and certainly 2024.
I would say we learned it, that we all know it, and that people who pretend otherwise are lying to us.
When fighting Bernie, Dems are fighting with a base that is already aligned with them - ie one that they do not have a strong fear of alienating with their positions or attacks.
They should seriously reevaluate that because they have and they continue to alienate large numbers of people. This is an undeniable fact at this point.
No argument from me on the rest of your comment except for one small thing. The moderate that they’re chasing is a mirage, and doesn’t actually exist in the way that they think it does. These “moderates” don’t actually hold moderate views when questioned about what they believe and what they would support. Progressive economic policy positions are overwhelmingly popular across the board, and many who call themselves moderates tend to have socially conservative or even regressive views.
They should seriously reevaluate that because they have and they continue to alienate large numbers of people. This is an undeniable fact at this point.
Yes, I agree.
No argument from me on the rest of your comment except for one small thing. The moderate that they’re chasing is a mirage, and doesn’t actually exist in the way that they think it does. These “moderates” don’t actually hold moderate views when questioned about what they believe and what they would support. Progressive economic policy positions are overwhelmingly popular across the board, and many who call themselves moderates tend to have socially conservative or even regressive views.
I would caution this with that wording matters very much to these moderates, and the support of ‘feel-good’ progressive policies (like universal healthcare) evaporates once objections are raised in the public sphere (like “Would you support universal healthcare if… the GOP candidate said it was going to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!?” or even realistic issues, like “if taxes went up a small amount”).
I would go so far as to agree that these moderates don’t hold moderate views, in the sense of having a ‘middle ground’ position, but say, in addition, that they have very little real policy positions at all, and that whether they think immigration needs to be loosened or if there’s a crisis on the border depends almost entirely on what side of the metaphorical bed they woke up on a given morning.
They will express opposition to gun control, demand the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and then vote for a pro-‘assault weapon’ ballot initiative, all in the same breath. Civic education in this country is… severely lacking.
When fighting Bernie, Dems are fighting with a base that is already aligned with them - ie one that they do not have a strong fear of alienating with their positions or attacks.
When fighting Trump, Dems usually fight with the idea that there is a significant group of ‘moderates’ which can be swayed in this country, and thus cannot be offended under any circumstances.
The problem is that there are ‘moderates’ in this country that can be swayed, but that the civility politics approach of the Dems does jack shit to lure most of them. They vote on vibes, and Dems try to avoid any vibes at all, to be the most milquetoast, least unacceptable choice possible to present.
They haven’t even considered that maybe 50% of the US population doesn’t vote because they feel like neither party has their interests at heart!
If they swung further left and got an actually progressive candidate who wants to fix the problems in this fucking country, I’m willing to bet everything that they’d win.
Hell, what got Obama in office was precisely the fact that he campaigned on hope and progressive ideals! He didn’t end up sticking to those ideals though, but that’s another story.
You’re telling us the stories that the Democrats tell us, but they know and we know that it’s fiction. Democrats, politicians of all kinds, always risk alienating some voters when they make major policy decisions. That’s unavoidable, and to pretend that the only group that matters is the invisible center is obviously fallacious, which we’ve seen time and again. I would say that’s what we learned in 2000, 2004, 2016, and certainly 2024.
I would say we learned it, that we all know it, and that people who pretend otherwise are lying to us.
They should seriously reevaluate that because they have and they continue to alienate large numbers of people. This is an undeniable fact at this point.
No argument from me on the rest of your comment except for one small thing. The moderate that they’re chasing is a mirage, and doesn’t actually exist in the way that they think it does. These “moderates” don’t actually hold moderate views when questioned about what they believe and what they would support. Progressive economic policy positions are overwhelmingly popular across the board, and many who call themselves moderates tend to have socially conservative or even regressive views.
Yes, I agree.
I would caution this with that wording matters very much to these moderates, and the support of ‘feel-good’ progressive policies (like universal healthcare) evaporates once objections are raised in the public sphere (like “Would you support universal healthcare if… the GOP candidate said it was going to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!?” or even realistic issues, like “if taxes went up a small amount”).
I would go so far as to agree that these moderates don’t hold moderate views, in the sense of having a ‘middle ground’ position, but say, in addition, that they have very little real policy positions at all, and that whether they think immigration needs to be loosened or if there’s a crisis on the border depends almost entirely on what side of the metaphorical bed they woke up on a given morning.
They will express opposition to gun control, demand the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and then vote for a pro-‘assault weapon’ ballot initiative, all in the same breath. Civic education in this country is… severely lacking.