Does the DNC have any sort of plan at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Kamala's silence is deafening. She's a no for me, and I was all in on her.

I think Kamala’s silence has a LOUD message.

Her silence means: "told ya and "y'all" didn't listen to me nor the others in 2024." So who the f cares now if she is silent or not. if half had tried to see past her gender and race...

I voted for Harris bc I’m a life long Dem. But she was not a good candidate. She had zero to say about anything and only speaks in platitudes. Nothing to do with her gender or race. In fact those are the only interesting things about her

Well said.

In other words, you voted against the best interests of yourself, and others, just because of the label "D". Had she won, you'd now be complaining about her ineptitude, policies, and lack of useful accomplishments.

Ha! I supported for Harris. You obviously vote blue blindly. I mean that sincerely, and that is a huge problem with the party and why when its candidates succeed in 2026 and 2028, the country will still lose.

If the Dems can steer clear of another Biden trap in 2028, the country can very much so succeed while the Dem Party succeeds as well. We just need that one legitimate leader to step up. I'm optimistic.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

BILLIONS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

This is insightful. "We dislike Trump" is not a sustainable strategy, is a useless long-term rallying cry, and ignores the fundamental policy deficiencies and misplaced emphases in the Democratic party platform which led to widespread losses in the first instance.

Focusing on social policies which are not widely popular, instead of on economic issues of broad interest, is going to result in future losses. The immigration fiasco is incidentally about perceptions of being soft on crime, but more fundamentally is rooted in beliefs that illegal aliens cost taxpayer money which could be used for the benefit of citizens, and in assertions that employment opportunities for citizens are adversely impacted by undocumented workers who labor for less money. Those perceptions may be misguided, but they exist.

Being seen as soft on crime, supportive of open borders, in favor of higher taxation, often antisemitic/pro-Palestinian, and strongly advocating for fringe social policies like men in women's sports, are all losing stances. Centrists and undecideds will not vote in favor of candidates who stand for those; neither will moderate Republicans. Winning requires moving more towards the center, repudiating the extreme left, and emphasizing the issues most people actually care about - the loudest voices in the Party often reflect fringe/minority perspectives, something which needs to be recognized as unrepresentative of what most voters actually care about and want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

You give the GOP nothing to attack as long as they continue to commit suicide by Trump. Yes, the democrats need to move forward, but for RIGHT NOW you provide the GOP and their foreign owners with nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

This is insightful. "We dislike Trump" is not a sustainable strategy, is a useless long-term rallying cry, and ignores the fundamental policy deficiencies and misplaced emphases in the Democratic party platform which led to widespread losses in the first instance.

Focusing on social policies which are not widely popular, instead of on economic issues of broad interest, is going to result in future losses. The immigration fiasco is incidentally about perceptions of being soft on crime, but more fundamentally is rooted in beliefs that illegal aliens cost taxpayer money which could be used for the benefit of citizens, and in assertions that employment opportunities for citizens are adversely impacted by undocumented workers who labor for less money. Those perceptions may be misguided, but they exist.

Being seen as soft on crime, supportive of open borders, in favor of higher taxation, often antisemitic/pro-Palestinian, and strongly advocating for fringe social policies like men in women's sports, are all losing stances. Centrists and undecideds will not vote in favor of candidates who stand for those; neither will moderate Republicans. Winning requires moving more towards the center, repudiating the extreme left, and emphasizing the issues most people actually care about - the loudest voices in the Party often reflect fringe/minority perspectives, something which needs to be recognized as unrepresentative of what most voters actually care about and want.

I agree with this for the most part. The thing is, policies matter little if you don't have a competent leader at the top who is capable of combat ting mostly false narratives and that was the primary weakness for Dems while Biden was president. Actual Dem policies were never as extreme or unpopular as successful GOP narratives made them out to be from 2021-2025.

[Anonymous]

Trump and the Kushner cartel are committing treason and all the Left tells us to do is vote harder in November? This country is a joke. There is no other explanation, the Left are in on this. It’s all theater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump and the Kushner cartel are committing treason and all the Left tells us to do is vote harder in November? This country is a joke. There is no other explanation, the Left are in on this. It’s all theater.

Honestly, you have these people claiming both sides are the same or both sides are similar or both sides are the same sides, it must be just a troll.

You’ve got one side run by corrupt pedophiles, who are robbing the country blind, stripping away our constitutional rights and destroying the placement of the United States in the global hierarchy.

You have the other side trying to make sure everyone gets paid a decent wage, provide healthcare, tax billionaires, and make sure that everyone is treated fairly

There are far too many dumbasses standing there, looking at both sides and saying, “I can’t tell the difference!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Kamala's silence is deafening. She's a no for me, and I was all in on her.

I think Kamala’s silence has a LOUD message.

Her silence means: "told ya and "y'all" didn't listen to me nor the others in 2024." So who the f cares now if she is silent or not. if half had tried to see past her gender and race...

I voted for Harris bc I’m a life long Dem. But she was not a good candidate. She had zero to say about anything and only speaks in platitudes. Nothing to do with her gender or race. In fact those are the only interesting things about her

At least she wasn't named 3000+ times in the Epstein files with stories about her raping teenagers and so on. That alone makes her better than the horror show we have in the White House right now.

Sorry, I’m no longer accepting the schlock that the mega Dem donors tell me I need to accept because it’s better than Republicans. NO. I want a party that cares about regular people

Yes, but where are you going to find that? DEFINITELY not by voting for Republicans. That leopard's already shown its spots and is pretty much irredeemable.

Dems on the other hand do have many people who actually care about the working class. But their problem is that their coalition, messaging and platform is very fragmented which makes it overall incoherent. That's what the DNC needs to focus on. A platform and collection of pithy sound bites with broad appeal, rather than a loose random collection of fragmented thoughts.

Yes this 100%! Are there any Dem strategists out there?? Are you listening? Dems need solid messaging like Affordability and counter-messaging like upholding the constitution is not “radical” etc. Also, fight back on the MAGA propaganda. We should have been louder saying we DON’T want to take all your guns away, we DON’T perform sex changes in elementary schools, we DON’T want wide open borders, we DON’T want to teach our children that white people suck. but we DON’T want to erase history. We DO want human rights, and we DO want affordable healthcare, and we DO want illegal violent criminals deported, etc. Also point out the dementia and absolute narcissism of Trump with his talk of Greenland and Canada, his gold plated East wing and renaming the Kennedy Center like a godamn dictator. We need to be straight up about these things and stop being so professional. Fight fire with fire.

The problem with your strategy is that progressives within the Democratic Party DO want everything you say they DON’T want. So do the massive donors to the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they allow ranked choice voting for the primary it would be a game changer.

If they didn’t declare the winner before all the primaries were completed it would be great too.
Oh, and how about not picking the candidate that wasn’t even in the primary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

This is insightful. "We dislike Trump" is not a sustainable strategy, is a useless long-term rallying cry, and ignores the fundamental policy deficiencies and misplaced emphases in the Democratic party platform which led to widespread losses in the first instance.

Focusing on social policies which are not widely popular, instead of on economic issues of broad interest, is going to result in future losses. The immigration fiasco is incidentally about perceptions of being soft on crime, but more fundamentally is rooted in beliefs that illegal aliens cost taxpayer money which could be used for the benefit of citizens, and in assertions that employment opportunities for citizens are adversely impacted by undocumented workers who labor for less money. Those perceptions may be misguided, but they exist.

Being seen as soft on crime, supportive of open borders, in favor of higher taxation, often antisemitic/pro-Palestinian, and strongly advocating for fringe social policies like men in women's sports, are all losing stances. Centrists and undecideds will not vote in favor of candidates who stand for those; neither will moderate Republicans. Winning requires moving more towards the center, repudiating the extreme left, and emphasizing the issues most people actually care about - the loudest voices in the Party often reflect fringe/minority perspectives, something which needs to be recognized as unrepresentative of what most voters actually care about and want.

I’m the PP you responded to. I mostly agree.

I do have to say something about “but more fundamentally is rooted in beliefs that illegal aliens cost taxpayer money which could be used for the benefit of citizens.” There are many arguments about this topic and I think the costs depend on the area. For example, school systems might be able to handle a certain number of ESL students but some schools / school systems are completely overwhelmed with an unpredictable number of unaccounted for ESL children.

Nothing except pre-K to 12th grade education makes otherwise blue-no-matter-who voters sound and act more like MAGA. A friend of mine, who is very progressive and politically involved, moved two streets over to put their kids into Falls Church City Public School, because the Justice HS pyramid and FCPS were too ___. The only thing that comes to close to education in making blue sound red is how to run large urban / minority-majority cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they allow ranked choice voting for the primary it would be a game changer.

If they didn’t declare the winner before all the primaries were completed it would be great too.
Oh, and how about not picking the candidate that wasn’t even in the primary?

Democrats are focused on the mid terms right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

You give the GOP nothing to attack as long as they continue to commit suicide by Trump. Yes, the democrats need to move forward, but for RIGHT NOW you provide the GOP and their foreign owners with nothing.

This “just trust me” approach is BS. BTDT. You are a snake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps something like this has been mentioned but maybe we don't need the DNC to spend millions on wonks (who never face voters) crafting a "strategy" that might doom us just like it did in 2016 and 2024. 2020 was too close for comfort.

Dems are doing very well. See last night's results from TEXAS.

How about the DNC just spends money on candidates and the people can vote. Isn't that how we ended up with Obama in 2008? A democratic process? Obama got 365 EV.

You cannot say Dems are doing well when they are benefiting from an anti-Trump sentiment. They have not won the people because of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. People need to get that through their heads. Once Trump is gone that’s when you begin to tell whether the Dems may be doing well.

The real litmus test is 2032/2036 not 2028. Of course by then we may really need to gird our loins because both current major parties want to be the only major party.

You give the GOP nothing to attack as long as they continue to commit suicide by Trump. Yes, the democrats need to move forward, but for RIGHT NOW you provide the GOP and their foreign owners with nothing.

This “just trust me” approach is BS. BTDT. You are a snake.

We trusted the party and it gave us Harris. Never again. Had there been a primary, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Hold one and let the voters decide. That said, stop the ridiculous law fare. Virtually every crazy lower court order is getting reversed and bad precedent is being set. Pick your battles and ensure they align with your 2026 and 2028 strategies (if you have any). Stop picking the 20 of 80/20 issues. Borrow a page from Bill Clinton in the 90s and co-opt GOP ideas as your own, then take credit for them.