What SHOULD Dems do?

[Anonymous]

We just have to decide on priorities. Who are we fighting for? We can do it with either centrist leadership or progressive leadership. The question is, which parts of our coalition take precedence? Is it the urban poor? The urban rich? Public sector unions? LGBT folks? Migrants? NGOs? Corporate folks? All of the above, of course, but in which order? And at whose expense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We just have to decide on priorities. Who are we fighting for? We can do it with either centrist leadership or progressive leadership. The question is, which parts of our coalition take precedence? Is it the urban poor? The urban rich? Public sector unions? LGBT folks? Migrants? NGOs? Corporate folks? All of the above, of course, but in which order? And at whose expense?

We're fighting for each other against the wealthy elites in control of our two major political parties. The sooner the hyper-partisan regular folks gain this understanding, the better.

[Anonymous]

They should denounce the violence against Teslas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What actions do you have in mind?

The action I’m proposing is getting is giving the voters what they want, both now in government and in a new policy platform for the campaign trail. My proposed action is, try to win elections.

What are your proposed actions?

How do you propose getting through to voters in rural areas whose only news outlet is AM talk radio, and they’ve been told for thirty years that Democrats are devil worshippers?

How do you propose getting through to college kids who listen exclusively to Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan?

How do you propose getting through to a voter who doesn’t watch TV or listen to news or follow politics at all, but they think Trump is funny and tells it like it is?

Rural voters know exactly what the New York Times perspective is. It’s ubiquitous. It is we who live in a media bubble, by choice. Most of us avoid conservative media like the plague as a matter of purity principle.

Rural voters (and swing voters of all kinds) have a good understanding of what our party offers. They just don’t want it.

So we can either change, in hopes of winning more votes (and elections), or we can stay pure with our unpopular policies and remain the minority party.

No. Absolutely none of this is true. Rural voters do not have a good understanding of what Democrats offer. It’s all filtered fourth and fifth hand through layers of disinformation, Facebook conspiracy groups, bro podcasts, and right wing cable news. These outlets lie and lie and lie. Their viewers think Hillary Clinton is running a sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor. Fox News viewers consistently rank very low in factual understanding of the news.

Of course those voters don’t want what they think the Democratic party represents. That’s because Republicans are allowed free rein to characterize the party in the most alarmist, unflattering, and distorted terms possible.

Giving the voters what they want doesn’t work when what those voters want is supremacy, even if it comes at a steep personal cost. There’s already a party devoted to giving that to them. It’s called MAGA.

Are the voters wrong to want an end to mass illegal immigration?

This is the most unproductive thread:

The Dems are wrong about everything.

No current Dem could win an election, except some mythical cis, white, able-bodied Christian male.

Rural voters and angry white men should be catered to over everyone else.

Dems won’t win elections unless they apologize for every Democrat has been president in our lifetime.

Dems don’t deserve win if they give a shred of support to a LGBTQ or migrant.

Dems won’t win unless they tack further right and get no donations from a single billionaire.

Anything the Dems have said in this thread are stupid, out of touch, not enough, unduly combative, or elitist.

Am I missing anything?! 🙄

This (angry) comment does make a good point. Why are we so focused on catering to some mythical, archetypal type of 1950s American? Most white, cisgendered, able-bodied Christians vote against us. So why are they the “focus group” we’re so worried about? Why is it so unthinkable that a woman of color could win the Presidency? One almost just did, and suddenly we’re giving up and trying to recruit Republican lookalikes to be our candidates? Come on! We actually could lean in to the stereotypes instead of running from them. We actually could admit that we are very very strong in America’s biggest and most prosperous cities. We actually could admit that we care about civil rights for the LGBTQ community regardless of how “ready” homophobes feel for various things. I’m not saying we have to run an uber-progressive, but we don’t have to rule it out either. We have nothing to be embarrassed about. They do.

Yep. But I would add why be embarrassed about being a left wing progressive. Does anyone on this thread know where “left wing” originated from? In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.

Is it really bad to be ago sits kings?

And why doesn’t everyone want to be “progressive”. To me that means forward looking.

To me the fatal blow for Harris was that she campaigned with a Cheney. I don’t blame her personal y. I am sure all the moderate advised her to lean centrist. THAT was the mistake.

We should be the party of inclusion. The party of kindness. The party of uplifting others.

That is the winning message.

[Anonymous]

I would rather have had Kamala campaigning with a band if nudeish transsexuals everywhere she went than with… the Cheneys!!! Ew!

[Anonymous]

Buttigieg can bridge the gal between gay trans folks and DCurbanmom folks. He does less well with BIPOC folks, who fund him boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Buttigieg can bridge the gal between gay trans folks and DCurbanmom folks. He does less well with BIPOC folks, who fund him boring.

Sorry no.

[Anonymous]

Buttigieg’s height is a real problem. Just as Kamala’s height was. Fetterman is tall and can reach across the aisle to people who prefer no big worss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buttigieg can bridge the gal between gay trans folks and DCurbanmom folks. He does less well with BIPOC folks, who fund him boring.

Sorry no.

No what? Which are you saying:
Gay folks don’t like Pete
Dvurbanmoms don’t like Pete
Bipocs do like pete

[Anonymous]

What about Klobuchar carrying a message to the people that there’s room for white folks in. The Dem tent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No on e-verify. We cannot dehumanize migrants in an immoral attempt to curry favor with redneck voters. What we need is a to citizenship for those already here.

you will never win another election.

No human is illegal.

When did it become moral To hire cheap disposable labor , instead of your neighbors children ??

What perverted culture does this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What actions do you have in mind?

The action I’m proposing is getting is giving the voters what they want, both now in government and in a new policy platform for the campaign trail. My proposed action is, try to win elections.

What are your proposed actions?

How do you propose getting through to voters in rural areas whose only news outlet is AM talk radio, and they’ve been told for thirty years that Democrats are devil worshippers?

How do you propose getting through to college kids who listen exclusively to Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan?

How do you propose getting through to a voter who doesn’t watch TV or listen to news or follow politics at all, but they think Trump is funny and tells it like it is?

Rural voters know exactly what the New York Times perspective is. It’s ubiquitous. It is we who live in a media bubble, by choice. Most of us avoid conservative media like the plague as a matter of purity principle.

Rural voters (and swing voters of all kinds) have a good understanding of what our party offers. They just don’t want it.

So we can either change, in hopes of winning more votes (and elections), or we can stay pure with our unpopular policies and remain the minority party.

No. Absolutely none of this is true. Rural voters do not have a good understanding of what Democrats offer. It’s all filtered fourth and fifth hand through layers of disinformation, Facebook conspiracy groups, bro podcasts, and right wing cable news. These outlets lie and lie and lie. Their viewers think Hillary Clinton is running a sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor. Fox News viewers consistently rank very low in factual understanding of the news.

Of course those voters don’t want what they think the Democratic party represents. That’s because Republicans are allowed free rein to characterize the party in the most alarmist, unflattering, and distorted terms possible.

Giving the voters what they want doesn’t work when what those voters want is supremacy, even if it comes at a steep personal cost. There’s already a party devoted to giving that to them. It’s called MAGA.

We know

We see it with our own eyes

Millions invading the border and taking taxpayer funds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just have to decide on priorities. Who are we fighting for? We can do it with either centrist leadership or progressive leadership. The question is, which parts of our coalition take precedence? Is it the urban poor? The urban rich? Public sector unions? LGBT folks? Migrants? NGOs? Corporate folks? All of the above, of course, but in which order? And at whose expense?

We're fighting for each other against the wealthy elites in control of our two major political parties. The sooner the hyper-partisan regular folks gain this understanding, the better.

The problem is us. Upper middle class striver Dems like us falsely believe we have more in common with the centimillionaire Clintons than with middle class people in flyover states. We’re not fighting with regular people against the wealthy elite. Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

I can’t help but wonder if we pushed things too far and provoked a voter backlash.
https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/biden-officials-fought-to-loosen-transgender-surgery-guidelines-for-minors-docs-show-department-of-health-and-human-services-rachel-levine-world-profesional-association-for-transgender-health-wpath-lgbt

[Anonymous]

If we had shown more restraint, could we have keot the swing voters on our side? https://californiaglobe.com/fr/ca-democrats-author-bill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/