“The things Harris said, like she was going to give $25,000 for people to buy their first home, there were a lot of people said she was giving their money away to people who didn’t deserve it. It cost her votes. We were trying to tell her that.”

What’s the answer to that? On the face of it, this says that the electorate don’t want public money spent on helping other people who need help. How do you achieve anything other than conservatism with such an electorate? The only thing I can think is that you have to promise to help more of the electorate, and that the money will be come from the very rich. In other words, the only counter to conservatism is a commitment to actual wealth redistribution, and to going up against the selfish interests of the super-rich. That’s not yet even socialism, but it’s still further to the left that the Democratic Party is willing to go. For now, its leadership would rather lose elections to fascists than challenge billionaires.

Well, I’m not in denial. This country is full of fucking idiots. The next Democratic presidential candidate should be a celebrity that promises to achieve world peace and full gay space communism. Apparently empty promises and celebrity are what win elections.

Just look at the responses, complete denial. The american people overwhelmingly didn’t want kamala, the democrats thought they could pull another Bernie and we would just do what they wanted. No, it doesn’t work that way, and no they haven’t learned their lesson. They won’t so long as they retain a modicum of power. Democrats and Republicans are the problem.

“We have set ourselves up for generational loss because we keep promoting from within leaders that that do not criticise the moneyed interests. They refuse to take a hard look at what Americans actually believe and meet those needs.”

Still one step lacking to understand what Republicans already do.

Moneyed interests are the leaders you get. Money is just one of the kinds of power, but a lot of other kinds are applied in the form of money. You can’t seriously expect to contribute energy of a negligible cost into expressing your opinion and even casting your vote, and even donating a dollar or two, and for that to somehow give real power to your side, even multiplied by millions. You are already choosing from a limited pool of people and positions to support. Defined by parties with real power before your choice. Together with a lot of other conditions of an election.

This is why the perfect, logical, supposedly honest system the more classical kind of Democrats dream about would not result into a honest democracy.

This is why the well-meaning kind of Republicans talk about checks and balances, and interpersonal connections between people having power, and gun ownership and in tech it would seem sometimes that they want to get into dystopian future faster.

That is because dystopian future may be better than dystopian past. Every day of your life is unlike any before it. It’s the same in history and good tall states with institutions and good democracies are devolving into something a bit more “1704 anno domini” all over the world. This is not anything new. The world is always changing. Unfortunately what progressives today consider progress is not the direction in which the humanity is, well, progressing.

But that dissonance is a clue for us to see. It’s not Bronze Age anymore, but humans are still eating each other. Progress is meaningful on such a scale, and so little affected by someone’s personal decisions, that any party or ideology calling itself “progressive” seems arrogant to the degree of madness.

Let’s see:

Democrat voter base is steadily more and more changing from the blue collar worker to the more educated, college/university citizen.

Problem: there are more blue collar workers than university/college educated citizens

Part of the democrat campaign zeitgeist is that if you don’t vote for them, then you are [EXPLETIVE].

Problem: most people don’t like to vote for the party with members that calls them slurs

Democrats think that Kamala lost because she is a woman

Problem: for the average voter, gender doesn’t matter in any of the key areas a president has to manage

For the collectivists, the average male voter is assumed to be privileged, racist, bigoted, homophobic, millionaire, uneducated, emotionally stunted, a rapist, a Nazi, not people, and so on

Problem: assuming this is true for every male voter in the sweeping criticism of the patriarchy has left the male voter disenchanted and being pushed into the only people who are listening to them and their problems of unemployment, lack of financial security, health issues, and so on.

There is much more but yeah you guys tried to PIVOT the entirety of your message from the key 4 years like 2 months before the end of the campaign and you couldn’t even do that correctly.

Hear me out, what if they try running an even more genocidal candidate.

In a 2-party system why should Dems even bother trying to change themselves or how the party operates? I mean they are (or used to be anyway) guaranteed to be voted in again at some point in the future.

As for the last election imo they just didn’t look far enough ahead to see the danger of Trump 2.0. They dilly dallied around with dumb shit, only paying attention to billionaires, completely ignored Americans’ views on Isreal, showed almost zero interest in reigning in food/housing conglomerates’ profits, etc.

To the Left, to the LEFT!

Honestly I think this article is completely wrong. I’m convinced modern elections are 100% based on vibes and so better messaging and a better candidate would have meant a great deal.

But to add to that - Trump and his idiot base had been messaging and memeing for four years starting with Covid and masks and then inflation and ‘I did that’ stickers of Biden at the gas pump. Biden had barely done any messaging even up until the point he dropped out which, in the social media era, should be obviously big fucking warning signs of a losing campaign.

EDIT - which is not to say I don’t think the Dems need to change in other ways because they absolutely do.

I don’t know what all these comments are about he said it perfectly.

They refuse to take a hard look at what Americans actually believe and meet those needs

And they won’t. Which is why they are a sunk cost. Ameicans will keep investing in it because it’s, “the only othe choice” and the party will lose again and again.

2016 was 8 years ago people and the DNC has not evolved in the least.

I think that the Liberal ideology, with a capital L, is what is being revolted and rebelled against at a very fundamental level by a majority of America. But the Democrats can’t see it,

Winning is detrimental to the party.

At a certain point, they realized that they make more money when they lose. The end goal of both parties isn’t to win, it’s to make the most money for their members. The democrats just happen to have stumbled into a situation where they have a perverse incentive to fuck things up just enough to barely lose so that they can keep their funding up.

People want real fucking change. One man stood up against a massive evil health insurance company and regular people from all sides of the political spectrum support him.

Dems could have won if they were willing to do the same and no one would even need to be hurt to do it.

Naturally, there are a host of other problems mentioned in this thread. The trouble is that there is too much free $peech from the ruling class in politics.