Their propensity for approaching issues with small, incremental change is why they’re losing to a populist while their constituents are being eaten alive by runaway capitalism.
So that’s why 15 Million less people voted this year for the democratic candidate? All because the Biden administration could only acomplish some of their goals? That 15 million would have voted if they were more stubborn and further left on policies, or if they had managed more of the goals? I don’t understand how that makes sense.
I think it’s common knowledge that there are significant coalitions of people who won’t turn out for the Democrats because of things like Gaza/controversial presidential nominations/general disillusionment with the party. My own Dad, a lifelong Democrat voter, likely voted for RFK Jr. this time around because he isn’t satisfied with what the Democrats are delivering and lives in a safely blue state. I don’t agree with his decision, but as with the many others like him I can’t stop him from making it.
That’s fair. I’m just trying to decide what I can do living in a country more concerned with populism than policy, and really don’t like the reality of that situation. I should probably speak with some Punk artists and musicians.
What tactic should they have used to get those big things passed? Shutting down the government is pretty much the only thing they weren’t willing to do.
Again incremental change is the only thing that could get done with the power they were given. They still support major change but they don’t have enough power to get it done. Yes it sucks that one party is trying to improve things and they can’t get more done. But what else would you have them do with the amount of power they were given?
Their propensity for approaching issues with small, incremental change is why they’re losing to a populist while their constituents are being eaten alive by runaway capitalism.
So that’s why 15 Million less people voted this year for the democratic candidate? All because the Biden administration could only acomplish some of their goals? That 15 million would have voted if they were more stubborn and further left on policies, or if they had managed more of the goals? I don’t understand how that makes sense.
I think it’s common knowledge that there are significant coalitions of people who won’t turn out for the Democrats because of things like Gaza/controversial presidential nominations/general disillusionment with the party. My own Dad, a lifelong Democrat voter, likely voted for RFK Jr. this time around because he isn’t satisfied with what the Democrats are delivering and lives in a safely blue state. I don’t agree with his decision, but as with the many others like him I can’t stop him from making it.
That’s fair. I’m just trying to decide what I can do living in a country more concerned with populism than policy, and really don’t like the reality of that situation. I should probably speak with some Punk artists and musicians.
What tactic should they have used to get those big things passed? Shutting down the government is pretty much the only thing they weren’t willing to do.
Again incremental change is the only thing that could get done with the power they were given. They still support major change but they don’t have enough power to get it done. Yes it sucks that one party is trying to improve things and they can’t get more done. But what else would you have them do with the amount of power they were given?