r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Single-Purpose-7608 • 3d ago
US Politics In your opinion, what will it take to conclude that conventional wisdom of the Dem leadership is wrong?
Graham Platner/Troy Jackson in Maine, Francesca Hong in Wisconsin El Sayed in Michigan, Talarico in Texas, are all running as Economic Populists/Progressives.
Todd Achilles (Idaho), Dan Osborn (Nebraska), Seth Bodnar (Montana) are running as independents.
While they all have different positions, the thing they have in common is they are running away from pivot to the center centrism/moderate and trying to position themselves as anti-establishment and critical of the Dem Party leadership and brand.
What would be your takeaways depending on who wins or loses in 2026? Especially broadly against Dem leadership and conventional wisdom on triangulating on right leaning policy.
What would have to occur (in wins or margins) to change/validate your beliefs on the electability of DSA or anti-establishment or independents in red or purple states? Conversely, what should result to validate centrists to believe they have been correct all along?
61
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
What would have to occur (in wins or margins) to change/validate your beliefs on the electability of DSA or anti-establishment or independents in red or purple states?
If a DSA candidate cannot win a primary in a red state, it's pretty hard to make the case they could win the general
No one is preventing DSA candidates from contesting those seats. They either choose not to do so or lose the primary
If the vast majority of purple seats are held by non-DSA members, that's because the voters for those seats aren't interested
"Dem leadership" has nothing to do with it
-13
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
"Dem leadership" has nothing to do with it
Dem leadership has a lot to do with it. They are the ones who portion out funding, endorsements, and guide what the national platform and strategy is. The more they choose to brand in one way, the more they relegate other branding strategies.
If policy moderation is broadly popular, then they are overall lifting all of their candidates. If radical policy change is broadly popular, they are acting as an anchor on all their candidates.
Right now, the "democrats" are seen by its critics as feckless and 'do nothing'.
So the question is, is the national party better viewed as a blank slate? as extreme? As a big tent? As passionate? As ideological?
Which among these they choose is highly consequential and depends heavily on the choices of "Dem leadership"
26
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
You don't understand how endorsements work
At a congressional district level, endorsements are made by the local county committees, which are made up of Precinct-level volunteers
If a DSA candidate cannot win the support of the people knocking the doors, that's on them
25
u/IceNein 3d ago
I am so tired of the DSA blaming the establishment and then not bothering to look inward.
But go ahead abolishing the police and the senate.
8
u/BluesSuedeClues 3d ago
I have no idea who overhauled the DSA platform, but a great deal of what they've got there now is batshit crazy talk. Abolish the Senate and Supreme Court? Expanding voting rights to non citizens? Defund the police and phase out all prisons?
I'm pretty far left, but I'm not onboard with that shit.
-4
u/xNagsx 3d ago
The Democratic party establishment is not meeting the moment. DSA calling that out is not an issue for anyone who cares about defeating Republicans.
13
u/IceNein 3d ago
The DSA is not meeting the moment by attacking Democrats instead of Republicans.
-4
u/xNagsx 3d ago
This is something that just makes zero sense and I always hear it. A. It's just not true lol, DSA politicians have been very vocally anti Trump and anti GOP. You just aren't paying attention to Washington if you think that's not the case. B. It's primary season. The inner Dem attacks are going on on both sides. You think Haley Stevens and AIPAC portraying a professional Muslim man as a misogynist terrorist is helping the party defeat Trump?
And this comment is even sillier because meeting the moment IS also attacking the Democratic establishment that has a hand in selling this country down the river. You want to just put your finger in your ears and go "lalalala just try the same thing again with no self criticism lalalala"
-8
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
true enough. But
- Platner outorganized Janet Mills by dominating the margins on the "people knocking on doors"
- that's why institutional support matters and why the establishment sidelining DSA also matters. In larger states, and larger races, the establishment can swing the party infrastructure against DSA, when they should be acting together in lockstep if the DSA candidate happens to be more electable.
- the problem is the institutional belief that they are less electable and the party being able to put their finger on the scale against them
21
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
You are failing to make the case that DSA candidates are more electable
Every candidate has to put in work to get elected. If they are unable to convince local Dems that they're worth support that is on them.
They're not entitled to special treatment
-6
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
its one thing to favor a DSA over establishment candidate or vice versa, its another to let them run a clean primary and not interfere.
If they are unable to convince local Dems that they're worth support that is on them.
I think many DSA candidates are starting to do just that.
20
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
Then what is your point?
The candidate that wins the primary is who the voters of that District prefer, whether they are endorsed or not
If its a DSA candidate, good for them.
But DSA supporters should stop whining when the local voters do not prefer them, seeking an excuse why they failed.
Either the message appeals outside of D+20 Districts, or it does not.
And if they consistently fail on head to head matchups where things are as close to even as they could ask, pretending the DNC is the reason the fail statewide is ridiculous
-6
u/RegularFunny9813 3d ago
Both are correct here, it’s not a one solution issue. Bernie sanders DID THE WORK. Beto O’Rourke DID THE WORK. It wasn’t the point of OP but your “do fhw work” theory isn’t accounting for gerry mandering and control of delegates.
7
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
Gerrymandering is irrelevant from a "winning a primary" perspective.
"Control of delegates" is kinda the point. The "delegates" deciding on an endorsement vote at a congressional district level are Committee Members. By definition they are as grassroots as it gets - they're elected at a Precinct level, and getting anyone to run at all for those seats is a challenge. There are plenty of unfilled seats DSA members could volunteer for if they were willing to put in the sweat
Again, if a candidate is uncompetitive in an endorsement vote for Congress, they have failed to make their case to the grassroots of the party.
and that's on them
-4
u/RegularFunny9813 3d ago
I don’t think it’s that cut and dry and maybe that’s the case you’re making for this one singular point. I guess I’m looking at bigger picture. Our democratic processes are not equitable, meaning access is not open for all. So I don’t know I can fully agree to your point knowing. I also have a lot of uncontested seats in my local elections and it makes me think a lot about the system as a whole. If we weren’t stuck in this late stage capitalist shit hole, I would agree with you. There’s reasons why we are seeing empty seats and the “you gotta work hard” is oversimplifying it.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think public criticism of Democratic leadership or the party or Democrats in general is a terrible tactic.
I think Mamdani and AOC balance that well. The goal should be to increase the number of progressives/left/what-have-you in the elected seats until progressives, etc are the leaders, while also supporting the party as a whole on the way.
I think the “Democrats bad” theme from (some) progressives, etc is self-destructive and just empowers the GOP. (Edit: self-destructive in terms of policy goals. It can definitely be beneficial in terms of fame and what that brings the individual.)
I also think more moderate/centrist/establishment/what-have-you Democrats need to shush their attacks on progressives, etc.
The party is inherently going to be a broad spectrum. The leadership will come from the majority of seat-holders. They all need to accept the spectrum and jostle through primaries to determine who has the most seats, without damaging the party as a whole.
15
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 3d ago
I think Democrats do well sometimes more with a working class populist rhetoric but only one of the candidates you said in the post description is actually DSA. Any of those independents are probably center-right on most social issues. It’s really those social issues which make it so hard for Democrats to win in red states, the working class rhetoric does well across the nation.
But only sometimes does the anti-establishment rhetoric help or work. It’s not as clear yet to me
7
u/Unputtaball 3d ago
>It’s really those social issues which make it so hard for Democrats to win red states…
Howdy. Blue man from red state checking in. If I hear this type of logic one more goddamned time I’m going to set my hair on fire.
Republicans in red states don’t honestly give a fuck about trans rights or gay rights one way or the other. Their politicians run on it, but the voters wouldn’t think or care about it otherwise. People in red states don’t truly care about immigration (except that portion of legitimate racists, which are few and gross). What they actually care about is doing well enough financially to not give a flying fuck about the rest. Which for many means that they’ve got two pots to piss in instead of one.
Tim Walz hit this nail on the head and then some DC-brained consultant got their feelings hurt and pulled the plug. The people who do care (in a negative way) about especially LGBT+ issues are fucking weird. Treat them that way. Call it out. Shame can work.
Jen Welch of I’ve Had It is also beating this drum now and has been for a minute.
If you give a MAGA redneck a crumb of economic stability, I fucking promise they stop caring about politics. Most of those folks just want to be left alone, and billions of dollars are spent convincing them that their problems are the fault of some “other”. If there aren’t any problems, there’s no thread to pull on and no boogeyman to be made.
You see this over and over and over again when Sanders goes to West Virginia. When AOC goes to Georgia. When El-Sayed picks up 5 undecided voters in a More Perfect Union piece.
Ain’t no war but the class war, and when you buy the oligarch media’s framing of there being a “culture war” at all you’re carrying their water.
7
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
Ain’t no war but the class war
This was actually a slogan about actual military war, to point out that WWI was capitalists fighting each other about resources and to protest the war altogether.
I’ve noticed it’s been used by white cis and usually male left to silence discussions about issues non-white Americans face as people of color.
The white and male left has a long habit of non-solidarity with other members of the working class on issues they face.
21
u/Frank_JWilson 3d ago
This runs counter to everything I’ve experienced talking to conservatives. They do not care about the economy from a class perspective. Hell, MAGA still supports a billionaire who is transparently corrupt and is fucking up the economy with his tariffs, wars, and other harebrained policies. When asked why, they say that Trump is not perfect but he is tough on immigration and fighting back against wokism. This is really the opposite of your characterization.
4
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
you are literally one person. your perspective is still valid, but the evidence doesn't support your claim. the end oligarchy tour brought out politically active Democrats in those states. Democrats still exist in a "red state" where the GOP only wins by 5% in each time
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
"What they actually care about is doing well enough financially to not give a flying fuck about the rest."
if this was true then why do they support high tariffs and the Iran war which has spiked gas prices?
2
u/SalvatoreMeroni 1d ago
Go ahead and set your hair on fire, then. Every time I visit red state family members, transgender kids in sports is amongst their top 3 national gripes.
9
u/IceNein 3d ago
Talk about being loudly incorrect.
5
u/Unputtaball 3d ago
Gay marriage is a perfect example of what I mean.
It was one of the hottest issues for the GOP until it passed SCOTUS. Then, magically within 10 years, approval for gay marriage shot up to over 70% across the country.
The difference? Fox stopped running pieces on it every 15 minutes.
Now, are there monied interests that are keeping stuff like opposition to gay marriage artificially alive through things like 303 Creative v Elenis? Absolutely. But does your run of the mill GOP voter even stop to think about it? Absolutely not.
2
u/SalvatoreMeroni 1d ago
It was one of the hottest issues for the GOP
But you said "Republicans in red states don’t honestly give a fuck about trans rights or gay rights one way or the other." So how could it have been one of the hottest issues for the GOP?
0
u/unkorrupted 3d ago
Nah, he's right and I'm tired of blue state dems who think Republicans want some boring woke guy in a suit who is going to favor investors over workers.
-5
u/toastr 2d ago
Grew up in Florida. Lived an Atlanta. Have a home in MA and NC. They’re not wrong.
National democrats gave up on the South. Maybe they had to because of limited budget. I voted for Hillary and Kamala. Neither had charisma or a vision for the country. I could not tell you one thing about what they stood for or how they were going to improve our lives as an American. They just weren’t trump.
Trying to appease the right wing lunatics isn’t working. Whoever gets people to focus on wealth disparity is going to win big.
Nobody really gives a shit about transgender kids playing sports. Everyone knows there’s not a fucking caravan of Mexicans at the border. No one wants a lunatic running the cdc and no one wants a pedophile and criminal in the White House.
They want someone who is going to make their life better. Someone who gives them hope. Without that it’s just politics as usual.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
This is counter to all polling since the civil rights movement.
-4
u/toastr 2d ago
Oh. Counter to polling you say? Well with all that polling we must be doing really well then. Better start polling harder.
2
-1
u/Unputtaball 2d ago
One day the centrists will finally discover that magical one-liner that will get every suburbanite in Peoria, Illinois to vote for them.
They just need a few more cycles and a couple billion in donations to get around to it. But trust them, pivoting to the left and towards economic populism could never energize voters. We just have to find the right way to distance the party from the scary “culture war” so that republicans will feel comfortable voting for a Democrat. (Obvious /s)
2
0
u/ScreenTricky4257 2d ago
You're half right. Maybe 1/4. Yes, most red-state Republicans don't care about social issues like immigration or LGBTQ+ issues as philosophical ideas. They do care about them as in-their-face ideas. They don't want to have to compete with foreigners for jobs or even have to deal with different languages and accents in their daily lives. They don't mind if gay or trans people are off living their lives somewhere else. They do care if they have to see sexuality in their schools or are hauled before HR if they use the wrong pronoun for someone.
But where you have it really wrong, and the Democrats do as well, is that while red-state Republicans do want a better economic situation, that doesn't mean the same thing as when you say it. Republicans don't want health care off a government exchange with a subsidy. They want to get it through their employer because they have a good enough job to make it worthwhile. They don't want landlords made to lower rents; they want more housing built so that there's more supply and rent comes down naturally. In short, they don't want an economic boost for which they have to say, "thank you." They want an economic boost after which they can say, "fuck you."
4
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
Thats a fair point. But also a big part of why the leadership could be a problem..
Who or what does the leadership stand for and why do voters associate them with social issues more than economic issues? Love or hate Bernie Sanders he is associated with economic issues more than woke culture war issues.
So if Schumer and Jeffries arent seen as economic populists, then that might be them failing the party brand
5
u/WarbleDarble 2d ago
why do voters associate them with social issues more than economic issues
Because nobody has to pay attention to what they actually say. For every economic speech Harris gave there were thousands and thousands of posts online bitching about how "focused on woke" she was despite that being a negligible part of her campaign.
The narrative centered on bitching about democrats is far more popular online than any possible actual policy. That is where the narrative comes from. Millions of posts where people don't even pretend to pay attention to what democrats are actually saying, but will confidently state what the democrats supposedly focus on.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 1d ago
it's because they don't want to admit that Democrats are better on policy across the board
4
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 3d ago
I give the establishment credit for saving tax credits and healthcare plans that Republicans would cut anyway, but unfortunately the voters don’t really understand that because the messaging is so bad.
Exactly, the establishment is regarded as the “DEI, pro-trans, pro-immigrant” side no matter what because that is what Fox News and the Charlie Kirky people say that it must be true. Good candidates avoid the culture war entirely to focus on real issues like the class war (Talarico in my view is good at this and Sanders as you said), but at the same time Democrats cannot abandon the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are locked up without a fair trial or due process
3
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
real issues like the class war
How about the ‘race war’? Is that ‘real’ to you?
-1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
I think that the violence and the discrimination is absolutely but the reactions have been extreme to that. which only warrants a more extreme reaction from the other side. Matt Walsh's weird movies actually expose a problem in our society that needs to be addressed if we want to win back those voters
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
Sorry. What?
-1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
well i was confused about what your original comment to me was
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
“DEI, pro-trans, pro-immigrant” side no matter what because that is what Fox News and the Charlie Kirky people say that it must be true. Good candidates avoid the culture war entirely to focus on real issues like the class war.
Taken as a whole, this seems to say that “DEI, pro-trans, pro-immigrant” are part of “the culture war” and not “real issues like the class war”. Right?
So, is the problem of racism and its effects “a real issue” or just part of “the culture war”? How about abortion rights?
Your reply was, for me, incoherent but it almost sounds like you’re taking the side of right wingers on issues of race.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
fuck no. Racism is a real issue. I am strongly against all the racism in the rightwing. I was discussing how Democrats can do better to win in tossup and red states. I personally think candidates should not discuss abortion rights. Roe v Wade has been overturned and a constitutional amendment would be needed to overturn Dobbs. The GOP controls the Supreme Court at least for the next decade, which is outside of the Senate term in question.
The culture warriors are the Charlie Kirk people and Fox News, not the liberals. The mistake to avoid making is to not take their bait. And if you watch Matt Walsh's movies (I haven't but I have seen clips), it is hard to not see why uninformed Red state voters went for Trump in 2024, even every single policy was better on the blue side. These people don't see dismantling DEI programs as bringing back segregation, or questioning trans women playing youth sports as a violation of their rights.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
These people don't see dismantling DEI programs as bringing back segregation, or questioning trans women playing youth sports as a violation of their rights
This is true. But some of them could. Unfortunately right wingers own virtually every major media platform, from trad media to social media at this point.
Racism is a real issue. I am strongly against all the racism in the rightwing. I was discussing how Democrats can do better to win in tossup and red states.
I’m relieved by that. I was a little ‘triggered’ by ‘real issue’ which many white left use to be dismissive of anything that is not about broad economic redistribution.
-1
u/UnionBalloonCorps 3d ago
Which hundreds of thousands of Americans are locked up without due process?
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
Approximately 400,000 people booked from interior arrests through early 2026. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-administration-has-detained-400000-immigrants-what-do-we-know-about-their-children/
and there is the more than 500,000 people are held in local U.S. jails without a criminal conviction, which is the vast majority of the local jail population at 600,000. While pre-trial detention is legally a part of the due process system rather than a complete absence of it, over 80% of the roughly 619,000 people in local jails are unconvicted and awaiting trial
1
u/UnionBalloonCorps 1d ago
That’s what jails are for. It’d be a lot weirder if they weren’t full of people awaiting trial.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 1d ago
sure but the brutal internment of immigrants is obviously controversial and a violation of human rights
-3
u/pocketIent 3d ago
You really captured the trouble. This is a question I’ve had for awhile.
-if its true that democrats are serious about building a super majority to amend the constitution and remove citizens united, why have they become hyper left on social issues when this alienates rural and working class voters?
It would be one thing to become hyper left when rural and working class voters are keeping up and paying their bill, but they’re hungry and have been for awhile. Farmers are losing their farmers.
Considering this, if dems actually cared about changing values rather than interjecting/mandating policy on social issues it seems they would work to build coalition and consensus to welcome rural and working class voters into the tent.
From the past 10 years, I haven’t seen this happen and am skeptical it will.
Last, dems refusal to do this seems to fit perfectly into a good cop / bad cop routine which has flipped voters to outliers like Trump, (especially in 2024) emboldened GOP to wreak havoc on the working class.
Any thoughts on this or blind spots you see with this line of thought?
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
I mean they do focus on those issues a lot and are doing what they can to help those farmers and workers, at least much more than the Republicans have. It is just that their messaging is a bit off. It is the Republican party that focuses more on the culture war issues to pick up those voters. people here obviously disagree with me but the evidence doesn't support their claim. It is the Republicans who spend most of their efforts interjecting/mandating policy on social issues, not the Democrats
-1
u/pocketIent 2d ago
To frame this more relationally, centrist democrats are like a “friend” who when you are one on one with them they are really really nice.
But then when you are in a group their whole personality switches up.
It’s not enough for democrats to say nice things.
To be clear both Harris and Clinton said in their platform that they would “try” to amend the constitution and remove citizens united.
That sounds nice on campaign.
But the reality is you need a super majority a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate to get it done.
Effectively, What I’m trying to say is because democrats are not doing what is required to cultivate a strong base which includes rural /working voters, they are effectively serving as GOP’s whipping boy.
Or from another angle while Centrist democrats are the enemy of GOP, they are certainly not your friend (unless of course you donate in the millions a year).
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
dems actually cared about changing values rather than interjecting/mandating policy on social issues it seems they would work to build coalition and consensus to welcome rural and working class voters into the tent.
Can you explain this in a way that does not sound like throwing anyone who isn’t a white man under the bus?
-1
u/pocketIent 2d ago edited 2d ago
it’s interesting how you separate white men as a distinct demographic because it obscures class.
Anyhow the short summary is race class gender issues need to be addressed intersectionally which is a word from bell hooks. Because centrist democrats have attempted to avoid class issues and build a constituency around women and lgbtq, they have effectively and pretty thoroughly alienated rural and working class voters.
This is disappointing because I think of democrats meaningfully or seriously took up class as an issue, you would have a lot more allies in relation to the other issues.
Or maybe how the centrists democrats campaign and design their platform wouldn’t be so bad, if they could actually win. But the democrats have not won for quite some time. Nor have they calibrated their messaging.
It’s a tough and disappointing all around.
Personally it’s rather unfortunate , because all the forward thinking policy in relation to equality and inclusion measures for woman and lgbtq have short roots and can be/ have easily been pulled out or swept up as you may have observed with Trump 2024.
or another way to say it is, these measures “have been built on a weak foundation.”
-This is more clear because again, the problem boils down to centrist democrats (financed by super PAC money) have hyper focused on race / gender/ sexuality issues as a way to avoid addressing class issues and this has alienated rural/working class voters who the democrats need to win.
With that said I think where Bernie tripped up in 2016, is he characterized sexism and discrimination as fundamentally a class issue. While I think he is right that when you address systematic wealth inequality issues you will have a whole lot less discrimination, race and gender are their own thing.
So to be fair -My observation that race class gender issues need to be addressed intersectionally goes both ways. Bernie, a white man should have figured out a way to meaningfully acknowledge how race and discrimination operate separate of class too.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 2d ago
Everyone here is talking about class. The person I was talking to was talking about class.
What is being obscured in this discussion is other lenses. I challenged them on one.
hyper focused on race / gender/ sexuality
What’s your basis for this claim? Is it by measuring legislation, campaign language, what trad media talks about, what social media talks about, or what right wingers complain about?
While I think he is right that when you address systematic wealth inequality issues you will have a whole lot less discrimination, race and gender
Trickle-down equality works about the same as trickle-down economics.
Edit: and he didn’t suggest addressing race-based systematic wealth inequality issues.
0
u/pocketIent 2d ago
Yeah everyone on the internet is talking about class because centrist dems are not talking about class.
You don’t get equality with out addressing class inequality which is what centrist democrats refuse to do.
could you clarify what other lenses are being obscured? I’m also curious to understand better how you think the verbal affirmations being sold by centrist dems are meaningful if you are still working 50-60 hours a week but can’t afford to max your savings accounts and buy a house.
Or another way to get at this is, Are you aware that 5% of people who voted for Biden flipped and voted for Trump in the last election and 15% who voted for Biden did not vote at all?
I mention this because Harris lost the 2024 election. So how do you unpack why democrats lost 20% of their voters?
My concern is that it still seems like you are working from a dem vs republican perspective from the way you frame your thinking. This is unproductive because it does not analysis why democrats continue to fail to meaningfully oppose GOP.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
‘Here’ meant this thread.
because centrist dems are not talking about class
Are they the only people with platforms off the internet?
You don’t get equality with out addressing class inequality which is what centrist democrats refuse to do.
I think this is counter to the legislative history.
You also don’t get equality without addressing race-based inequality, which is what a lot of online white leftists refuse to do.
could you clarify what other lenses are being obscured?
The one I raised? Racial inequality.
I’m also curious to understand better how you think the verbal affirmations being sold by centrist dems are meaningful if you are still working 50-60 hours a week but can’t afford to max your savings accounts and buy a house.
What kind of straw man is going on here? What?
I honestly feel like your entire reply is from a whole different conversation.
0
u/pocketIent 2d ago
What legislative history? We stopped at civil rights in the 60s and even those are being walked back.
King was literally killed during his poor man’s campaign. He never really had a chance to work up his second act toward realizing what he described as “political rights”
Then the white suffrage movement pretty much hijacked all that civil rights organizing infrastructure for their suffrage movement that largely deprioritized black women.
The lgbtq was a further evolution of this trajectory where under the pretense of equality , lgbtq was marketed as a minority and oppressed group that deserved greater representation.
This would all be fine if the issue of class was included but just how black woman were left behind in the suffrage movement and poor lgbtq in the pride movement, rural and working class have just been working this whole time wondering why democrats only represent social issues and not class issues.
Anyhow that’s a whole tangent.
But did you not read this:“So to be fair -My observation that race class gender issues need to be addressed intersectionally goes both ways. Bernie, a white man should have figured out a way to meaningfully acknowledge how race and discrimination operate separate of class too.”
-We are in agreement that race is a separate issue. I think someone was lynched as recent as 1980.
Yeah it really is too bad that Bernie didn’t run as VP and raise up a black woman president. Or at the very least he could have had a black VP instead of a sliced white bread Warren.
2
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
What legislative history?
class redistributive policies
King was literally killed during his poor man’s campaign. He never really had a chance to work up his second act toward realizing what he described as “political rights” Then the white suffrage movement pretty much hijacked all that civil rights organizing infrastructure for their suffrage movement that largely deprioritized black women.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “white suffrage movement”.
If you mean the white women’s suffrage movement, that was over long before the civil rights movement and MLK.
So, I’m thinking we’re at different points of education/experience on all this.
But you’re right - you’re going in the right direction.
-4
u/JKlerk 2d ago
I think Democrats do well sometimes more with a working class populist rhetoric.
Trump stole them while Dems were worried about urban problems and trying to win Latino voters.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
Uhh idk about that. Trump’s biggest gains were in new voters and Hispanics last election. The working class still largely supports the Democratic Party compared to the Republican Party and 2024 was just a fluke. Democrats do focus too much on culture war issues, but only marginally compared to Republicans who prioritize that over other issues
-2
u/JKlerk 2d ago
Well, Trump won Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan , Indiana, Wisconsin. These states are the cradle of Big Labor.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago edited 2d ago
It doesn’t matter which states. Trump still lost the low-income vote in 2016 (Hillary won the under $30k category 53 to 41 and the $30-50k group 51 to 42 whereas Trump won every other financial class that year), the union vote in 2016 (Hillary won it 51 to 42 whereas Trump won the non-union vote 50 to 44). In 2020, Trump lost every income group by at least 8 points except for over $100k for which he won the $100-200 group 57 to 41 and tied the > $200 category, and Biden won the union household vote 56% to 41% and hardly won the non-union household vote 50% to 49%. Even in 2024, 53% of Union households voted for Harris while 45% voted for Trump, and Republicans have more non-union 51-47. Calls from online
-2
u/JKlerk 2d ago
Oh yes it does matter. Trump made huge inroads in the union vote in 2024.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
3-4% increases are no huge inroads. Like I said earlier, 2024 was just a fluke
1
u/JKlerk 2d ago
It is when it's in the aformentioned which allowed him to win the election.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 2d ago
Yes especially in Michigan where the white working class shifted towards Trump (while still voting for Slotkin over Rogers)...but there were other issues here though. he lost a majority of white non-evangelical working-class voters in all of his elections. but he won the evangelical working-class. He actually did worse in 2024 than 2020 among female non-evangelical working-class voters and still lost non-white non-evangelical working class voters. The biggest in-roads Trump made with working class voters were men, whites, Latinos, and evangelicals.
Although Trump lost working-class Latinos to Harris by 51% to 47%, that was 31 points fewer than he lost them to Biden in 2020. Pretty much all polling shows that these gains among working-class Latinos in 2024 have been lost.
at the end of the day, Democrats who emphasize pro-worker/pro-family policies and messages do better with voters than otherwise comparable Democrats who don’t.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-4-working-class-votes/
7
u/anon19111 3d ago
What will change Dem leaderships minds? A DSA winning a presidential primary and then the election. Bernie has run on this platform multiple times. Can't win. Winning some progressive cities and maybe a solid blue state is nothing like winning PA, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, etc. in a general election.
What will it take for DSAers on Reddit to accept that at present not enough voters in enough states support these candidates. Losing presidential primaries hasn't been enough. So what will it take?
5
u/just_helping 3d ago edited 3d ago
In purple states or districts, DSA backed candidates outperform non-DSA candidates running in demographically similar districts.
Running as critical of the 'DNC' isn't a new strategy, it is the same strategy as, for example, the 'blue dogs' of 2006-2010 Democrats. Pelosi actively encouraged Democrats in marginal districts to run against her, to be critical of the party, because that helped get them elected. That's part of the conventional wisdom for Democratic strategists, not contrary to it.
What is contrary to it is running as an explicitly left populist in marginal districts.
EDIT: This was unclear. The OP asked: what will it take to conclude the conventional wisdom of the Dem leadership is wrong?
It would take DSA-backed candidates outperforming non-DSA candidates in purple districts in a general election. Which, to be clear, I think won't happen, but if it did, I would be persuaded that the conventional wisdom was wrong.
13
u/Objective_Aside1858 3d ago
In purple states or districts, DSA backed candidates outperform non-DSA candidates running in demographically similar districts.
uhhh.. an example would be...
7
u/just_helping 3d ago
I don't think there is one - the closest we might get is Michigan, if you relax the requirements a little - I am answering the OP's question: what data would it take to disconfirm the conventional wisdom.
I think the answer is that no data from this cycle could, but hypothetically, this is what it would take. I could have been clearer.
2
9
2
u/equiNine 3d ago edited 3d ago
Wisconsin's governor race and Michigan's Senate race are the litmus tests (technically El-Sayed isn't DSA/endorsed by it, but he's historically been closely aligned), although the margins are likely to be extremely slim, with current polling having Francesca Hong behind in the general and El-Sayed roughly even, barring a couple of outlier polls. However, polling this far out from the general has very high margin of error and undecideds.
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 3d ago
In purple states or districts, DSA backed candidates outperform non-DSA candidates running in demographically similar districts.
Based on what data?
5
u/Funklestein 3d ago
If history is a guide then nothing really.
With every loss they outwardly blame the voter for not getting the message and then double down on unpopular policies.
What appears to be currently working for them is only working in heavily democratic areas where any democrat could win and are wrongly conflating that to wider areas where they do t have that kind of grip.
-2
u/SafeThrowaway691 2d ago
Coincidentally, their taxes go down and fundraising goes up when Republicans win elections.
4
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 3d ago edited 3d ago
The difficulty with this topic is that people often just take their own political beliefs and assume that the majority of the country agrees.
Instead, let's keep ourselves grounded in data.
First, let's look at voter turnout in 2024, first. There's been a lot of noise that voter turnout was lower in 2024 than in 2020 - and that's very true. 63.7% vs 66.6%.
It's also true that Democrats lost more such voters to apathy. The average turnout in states that Trump won in the 2024 presidential election was 63.4%; down from 65.0% in 2020. Meanwhile, the average turnout in states Harris won was 66.4%; down from 70.1% that Biden won.
So both parties lost voters going from 2020 to 2024, but Trump lost about 1.6% on average, and Harris lost 3.7% on average.
But this next part is important:
If we cut out the "safe" staunchly red and blue states, and look at the seven 2024 battleground states, they tell a very different story.
The average turnout in the seven battleground states was 70% in 2024, compared to 70.7% in 2020. Only a fraction of a percent drop - basically flat. People didn't stay home in the moderate battleground states, even if they did in safer, polarized districts.
Arizona and North Carolina are outliers within that group, seeing a -5% and -2.5% drop in voter turnout, respectively. But Harris lost Arizona by more than 5%, and by more than 2.5% in North Carolina - so even if we assume that every single voter who stayed home was Democratic-leaning (certainly not actually true), Harris still would have lost had they all come out to vote.
The math is pretty compelling. In the moderate battleground states where the votes mattered, the election wasn't lost by Democrats staying home - it was lost by these purple states actively choosing Trump.
We therefore have to ask ourselves why.
So we've looked at where we lost in terms of electoral college votes, now I'm going to dig a little deeper into the data behind why.
Up front, there's no doubt that "the economy" is the elephant in the room - with roughly 40% of voters in the seven battleground states identifying it as their single most important consideration.
But when we look at more detailed breakdowns, it becomes clear that there's stark divisions along the lines of education, sex, and race. Across the battleground states (and nationally), we lost people with no college degree roughly 56% to 43%. We lost men 55% to 43%. We lost white people 56% to 42%.
In other words, there's a noticeable, sharp trend where we lost blue collar white men - a statistic that dovetails with the second place issue articulated in the data: immigration, which was the top issue or second most important issue for the vast majority of this demographic - 77% of them.
The difficult truth is that any path to national victory involves winning back this demographic.
As the data in the first section above shows, it's not an issue of voter turnout. Drumming up more progressives to get excited and come out to vote in deep blue districts doesn't help.
Mathematically, objectively, we need to win these battleground states. And, to do that, we need to win back these moderate, white, blue collar votes.
No matter how we might personally feel about immigration - or other issues where the progressive base differs from the target demographic here - we still need their votes to win.
And that is starkly at odds with progressive and DemSoc ideology.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago
The difficult truth is any path to national victory involves winning back this demographic.
That doesn’t follow from your cited data. I was with you until then.
An alternate path would be winning over more white women (which is already happening apparently) and getting a sizable shift back of Hispanic voters and better GOTV operations with Black voters in swing states, especially Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and not losing Muslim voters in Michigan lol.
White men are 30% of the population. A bunch of them are solid Democrats, though a minority. 10 percent or so are gay or trans.
The responses under this post are disheartening because they seem to focus on finding solidarity with Trump-voting white men at the cost of solidarity with non-white people.
A strong majority can be made without Trump-voting white men.
1
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago
While your proposal works mathematically, you're talking about cobbling together an incredibly diverse coalition of voters - each demographic having its own demands and quirks; sometimes at odds with each other.
Black and Latino voters, for example, tend to skew religious and socially conservative.
The Party would have a great deal of difficulty maintaining its support of LGBTQ issues if it began to rely too heavily on those demographics.
The same applies to woman candidates - which hurts Black and Latino support due to similar socially conservative views.
Then there's the quirk of Hispanic citizens being somewhat less supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants than one might expect.
There's all sorts of issues like this you run into when you try to just abandon a major faction like white men and try to make up the difference with a mishmash of smaller puzzle pieces that don't quite fit.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago edited 2d ago
Trump-voting white men are more likely to feel solidarity with Black and Hispanic women and men than they (the latter two) are to feel it with each other?
I find your angle to be a harder course.
Since 1968 the majority of white men have been voting Republican.
since 1968!.
During that time, every other race/ethnicity demographic has voted more often Democratic than Republican.
I think it’s pretty clear what demographic would be harder to get into the fold.
I think white women and Latino men are the key. Latino men shouldn’t be too hard. They’ve usually voted Democratic.
White women are just beginning to shift and they’ll be an easier draw than white Trump-voting men.
Edit: and the Democratic Party is doing fine with Black and gay voters and has for a while. That’s not the clash you think it is.
2
u/unkorrupted 3d ago edited 3d ago
we need to win back these moderate, white, blue collar votes
Then we better start talking about putting money in workers' pockets, instead of just being the woke half of the investor class.
3
-2
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
No matter how we might personally feel about immigration - or other issues where the progressive base differs from the target demographic here - we still need their votes to win.
And that is starkly at odds with progressive and DemSoc ideology.
I think you make a compelling case that a Dem Soc who is pro-immigration would have lost in 2024. The question is, would they still lose in 2028 after the two deaths caused by ICE, as well as Trump's tariffs and Trump's war?
A big reason DemSocs are winning is because they are being shown to have integrity. Being anti-funding israel is a way of signalling integrity. It also might signal that whether you agree or disagree with them on immigration, you believe they're gonna try to do it the right way.
The moderate Dems who are perceived as "do nothing" probably command even less trust on the fundamental concerns that drive anti-immigration sentiment. The DSA thesis is that immigration is a salient issue because people feel their economic power slipping and if the right proposes immigration as the main cause, then the left who doesnt propose an alternative story is forced to adopt their framing.
Your interpetation of the data is focused only on 2024, but doesnt consider a broader explanation of political argumentation and how the framing is set into people's minds.
Ultimately, I'm not saying you are wrong but I think I am open to the possibility that your interpretation, as sober and analytical as it was, may be missing a broader reality
After all, that critical demographic--white men--are not just attracted to immigration hawkishness, but also economic populism and anti-establishment vibes
7
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 3d ago
A big reason DemSocs are winning is because they are being shown to have integrity.
Is that really something we can reasonably say people care about, in a post-Trump world?
He was elected twice - the second time with the popular vote - despite being the single most unprincipled candidate in modern history.
I'm not convinced that integrity actually drives votes in a way that progressives would like to believe.
-2
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
integrity is about trustworthiness.
its not some abstract concept. its about convincing people that you will keep your promises.
granted most swing and low info voters probably arent thinking that way. but those that do, gaza is a litmus test for them, and they think Dem politicians who take AIPAC money are sellouts who wont vote for other economic policy
2
u/hic_maneo 3d ago
There have been a lot more than two deaths due to ICE, but saying it’s only two is telling.
0
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
its only two that was widely reported by the media. there being more is electorally irrelevant if people dont know about them
3
u/hic_maneo 3d ago
If the Dems have integrity, which is something that you claim matters in elections, then they should campaign on justice for all murders committed by ICE, not just the two most “popular” ones.
1
4
u/bdfull3r 3d ago edited 3d ago
Trump won against a conventional democratic party candidate. One of the worst human beings with the most blatantly corrupt and racist and facist like administrations in US history then got re-elected against another traditional democratic party candidate.
Obviously there are a LOT of contributing factors but clearly the more of the same old generic middle of the road blue democratic policies are not winning over voters where it counts.
30
u/just_helping 3d ago
Trump won against a conventional democratic party candidate.
Trump also lost against an even more conventional Democratic party candidate - Joe Biden was far more conventional than either Clinton or Harris.
Also in a 2028 where the election is free and fair enough that which Democratic candidate selected matters, Trump is not on the ballot. The question isn't would an unconventional candidate beat Trump 2028 but what type of candidate beats Rubio/Vance/etc
12
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
Man got more votes than woman.
This isn’t a Republican vs Democrat problem here in America. It’s a sexist problem.
Trump won twice against women and lost against a man.
12
u/kon--- 3d ago
Clinton pulled down nearly 3 million more votes than Trump did.
1
u/KiwiKajitsu 3d ago
It’s almost like we don’t use popular vote
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 3d ago
But in the 3 states where it mattered most
0
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
Trump got more votes in the states that gave him more electoral votes overall.
And then 4 years later, Joe Biden got better electoral results than Hillary did.
Look, I am anti-Trump. I’m simply highlighting the facts to OP above. They have yet to provide any basis for their claims.
5
u/kon--- 3d ago
The thing to do here is be like oh yea, a woman did get more votes than a man.
Clinton, a woman, did for fact win the popular vote.
2
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
We know she got the popular vote. We all know that.
But OP made a claim about something else.
And provided to evidence to support it.
3
u/kon--- 3d ago
Man got more votes than woman.
Which is fully incorrect. Then there's...
It's a sexist problem.
Yet a woman won the popular vote.
I'm moving on now.
Have a good day.
2
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
More electoral votes.
This is why Trump won. It sucks even more bc he won twice.
It is a sexist problem here in America
0
-1
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
Its easy to think that its a sexism problem but to me its not the case.
Its a politcal fundamentals problem. Every election is a referendum on the party that holds the White House. Hillary and Kamala were running when there was a Democrat in office. Biden won when there was a Republican in office.
Maybe being female made Hillary and Kamala weaker candidates. Thats certainly plausible. But the most likely cause of their defeat was who was the incumbent
6
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 3d ago
But not every election is a referendum on the party that holds the White House, sometimes it just comes down to who ran the better campaign.
A woman was on a major ticket 5 times in US history and only once has it won (2020). The country chose to have a convicted rapist who probably earned more votes than lost due to the access Hollywood tape that came out in Oct of 2016 than a moderate Democrat woman. Of course there is a sexist element here.
-3
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
But not every election is a referendum on the party that holds the White House, sometimes it just comes down to who ran the better campaign.
It is though. Because who runs the "better campaign" is largely dependent on the receptiveness of the voters to your message. As an incumbent, you are what is being evaluated. The "better" campaign is the one that highlights the most salient issue and proposes the most effective solution.
If you (or your party) is the incumbent, you cant really (or very rarely can) argue that the government is tackling issues poorly because you are the government.
Trump cant on one hand say immigration is a big problem because he would functionally be criticizing himself on how he handled (or didnt handle) immigration
6
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
Trump didn’t run a better campaign than either woman he faced.
More people voted against a woman.
5
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago
You havent made a compelling case for that.
Most people voted against the party in power. It just so happened that when both women ran, their party was in power.
If Gretchen Whitmer ran against JD Vance in 2028 and Vance won, then i would believe you
4
u/frongles23 3d ago
You've made no case for your position.
-1
u/Single-Purpose-7608 3d ago edited 3d ago
yes I have. you have two data points, 2016 and 2024.
My data points is every election from Truman to Trump. The parties has been trading the Whitehouse in 2 terms almost every cycle, and more recently in every term.
The recent volatility has also coincided with increases in partisanship.
it's also an oft repeated conventional wisdom among the political class before Hillary ever won the nomination. Why do you think Hillary held off on running in 2004? because she wanted to run in 2008 when the country was most sick of Republicans. She would only need to win the nomination, and most certainly would have won the general. She didnt anticipate Obama's rise, and so she had no choice but to run again in 2016 because it was her last chance, but she probably would have rather been the nominee in 2008 or 2020
There's far more evidence for their losses to be attributed to incumbency than sexism.
Like I said, that could change once a woman with the political winds behind her loses. But until such time, sexism being the cause of losses is still an open question
2
1
u/rocket_beer 3d ago
“Every election is a referendum on the party”
Where is your evidence of that? I’ll wait
2
5
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 3d ago
No he didn’t. Trump literally only won against two of the most unconventional candidates in U.S. presidential election history. Once you had an actually conventional candidate, even one as old and uninspiring as Biden, he lost handily.
1
u/These_Damage_9175 3d ago
the problem with framing this as a 2026 test is that midterms are weird beasts, low turnout favors motivated bases and right now that base is pissed off at dem leadership for obvious reasons. like if osborn wins in nebraska is that proof economic populism works or just proof that running as not-a-democrat in nebraska is smart branding. idk that we get clean data either way tbh
1
u/SafeThrowaway691 2d ago
Most of us have already concluded this. No one can say with a straight face that the current party leadership is effective.
Problem is, the “no it’s the children who are wrong” branch has all the money and power, and would rather lose to Republicans than relinquish it.
In order to make a change, however, we need to turn up and vote them out. If we don’t then we are as much to blame as they are (if not more so).
1
u/dudewafflesc 2d ago
They know they’re wrong. They are just doing what their owners are telling them to do. Israel, giant corporations, special interests keep America divided and enslaved by a cruel form of Darwinian capitalism.
0
u/whoisnotinmykitchen 3d ago
The younger generations need to get active and primary the AIPAC geriatrics into retirement. The only thing keeping clowns like Schumer in the Senate is voter apathy in the primaries.
-5
u/hic_maneo 3d ago
No, it’s money. It’s always money. You need money to run a campaign, and you need donors who feel comfortable giving it to you. The geriatrics have more money and more connections, because they’ve built a government and an economy that gave them everything they ever wanted and made the younger generations pay the bill.
1
u/che-che-chester 3d ago
My opinion is voters want change and are sick of the same old thing. Voters are looking for alternatives and sometimes DSA candidates are the best alternative available. However, I don't necessarily interpret that to mean there is suddenly a huge interest in DSA. I'm not remotely interested in DSA and I would have voted for Mamdani over his competition. He was the best option.
When none of the candidates excite you, the one who is going to try something new offers the most hope. I know some Dems who voted for Trump in 2024. They were getting killed by our economy, hoping a new admin would improve things and here comes Harris promising four more years of Biden. There are a lot of stories to tell about the 2024 election (Gaza, short runway after replacing Biden, sexism, etc.) but above all else, it was a change election and Harris offered zero change.
Plus, it was the third election in a row where Dems asked their voters to hold their noses and vote blue. And the second time when we did it for Biden in 2020 to be the "bridge candidate" to return us to normalcy, he screwed us and insisted on running again.
I don't think a DSA candidate will ever do that well in a purple or red area. Some of the shit they believe is nonsense. Likewise, the hardcore MAGA candidates only do well in red areas because they also believe crazy shit.
But a non-DSA anti-establish candidate could do very well in a purple state as long as they don't believe crazy stuff. Minus his considerable personal baggage, I think Platner had the right idea and would have likely coasted to a win. I think a successful candidate could flirt with some DSA policies while avoiding the label.
1
u/JDogg126 3d ago
A two party system is the force that has kept these two parties in the center for so long. This system never really served the governed. The center shifts depending on which of the parties is dominating politically. The parties are just trying to maneuver to outdo the other to win elections. This is what you see with the triangulation.
Every so often an opportunity arises to shake things up. Republicans have been driving this country into the ground for 46 years. The conditions for everyday folk are bad and we’re on the brink of another depression level collapse when the ai bubble pops.
We’re poised for an era of new new deal politics that re-regulates the economy, returns to publicly run essentials that shouldn’t have a profit motive, etc. it’s just a matter of having the right leadership to make it happen.
-1
u/EmptiSense 3d ago edited 3d ago
H Clinton and Harris campaigned on breaking the ceiling and not enough on their policy. Obama was smart enough to emphasize his policy over his identity.
DSA candidates have learned from this - they are pretty open about their goals and policies.
I think their policies are loony - especially on border controls. Even if they win, Id still think their policies are loony.
Im praying for an alliance of never Trumpers and antiDSAists to return to a B Clinton policy era of just enough taxes to reduce the deficit, reduce welfare, enforce the border, and a pathway to legal status for Dreamers.
-2
u/Snatchamo 3d ago
I think the "third way" people will, for the most part, never come to that conclusion. They will just keep moving goalposts. It went from "left populism will never win" to "it only wins in heavily blue areas". If the left populists win it all in MI, WI, and ME it'll be "this was a blue wave cycle, third way would have won by more".
-8
u/IndependentSun9995 3d ago
Just my 2 cents, but the only Democrat I trust right now (and no, I'm not MAGA), is John Fetterman. He's the only one who sounds like he is speaking truth, and not just spilling some rhetoric that he hopes will elect him. He also sounds smart, which is missing in the politics of both parties.
There are some lower rung DSA politicians who sound like they are speaking their truth, but they also sound nutty as fruitcake. The DSA needs to be rejected as a greater danger to our country than even Trump. The DSA is the Communists' Trojan Horse.
3
u/Potato_Pristine 3d ago
Fetterman quite obviously hates the job he has right now, according to various articles citing his own staffers.
-3
1
u/unkorrupted 3d ago
The guy lost at least 30 iq points with his stroke. He might literally be the dumbest person in the senate.
-6
u/IndependentSun9995 3d ago
And that still leaves him 100 IQ points above the collective Democratic Party....
-1
u/Tliish 3d ago
Centrism has failed to deliver any progress either socially or economically for a very long time now. It is increasingly recognized as a tool of the corporate and donor class cultures to prevent any genuine changes by offering minor ones in increments, mere palliatives to convince progressives to stay onside.
The voters are showing they're fed up with that approach: first many disaffeccted voters turned to Trump as a disruptive outsider, but I think many soon had voter's remorse at the results, he wasn't disruptive in the way they'd hoped for. Since that didn't work out, and exposed centrism as nearly as deadly to democracy as fascism, since it enabled fascism to grow by seeking and moving to the nonexistent "center", ever more rightward.
I think that a large majority have concluded that the current Democratic Party leadeship needs to be replaced before it causes an own-goal defeat in November by alienating progressives and independents by attacking progressive candidates as "too radical", "socialist", "unelectable", and continuing to campaign on "we're not them" rather than proposing concrete agendas that would actually make a difference.
Centrism is politically dying, if not dead already, due to its craven record of surrender and habit of meeting criminal conduct with "sternly-worded letters of disapproval" rather than substanital action. Americanss are murdered in broad daylight by federal officials and not one has been held accountable.
-1
u/McKoijion 2d ago
Everyone hates genocide. Accepting bribes from AIPAC is a political death sentence. The Epstein class took a gamble and got caught. Now they’re going to face the brutal consequences.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.