Absolutely not. Their owners will not allow it.
post
I would rather progressives become emboldened, run for far more Dem positions, and do a reverse Tea Party to drag the party back towards sanity
The Democrat establishment? No.
Democrat voters? Fucking hopefully, and the lesson they hopefully fucking learn is vote in the primaries
Higher level democrats? No, not at all.
In fact, many of them will see this as a bad thing, and will double down on their establishment ways.
They will learn to do everything they can to stop the implementation of ranked choice primaries.
And primaries overall.
No, so that's why we need to replace the Democrats by showing up for primaries.
🤣 No, They just learned to double down on rhetoric.
Whaaaa why do people want to eat and afford rent so bad, why can't they just ask daddy for money"
Nope. They'll run all their stupid milquetoast "centrist" candidates like usual.
Forgive me such a silly question, but is it possible to... you know... decome a member of the dems and have your say?
Who wants to join a party that is only good at selling weapons to murder Palestinians?
It's a game of Would You Rather and your answer is "screw you guys, I'm going home."
You can join the Democratic Party and push them towards your beliefs or you can keep pushing them further right, but either way it's only D or R for the foreseeable future.
That's what Bernie's people did in 2016. Did you forget? They went through a whole process of trying to win numerous spots and make changes within the Democratic party structure. They got ratfucked by the DNC who shut them down. The DNC went to court and argued the party could ignore their own internal rules to prevent progressives from winning committee spots and taking over the party.
Sounds like a great argument for getting more progressives deeply placed in the party. Too much of the power structure in the DNC is old libs, only way to change that is to get more of us in place.
Would Bernie be more effective if he was formally a member of the Democratic Party, like how AOC is? I'm not sure, but it is telling he ran in the Dem primary instead of as an independent.
Centrists know this. As he said, it's a game to them. Their objective is to move the party to the right so they get what they want. Which is genocide.
I feel like I've blocked you a million times.
Centrism: being angry at how frequently you take steps to ignore people to your left.
Absolutely fucking not. Not because they can't but because they don't want to. They'll rather live under fascism than enact meaningful change for the benefit of the general public.
Did anyone actually read the article or did y'all just read the headline?
He says probably not, but it doesn't matter, because it's up to the people to rise up and push them out like they've started to as part of the Sanders/AOC rallies, the No Kings protest, and Mamdani's primary victory.
Have you seen the state of things lately?
I don’t see anyone in this thread talking about giving up on the world, just giving up on liberals.
It is becoming glaringly obvious that the purpose the Democratic Party serves for at least the last two decades is to quash any progressive aspiration. If they learn anything, it will be that they need to stomp down harder.
On that note, if this guy manages to actually win the election he is going to be murdered. Fascism will be too far along and he does not have the unwavering support of the NYPD to protect him. In fact they are the most likely party to orchestrate it.
It's not just about winning, it's about ideology. Embracing demsoc candidates wouldn't just be a change in strategy, it would be a change in the party's core ideology. Ideology is why political parties exist. Political parties are usually based in ideology, that's why in other democracies there are liberal parties, conservative parties, socialist parties, Libertarian parties, etc. But here in the US we don't have a system of political ideology plurality, so the two parties that we do have are often fighting internally to determine what the core ideology of the party will be.
You know why so many Democrats don't like demsoc candidates? Because they're not demsocs. They're social liberals or neoliberals, and they want the Democratic party to remain an ideologically Liberal party.
If our democracy were more like most every other democracy on the planet, the neoliberals and the demsocs would each have their own party, and they wouldn't need to be engaged in this constant, zero sum fight for control of one party.
Copying and pasting my comment from the earlier thread.
Did anyone actually read the article or did y'all just read the headline?
He says probably not, but it doesn't matter, because it's up to the people to rise up and push them out like they've started to as part of the Sanders/AOC rallies, the No Kings protest, and Mamdani's primary victory.
How can they learn what they already knew? The weakness/corruption/etc. is on purpose to serve their donors. The DNC already knows how powerful a leftist, grassroots movement is, which is why they snub the lefty candidate at every chance instead of letting their namesake run its course.
Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not.
Those of us not in a ranked-choice system in NYC may need to have a plan for the seething MAGAt olds that infest our red states and rural areas. Ignoring them does seem ideal, but the math doesn't work out right.
i was going to say something like this: the democrats are already aware of what they need to do, they just won't since there's no riches or power to be had in doing so and the people who think that the democrats will help in any meaningful way are wearing rose tinted glasses created from the past.
not sure I trust a Democrat to do that.
Not sure I trust any mayor to do that
all 34 comments