all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

Bettteridge says no.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago
    [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • 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.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    A girl can dream

  • source
  • 34 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 38 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Absolutely not. Their owners will not allow it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I think the opposite. They will learn not to hold primaries because that goes against their interests.

    They'll keep trying the Hillary / Kamala strategy until they get lucky or the US is done for good and the notion of a government becomes pointless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Tbf there is an argument to be made that the “Kamala” strategy worked just fine, people were actually hyped up and did get out the vote. She just was undermined by election fuckery. Eventually it will be fully understood how we were never supposed to be here, but shit was rigged.

    Progressives acting like she didnt have a chance at winning is honestly pretty dumb, even if I would like to see a more progressive party myself. She was a good candidate. Never in my life have more people hit me up at the exact same moment than when Joe Biden dropped out

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Tbf there is an argument to be made that the “Kamala” strategy worked just fine, people were actually hyped up and did get out the vote.

    This is straight up historical revisionism, which is wild considering this shit happened last year. Harris lost all swing states. I repeat, she lost all swing states. She allowed fucking Trump to run on being anti-war and pro-worker. Fucking Trump. What are you even talking about?

    Never in my life have more people hit me up at the exact same moment than when Joe Biden dropped out

    That was excitement at having someone other than Biden to vote for, which Harris quickly squandered.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The conspiracy would have to be way too big for all the polling to be as close as it was and have her lose votes pretty consistently across many different voting systems in the way she did. Maybe there was some meddling on the margins (still looking forward to real evidence) but the fact is it was as close as it was because a ton of people just didn't care. Most of the excitement was that we could vote for both Not Trump and Not Biden at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    There's only so much the owners can do. That's the great lesson of Mamdani's win. Money is useful in politics, but the dirty secret that the corporate dems don't want people to realize is that corporate donations aren't actually necessary. You need ridiculous campaign war chests to buy endless quantities of consultant-provided TV ads, but those aren't actually that effective. TV ads are only so effective before you reach saturation on them. Past a certain point, more ads just starts annoying people. Dems can't get as much money if they rely on individual donors over corporate donations, but those extra donations aren't actually needed. The corporate dems are just in the pocket of the ad consultants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Not likely, it doesn't serve their primary corporate interests

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    The Democrat establishment? No.

    Democrat voters? Fucking hopefully, and the lesson they hopefully fucking learn is vote in the primaries

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    They will learn to do everything they can to stop the implementation of ranked choice primaries.

    And primaries overall.

  • source
  • No, so that's why we need to replace the Democrats by showing up for primaries.

  • source
  • 🤣 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"

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    LOL! Good one.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Will the democrats learn

    Will pigs fly?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nope. They'll run all their stupid milquetoast "centrist" candidates like usual.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Forgive me such a silly question, but is it possible to... you know... decome a member of the dems and have your say?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Who wants to join a party that is only good at selling weapons to murder Palestinians?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I feel like I've blocked you a million times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Centrism: being angry at how frequently you take steps to ignore people to your left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    No, but we will.

  • source
  • 12 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It's not about learning, it's a power struggle.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Have you seen the state of things lately?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago
    2 comments in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post
    [+] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent