“How’s the Democratic Party’s ground game in Pennsylvania?” I asked a friend several weeks before the 2024 presidential election. He replied optimistically that there were far more door knockers this year than in 2022.

It turned out these door knockers were just urging a vote for the Democrats without putting forth a compelling agenda attached to candidate commitments on issues that mean something to people where they live, work, and raise their families. There was no Democratic Party “Compact for the American People.” Then-President Joe Biden visited Pennsylvania, which went Republican, many times, with his most memorable message being that he grew up in Scranton.

...

Their aversion to building their own momentum to answer the basic questions “Whose side are you on?” and “What does the Democratic Party stand for?” remains as pathetic as it was in 2022 and 2024.

all 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 9 months ago (18 children)

They are already winning, they have all the campagn contributions they need. Why would they do anything different.

Citizens United will be the death of the USA.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    How do we overturn Citizens United

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Expand the Supreme Court. It's not even a radical idea. We have one SC justice for every superior court circuit. The number of circuits has grown, the number of justices hasn't, and there's no reason they can't or shouldn't, except that it'd dilute the donors' power.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    congress and the senate would have to make s new law snd the president would have to sign it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Citizens United isn't a law, it's a Supreme Court ruling which has its (flawed) logic based on the Constitution. A law won't cut it, because Citizens United would be used as precedent to strike it down as unconstitutional. We likely need a new Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Well crap, if you are correct, then we really, truly are fukt.

    There is no way we'll see a constitutional admendment, especially not one for the people and agaisnt big business. Not in my lifetime. Its fascism from here on out. Fuuucccckkkkkkk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Maybe we form a micronation that's basically like the US government but socialist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    The CIA would like to know your location

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I dunno, are you fedposting? 🤨

    But nah that wasn't my implication. Just that starting a micronation that's "the United States but better" would certainly attract some attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Democrats: At least we’re not republicans.

    Yeah that’s not enough

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Since trump got elected that seems to be all they have. Biden, like him or not, actually had some decent policy. Yes, yes…could have done a lot better, but it was more than “we’re not trump”.

    But since trump won? They’ve caved on pretty much everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    How many times does the Democratic Party leadership have to create new and inventive ways to steal defeat from the jaws of victory for it to form a clear composite picture of collaboration?

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    It's long past time for the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries to get the hook, and get dragged off-stage. They are 50% of the reason that Trump is president again.

    Imagine if we let Hitler off the hook, and then allowed him to take power again a few years later? These dipshits did that.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    They'll still be wagging their finger and expressing concern while they're being beaten and hauled off to a private prison.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It’s because they’re traitors

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It's so fucking crazy to see liberal Dems get on their soapbox about how "you can't talk about dual loyalty, that's antisemitism" and then show up at an AIPAC conference in Israel Flag pajama pants with an open checkbook to the US Treasury

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    The Democratic party is such a pussyfest (negative).

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    And they never will

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Their purpose has never been to win but to defend the status quo and prevent leftist organizations and movements from gaining positions of political influence and power that may threaten that status quo.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    always entertaining to see commiefantasy.org keeping up the hate for the non-fascists

    meanwhile the non-fascists are winning

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5716988-democrats-score-upset-texas/

    liberal democracy is working despite the efforts of the "leftists"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    It wasn't a complete cave...

    This midterm election is gonna be close.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (28 children)

    Need to have Schummer, Jeffries and Martin removed. All democratic senate Candidates in 2026 need to be primaried, for a realistic chance of changing the democratic party.

    If we can't do that, we should sit the election out.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    We could at least have them removed from their leadership positions. That could happen today if 10 dems would call for a internal vote on it. Evidently we dont have that many willing to do the right thing. I wonder why $$$$.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (25 children)

    Nuh uh. If you don't want to vote for the big two, vote third party instead. Those guys are legitimately appreciative of every vote they get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (24 children)

    Then all the democrats lose their votes, the republicans win big, and the third party candidates are "legitimately appreciative". Now what? This is the kind of stupid suggestion that helped Trump win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    Then either the democrats change to appease the third party voters, or the third party keeps growing until it no longer matters what the democrats do.

    If those scenarios seem unrealistic, they are much more realistic than democrats spontaneously deciding to do a 180 and actually fix things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    I've been yelling this for years. The scary thing for me is that increasingly "dems + lean dem" are no longer the majority and repubs have better numbers. And strong dem registration numbers shrink every year. Dems refuse to acknowledge or act on this fact, and its harder every year to define what "Dem" even stands for anymore. What is the Dem party platform? I used to be sure. Do dems support progressive taxation? No one knows. Now I think the DNC champions whatever viable minimum it can to win an election while sucking off the donors to the maximum extent. If they can win with 51% by allowing the rich to fuck us all over, thats the strategy they will pick-- they arent on our side.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/fact-sheet/party-affiliation-fact-sheet-npors/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Third parties haven't grown, though. Only 3 were on the ballot in more than 10 states in 2024, and none were all 51 states. Over 99% of state and federal legislative seats are held be either Democratic or Republican nominee. Zero current governors, with only 4 in total in the last 25 years. Not a single electoral college vote since 1968, and Perot received 18.9% of the national popular vote in 1992. Current third party candidates and voters should generally be trying to shift the Democratic party via the primaries instead, due to the stacked ballot access in most states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Primaries aren't even required to be fair elections. The party can pull whatever shenanigans it wants, and there's nothing any of us can do about it so long as third parties are ruled out.

    If the democrats decided to straight up go back to the days of deciding nominees in smoke-filled rooms with no primary process at all, then would you still say we need to vote for them unconditionally as the lesser evil? Is there any breaking point at all where you'll reject that approach?

    Because if so, then I am simply already past that point. And if not, then you seem utterly hopeless to me. They can keep moving further and further right, removing any possibility for you to do anything about it, and you'll keep supporting them unconditionally. I consider that a ridiculous position and it's even more ridiculous to think the general public would accept that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    If they do away with primaries we can discuss what to do at that time, but they haven't at this time and they've actually reduced the power of super delegates since 2016 (before the 2018 primaries they made it so super delegates don't even get a vote at the convention unless the pledged delegates can't elect a nominee in the initial round).

    I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.

    I'm advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you're living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that's where your alignment falls. Otherwise you need to accept that the winner will be either the Democratic or Republican nominee so your chance to influence that is in either of those primaries and not voting for one of them in the general means the one with whom you least align has one fewer votes to overcome to win. For your one vote against them, they need two votes to get the lead.

    Third parties just aren't viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I'm advocating for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    So your idea is that we will vote in Democrat politicians who will... Legislate themselves out of power by instituting ranked choice voting?

    This part of your plan seems absurd on its face. I want ranked choice voting as much as you, but we need a realistic plan, and what you're proposing is a pipe dream.

    Voting third party is more realistic than expecting Dems to institute ranked choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.

    Y'all always play this little game. "I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth." OK then, say unequivocally that that is not your position. Say that it's valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than "no genocide."

    You just don't like me rephrasing your position bluntly.

    I’m advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you’re living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that’s where your alignment falls.

    No, you have it completely backwards. I am going to vote according to my values and beliefs. If they give me ranked choice voting, then I will happily put them above the Republicans. Otherwise, they will acquiesce to my minimum demands or they will not get my vote.

    Third parties just aren’t viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I’m advocating for

    Oh, you're one of those. "My car broke down." "Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!"

    The problem that ranked choice is meant to address is that the current system does not provide a viable means for us to get policy enacted. Your "solution" is to keep using ineffective, broken means in the hopes that it will somehow be effective at fixing itself. If we could achieve RCV through the existing system, then we could just achieve whatever end policy we want through the existing system. The logic is incredibly backwards, putting the cart before the horse.

    If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it. And if enough people did that, perhaps it could be achievable. And I'd certainly have more respect for your position.

    As it is, your position is simply complete, unconditional support for the democrats, and then you say some irrelevant shit about voting reform to distract from that fact. Like, "It would sure be nice if the king decided to institute democracy out of the kindness of his heart, I'll keep supporting him either way though." If that is false, then address my first paragraph.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I already stated that unconditional support for Democratic nominees is not my position. I also already stated the circumstances under which I believe your vote can be effective when cast for a third party. I also never said to not vote based on your values and beliefs. I said that if you choose to not vote against the person who is least aligned with your values and beliefs, you're making it easier for them to win. The winner of the election will be one of the candidates on the ballot, whether they've earned your individual vote or not. And it's your only opportunity to pick which one of them it will be. Neither will align perfectly with your values and beliefs unless you yourself are running. Even with ranked choice voting. So you may as well take that opportunity to get as close to your values and beliefs as is possible given the choices.

    Since you brought this up specifically, did a "no genocide" candidate win? Was there a "no genocide" candidate for president on the ballot in enough states to even be mathematically capable of winning enough EC votes? Not even likely to win but just mathematically able to? Did you then believe that Trump, who Netanyahu supported, would be better than Kamala on that issue? If you thought that were indistinguishable, were there any other issues besides that which mattered to you, for which there was a measurable difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

    If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it.

    I have the spine to use my voice to strive for better rather than to silence myself in wait for perfect, because if I'm not helping to make the choice of who is in power, someone else will make it for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”

    Literally nothing else you can say matters at all. Because if you can't answer this, then when you say your position is not unconditionally voting democrat, you are simply lying.

    If you want to argue for unconditionally supporting them, and admit that that is your position, then it might be worth considering any of your other arguments, because then at least you're being honest and consistent. But unless you can either do that or answer my challenge, you are obviously engaging in bad faith and dishonesty.

    Either you're ok with placing conditions on them or you support them unconditionally. That's what "unconditionally" means. You don't get to have it both ways.

    And, if you can answer that challenge, then you'll have already refuted all the arguments you just made for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    The democrats lost and haven't changed a thing. The third parties also haven't changed. They still don't stand a chance.

    And now we have blatant fascism and a mentally ill narcissistic pedophile with dementia hauling anyway anyone he dislikes in the back of a van while he builds concentration camps for anyone who angers him.

    How exactly is this better than Kamala?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    I don't think Trump being president is better than Kamala, which is why I didn't vote for him.

    If Kamala had won, then she would still be black bagging people to concentration camps. ICE existed before and both Biden and Kamala explicitly support it. The silver lining is that, because Trump is doing it blatantly, as you say, at least more people are aware of it and upset about it. Doing fascism while following the rules and keeping everything out of sight and out of mind is arguably worse, but it's kind of a toss up.

    Of course, the strategies I mentioned were and are longshots, which may take a while to work if they will at all. But they have a nonzero chance of working, which is more than "vote blue no matter who" does. That is, if the goal is actually stopping fascism and not just easing into it more comfortably.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Most messed up part is dems will change... they just chase right wing voters more cause they vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I voted and encouraged others to do so.

    Harris and Clinton bent over backwards to win over the mythical "moderate republicans" and ate shit. Only reason Biden won was because of COVID.

    If the democrats can't be pressured or reasoned with, that's all the more reason to give up on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Republicans may end up winning big anyways because people will otherwise not turn out at all and then democrat voters will blame the public for not voting even though the democrats gave them no real reason to vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Realistically the voting system in each state needs to be changed, otherwise it’s a bit of a moot point to vote third party in many instances.

    The thing is that it’s definitely something achievable to change the system. Alaska and Maine both have Ranked Choice voting. NYC has Ranked Choice voting as well.

    If groups supporting ranked choice voting, like the Equal Vote Coalition or FairVote, get more support then it becomes more than just a pipe dream, and third parties will have a legitimate chance to win without having the spoiler effect being a major disincentive.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    With a mortar launcher

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    People have to understand that Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, its the same serpent which bites its own tail. Its controlled opposition.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm struggling to understand your ouroboros metaphor, could you elaborate? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or to tease or anything, I'm asking in earnest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    There's no tease in that and you're right to ask for more information. Republican and Democratic parties, despite appearing as opposites, are actually part of a single, self-sustaining system ("controlled opposition"). Now, that doesn't mean it's always been that way, but infiltrating both parties during many years can set a scene for this to play out perfectly. They don't care about laws, rulers, or anything of those sorts (they are the ones printing money and distributing power). Presidents, governors, etc are not "controlled" as in per se (or at least not all of them), but once they reach that position they are limited by the very system they are ruling, and that system is already controlled by a single "party" (to call it so) which has people on both sides. People who meet and drink at the same table, visit the same islands, do the same degeneracy, so on and so forth.

    Edit: Also a good example is AIPAC, they are funding both democrats and republicans. AIPAC could easily be the very serpent we are talking about. What's funny is that AIPAC is basically Israels way of controlling politicians in USA, Israel which has Mossad (Funded in the same year, with common inteligence as CIA). Mossad which shares an astonishing amount of information with KGB... KGB which is Russia's intelligence. When you draw the line at the end, they are all basically in the same boat. The very people that create false wars and send people to the meat grinder for profit.

    Russia and USA, biggest "enemies", yet... when it comes to war, they decide to fight it in Europe or Middle East (despite USA and Russia sharing a border) and just so it happens that they fight those proxy wars exactly in countries that do not adhere to either Rothchilds banks or are in the way of Israel/USA or Russia.

    Once they have enough technology (which we develop), once they have unlocked key aspects to life, from highly advanced medicine or propulsion systems (you name it), they will massacre the masses like cattle and rule on their own over their own world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah its all the Democrats fault

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    I didn't say it was just the good cop's fault, the good cop by definition has a partner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Both sides voted to fund ICE...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    The most upvoted garbage here is always blaming Democrats instead, ya know, the party ACTUALLY in charge let alone the ones covering up and grovelling to a fascist pedophile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    It's always let's blame the ppl not good enough because they could do better not the ones being bad.

    Its like a parent punishing the normal kid for a mistake but never the bad one cause its expected.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    They're not "cowards" as much as they are doing the job that they are paid to do by their "donors".

    Schumer has made a fortune! Pelosi's family is set for generations! And so on.

    Politics are the third easiest way to become wealthy in the USA (easiest being inheritance, second easiest prosperity gospel preacher).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Ahh, yes. Gotta get that no-vote agenda rolling again: it's an election year!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Priority 1: Get all Republicans out of government seats; they've proven they can't be trusted with power. Vote Democrat so the candidate you vote for had a solid chance to win.

    Priority 2: Hold the elected Democrat accountable, tell them what you expect from them. If they won't serve you, vote in someone who will.

    Priority 3: If you're capable of it, research how to get your name on your local ballot(s) and start campaigning. If no candidate is willing to represent your interests, be the candidate to represent those interests and you'll have an easy campaign.

    The donors are scared shitless that we'll realize WE have the power of government in our hands, and as long as one person equals one vote, that will always be the case. Every change they want is designed to undermine the fact that one person equals one vote, no matter how much money they have.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 7 comments in c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    The state is a velvet glove over a steel gauntlet at our throats.

    The current republican regime wants to set the glove on fire and punch us in the face for the pure joy of harming others.

    The democrats find that all a little unseemingly and would like to put out the fire and get that smoldering gauntlet back at our throats as soon as possible.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    By Ralph Nader

    Oh hey it's that guy

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    People really do believe the democratic party is more important then the country itself.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    My still to be named third party which isn’t fully formed yet will prevail!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment