The other thing I've noticed with Democrats (actually pretty much any group left of the Republicans) is that they'll splinter off into a dozen different groups at the drop of a hat and all infight with each other harder than they'll fight their actual opponents.

The hard right is so effective IMO because they'll glom together with people they don't 100% agree with to push things in the general direction they want before they start arguing about the details.

Eh. I get what you’re saying, but so much of the disillusionment from the potential dem base is coming from their constant promises and constantly arriving at the obvious conclusion decades late and then acting like they’re the most progressive politician in human history. While in reality it’s a half step toward the policies we should’ve enacted forty years ago.

It’s not that people are like “so what.” It’s the deep seeded knowledge in all of us that the party will try to throw us crumbs and claim like they’ve always been on our side and are the most righteous policy makers that are saving us, when in reality they’re walking hand in hand with people that are pushing us to absolute limit of barely acceptable and then dangling what they’ve known they should’ve done forever ago in front of us when we’re finally at our breaking point.

They don’t care about us. They’re not beholden to us, and it shows. They’re beholden to money and are performatively throwing us scraps when they have an opponent so far right that it’s literally the threat of fascism. And they are very much responsible for the continued rightward march of the entire country.

Biden did student loan forgiveness, which should have given him all the college votes, yet people shurg and go “Well yea! About time!”

He dithered and only reluctantly did this. And then when he did, he did it in a way that a corrupt SCOTUS could overrule. There were other paths he could have taken, but he chose the least-confrontational approach and ultimately the court negated most of his efforts. His fault or not, very few people actually ended up getting their loans forgiven. If he failed to consider a hostile SCOTUS in his plans, then that is a strategic failure on his part.

He puts money into infrastructures and unions and again, people go “I guess, it’s a bit better than Republicans!”

His infrastructure bills are currently being torn to pieces as they were slow to actually spend their money. They were mired in everything bagel liberalism. A thousand requirements for dollar spent meant to solve every social ill under the Sun. But regardless, these bills didn't directly help individuals. They may be necessary to curb the rise of China, but that's not something that affects people's lives directly. Unionization? Biden was unable to stem the decline in union numbers, and he himself chose to be a strikebreaker.

I think a big issue is people expect democrats to enact the thing's they promise to enact and then they don't. And there's insane coping and denial used to justify it instead of allowing real critique.

Biden did student loan forgiveness,

Biden tried, no loans were forgiven, some loans were forced to be more ethical, but nobody was freed from the debt.

So that isn't seen as a win by a lot of people who wanted loan forgiveness and got a half assed attempt that didn't help.

Hell, he said he would forgive all student loans and make college free. Lol

He puts money into infrastructures and unions and again, people go "I guess, it's a bit better than Republicans!"

Again, this isn't really as true as I wish it was.

They put money into green energy corporations that hoard it offshore like other corps.

And Biden literally fought against unions while in office.

Democratic voters suck ass at rallying behind any cause, because the base is filled with "well actually...!" people, that demand 100% problem completion on day one, otherwise they are not impressed.

I try really really hard to not be contrarian about this shit, but Democrats aren't making partial progress on anything, they are failing to make positive meaningful change for working class people at the expense of the rich, which is a requirement for fixing wealth inequality, which is the source of the vast majority of economic and societal issues. Until Democrats are willing to force their rich owners to make concessions they will not be capable of supporting these kinds of policies.

Also blaming voters for the outcome of an election is not valid, it's up to politicians to provide something worth voting for and being capable of communicating those policies to their target voters.

Meanwhile, Republican voters will literarily vote for a rapist because they see the bigger picture.

Republicans vote for strongmen because their religious upbringing makes them subservient to anyone who can imitate the way their pastor made them feel.

I think Jon was referring to the previous DNC strategies, which were heavily reliant on consultants.

Opinion pollsters who don't try to challenge or move voters?

So, yeah, sorta, but not in the way the DNC does it.

What would be a more direct equivalent: the Center for American Progress writing it? Should they do that?

Nah, they're the only ones we have any idea about. Not to mention zelensky has been killing it.

I kinda like repeated reaffirmation of a candidate's values, especially if it is very public and consistent.

Ukraine seems to have ended up with a good leader doing that. 😉

I was joking with my SO the other day about RuPaul running for president and we realised that since she's a reality TV host but also has a successful business that hasn't gone bankrupt and isn't obviously a Russian puppet, she's actually probably more qualified than the current sitting president for the job.

In most cases I agree. Stewart is not a political neophyte though. I mean it's not like he runs a reality show

His humour requires wit, understanding and nuance. His product is much more intelligent and complex than say, a competition show where people compete for a " job" with some thinly veiled gangster.

So basically he's waaaaaaay over qualified to be president.

For every Trump, there’s a Zelenskyy.

thats how the US got in this predicament in the first place. elect a cunt who had a single line in home alone. I mean, Schwarzenegger was gov of Cali at some point and any german speaking mf could tell you that Arnold, while beloved and a huge teddy bear, was never the sharpest bulb in the shed.

Oliver is not qualified.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least 35 years old;
• be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

Do you think people vote for the perfect party? No. Never have. You vote for the least worse. And understand that you chose from the bad options they gave you so the most good was possible.

All this bleating about how evil the Dems apparently are when they've been hamstrung so long, I just don't care. It's a two party system and they're the least worse.

If a third party shows up, it has a chance of being good. But we all understand that under FPTP a third lefty party will only split the dem vote and hand a win to the GoP even when it's fair.