Dems suck at winning elections because for 40 years now their strategy has been a losing one of “try being Republican-light.” They’re too corrupted by corporate bribes to right the ship, hopefully it sinks into a sea of conservative ignorance and an actual leftist party can rise from the ashes.
The more right the US shifts, the more it will be controlled by money over masses. Unless by “rise from the ashes” you actually expect a successful overthrow of the US government by a people’s revolution which is pretty laughable in this polarized nation.
The more right the US shifts, the more it will be controlled by money over masses.
I’m curious as to why did you made this statement. Like do you think the US isn’t already fully “controlled by money over masses”?
I legitimately don’t understand what people think America is as a country. All I see everywhere I go in this country is an orgiastic celebration of material wealth and those who have it over all else.
We’ve been controlled by “money over masses” my entire existence. I seriously have zero understanding of what online leftists are even talking about when they talk about solidarity and community. I’ve lived in many different places here and I felt the same sense of individualism and capital above all else everywhere I’ve been.
I’m not saying money doesn’t control politics when Democrats hold office. I’m saying Democrats do more for the masses than Republicans, especially the Republicans that are coming next year. Trump and his cronies are very vocal about having already been sold to the highest bidder.
That would be cool, but I meant more metaphorically. Other parties have come and gone in the history of the US - now is a great time for an actual populist party to rise up and win voters from all political spectra. It isn’t just Dems who are feeling disenfranchised, and a large enough movement could pierce through the media bubbles on both sides to gain momentum.
It’s feasible, albeit pretty idealistic. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m a bit skeptical that the billionaire-owned media will support honest reporting of a candidate that threatens their power.
I’m a bit skeptical that the billionaire-owned media will support honest reporting of a candidate that threatens their power.
I 100% share in your skepticism.
This is where a lot of the online talk about “the DNC” gets me. Like sure, the DNC wants their preferred candidate as an organizing body I’m sure, but the media did everything it could to keep Bernie from winning the nomination as well. I remember people on MSNBC of all places talking about how dangerous nominating Bernie Sanders would be.
They attack it in straightforward ways (calling them “communists”, “socialists”, “Marxists”) in more republican-leaning media, and they attack it in other, less straightforward means in other type of media (calling the plans “stupid”, saying that they’ll “never work” that we “don’t have the money”, or “it’ll cost more in taxes!”).
I just don’t see it at all. I wish I was more hopeful about this stuff but with the individualistic behavior of the American populace, the mass media landscape, and the way the Internet has been sculpted into something palatable or even usable by the oligarchs to get what they want (perhaps even more cheaply than it was in traditional media) I just don’t believe it is possible to win with some “better message”.
The only thing I could see saving this country is a groundswell of old-style civic behavior where people largely tune out or drop off from mass media and social media and start connecting with their neighbors and building actual community. I am not optimistic about that either.
I agree with you with the exception of Bernie’s 2016 campaign. The head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to step down after evidence was found of her deliberately favoring Hillary over Bernie prior to the primary. This came after the primary vote of course.
I agree that they didn’t really give him a fair shake in 2016…however, they thought they were representing their best interests at the time and that a “fascism” proxy would lose handily to a “socialism” proxy in Sanders. They or may not have been right, and there is a lot of debate about that and I’m honestly not sure myself what to believe. He was never a serious candidate in that race and everyone probably including his own supporters knew that. In 2020, he got much closer to securing the nomination and that is why we saw the beginning of the attacks the media will toss at any Bernie-like candidate.
I haven’t thought of it that way before, but you’re absolutely correct. There’s honestly no way to tell which is the chicken and which the egg in that scenario. Did the DNC promote Hillary because the media leaned into “socialist Bernie,” or did the DNC paint him as socialist in contrast to Hillary and the media ran with it? It’s an equally thought-provoking and nauseating concept.
They’re too corrupted by corporate bribes to right the ship, hopefully it sinks into a sea of conservative ignorance and an actual leftist party can rise from the ashes.
And you know what’s really sad about this? They don’t even have to be! Kamala massively outspent Trump. One thing the DNC refuses to learn is that there is such a thing as saturation in campaign messaging. Past a point, past a certain number of commercials, flyers, mailer, door-hangers, text messages, and on and on? At some point it just stops working. At some point you just start annoying people. Hillary massively outspent Trump in 2016, and Kamala massively outspent Trump in 2024. It didn’t matter. Most of those dollars were completely wasted showing ads to voters that were already completely over-saturated with ads.
Maybe you need corporate money for the type of wasteful campaign Kamala ran, but it’s not like she didn’t also raise millions and millions in individual donations. Even in the era of big money politics, it is entirely possible to bring in enough small donations to run a presidential campaign. All that corporate money that Kamala sold her soul for was ultimately spent preaching to the choir or trying to reach the unreachable.
I think those leftists who abstained from voting know how this happened, and I’ll give them credit for having principles in a time where principle is severely lacking. Either way, you’re wrong to blame them - Kamala could have won every last one of those votes if she denounced the genocide perpetrated by Israel and announced plans for an arms embargo as soon as she took office, but that was too much to ask for a politician thoroughly corrupted by AIPAC money. The blame squarely lies with DNC leadership for losing yet another election in spectacular fashion.
I voted for Walz.
Dems suck at winning elections because for 40 years now their strategy has been a losing one of “try being Republican-light.” They’re too corrupted by corporate bribes to right the ship, hopefully it sinks into a sea of conservative ignorance and an actual leftist party can rise from the ashes.
The more right the US shifts, the more it will be controlled by money over masses. Unless by “rise from the ashes” you actually expect a successful overthrow of the US government by a people’s revolution which is pretty laughable in this polarized nation.
I’m curious as to why did you made this statement. Like do you think the US isn’t already fully “controlled by money over masses”?
I legitimately don’t understand what people think America is as a country. All I see everywhere I go in this country is an orgiastic celebration of material wealth and those who have it over all else.
We’ve been controlled by “money over masses” my entire existence. I seriously have zero understanding of what online leftists are even talking about when they talk about solidarity and community. I’ve lived in many different places here and I felt the same sense of individualism and capital above all else everywhere I’ve been.
I’m not saying money doesn’t control politics when Democrats hold office. I’m saying Democrats do more for the masses than Republicans, especially the Republicans that are coming next year. Trump and his cronies are very vocal about having already been sold to the highest bidder.
Oh, gotcha. Well, yeah I think I agree actually.
That would be cool, but I meant more metaphorically. Other parties have come and gone in the history of the US - now is a great time for an actual populist party to rise up and win voters from all political spectra. It isn’t just Dems who are feeling disenfranchised, and a large enough movement could pierce through the media bubbles on both sides to gain momentum.
It’s feasible, albeit pretty idealistic. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m a bit skeptical that the billionaire-owned media will support honest reporting of a candidate that threatens their power.
I 100% share in your skepticism.
This is where a lot of the online talk about “the DNC” gets me. Like sure, the DNC wants their preferred candidate as an organizing body I’m sure, but the media did everything it could to keep Bernie from winning the nomination as well. I remember people on MSNBC of all places talking about how dangerous nominating Bernie Sanders would be.
They attack it in straightforward ways (calling them “communists”, “socialists”, “Marxists”) in more republican-leaning media, and they attack it in other, less straightforward means in other type of media (calling the plans “stupid”, saying that they’ll “never work” that we “don’t have the money”, or “it’ll cost more in taxes!”).
I just don’t see it at all. I wish I was more hopeful about this stuff but with the individualistic behavior of the American populace, the mass media landscape, and the way the Internet has been sculpted into something palatable or even usable by the oligarchs to get what they want (perhaps even more cheaply than it was in traditional media) I just don’t believe it is possible to win with some “better message”.
The only thing I could see saving this country is a groundswell of old-style civic behavior where people largely tune out or drop off from mass media and social media and start connecting with their neighbors and building actual community. I am not optimistic about that either.
I agree with you with the exception of Bernie’s 2016 campaign. The head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to step down after evidence was found of her deliberately favoring Hillary over Bernie prior to the primary. This came after the primary vote of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders
I agree that they didn’t really give him a fair shake in 2016…however, they thought they were representing their best interests at the time and that a “fascism” proxy would lose handily to a “socialism” proxy in Sanders. They or may not have been right, and there is a lot of debate about that and I’m honestly not sure myself what to believe. He was never a serious candidate in that race and everyone probably including his own supporters knew that. In 2020, he got much closer to securing the nomination and that is why we saw the beginning of the attacks the media will toss at any Bernie-like candidate.
I haven’t thought of it that way before, but you’re absolutely correct. There’s honestly no way to tell which is the chicken and which the egg in that scenario. Did the DNC promote Hillary because the media leaned into “socialist Bernie,” or did the DNC paint him as socialist in contrast to Hillary and the media ran with it? It’s an equally thought-provoking and nauseating concept.
Definitely won’t be televised.
Hahaha good one.
And you know what’s really sad about this? They don’t even have to be! Kamala massively outspent Trump. One thing the DNC refuses to learn is that there is such a thing as saturation in campaign messaging. Past a point, past a certain number of commercials, flyers, mailer, door-hangers, text messages, and on and on? At some point it just stops working. At some point you just start annoying people. Hillary massively outspent Trump in 2016, and Kamala massively outspent Trump in 2024. It didn’t matter. Most of those dollars were completely wasted showing ads to voters that were already completely over-saturated with ads.
Maybe you need corporate money for the type of wasteful campaign Kamala ran, but it’s not like she didn’t also raise millions and millions in individual donations. Even in the era of big money politics, it is entirely possible to bring in enough small donations to run a presidential campaign. All that corporate money that Kamala sold her soul for was ultimately spent preaching to the choir or trying to reach the unreachable.
No your just going to go further right as a country and all the special leftist that stayed home we’ll cry how did this happen.
I think those leftists who abstained from voting know how this happened, and I’ll give them credit for having principles in a time where principle is severely lacking. Either way, you’re wrong to blame them - Kamala could have won every last one of those votes if she denounced the genocide perpetrated by Israel and announced plans for an arms embargo as soon as she took office, but that was too much to ask for a politician thoroughly corrupted by AIPAC money. The blame squarely lies with DNC leadership for losing yet another election in spectacular fashion.