āNow is not the time for criticism, itās not election season - save that for the primariesā
āNow is not the time for criticism, the primaries are soonā
āNow is not the time for criticism, thereās only 100 days to go before the generalā
āNow is not the time for criticism, we just had a huge, crushing lossā
So are liberals/democrat faithful/etc really committed to never learning, or never listening? When am I allowed to criticize half of the political duopoly that is increasing out of touch not just with my concerns, but openly snubs voting blocs and demands fealty in return for the status quo?
A popular mandate. Thatās literally the bar weāre talking about here, and Iām amazed to see people upset that others are pointing out how low it is.
But when they fake a primary, you donāt get a genuinely popular candidate. When they donāt even hold a primary, you never hear the other opinions in the electorate. Biden owns a lot of responsibility for this loss, but the leadership has their share too for trying to walk this over the line on diet republicanism in a quest to scrape by 270.
Well, okay, thatās not a policy proposal, but I see youāve got the beginnings of . . . . party. . policy? Maybe?
Can you be a little more - yāknow, government policy proposal-y? What youād want the candidate to advocate for?
Or were you just saying people werenāt allowed to crap on the DNC before the election and now that itās lost people arenāt being allowed to crap on the DNC because instead of being insufferable assholes with nothing of value to add, actually, colonialist imperialist genocider corporate whores are preventing them from changing the world for good?
Bruh if you wanna argue with yourself, go ahead and build the straw man already
The argument Iām making in reply to your āstop complainingā post (and that you seem to deliberately be ignoring) is that the DNC and/or establishment Democrats routinely silence internal dissent at any and all times. And that right now they still arenāt listening internally, and have demonstrated a commitment to gaslight voters that inflation isnāt real, and that voters shouldnāt be trusted/allowed to pick who they get to vote for.
Voters have told us in exit poll after exit poll, that their primary issues are economic uncertainty and cost of living, loss of faith in governance, and then immigration.
32% of voters nationwide said the economy mattered most in deciding how to vote in the presidential election. 11% said immigration, 14% abortion, 34% the state of democracy, 4% foreign policy.
Okay, so letās just take as a given that, yes, the Democratic candidates should have focused on the economy, immigration, abortion, and the state of democracy, with apparently 4% of foreign policy thrown in.
That is what youāre arguing they should have done, correct?
If so, what do you think they did NOT say about those issues. You can focus on Kamala if you prefer, or the entirety of all Democratic candidates if you want to assert that.
Economy/ Cost of living:
Beyond pithy āI feel your painā statements and a late-election focus on price gouging and new homebuyer credits, there was not much for the working poor.
Nothing about corporate tax dodging or enforcing consumerās rights - Lina Kahn at the FTC would have been an easy layup and sheās gotten results already
Very shy on pro-union messaging
Silent about healthcare costs (beyond in-home carers)
For someone pinched by inflation and/or predatory corporate pricing, being told āmore of the last four yearās policy is coming, sorry we have no money - except for Israelā is a huge turnoff.
State of Democracy:
I think the DNC/establishment Dems massively misread this issue as purely J6/dictator Trump - because ignoring the massive democratic disengagement and apathy means they donāt have to address why voters are unenthusiastic about electoral participation at most levels, and instead āitās all the MAGAs faultā without questioning why the MAGA movement exists beyond ātheyāre deplorableā.
Trumpās vote total basically flatlined from 2020, two different assassination attempts barely moved polling, he isnāt an unknown figure and voters at large do not like him. What he is however, is a break from āmore of the sameā no matter how damaging or foolish that may be for the world/country.
In no order, hereās what Dems should target/message on:
Actually running a primary
Not cheating in those primaries
Alternative voting like ranked choice
Not platforming billionaires
Evidence of the party coming down on the side of the worker, instead of corporate/moneyed interests during tough choices. The rail strike is a perfect example, but also the East Palestine spill
Evidence of the party listening to voters concerns, like not running Biden again or heeding the āuncommittedā movement.
Not surrendering to the Republican narrative on the outrage of the day, and being the adults in the room that deliver results for voters instead of distractions. Clap back with āItās weird to focus on that - we have an economy to solve.ā instead of allowing them to controls the narrative
Well, I appreciate the studied reply, so thank you for that.
I just disagree. I thought she was policy-heavy including healthcare position papers and supporting FTC chair, and I disagree entirely that trump is a āchangeā for anything other than jumping face-first into the pit of hell, just like we did in 2017.
As for the bit about DNC being unfair by not running a primary; thatās not really done with a sitting President. Which was the case here when it was time to run primaries. We didnāt do that in 96, 2012, and if Dems ever get elected again, we probably wonāt four years after that. Thatās not dirty pool - in fact, if Iād spent my career in the BlahBlah party and been elected president, then for my re-election campaign they demanded I go through primaries again, Iād say fuck all the way off. Thatās ridiculous.
I also think thereās a heavy element about perception of Harrisā campaign which had nothing to do with Harris or her campaign. I thought she was very centered on economics and made some good policy suggestions for those times the corporate news chose to repeat anything about policy. Corporate news was determined - again - to narrate a horse race, and the right-wing is entirely off on their own planet of propaganda shit now so they werenāt even going to try.
So TL;DR: disagree she had nothing about the economy for the poor or working class, but it wasnāt way out front either so Iād agree that it should have been. I also disagree that āstate of Democracyā wasnāt a big focus, or that how she got to be the candidate was the result of trickery of some sort - thatās just the way it fell and I donāt think anyon could have planned it to look and run exactly like that.
Perception is (unfortunately) reality. While the campaign website and position papers were solid - especially contrasted with Trumpās āconcept of a planā nonsense, if you donāt effectively communicate how those plans are going to impact voters positively, it isnāt going to help you.
Biden did in fact win the primary in 2024 before he dropped out - as the incumbent he massively benefited from recognition and campaign staffing, but he still had to run. Had he kept to his āone term presidentā statement, there would have been an open primary instead of Harrisās ascension.
Corporate news and engagement driven profit motive has poisoned democracy for a long time, yellow journalism dates to the 1800s. A mad dash to make a network of āliberal Joe Rogan podcastsā will be effective for direct messaging. But if your messaging is still a defense neoliberalism and globalization, you are going to keep losing. To someone for whom having an extra $50 in their pocket is a big deal, the centrist-Dem message is not worth considering. Paid maternity leave, free healthcare, childcare credits, food stamps, stable employment, worker protections, etc are way more important to working poor voters.
You are more then welcome to visit my ask lemmy post about replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative electoral system. No more party worship, no more two party system, no more handcuffs on our wrists.
āNow is not the time for criticism, itās not election season - save that for the primariesā
āNow is not the time for criticism, the primaries are soonā
āNow is not the time for criticism, thereās only 100 days to go before the generalā
āNow is not the time for criticism, we just had a huge, crushing lossā
So are liberals/democrat faithful/etc really committed to never learning, or never listening? When am I allowed to criticize half of the political duopoly that is increasing out of touch not just with my concerns, but openly snubs voting blocs and demands fealty in return for the status quo?
Oh absolutely. Letās get down and discuss all of the policy proposals we want the next presidential candidate to have RIGHT NOW.
Go.
A popular mandate. Thatās literally the bar weāre talking about here, and Iām amazed to see people upset that others are pointing out how low it is.
But when they fake a primary, you donāt get a genuinely popular candidate. When they donāt even hold a primary, you never hear the other opinions in the electorate. Biden owns a lot of responsibility for this loss, but the leadership has their share too for trying to walk this over the line on diet republicanism in a quest to scrape by 270.
Well, okay, thatās not a policy proposal, but I see youāve got the beginnings of . . . . party. . policy? Maybe?
Can you be a little more - yāknow, government policy proposal-y? What youād want the candidate to advocate for?
Or were you just saying people werenāt allowed to crap on the DNC before the election and now that itās lost people arenāt being allowed to crap on the DNC because instead of being insufferable assholes with nothing of value to add, actually, colonialist imperialist genocider corporate whores are preventing them from changing the world for good?
Bruh if you wanna argue with yourself, go ahead and build the straw man already
The argument Iām making in reply to your āstop complainingā post (and that you seem to deliberately be ignoring) is that the DNC and/or establishment Democrats routinely silence internal dissent at any and all times. And that right now they still arenāt listening internally, and have demonstrated a commitment to gaslight voters that inflation isnāt real, and that voters shouldnāt be trusted/allowed to pick who they get to vote for.
Voters have told us in exit poll after exit poll, that their primary issues are economic uncertainty and cost of living, loss of faith in governance, and then immigration.
Okay, so letās just take as a given that, yes, the Democratic candidates should have focused on the economy, immigration, abortion, and the state of democracy, with apparently 4% of foreign policy thrown in.
That is what youāre arguing they should have done, correct?
If so, what do you think they did NOT say about those issues. You can focus on Kamala if you prefer, or the entirety of all Democratic candidates if you want to assert that.
Correct, thatās my argument.
Economy/ Cost of living: Beyond pithy āI feel your painā statements and a late-election focus on price gouging and new homebuyer credits, there was not much for the working poor.
For someone pinched by inflation and/or predatory corporate pricing, being told āmore of the last four yearās policy is coming, sorry we have no money - except for Israelā is a huge turnoff.
State of Democracy: I think the DNC/establishment Dems massively misread this issue as purely J6/dictator Trump - because ignoring the massive democratic disengagement and apathy means they donāt have to address why voters are unenthusiastic about electoral participation at most levels, and instead āitās all the MAGAs faultā without questioning why the MAGA movement exists beyond ātheyāre deplorableā. Trumpās vote total basically flatlined from 2020, two different assassination attempts barely moved polling, he isnāt an unknown figure and voters at large do not like him. What he is however, is a break from āmore of the sameā no matter how damaging or foolish that may be for the world/country. In no order, hereās what Dems should target/message on:
Well, I appreciate the studied reply, so thank you for that.
I just disagree. I thought she was policy-heavy including healthcare position papers and supporting FTC chair, and I disagree entirely that trump is a āchangeā for anything other than jumping face-first into the pit of hell, just like we did in 2017.
As for the bit about DNC being unfair by not running a primary; thatās not really done with a sitting President. Which was the case here when it was time to run primaries. We didnāt do that in 96, 2012, and if Dems ever get elected again, we probably wonāt four years after that. Thatās not dirty pool - in fact, if Iād spent my career in the BlahBlah party and been elected president, then for my re-election campaign they demanded I go through primaries again, Iād say fuck all the way off. Thatās ridiculous.
I also think thereās a heavy element about perception of Harrisā campaign which had nothing to do with Harris or her campaign. I thought she was very centered on economics and made some good policy suggestions for those times the corporate news chose to repeat anything about policy. Corporate news was determined - again - to narrate a horse race, and the right-wing is entirely off on their own planet of propaganda shit now so they werenāt even going to try.
So TL;DR: disagree she had nothing about the economy for the poor or working class, but it wasnāt way out front either so Iād agree that it should have been. I also disagree that āstate of Democracyā wasnāt a big focus, or that how she got to be the candidate was the result of trickery of some sort - thatās just the way it fell and I donāt think anyon could have planned it to look and run exactly like that.
Perception is (unfortunately) reality. While the campaign website and position papers were solid - especially contrasted with Trumpās āconcept of a planā nonsense, if you donāt effectively communicate how those plans are going to impact voters positively, it isnāt going to help you.
Biden did in fact win the primary in 2024 before he dropped out - as the incumbent he massively benefited from recognition and campaign staffing, but he still had to run. Had he kept to his āone term presidentā statement, there would have been an open primary instead of Harrisās ascension.
Corporate news and engagement driven profit motive has poisoned democracy for a long time, yellow journalism dates to the 1800s. A mad dash to make a network of āliberal Joe Rogan podcastsā will be effective for direct messaging. But if your messaging is still a defense neoliberalism and globalization, you are going to keep losing. To someone for whom having an extra $50 in their pocket is a big deal, the centrist-Dem message is not worth considering. Paid maternity leave, free healthcare, childcare credits, food stamps, stable employment, worker protections, etc are way more important to working poor voters.
You are more then welcome to visit my ask lemmy post about replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative electoral system. No more party worship, no more two party system, no more handcuffs on our wrists.
We can be free.