The Democratic Base Is Angry. Is the party paying attention?
4 days ago by FoxtrotDeltaTango to c/politics
Dems don’t want to sell that reality. They want to whip up their base to vote harder so that they can squander another supermajority on something dumb, like giving Israel more arms to genocide. Then Israel re-initiates the Iran war so that the can Dems can be in charge of losing.
No.
George W. Bush stood alongside Obama at the opening of the latter's Presidential library instead of swinging from the gallows back in '08, which is what needed to happen if we were to save America.
Instead, we're fucked. The Dems ain't listening.
Then we need to force them to listen to us, by any means necessary
Absolutely correct. And I was the only one among my friends writing to, emailing, and calling politicians to try to get them to do it.
The Democratic Party is a honey trap to capture and neutralize progressive policies and politicians, and to make sure the “Overton Window” of American politics never moves left. The leadership runs cover for Republicans because they have the same donors and the same agenda. How many times do they need to invent some mechanism to allow them to steal defeat out of the jaws of victory for it to form a clear composite picture of collaboration?
While I do think we know there's some truth to all that, it's clear voting matters otherwise the Republican party wouldn't be trying to rig it every fucking chance they get, and the DNC wouldn't have been going so apeshit over Bernie in 2016. He threatened the establishment and they had to attack their own constituents and call them Bernie bros to get things back "on track".
It's not so black and white. There's Democrat politicians who range from zero to one as controlled opposition, and as supporters of the establishment and the status quo. People are more complex than that. They have their own goals and some of them did not join politics just to make a buck, and some of them are just plain cowards or are too far separated from their constituents to realize what they want because they're just surrounded by rich powerful fucks who don't buy groceries.
I disagree that Bernie wasn't given a fair shot. He was invited to participate in the DNC primary, despite his third party status, and lost by millions to Hillary, and again when Biden doubled Bernies votes. Both times Bernie lost he asked us to vote for the winner. I think a lot of such sentiment was drummed up by foreign interference in order to create discord and aid the conservatives.
Get enough platners and AOCs through primaries and the squad becomes a battalion. The Overton window will move if the people vote for it often enough.
Just like how gay marriage tipped over 50% popularity and suddenly is became constitutional.
Oh I can answer that for you. The answer is no.
I think most angry democrats are actually looking for the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America).
Here is their platform:
To be clear, for those reading, the DSA is structured as a party and could act as an independent party if necessary, but they mainly run candidates in democratic primaries as they recognize that doing so is a more practical way to win elections in the short term.
I mean. They do pay them in the form of taxes. And also in the form of small donor donations to campaigns.
In some campaigns the large donations from rich donors are more significant than the total from small dominoes, but that’s not always the case.
While that is the case, this is just a kind of "basic income", and just expected to be there. Contracts, nice trips, some extra cash, dinner invitations, etc, that are the nice and memorable cherries on top. And there is way more cherries here than ice cream and cream together.
Then we will force them to pay attention
we need to force them to listen to us, by any means necessary
Yeah, but will we this time?
We have to, we have to force them to pay attention or else
Depends on how much that particular person in the base is giving them.
The DNC official platform document says it wants to:
- Tax the Rich
- Remove citizens united
- Make voting easier
- Prevent climate disaster
- Protect forests
- Give everyone food and medical and expand affordable housing and transport
So, I mean, they understand what I am angry about. Only policy I wish they were better about would be dropping support of Israel but even on that they are infinitely better than GOP policy.
I think you are exagerating the platform quite a bit, or just seeing what you want to.
It says get to a fair tax code where the rich pay their share, and they equate it directly to taxxing them as much as the lower class is taxed. Thats barely "tax the rich" at all.
It never mentions citizens united anywhere in their platform.
It doesnt talk about making voting easier. It rambles on kissing Bidens arse a lot and then talks about restoring voting rights Trump took away.
I give the dems a "c" on climate change. They talk about a few specifics, after talking about energy independence and jobs. And once again, the whole party platform is written to emphasize Bidens weak-ass contributions and paint him as transformative.
Do a search on forests. Where are they promising to work on forests in there?
It doesnt specify food or medical care for all anywhere. Biden was never in favor of medicare for all, and neither is the DNC. They want to slightly expand medicaid by giving states slightly more funding, and offer "'affordable" care to all via Obamacare. Letting people buy in a marketplace is not the same as giving everyone medical care, and your shortening it to that wildly oversells what the platform doc says.
And it doesnt talk about giving everyone food. I dont know where you got that from.
And it doesnt talk about giving everyone food. I dont know where you got that from.
FYI all that account does is make up things to make dems look better
Actions speak louder than words. They're happy to say they will do things that they have no intention of actually following through on while just doing a slightly less terrible version of a republican policy.
I wish they were better about would be dropping support of Israel but even on that they are infinitely better than GOP policy.
Curious about what you think the difference is?
Fun fact, the DNC have had 48 or less senators for over 13 years, but I agree that the many social, foreign affairs, and fiscal accomplishments of the DNC go vastly underreported.
I wish they were better about would be dropping support of Israel but even on that they are infinitely better than GOP policy.
Curious about what you think the difference is?
Really not helping the case of they want to things with how poorly they campaign.
Also the DNC is just the organization to get people elected not anything in charge of policy so of course it would not have any of those.
The people how vote in primaries chooses the direction of the party.
Look at the republicans they saw what the base wanted now they’re all loyal to MAGA.
Except everyone doesnt have the opportunity to vote in primaries because this backwards ass country makes voting in general overly complicated/inconvenient on purpose.
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again
The Republican base is angry, too. Everybody's angry.
Our parties are not concerned, they are making a FORTUNE. Openly, they don't even bother to hide it any longer.
The base isn't the same as the mogul constituents that the Democratic leadership cares about.
It would be an astounding change in policy if they were.
I just hope they're angry enough with the GOP to realize its time to give the DNC supermajority for the first time since 1979.
Nope, for 72 days in session under Obama the DNC had 58. Which is why an Independent Joe Leiberman fucked us all over by denying us public option healthcare.
True, but he only had that supermajority for four months
Actually, the DNC didn't. They only had 58. Which is why the ACA version we got was watered down from the original Public Option identical to Germany healthcare.
The Democrats had 60 votes for a cumulative total of about four months (broken into two periods between July 2009 and February 2010). However, even within that window, the supermajority was practically compromised. Senator Ted Kennedy was battling a terminal illness and was frequently absent, and Senator Robert Byrd was often hospitalized, meaning Democrats rarely had all 60 votes present.
I'm surprised the magazine couldn't find the answer. But of course it is a shill for lib views anyhow.
Nope.
Sounds like an attitude problem in the electorate. Do they want republicans to win? It is selfish to think that politicians should earn your vote. I mean, that's some elementary school level conception of democracy. Grow up already.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
No is the simple answer. But voting and elections are not going to fix the problems the usa has created for itself. Its not just drumpf.
save