Even this analysis doesn’t capture the real problem.
Asserting that the DNC “fails to learn” implies that they have some goal they’re not meeting.
They don’t.
Their goal is to rake in as much corporate soft money as possible, and by that standard, this past election was a resounding success. And nothing else, including winning elections, matters to them.
So they’re not really “failing” at anything. In fact they’re succeeding nicely. It’s just that they’re succeeding at being corrupt, self-serving and deceitful.
If progressives know how to win elections better than the DNC then why don’t they just win enough elections to control the DNC?
This implies a fair primary process.
How did any progressives get elected if our primaries are unfair?
How do progressives win against the GOP when they don’t play fair?
How did any progressives get elected if our primaries are unfair?
They got elected despite the party’s interference.
How do progressives win against the GOP when they don’t play fair?
The GOP doesn’t control national elections like the DNC/DCCC/DSCC controls primaries.
Multiple progressives lost their primaries recently and blame AIPAC funding. Criticizing democrats for catering to donors. While losing to democrats because they catered to donors.
All while claiming they can win elections better than democrats.
The GOP will also be catering to donors.
I was talking about the way the party runs (or eschews) its primaries. You pivoted to international donors.
I’m talking about winning and losing primaries. You’re cherry picking examples.
Yes, money is power and power is politics. What is your point exactly?
Progressives will continue to lose for this reason.
According to leftists, control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong. But simultaneously, the DNC is extremely weak.
control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong
You seem to be a bad listener, because you got it backwards. The DNC doesn’t have control over corporate donors and the media, corporate donors and the media have control over the DNC. They’re not actually weak, their supposed incompetence is a choice. They’re not actually incapable of winning elections and passing good policy that helps the people, they’re unwilling. The interests of the Democratic leadership and the interests of the people are misaligned, and they only appear weak because they misrepresent their values and goals.
Ok, so if leftists can’t win a primary because they have no support from donors and media, then how are they supposed to win a general election?
The only answer is mass movements. If you can’t beat them with money you have to beat them with numbers. We have to continue the slow process of building dual power from the bottom up by engaging in mutual aid and taking into our own hands what the Democrats refuse to.
Money is power in this country, but at its core it’s only an abstraction of labor power. Unions can win elections and even run their own social programs if only more people choose to fight. Existing unions need to radicalize and more radical unions need to form.
What makes you think that I’d be interested in defending a claim I didn’t make?
What makes you think I wanted to know if you’re interested in defending a claim?
Partly because of constant sabotage from within their own party.
https://newrepublic.com/article/189500/pelosi-aoc-oversight-committee-democrats
Fetterman ran as progressive and ended up being republican after getting elected.
Sinema ran as progressive and ended up being republican after getting elected.
What you’re referring to isn’t sabotage, it’s democrats trying to vet candidates because progressives don’t.
Sure. Like anyone at all believes AOC or Bernie is going to flip to R.
After I replied to you I read the rest of the discussion and saw how absolutely willing you are to be a jerk about it, and how absolutely unwilling you were to consider any other point of view, so you actually needn’t have replied, and had I seen that first I would not have commented.
After I replied to you I read the rest of the discussion and saw how absolutely willing you are to be a jerk about it, and how absolutely unwilling you were to consider any other point of view
How was I being a jerk? By not repeating the echos in this echo chamber?
What point was I not willing to consider and how did you prove I didn’t consider it? Or did you not prove what I considered, and made up that lie because I’m not repeating echos in an echo chamber?
If you’re only willing to comment to people that will circle jerk with you then you should assess your bias.
Can we split the party now or are we gonna keep supporting a bunch of grifters
In order to split the party we need a strong group to gather around in opposition to the established liberal party. And unfortunately the trademarked Progressive Party™ is owned by insane people that no one wants to have anything to do with. So another name needs to be thought up.
Labour? The Worker’s Party? The People’s Party? The Raving Loony Nutbag Party?
Not really good excuses but I’m sure it’s the excuses they are using to justify changing nothing
The party is dead until they figure out a way to even the media landscape. Harris was a very good candidate with a good campaign relative to the binary alternative option.
But it doesn’t matter because Republicans control the narrative on everything and it doesn’t help that Democrats blow at messaging and recognizing the all-out war we’re in.
People knew what Harris was selling, at least the people who could be persuading to vote Democrat. The DNC’s absolute failure at communication is definitely a problem, but the catastrophic loss they suffered this election can’t be explained by that alone. Many people, with full knowledge of what a Trump administration would mean, sat out of this election. People who would volunteer in democrat campaigns either sat out or voted for Harris quietly. The DNC’s biggest “failure” (they didn’t fail at enriching their corporate donors, so to them it’s a success) is relying too much on being the less shitty shit sandwich.
I think the DNC sucks and messaging could’ve been better.
But I frankly also believe that for anyone who supposedly what Harris and Trump were selling and found the choice difficult then you’re kind of a moron. Ethically; logically… Zero sense. Yes, Stagnation is infinitely better than fascism intentionally sabotaging the system.
So I choose to hope people actually didn’t know how good Harris was relative to how bad Trump was because mostly rich white men control the vast majority of what people see.
People need to remember… The demographics of Lemmy let’s just say aren’t even remotely reflective of the American electorate. You’re lucky if people watch more than the Fox News in their physician’s waiting room or work breakroom, supplemented by their social media feed and YouTube algorithm peddling Red-pilled incel bullshit and trash like Joe Rogan.
Like, do you think people are actually tuning into AP or NPR or BBC or ProPublica investigations? You think they’re reading long form written journalist pieces or PBS Frontline documents ties? Fuuuuck no. It’s closer to work-drink-sports-talk shows-church-work-bar-sports-social media, rinse repeat.
You’re stupid if you’re unhappy with the status quo. You’re stupid if you have a problem with genocide. You’re stupid if you can’t afford groceries! Can’t you see that billionaires are doing just fine? You’re stupid if you notice that the party abandoned you and still demands unearned perfect fealty no matter what they do.
Anyone who disagrees with the republican-adjacent wing of the party has to be stupid because otherwise we might have to listen to them. And we’ll never do that. They’re stupid and we hate them.
You’re stupid if you’re unhappy with the status quo. You’re stupid if you have a problem with genocide.
Nah. Not what I said. You can be concerned with these things as I am but still find the choice to vote for Harris very easy.
You’re stupid if you can’t afford groceries!
You may be ignorant if you believe grocery prices were in the control of Biden / Harris, especially in the wake of a divided Congress. Even so, the choice to vote for Harris should’ve been incredibly easy.
Can’t you see that billionaires are doing just fine?
Yes, the rich are the problem. I agree. Still should’ve been easy to vote for Harris as opposed to not vote, vote 3rd party, or vote Trump.
You’re stupid if you notice that the party abandoned you and still demands unearned perfect fealty no matter what they do.
All this skirts the underlying point: for anyone who supposedly saw what Harris and Trump were selling and found the choice difficult — even in spite of all those aforementioned factors — then you’re kind of a
moronignorant. Ethically; logically… Zero sense. I’ll rephrase because at least ignorance suggests one can change.You can be concerned with these things as I am but still find the choice to vote for Harris very easy.
If you’re a monster who is just fine with genocide, sure.
I voted like you wanted. I hate both of us for it.
Well since you voted for Harris, I guess you’re not whom I’m speaking to, now, are you? Why then are you making this about you?
I voted for her. I did not find it easy. Anyone who did find it easy after the genocide support is a fucking psychopath.
Calling it a “catastrophic loss” is a bit rich.
Literally the worst result since the Republicans won California.
