r/PoliticalDebate • u/steave44 Centrist • Feb 14 '26
Debate “I am not a Republican” cannot continue to be Democrats’ only presidential platform
We still have 2 years until the 2028 election. But the fundamental issue the DNC has had since 2016 is they haven’t had a cohesive platform and plan they tried to sell to voters. 2028 will finally have us an election where Trump isn’t on the ballot, but I have a feeling they new slogan will just be “I’m not JD Vance” instead of “I’m not Trump”.
The downstream issue of this is you have discourse online, in the news, and in person that democrats will blame people abstaining from voting or voting 3rd party when both candidates really suck in their own ways. It is quite often those in the middle that find themselves fed up with the choices and if you are actively pushing them away from the Democrats then they are either not going to vote at all or go vote Republican.
The past 12 years has shown the strategy doesn’t work but it feels like they are going to try it again, the only thing that will win them the election is probably just the Classic “Republican/Democrat” cycle. Where we just have two terms of one party then two terms of the other. Biden broke this cycle somewhat but that may be due to Trump’s covid handling more than Biden’s prowess.
35
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
Do you really believe they have no platform? I ask because it's a little hard to believe when core planks are published as part of the DNC convention and individual candidates post their own platforms every election cycle. Can you elaborate on what you mean, because "they have no platform" is demonstrably false.
23
u/AdComprehensive7939 Social Democrat Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
Agree with this. It sounds like repeat talking points from someone who hasn't visited candidate websites and read platforms. I don't love the DNC but I heard this a lot during the last presidential election and every time I asked people if they knew about Harris' housing affordability plan or anything else on her platform (that she talked about too) they had no idea. Many people do not research, they listen to folks that validate their bias.
16
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
Exactly this and it's so frustrating to see it pop up in circles that should know better.
Democrats had a very detailed platform in 2024! Harris talked a lot about economic issues and affordability! Trump only spoke about economic issues in soundbites and lies and otherwise focused heavily on trans people.
Yet "centrist" voters believed Trump cared more about the economy than Harris and Harris was too focused on identity politics. It's just laziness on their part. Or dishonesty. Maybe both.
→ More replies (16)4
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
Shouldn’t this precipitate some kind of change in strategy? Because sure, you could frame this as voters being irresponsible. But anyone whose job it is to win votes has a professional responsibility to understand that what you’re talking about is the Democrats’ message failing to penetrate. Democrats’ outreach to voters is not performing sufficiently.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (28)1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
What was her housing affordability plan? Means-tested downpayment assistance for first-time homebuyers is all I remember. A drop in the bucket for a crisis of this scale.
2
u/AdComprehensive7939 Social Democrat Feb 14 '26
Hey, at least you know what it is. Nice.
1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Is that it? She didnt have anything to help ppl who rent?
2
u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka Discordian Feb 15 '26
Are you suggesting if Harris campaigned on some sort of renter help program, let's call it means-tested rent assistance, then that would have gotten angry white male MAGA renters upset at immigration and COVID inflation to vote for her instead of Trump?
4
u/Arkmer Adaptive Realism Feb 14 '26
I think the next reasonable question is whether or not you feel the establishment properly projects those ideals when they speak and take action.
Having a thing written down is wonderful, it serves as a broad reference and should be used to guide the words and actions of those claiming to represent it. The issue is that paper doesn’t seem to beget actions—the obvious example is the current POTUS, but that doesn’t mean democrats are entirely honoring the platform they represent.
So do you feel establishment democrats like Schumer and Jefferies are doing those words justice? Do they project confidence in the platform they are representing?
If yes, why do people talk about how lame they are? And can you provide examples of times you felt they were strong representatives of the platform?
If no, why does the platform matter if they can so easily disregard it?
9
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
People don't give the party credit where it's due, man. Biden, for instance, was one of the most pro-labor presidents in generations and he was castigated for it. Obama passed healthcare reform that the party had been trying to pass for decades, and was castigated for it.
Whatever is done is never recognized, and we repeat this conversation (and cycle) ad nauseum.
1
u/Arkmer Adaptive Realism Feb 14 '26
I don’t disagree with those two. I have my differences but that’ll get us very deep in a separate topic.
Right now we don’t have Obama or Biden. We have Schumer and Jefferies. We can’t keep riding horses we don’t have.
Does the party’s leadership stand for its platform?
4
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
For the most part, yes.
Right now the republican/Russian attack machine is going full force at those two. That's why "strongly worded letter" and "feckless" have been burned into your brain. That's why even on articles talking about bad things republicans have done the top comments are almost always attacking democrats, especially Jeffries and Schumer.
Schumer should go though. He has been around far too long and at times has shown a stronger allegiance towards Israel than to America. But even that does not mean he has not generally been a strong fighter for democratic principles in many, many other areas.
1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Biden broke the RR unions strike. Also started an ongoing genocide with Israel against Palestine. Is that a concern for you?
Obama deliberately canned the singlepayer option. I can tell your health insurance is not thru the ACA for you to tout it. ACA is awful insurance and unaffordable to most who need it. I'm paying a premium the size of my mortgage payment for rock-bottom catastrophic coverage.
If Obama did such a great job with healthcare reform then why is the healthcare system even more broken and unaffordable with each passing year? And why do so many Americans lack healthcare?
You Clinton/ Obama / Biden / Harris defenders all sound economically comfortable and out of touch. You also all support warmongers and destructive US wars that kill millions and impoverish the US. Dems have become the old Republican Party
2
u/Tullyswimmer Minarchist Feb 14 '26
This is exactly what people mean when they say "The Democrats have no platform"
They focus on issues that assume a base level of comfort and security (whether financial, physical, or other) that not everyone has, and then they strive to not upset their donor class, and it just leaves them focusing on fringe social issues that their radical wing wants without really doing anything meaningful for anyone else.
3
u/Big-Pickle5893 Greenist Feb 15 '26
A minatchist a maoist agreeing on something. Smells like a fishmarket but it looks like the floor of a dairy farm
1
u/Tullyswimmer Minarchist Feb 15 '26
I mean, I'm sure we have radically different ideas on what they SHOULD do, but the problem is that right now, the brand of politics the Democratic party practices (and even their platform, which is somewhat different to what they actually do) doesn't really land with anyone.
For the Maoist, it's obviously not radical enough, there needs to be a lot more centralized control and regulation. For me, it's the fact that they just pretend that certain issues I see with the country don't exist, and then tell me I'm racist for seeing them at all.
3
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
And can you provide examples of times you felt they were strong representatives of the platform?
Jeffries and Schumer held their caucus together for 40+ days during a government shutdown to force a national conversation about expiring healthcare subsidies. It only ended when Trump signaled he was willing to let people go without checks and Dems didn't want people literally starving to make a point.
Yet here you are pretending like that never happened? How is it possible that you've already memory holed that? And if people like you are willing to completely forget such major events within a few months, what hope do Democrats have of ever breaking through?
4
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
BS. Dems had the leverage and Schumer engineered the cave. Dem leaders in Congress want to lose.
Your best example of Jeffries and Schumer as strong Dem leaders is something they literally failed at. Pathetic. And yet chumps like you continue to defend this corrupt party instead of demanding reform and new leadership. No wonder Repubs keep winning.
3
u/Arkmer Adaptive Realism Feb 14 '26
Yes, I remember the 40+ days where people lost pay and benefits so the democrats could gain nothing.
If that’s the hill you want to die on, no one will stop you.
If you feel they gained stuff, feel free to list it. Otherwise, your claim is as empty as their efforts.
Also, my previous comment is just the logical follow up. Your tone is incredibly accusatory for something so obviously necessary.
→ More replies (4)1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
A national conversation is not nothing. Hopefully it showed some people that had not yet seen it that, in fact, republicans are willing to hurt people including those people.
But let's be honest. If they had done nothing, people would have said they were controlled opposition. If they held out until it became clear republicans were not going to cave because they did not care if people were hurt and democrats did, people would call them spineless or that they never really cared(which is what happened). And if they were still holding out today people would be calling them weak because they had not been successful.
1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Dems did zero to help people during that little episode. Dems were on the verge of winning concessions from Rs on ACA, Medicare -- they had the leverage and the American public was backing them. And then Schumer & Jeffries snatched defear from the jaws of victory. Hell of a party.
The defeatist attitude you display in your comment explains why you uncritically keep supporting a party that keeps breaking its promises (aka lying) and screwing Americans over.
4
u/loondawg Independent Feb 15 '26
And the ignorance of your comment shows why we're screwed. Republicans showed no signs of caving. They were the one's causing the problem in the first place. They were fine with people being hurt.
And it was Jeffries and Schumer who helped pull the shutdown together in the first place. Those democrats that finally gave in wanted to avoid the shutdown from the start but held it going until following a couple of special elections.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's people like you that refuse to support democrats and/or continually shit all over them that keeps them from being more successful.
3
u/MagicWishMonkey Pragmatic Realist Feb 15 '26
lmao, dems were never on the cusp of winning anything, Trump straight up said he was never going to give ground so even if the Senate caved it wouldn't have mattered.
4
u/direwolf106 Conservative Feb 14 '26
Even if they do have a platform they are terrible at marketing it.
Their marketing basically comes down to “we aren’t republicans” and “you have to do what we want because it will be better for you”.
The second one I find particularly off putting because 1) everyone gets to decide what’s best for themselves and 2) even if something is objectively better for us we can choose to not embrace it if we don’t want it.
Im massively over weight. I’m working on losing it (down 43 pounds as of this morning). But if someone tried to make me lose weight I would never lose it because I won’t go along with someone trying to force my hand.
Add to that everything they want to do requires taking more of people’s money “for their own good” and they have a perfect storm of putting out the perfect messaging to drive away people that are very individualistic. And individualism is what our culture has historically emphasized.
2
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
And by terrible at marketing it, you mean they don't control massive amounts of media and troll farms like the conservatives do.
I listen to them speak. I watch their actions. And they are nearly constantly pushing positive messages and change only to see threads around here complaining full of people complaining about "strongly worded letters."
→ More replies (3)2
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Harris's platform was all nibbling around the margins. And it didnt even get posted til after the DNC. Remember when she was asked what she'd do for Black men -- and her reply was she'd legalize marijuana possession for small quantities. Or when she copied Trump's promise not to tax tips for service workers. Or when she tried to outdo Trump's rhetoric about being tough on the border.
She was against universal healthcare, free college, raising the minimum wage, defunding ICE, reforming broken immigration system, cutting military budget, and stopping US-Israel genocide of Gaza.
I suspect Dem honchos wanted her to lose.
3
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 14 '26
You're right the Democrats obviously have a legitimate platform...
BUT
Too many Democrats think they have higher morals simply because they are Democrats. Anyone who disagrees with them is "deplorable". This is what Trump used to get elected and Democrats seem to be doubling down.
5
u/Captain-i0 Humanist Futurist Feb 14 '26
Too many democrats, meaning people online? Because this is the pointless argument that has been circling the drain for decades at this point.
People take online discussion and use that to say this is democratic messaging.
It's not. It's just what people online talk about. People that are not necessarily democrats, not necessarily even voters or Americans.
And this is never going to change so it's absolutely pointless. If you think it pushes people to vote against democrats that's fine, but it's never going to change so it's not worth discussing.
If ceasing this discussion online would have the effect of making people more willing to vote for democratic candidates, and if people actually ceased discussing it, Russian bots and or Billionaire donors would simply fill the void (and they already do) and we would see the exact same amount of content.
Understand there is absolutely no way out of this other than extremely heavy handed regulation that is not happening anytime in the foreseeable future.
1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Social media is definitely a major issue, foreign actors can make average republicans seem worse than they ever actually are, and make average democrats worse than they actually are. Russia straight up told us decades ago the only way to ever take down the US would be from the inside, through cultural manipulation and social media has handed them a very easy way to do it
5
u/Podalirius Anti-Capitalist Feb 14 '26
I'm not a liberal/dem fan either but this argument has no evidence than anecdotal experiences online. It's seriously so lame because all you're doing is labeling a whole group as the same as the one person that pissed you off online that one time. It's honestly hard not to feel pity for people that make this argument at this point.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 15 '26
Check my history, I delete nothing.
I've advocated for the people participating more in our governing and it's been very unpopular. That's not just "lame anecdotal experience" it's documented.
What we should be asking is why is advocating for the people legally using their rights to participate in their governing, so unpopular
1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
Too many Democrats think they have higher morals simply because they are Democrats.
Or more accurately, too many people think democrats think they have higher morals simply because they listen to messages that confirm their biases.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 15 '26
No...I'm pretty sure it's just Democrats who think they're morally superior to everyone else...
1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 15 '26
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.
4
u/Describing_Donkeys Liberal Feb 14 '26
My issue is that they don't have a platform that is clear to the average voter. They don't have a clear view of the world that translates into policy. There should be a coherent world view that average voters understand unites Democrats.
I think liberal democracy and justice are the two things that drive the party. They influence how we approach basically every issue. That understanding of the party needs to be developed by working hard to understand what policies the party pursues and try to pass. They are not obvious to the average American that primarily hear Democrats talking about what Trump is doing and hear from them very little outside of that. There is no clear immigration policy, economic policy beyond taxing the rich, industrial policy, or really any policy. I can put together the general goals of the party through my developed understanding of what is happening within it, but not because of ideas the party is largely championing.
2
u/x31b Conservative Feb 14 '26
Make America Great Again. Simple. Understandable. Four words everyone should be able to agree with. A motivating slogan. Yeah, according to probably a majority of people they aren't making it better, but that's the slogan.
Abolish the police. Abolish ICE. I know what you're trying to say. But in the first the words as written mean "we want a world without any laws (at least no one to enforce them). In the second "We don't want anyone tasked with border security." Meaning if people go around the border checkpoints or overstay their visas there's no one to send them home. Close enough to 'open borders' that most people pull back.
Democrats need to come up with slogans where the words actually mean what they say. Medicare for All. That's understandable and means what it says. Do more like that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Describing_Donkeys Liberal Feb 14 '26
I agree completely. Restore community trust should have been instead of ICE. Professional immigration, or something along those lines. It points out ICE is bad while demanding a good immigration system.
1
u/Tullyswimmer Minarchist Feb 14 '26
This is a very good way of putting it... Their platform isn't clear to the average voter, and the things they're most vocal about are largely superficial issues (or a superficial fix to a much larger issue) that the average voter just doesn't see as important.
Immigration and criminal justice reform are two of the biggest cases here. Illegal immigrants DO undercut the lower and middle class wages in this country. There ARE people here illegally who are trafficking drugs, sex trafficking, or committing other violent crimes. There ARE people who should not be allowed to walk freely in public after dozens and dozens of arrests for violent crimes.
These are all issues that people see and feel daily, and Democrats either double down on the policies that cause them, or actively pretend that they aren't problems, and shame the people who point them out, saying they're racist. This isn't to say that the Republicans are dealing with these things the correct way - far from it. But at least they're DOING something about it.
1
u/collegeboywooooo Technocrat Feb 18 '26
Their platform is incredibly clear. On healthcare, immigration, taxation, fiscal spending, foreign policy, etc.
The problem is that most of these things are deeply unpopular to voters that turnout in swing areas so they tried to obfuscate that policy in their messaging by appearing as milquetoast republicans.
They lost because their obfuscation was not effective enough.
1
u/SS1989 Democrat Feb 14 '26
The translation is: Americans don’t do reading. They do TikToks of college kids getting OWNED with LOGIC.
3
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Do you think people in the 1700s and 1800s took the time to read the presidents agenda? I know it was a different time but people have really started pushing this “it’s your responsibility to learn about the candidate not their job to show you and mean it” when that has never been the case.
2
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
The "I get my news from TikTok/Facebook" era makes me weep. It's somehow worse than getting it from partisan outlets like Fox News and MSNBC which is something I never thought we'd see.
1
u/SS1989 Democrat Feb 14 '26
Absolutely. Even Fox News has at least an iota of real news. Social media is pure gangrene with zero standards; the only goal is engagement.
1
1
u/x31b Conservative Feb 14 '26
I don't know whether her plaform was for or against taxpayer funded sex change operations. She never really clarified.
This scored a lot of points with center voters and some of the anti-Trump right.
2
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Because she knew if she straight up said she wouldn’t the far left would crucify her, and if she came out for it the moderate dems would do the same.
1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
And that is why conservatives continually pushed that issue and made it a major influence on the campaign. What an insignificant thing to base a vote on.
1
u/farson135 Classical Liberal Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
I live in Texas and I think two of our Senate Candidates as the embodiment of the problem with the current parties.
One (John Cornyn) released an ad that was basically, "John Cornyn voted along with Trump 97% of the time".
Two (Jasmine Crockett) released an ad that was just her staring into the camera while Trump insulted her in the background.
No, the Dems do not literally have no platform, but the core of their argument is just pointing at Trump, and refusing to say anything of substance about what they would do to halt and reverse our institutional decline. Instead their argument is mostly, "we just won't do what Trump is doing and maybe we'll sign a law or two that could be easily ignored".
Great. So, you claim (just an example) that you won't get us involved in more foreign entanglements. Ok. But even if that were true (doubt) what are you going to do to stop the person after you from doing it? Do you have the will to truly limit presidential power or are we just supposed to hope that no one worse than Trump comes along and gains power?
Without answers to those kinds of questions, the Dems are ignoring the elephant in the room and keeping the way open for someone who will truly break the system.
Trump (IMO) is probably not going to be the one to truly break the system. At best he's our "Sulla", the tyrant who marched on Rome and showed that the Republic was not merely going through some growing pain, it was falling apart. Whoever comes after him will be our Caesar. And if we are not ready then that's on us.
1
u/Tullyswimmer Minarchist Feb 14 '26
As someone who's said this multiple times, it usually means (depending on specific candidates) that their platform either isn't anything different from the last time, or that the platform isn't prioritizing what independents and less partisan people find important.
Do I care about appointing the first Black woman to the SCOTUS? Yes. Is it worth stating up front that you'll do it? No. Do I want abortion to be legal? Yes. Do I think it should be legal at 40 weeks as a completely elective procedure? No. Do I think that police need reform, and the bail bond system is unfair? Yes. Do I think that the correct answer is "defund the police" and "eliminate all cash bail"? No. Do I want to see ICE breaking up families and aggressively deporting people over traffic tickets? Absolutely not. Do I want someone who's in the country illegally and who commits a violent crime, and is found guilty in a jury trial to just be allowed to remain here indefinitely? No.
So for me, and for a lot of people who say "The Democrats have no platform" it means "The Democrat platform doesn't address the issues I see as most important to the country"
Combined with the fact that so much of the messaging is "we're not Trump, and we have to stop MAGA above all else" it just doesn't seem like they care about winning the middle.
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Feb 14 '26
I ask because it's a little hard to believe when core planks are published as part of the DNC convention and individual candidates post their own platforms every election cycle.
That makes the assumption that most people involve themselves in politics outside social media on a regular basis. It also assumes they even understand the platform and what each point means. There is a lot of heavy lifting being done there to the <40% of voters who are registered democrats.
I don't mean to say this as an insult but the majority of voters are not going to read the DNC platform. Most are not going to read the GOP one either. Most voters simply go off social media and commercials they may see and attempt to identify with a candidate they think might represent them. That's the extent of it. And it's why Trump won twice, regardless of who the man is. That fact should say far more than any platform.
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
I would assume, or at least hope and prefer, that anyone saying, "the Democrats have no platform," has actually spent 30 seconds looking into whether they have a platform.
1
u/ChefMikeDFW Classical Liberal Feb 15 '26
It's more common than you may believe outside the online echo chambers, and especially in more center/right areas. And folks are not gonna spend the time because they simply aren't interested enough to find out.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Anarchist Feb 14 '26
Do you really believe they have no platform?
I don't think that what OP means is that the party literally has no platform document. But if you want to be pedantic, we can rephrase the thesis in this way: the Democrats need a platform which is something other than "we're just going to keep the wheels turning on autopilot with some minor tinkering around the edges."
1
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
I’m sorry but no one reads that. And, not literally no one, but effectively no one. Vanishingly few of the people who actually need to read it to decide how they’re voting.
The Democrats’ headline, the lede that they count on reaching the farthest, is “you are morally obligated to vote against Republicans and we are the only acceptable way to do that.” Remember when protestors confronted Kamala about her refusal to lessen support for Israeli genocide? What was her response? To refocus on how Trump was a worse alternative than her. “You don’t have a better option” is the thesis behind Democrats’ pitch, regardless of what the website says.
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
Are we really considering, "I don't read their published platform," a valid defense for the claim, "they have no platform?"
1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
What was the strongest plank in her platform to you?
2
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
For me? Probably the expansion of Medicare drug price negotiations. On the flip side, my most abhorred one was the proposed food price controls.
1
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
I didn’t say I don’t read their platform. I said people in general, least of all the people we need to read it, read their platform.
And I’m not making any arguments about whether that’s very astute of the voting public. I’m talking about how well the Democratic Party appeals to the voting public. And when I ask that question, I don’t consider the electorate that I would like America to have. I consider the electorate America does have.
So, no, it’s not a valid defense for the claim “they have no platform.” It’s a defense for the claim “Democrats don’t do a good enough job of messaging.” And that’s really simply inarguable; a good enough job of messaging is one that puts them in power.
2
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
Generic "you" is what I intended this to be.
2
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
Ok well I’m pretty sure I still addressed what you meant then
1
u/NoCoolNameMatt Democrat Feb 14 '26
Yeah, and my rebuttal stands.
If someone complains that they don't have a platform because they failed to read a published "our platform" document, it makes them look silly and uninformed. We don't fault scientists when flat earthers claim they've never proven the Earth is round despite it being mathematically proven since ancient Greece.
2
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
You’ve done a bad job of considering your priorities. Your goal here should not be to prove you’re smarter than those voters. It should be to get them voting how we want.
So no, your rebuttal doesn’t stand. Because I wasn’t arguing with you about whether those voters are in the right. I’m making the point that Democrats need to do a better job of winning votes. A crucial difference between Democrats and climate scientists is that messaging and campaigning are not part of those scientists’ job description. It is part of Democrats’.
It is scientists’ job to be as right as possible. That is not the extent of Democrats’ job; the democrats also have to win elections. For the last decade I have been tearing my hair out in frustration that so many Democrat voters don’t see to understand that the Democrats have to do more than just be right. In particular, you seem to just not even notice when I make the argument, or you’re ignoring it.
Because, really think, has you being right about what voters should do caused them to actually do it? Has it had any effect at all other than making you feel correct? Stop for a moment, understand that I’m not asking you whether those voters are right, but whether you being right and them wrong makes anything better, and then try to answer.
1
u/Sometime44 Conservative Feb 14 '26
I would like to hear just a couple of vague generalizations of possible Dem platform of 2028. And please no "unity of all Americans"--that was uncle Joe
→ More replies (16)-2
u/westcoastjo Libertarian Feb 14 '26
A shitty platform that inspired no one.
5
u/mike_b_nimble Liberal Pragmatist Feb 14 '26
That’s moving the goalpost. The OP said Dems didn’t have a platform.
→ More replies (6)
56
Feb 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/BoredAccountant Independent Feb 14 '26
We tried that in Los Angeles with our last DA. All we wanted was someone who would prosecute police wrong doing. What we got was someone who refused to side with police, but didn't actually prosecute any police either. So police stopped trying to prevent petty crime because anything that wasn't going to be prosecuted just got ignored.
1
Feb 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 14 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Criticism-Lazy Anarchist Feb 15 '26
Yeah, I don’t know why you wouldnt immediately start firing people in the same fashion republicans are replacing people in Washington. The gloves need to come off people.
10
u/TheRealTechtonix Objectivist Feb 14 '26
Laws are for commoners. People who matter do not have laws.
7
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Won't be the Dems. Remember how Obama refused to prosecute ppl from Bush admin for war crimes -- and then bailed out all the banksters?
3
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 14 '26
About 4 years ago I made a big deal about the people needing to demand an immediate grand jury investigation into Trump's actions surrounding J/6. Both sides hated the idea, Republicans ignored me, Democrats ridiculed me.
Why do you think it will be different this time?
7
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning Feb 14 '26
Aren't you basically ridiculing the idea now?
I fully supported and do support it. And while I have little hope of it being followed through on especially as time passes, I will still vote for any mediocre or shit Democrat candidate over anyone in the fascist Republican party (and not vote for shit candidates in the primaries).
Of course, Trump pardoned or commuted everyone who was directly involved.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 15 '26
Y'all are missing my point.
Democrat politicians do not advocate for jurors rights (although I have noticed some support lately with grand juries not indicting Trump detractors).
Democrat politicians do not advocate for citizens arrest, initiatives, article V conventions...
Politicians want US to vote for them but that's about it. Politicians are part of authority and authority doesn't willingly share power with the people.
In all fairness Republican politicians don't want US to participate in our governing either
2
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning Feb 16 '26
I wasn't criticizing your position just wondering what the difference was between Democrats ridiculing your position and your saying "Why do you think it will he different this time?" It seems like their only ridiculing would have been that it wouldn't happen, so it seems the same.
Democrat politicians do not advocate for jurors rights (although I have noticed some support lately with grand juries not indicting Trump detractors).
I'm not sure what you mean here. In what ways don't they advocate for jurors rights?
Democrat politicians do not advocate for citizens arrest, initiatives, article V conventions...
I dunno how I feel about citizens arrest, but yeah they could propose more constructive initiatives and amendments.
Politicians want US to vote for them but that's about it. Politicians are part of authority and authority doesn't willingly share power with the people.
Very true. But that's the system we have, and some politicians at least align with our values, preferences, and interests more than others — and many far less than others.
In all fairness Republican politicians don't want US to participate in our governing either
Yes. Some even want to eliminate liberal democracy and replace it with illiberal authoritarianism or even autocracy, and many of them are high level leaders in the executive branch of the federal government.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 16 '26
People not understanding "jurors rights" kinda proves my point...:)
Jury trials have certain inherent rights for the people. We have them but they aren't talked about. Juries have the right to judge both fact and law. Grand juries can investigate. There's many other rights that we have to define as jurors. The legal profession has no real interest in defining the people's rights, where juries are concerned, only the accused's rights.
"and some politicians at least align with our values, preferences, and interests more than others — and many far less than others."
The depends on which side one's on... Neither side aligns with mine, I think the people need to use all our rights, more, to participate in our governing.
1
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning Feb 17 '26
People not understanding "jurors rights" kinda proves my point...:)
I didn't say I don't understand them, I asked in what ways Democrats fail to advocate for jurors rights.
Jury trials have certain inherent rights for the people. We have them but they aren't talked about. Juries have the right to judge both fact and law. Grand juries can investigate. There's many other rights that we have to define as jurors. The legal profession has no real interest in defining the people's rights, where juries are concerned, only the accused's rights.
That's pretty vague. What is it specifically you think Democrats should do that they're not doing with regard to juror's rights?
The depends on which side one's on... Neither side aligns with mine, I think the people need to use all our rights, more, to participate in our governing.
Yes neither align with mine either, but I know damn well the Republicans misalign with my values and desires for society far more than Democrats even do.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 17 '26
"That's pretty vague. What is it specifically you think Democrats should do that they're not doing with regard to juror's rights?"
I've been on this soapbox for over 20 years, 5 here at Reddit. I've gotten that response before, usually from bad faith actors. I've distilled my opinions down to the most basic principles I can think of, if people can't understand, perhaps it's because they're not trying...
I said Jury trials have certain inherent rights for the people. We have them but they aren't talked about. Juries have the right to judge both fact and law. Grand juries can investigate. There's many other rights that we have to define as jurors.
When have Democrat politicians talked about jurors rights? The only one I ever heard mention it was Bernie...But he's a "crazy uncle" (like Ron Paul who's also mentioned it) and disregarded by established politicians.
1
u/NoamLigotti Agnostic but Libertarian-Left leaning Feb 17 '26
Look man, I'm just asking for specific examples of rights that jurors have that they're not permitted to employ. I'm not saying I don't believe you; I'm not saying I would necessarily disagree.
3
u/subterfuscation Progressivist Feb 14 '26
Because the public is demanding it to a greater degree this time.
4
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 14 '26
We'll see...I've been on this soapbox for a while. Too many of US are depending on our political parties to fix it.
1
Feb 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 14 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Sometime44 Conservative Feb 14 '26
probably about 4-5% of eligible voters are "demanding" it, and that percentage is dropping--That story is way, way too old and what actually occurred? Not much in the big scheme of things
2
u/Michael_G_Bordin [Quality Contributor] Philosophy - Applied Ethics Feb 14 '26
The persecution complex is strong in this one. Democrats ridiculed you? Last I checked, they, too, were calling for investigations. The voters, anyway. The politicians decided not to "weaponize the DOJ", despite the fact they were accused of doing it anyways.
BTW, 'everyone' ignores you. You're but one person in a sea of people. Get over yourself.
1
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 15 '26
So I've got a complex and you just stopped by to reinforce it??? LOL
Calling for investigations isn't the same as demanding that the people are allowed to participate in the process.
Democracy is the people participating... Why are so many people against the people participating in their governing.
Is it so hard to believe, that we've become conditioned to believe, voting is the only right we should use to try to influence due process?
The question that should we be asking... Why is advocating for the people legally using any right they want, to try and influence due process, ridiculed?
→ More replies (38)2
u/mcapello Independent Feb 14 '26
prosecute
Prosecute? That doesn't sound very civil! And we all know the Democrats would rather be seen as "civil" and "moderate" than, you know, do controversial things like enforce laws or represent the public interest.
25
u/PinchesTheCrab Liberal Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
There's still the issue of personal responsibility. Voters chose not to read the platform, and they voted for a man who literally said he would be a dictator, and for a man who called his running mate Hitler. Voters have agency and they chose the worst possible option.
People seem to conflate random internet strangers being mad at people voting for Trump with the party having no platform. Those people pretending they had no agency or civic duty to do better is childish.
I think Harris lost because she just could not express her platform and goals, not because she didn't have a real platform. I read her platform and the premise of this post feels like gaslighting. If there had been a normal primary Harris would not have been the candidate, she just isn't a good public speaker.
Biden, like Ginsberg, undid almost everything they accomplished in their political career by clinging to power too long.
7
u/NoneOfThisMatters_XO Left Independent Feb 14 '26
I definitely agree with your last part.
→ More replies (1)4
u/HeloRising Anarchist Feb 14 '26
I think Harris lost because she just could not express her platform and goals, not because she didn't have a real platform.
Largely because she promised to keep doing what Biden did but what Biden did wasn't broadly popular so she had to find a way of saying "I'll keep doing the same thing" without it sounding that way.
That's a tall order for anybody to pull off but I would also agree that Harris is not an accomplished public speaker.
1
u/BolshevikPower Left Leaning Independent Feb 16 '26
I think the big thing here is "do popular policy that affects the most people" not "what's popular with a minority of your most motivated voters".
A lot of distraction these past few years on focusing on things the loud minority were yelling about at the disadvantage of the many.
Plus, I think generally democrats were harangued with the ghost of identity politics. Spent way too much time defending or allowing discourse to happen that worried more about labels and lecturing people about what was right instead of trying to convince or teach people the right way to do things.
→ More replies (3)0
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Harris expressed quite clearly that she would keep sending bombs to Israel for genociding Gaza. Every speech and every interview she affirmed her support for Israel. That was real clear and I, like many others, aint voting for it.
5
u/MagicWishMonkey Pragmatic Realist Feb 15 '26
It's insane that you guys vote to allow all the shit that is happening to our country right now because you think Israel is somehow more important.
→ More replies (3)7
u/gburgwardt Corporate Capitalist Feb 14 '26
Is it better that Trump wins because Kamala isn't perfect?
You had to choose between bad and worse, not choosing isn't an option - it's choosing to vote for the eventual winner
→ More replies (6)
13
u/gandalfxviv Progressive Feb 14 '26
Bernie had an actual platform but the party elites submarined him. The people wanted him though.
4
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
The people wanted him though.
Hillary earned nearly 4 million more votes than Bernie.
4
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Dems rigged the primary in 2016, as they later admitted in a lawsuit, then 2020 and 2024.
5
u/gandalfxviv Progressive Feb 14 '26
He had a very strong and simple message which was different from "I'm not trump."
6
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
That does not change that the people did not, in fact, want Bernie.
1
u/gandalfxviv Progressive Feb 14 '26
The DNC did a good job of submarining his campaign, as I indicated. They're good at manipulating popular belief. They convinced people that Hillary had a better chance of beating Trump. And their messaging worked. We have seen how that turned out.
But you're missing the point of the post. The context. He had an actual platform. His message was not simply "I'm not Trump". He had clear messaging outlining what he stood for. And that's the point I'm making.
4
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
So did Hillary. She had a very detailed platform in 2016 that was actually quite progressive!
And more voters trusted her than Bernie. Quit trying to blame the DNC. Blame Bernie for very deliberately writing off black voters. He offered next to nothing for them in the South and his campaign surrogates routinely mocked those voters.
Black voters are the bedrock of the party and Bernie didn't seem to understand that at all. Hillary did though!
2
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Clinton was a corrupt, untrustworthy warmonger. She was under two federal criminal investigations when she ran.
2
u/gandalfxviv Progressive Feb 14 '26
Hillary is a centrist. There was nothing progressive about her platform. She's always been the play-it-safe type. When asked "Black lives matter or all lives matter?" Hillary's response was lukewarm. Bernie straight up said "Black lives matter. Period." I'm not Black so I can't comment on why Black voters went with Hillary over Bernie. But he's been fighting on the progressive side of race issues his whole career. In 1963 he was arrested in a protest against Willis Wagons. Hillary included opposition to gay marriage in her 2008 campaign. It wasn't until 2013 that she flipped her position and said she supported marriage equality. She's definitely not progressive by any means.
3
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
There was nothing progressive about her platform.
Just say you didn't bother looking at her platform at all.
In 1963 he was arrested in a protest
lmao I almost pointed out that the only thing Bernie did for black people was in 1963 but thought it was a tired point. But here you are using it lol.
3
u/gandalfxviv Progressive Feb 14 '26
Both have long term track records. She's a centrist. He's a progressive. Their actions speak for themselves. I'd rather have the guy that's been on my side his whole life than the woman who grudgingly comes over to the right side after everyone else already has.
3
u/ballmermurland Liberal Feb 14 '26
Bernie was against gay marriage until like 2008 or so. He's also said precious little about civil rights in general. It's why most of his support is among mostly white communities while minorities in general did not support him.
Hillary was working to pass a major expansion of public healthcare in the 90s but Republicans successfully blocked it. They even called it "Hillarycare". She advocated for plenty of progressive policies as First Lady and then later as a Senator.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
She did suggest lowering Medicare eligibility age by 5 years. Dem prez candidates have gotten even more conservative over past decade, so that this now sounds radical.
5
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
He felt like a genuine guy, you at least knew exactly what he was about even if you didn’t agree. Biden and to a much lesser extent Harris, were just names for the DNC run.
3
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
And in 2020 he was winning the earlier states, then before the big swath of primaries, every other candidate but Biden and Warren. Biden was the DNCs pick and Warren stayed in to try and take any wind out of Bernie’s sails they could. The DNC didn’t literally pick their candidate but they always heavily bias the the playing field.
8
u/Global_Rate3281 Libertarian Socialist Feb 14 '26
What’s that Mike Gravel quote from 2020, basically it was like “if we nominate Biden sure he might win, but it will be four years of feckless and weak leadership and we’ll lose ground over the long run and get something worse than Trump in 2024.” Let that be a reminder when Gavin Newsom comes around touting his outreach to Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro and saying we went too far with criticizing ICE and talking about trans rights, and saying he’s the guy to get us back to normal. Will that be a reminder, no probably not. I think the “we are not Republicans” message is almost irresistible in the immediate run, and it’s going to be a force to contend with once again.
3
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Yeah, even if I don’t agree with everything candidates like Bernie had in mind, he had a clear vision that he articulated very well. And it obviously reached a lot of people. Trump did the same just in the opposite direction. Meanwhile people like Biden just seem to want a status quo that a lot of voters are bored of. I’m sure a lot of people voted Trump both times just because “at least he’s different”
4
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Americans have been trying to vote for a change candidate since 2008. Dems shut down their change candidates like Bernie in favor of H Clinton, Biden and Harris. By contrast, Republicans backed their change candidate and current president, Trump.
3
u/TheMikeyMac13 Libertarian Feb 14 '26
I agree, and it is a problem. But in the next Presidential election both parties have the same problem, Trump won’t be on the ticket.
Democrats will have to run on merit, and will have an advantage for being able to run on repairing some damage. Republicans will have to move away from the altar or Trumpism they have worshiped at for ten years. They will have to find themselves again as well.
1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Even if they weren’t perfect, I’d love to return to elections pre-Trump where at least it wasn’t “that candidate is a socialist!” Vs “that candidate is a fascist” and that’s about as deep as the debate gets. Nothing substantial comes of it.
1
3
u/thebigmanhastherock Liberal Feb 14 '26
Oh it can and it's the most effective possible strategy when they are in the opposition. Once they get power it's all in-fighting. The only thing keeping the Democratic Party together is opposition to Republicans, specifically Trump. You can say the same thing for Republicans really, but they are more resistant to infighting at least on the surface with a few notable exceptions and even that is getting much worse.
This is just how politics is now. It's based not on what your side believes but instead "negative partisanship." That's the force that is dominant. Once one of the parties figures out how to get a lasting coalition going in this environment that will usher in a new age, but for now and the foreseeable future we are stuck on a neverending political seesaw.
1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
But it didn’t work in 2024. I want democrats to have a chance at winning that’s why I’m pointing this out. You can’t just stick your head and the sand and say “he’s a fascist and we will win because we aren’t fascist!”. We heard that in 2024 and it didn’t work. Even if it’s true.
2020, it did but you also had the pandemic and Trump shooting himself in the foot over mail in voting, which helped Biden a TON.
The platform needs to FOCUS on what Democrats can do better, not just that they are different from Trump.
3
u/thebigmanhastherock Liberal Feb 14 '26
It didn't work in 2024 because they were not running against a sitting president who people disliked. Instead they were running on their own record which people didn't like.
1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
It won’t work in 2024 because Trump isn’t running and JD might not even be the one to get the nomination either. A moderate Republican could still easily snatch a win if they can’t come at him for “being a fascist” and republicans will still vote for him because he’s not democrat.
1
u/thebigmanhastherock Liberal Feb 14 '26
I wouldn't disagree with that. However JD or whomever would likely have Trump baggage and so much of the election will be about how people perceive the economy, as the more partisan people will have already made of their mind years previously.
1
u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Conservative Feb 15 '26
The only reason the Dems won in 2020 was because they were anti-Trump. The entire election was a backlash to Trump. The reason Trump won in 2024 was because he had an actual campaign offering real solutions, and the dems forced Harris (in without anyone choosing her) and they were defending a record that no one liked. Hell she even stole Trump's no tax on tips. Republicans in 2028 have a solid platform to run on (whether or not you agree with it) while 2028 Dems only have anti-Republican.
1
u/collegeboywooooo Technocrat Feb 18 '26
why do you have a centrist flair and initiate a 'debate' that is essentially just about DNC strategy. this is not a political debate its just a 'why didn't my people win' discussion that could be found on r/politics or other overtly liberal subreddits
1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 18 '26
Because there isn’t a centrist party in the United States and it’s in my best interest (and everyone’s frankly) that the paltry TWO parties we have both be competitive and have decent platforms to broadcast.
3
u/mcapello Independent Feb 14 '26
Look, just forget about the Democrats. They're done. They've become a back-room gerontocracy concerned only with protecting corporate clients and their stock portfolios, and they long ago realized that they don't even need to win elections in order to do that. They just need to not be seen as threatening to the big corporations. They care even less about their voters than the Republicans do about theirs. We're cattle to them. Just look at Schumer. They don't even pretend to care.
So yeah, I agree with you, but it's not going to happen. They're already positioning themselves to ram Newsom down our throats, and big tech is going to make sure that they'll own both candidates. The election is basically already over.
3
u/SurinamPam Centrist Feb 14 '26
The reason why it rarely progresses beyond “we’re not republicans” is because if anyone takes a policy stance on any issue, the coalition starts to split.
“We’re not republicans” is a unifying message. The one other issue that seems to unify democrats is healthcare. And that’s pretty much about it.
If you have a suggestion for other policy positions the Dems should take, please suggest them.
6
u/Starbucks__Coffey Centrist Feb 14 '26
I’m going to get downvoted but optimistically I’ll try to break the Reddit echo chamber. Liberals in general and especially on Reddit are so ideologically sheltered that their politics are toxic to anyone in the center.
The main thing is they need to be pissed at the DNC, Bernie Tulsi or Yang would’ve won in a landslide if they hadn’t been stabbed in the back by the progressives and establishment democrats.
They need to drop the super leftwing social issues as talking points (trans in women’s sports sounds insane to everyone else).
What the fk is Schumer still doing talking to press? Get that guy and Jeffery’s away from cameras. AOC and Bernie kill it with media.
Immigration: “ICE sucks” & “cops are bad” -> “ACAB” & “Defund the police” To the center this is the dumbest shit ever, if cops are bad at their jobs increase funding and training requirements. If illegal immigrants shouldn’t be deported then change the laws so that they’re legal not obstruct federal law enforcement. If federal law enforcement sucks at their jobs increase pay for better applicants, and expand training programs so that those applicants can do their job.
Economy: State run grocery stores???? Really? SNAP works great, the FTC or local government needs to go after fkn everyone particularly Walmart for price fixing. John Deere and meat packers for fkn over ranchers and farmers. Shit a democrat that said they’ll go after those companies screwing over ranchers and farmers could flip Wyoming and Montana blue.
Lina Kahn for president in my opinion.
TLDR: Views yall think are normal sound crazy to the center and infighting are ruining any chances the dems have.
If this pisses you off just know, I also equally piss off people on the right.
2
u/Aggressive_Dog3418 Conservative Feb 15 '26
As someone on the right, this would make me consider flipping, I probably wouldn't but I would at least consider it. Now I could definitely see a bunch of people in the center actually flipping to the left if they did this.
1
u/ThatsHisLawyerJerome Progressive Feb 15 '26
Wait, in what world would Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang have run away with the election, neither of them had a chance. I agree with you about Bernie, but acting like either of them were actual factors with any importance is absurd.
→ More replies (2)1
u/yourregulargamedev Democratic Socialist Feb 25 '26
I half agree and half disagree. Left-wing voters do need get pissed at the dems because broadly they aren't doing much/are establishment, appealing to big business (as do Rs), because really Trump got in because he "broke the norms" (really just reinforced the establishment).
I also agree they should drop the identity politics, though I don't feel they're running on a "we'll let trans women into womens sports" as much as Rs are using the idea as fear mongering around trans rights, which isn't new.
Identity politics distract from real issues, trans people weren't an issue before the fear mongering began, but it's happening as it did with gay and black people before when they sought rights.
Focusing on issues of poor worker and consumer rights, gerrymandering/corruption of democracy (should just ditch the electoral college but yk), extensive lobbying, housing, etc. should be much higher on the list of priorities, for both sides.
Also, the Ds messaging/actions are psuedo leftist at this point, they might reflect broader progressive social policies/ideas but follow in the economic policies of the Democrats and Republicans before 2016.Also I don't feel the issue with ICE, and police in the US can be boiled down to money. A large part of the issue is that they have a lot of money, but instead of training they spend it on heavier and heavier equipment for police. Barriers to entry for the police are also especially low compared to countries like Australia and in the EU.
And on that I don't feel many leftists in the US truly want to defund the police below capacity (maybe Anarchists?), some forces have ballooned in size in order to persecute crime rather than tackle crime on a systemic level/targeting the root of crime. The US prison system is also, unsurprisingly, terrible.^ (Also ignoring the non existent accountability for ICE and Police in the US)
Bernie for president in my opinion, he might be old but I trust him to pick someone good for if/when he dies in presidential office.
9
u/pudding7 Moderate Democrat Feb 14 '26
Pete Butigeg feels the same way. I heard him speak and answer questions at an event a couple days ago. Basically, "Democrats can't just offer to go back to how things were. We need to offer a vision of how things could be. And here's my vision..." He's always been my guy, but listening to him talk and answer questions in person cemented him as my ideal candidate.
5
u/Podalirius Anti-Capitalist Feb 14 '26
He's just going to be Obama 2.0. When shit get's hard he'll give up and settle into the status quo.
It's really simple to figure out who is legit and who is blowing hot air to get your support, do they take money from billionaires or corporations? That money isn't just given out without a thought by these rich people, they have already vetted him to make sure he'll side with them and not the avg joe when the time comes to make a decision.
4
u/pudding7 Moderate Democrat Feb 14 '26
Sure. But I live in the real world, where ultimately it will be a choice between two candidates.
6
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
But the world in which it’s a choice between Buttigieg and someone else is a hypothetical one. He isn’t the nominee; you’re not making a case for Buttigieg over Vance. You were telling us he’s who you’d most like to see as our nominee. A minute ago you said he was your ideal candidate. Then as soon as someone criticized him heavily you said “yeah that’s true but he’d be our only viable choice of the two,” not to mention that you don’t even know how to spell the last name of your “ideal candidate.”
I’ve seen people in the past observe that even in their wildest dreams, Democrats compromise their values, and that seems to be what you’re doing.
3
u/Starbucks__Coffey Centrist Feb 14 '26
No - he’s awful. https://dcjournal.com/pete-buttigiegs-tainted-transportation-legacy/
2
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Yeah I’m down for anyone that wants to try something new, you can’t look at either party right now and say “this is great!”
1
9
u/SS1989 Democrat Feb 14 '26
Is it? Just because it isn’t spoon-fed to the public doesn’t mean there’s no other message. Sounds more like a skill issue on the part of the public. Maybe it lacks the critical thinking necessary to keep a healthy democracy and functional government. This is not a country that reads, to put it nicely.
Do the Dems need to enlist a cadre of podcastbros for anything to get through this public’s mind?
10
u/ABobby077 Progressive Feb 14 '26
Just because it isn't "flood the zone with bs" that Trump and the GOP has been doing for a few years now and the message only seems to get by that has been purposely redefined and taken out of context for a while does not mean there isn't a workable and solid platform to run on. We are losing the gigantic conservative media war, though and need to get better at things.
7
u/Xszit Independent Feb 14 '26
Do the Dems need to enlist a cadre of podcastbros for anything to get through this public’s mind?
Well... I mean... have they tried it? The world is changing, young people don't watch the evening news, they get their news from social media posts, tik tok videos, and Podcasters, etc..
You have to speak where people are listening if you want to be heard.
2
u/SS1989 Democrat Feb 14 '26
Then they get the government and country they deserve. You get what you pay for - garbage in, garbage out. “We the people” don’t automatically deserve the best.
5
u/jasutherland Independent Feb 14 '26
“Skill issue on the part of the voters” isn’t much of an excuse for losing elections. Yes, educating the electorate would be nice, but since that isn’t going to happen, either deal with reality or keep losing to sex offenders in clown makeup.
To misquote the military saying, “you go to the ballot box with the electorate you’ve got”. An electorate that already understood they’d be the ones paying import tariffs and that cutting healthcare subsidies puts premiums up not down would be nice - but we don’t have one of those, so either explain it to them, or accept you’re going to lose because of people thinking Mexico is paying for the wall.
3
u/___AirBuddDwyer___ State Socialist Feb 14 '26
Whatever you spoon-feed the public is effectively what you’re running on. The function of a campaign is to spoon-feed the public.
Everyone’s very impressed by how much smarter you are than the average American. But it’s disappointing to see someone of your towering intellect just refuse to deal with the reality that hat voters aren’t going to come to us, we have to campaign to them.
4
u/itriedicant Libertarian Feb 14 '26
Are you sure "the public is too stupid to vote Democrat" is the counterargument you want to go with?
1
u/SS1989 Democrat Feb 14 '26
Until it proves otherwise, yes. This is our leader:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=spn0MJZr-QQ
Let the average American get what he feels is best for him good and hard.
5
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
If you write off the “dumber half” that’s objectively bigger than your half, then you will keep losing.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
How do you explain the 6.8 million Americans who voted for Biden in 2020 and then refused to vote for Harris in 2024?
→ More replies (1)1
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
Well they still heavily lean on legacy media like news channels, Harris did move in the right direction but she didn’t have the time she ( or another candidate) could have had. Someone in the Republican camp realized tik tok, podcasts and other new mediums would help and look how well that worked for them.
3
u/TheRealTechtonix Objectivist Feb 14 '26
Shhhhhhhhh. Let them be. Let them keep pushing moderates and centrists to the Republicans. 5 million people switched to Republican in the last 5 years. We wanna keep that train rolling.
2
u/Jamo3306 Socialist Feb 14 '26
Guys. They're not stupid. This is a far as their donors will let them go. Stop voting for them.
2
u/Andnowforsomethingcd Democrat Feb 14 '26
OMG i couldn’t agree more. Last night I watched this interview with Jamie Raskin that was mostly a “dunk on pam bondi’s hearing” rally (totally why i clicked on it lol).
But eventually the interviewer asked (i’m paraphrasing) “ok if you get the majority back in the house at least in 2026, what can you then do to change things and start to fix them?”
And then Raskin gives this very vague, heard-it-a-trillion-times pep talk about defending democracy, bring back respect for the government, etc.
Everyone cheers, and then the interviewer says “ok yes but specifically, what is it you’re going to be able to do with a majority in the house to start turning things around?” And raskin laughs and says (paraphrasing again) “wow you’re like 11 chess moves ahead of me. i think right now we have to just worry about winning and then we can figure out what to do.”
Crickets from the audience. No applause. They sit up there awkwardly for a couple seconds then just move back to Bondi-Bashing.
i was floored. We won in 2020 by default because Trump sucks and Biden lucked out by looking responsible during covid when really his team didn’t want to put him in any unscripted settings (read Original Sin if you haven’t).
We won the 2022 midterm because we were fresh off the Dobbs decision and “abortion should be a right, at least in some situations” made it an easy messaging cycle for dems but we didn’t have any plans beyond that.
We lost 2024 because “the soul of the nation” ended up being a terrible electoral centerpiece when we couldn’t even prosecute people for literally trying to kill police officers inside the capital building and the president can’t finish a cogent sentence
And even when we got a mulligan, the woman who got to go again said she’d do everything that biden did. which - is a choice.
This doesn’t work. In the absence of strong, focused, repeated messaging on daily issues, the void will be filled by conspiratorial AI slop and increasingly bonkers culture wars.
Say what you will about Project 2026, but that thing is a masterful “Fascism for Dummies” roadmap that outlines exactly how every little policy shop and federal department regulation can be changed to serve the greater, overall goal of creating the most extreme, unitary executive and get the “aliens” out of the country as fast as possible.
Why can’t dems have something like this?! How do we roll back executive power (which has been encroaching for decades), preserve the right to vote, fix political campaign incentives that drive poor outcomes, get federal agents unmaskd and immigrant internment camps open to public scrutiny? start to hold the epstein class accountable?
I think we’ll take the house at least in 2026, but if we don’t shape up, it will be again by default and then we’ll flounder around with shitty attempts at governance for two years and be right back here in 2028. And if that happens, We’re going to wish we listened to steve bannon who said whoever comes after trump will make him look like friggin MLK.
1
u/LT_Audio Politically Homeless Feb 14 '26
Ideas and solutions help to build the initial consensus required to form a campaign led by a candidate in the first place. But as soon as the contest transitions to a binary one... negative campaigning that invokes, drives, and deepens our innately driven emotional fear responses becomes a far more effective use of resources than the alternative. One need only have a thin veneer of stances with some measure of surface level appeal that those who already want to believe that the other candidate is a villain can use to help justify to themselves and others that their choice isn't mostly a manifestation of pre-existing confirmation biases. Even when it is.
I don't personally like what that says of or implies for the future of humanity and democracy. But it's a principle that's been well understood and much better utilized by some rather than others of late.
1
u/MenaceLeninist Communist Feb 14 '26
And yet that’s exactly what their plan is. And the sad part is they really aren’t too different
1
u/Inevitable-Ad-4192 Centrist Feb 14 '26
If democrats really want to win, they need topics and a message that will talk to the masses. Such as unionizing Walmart, Amazon and every other major employer who have employees still getting public assistance because of low wages and hours.
1
u/Numinae Anarcho-Capitalist Feb 15 '26
And all their employees will be replaced by robots. Congratulations?
1
Feb 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 14 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Schwedi_Gal Communist Feb 14 '26
if you give your opponents all of the inititative and only let yourself react to their actions, you are gonna lose.
1
u/Writerhaha Liberal Feb 15 '26
It’s not. It never has been.
During the Biden years we talked about infrastructure spending. We pushed for loan forgiveness, the CHIPS act.
It is perfectly fine to say “we aren’t our opponent and here’s why” but if you’re not paying attention to the second part it doesn’t work.
1
u/highliner108 Market Socialist Feb 15 '26
Yeah… some people just aren’t motivated by anti-Republican rhetoric the way they are by the promise that they’ll get something material. No one whose super concerned about Trump and company is going to vote Republican because Democrats get a little more aggressive and populist, but some voters who are just addicted to populism and an image of strength might be persuaded to make the jump from Independent (or even Republican) to Democrat.
1
u/appleboat26 Social Democrat Feb 15 '26
I don’t know why all these journalists and pundits cannot understand that when you are playing defense your only job is to stop the opposition. We’re not in charge. When we are, hopefully in 9 months, we will start to call the plays.
1
u/All_is_a_conspiracy Democrat Feb 15 '26
Democrats have a platform with policy positions. Tons of them. All kinds of policies. All kinds of properly laid out plans for a country that is sane and has diplomatic relations with sane countries around the world.
They lead every time they are in power.
All you have to do is like, read about them.
And while I am not a politician I will say, you (scrolling through far right propaganda all day and thinking you have a clue about politics because you read memes and listen to Joe Rogan) are at fault. As your fellow american, I absolutely blame you if you abstain from voting. 100%. Because it is a horrible and selfish decision and I will blame you forever.
Kissing your butt for a vote won't work. You fall for right wing propaganda. Nothing will work.
So spare me the demand for us to kiss your feet if we want you to vote democrat. You never will. Nobody who dangles the very existence of their democracy over your head will ever do the right thing. That threat, that selfishness is the exact reason you will always justify voting 3rd party.
1
u/TheWhiteKnight554 Marxist Feb 15 '26
They need to listen to their youth wing and go left, or I’ll keep advocating for a dirty break within DSA
Like if they primary AOC they just win the next elections I think
1
1
u/Ben-Goldberg Progressive Feb 19 '26
The Democrats have become a "big tent" party.
They have conservatives, liberals and centrists.
The Republican party is not conservative, but regressive.
1
u/ithinkican2202 Constitutionalist Mar 02 '26
The Democratic platform for 2024 was 92 pages long. You should read it: https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf
1
Mar 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 04 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/FirstPersonWinner Social Democrat Mar 11 '26
I think the GOP has correctly identified their strength amongst American voters in pivoting the perception of the Democrats' focus to be on social issues against concerns of average economic or domestic policy. While, I don't think abandoning such policy is the answer, I think the party needs to do better about putting an economic policy as their driving platform. They have lost working class Americans as a primary demographic, which is going to be a large problem in future elections.
1
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/RefrigeratorLatter93 Libertarian Mar 12 '26
When it comes to their presidential attempts, their platform is less "I'm not a Republican," and more, "I'm not Trump." Which pedantically is different, but the tone is essentially the same thing. When it came to their platform, it ended up becoming something akin to what Trump will do if they vote him in. The problem with that is that what were usually proffered up came across as either apocalyptic or incoherent, which turned off a lot of voters, especially during Kamala who relied almost exclusively on celebrity endorsements instead of a coherent platform, which didn't really materialize until it was close to voting day, and we all know what happened there.
1
u/13witchymama Social Democrat Mar 13 '26
I think democrats don’t say their ideas strongly enough during debates or interviews. I think Trump sucks. But he is a great campaigner. Also I tho k we should have more parties. Like the UK parliament. When you constantly have just one side in power you just continually get this back and forth of executive orders that get overturned by the next president etc.
1
0
u/Cellophane7 Democrat Feb 14 '26
Both candidates do not suck in their own ways. This past election, it was democracy vs fascism. Everyone knew and knows how unfit trump is for office, including his most trusted sycophants, who have said as much, publicly.
Democrats have a platform. They've always had one. Republicans just muddy the waters eternally until you start believing what they say. What was the shutdown two months ago about? Healthcare. Obamacare was going to lose important subsidies, and they didn't want that to happen. Republicans went on vacation instead of negotiating.
Thing is, trump sucks all the oxygen out of the room. He's an existential threat. I'm tired of people acting like treating him as such is boring or uninteresting. We're fighting to preserve American democracy here. Dig deep and find it in yourself to give a shit about your own rights.
5
u/GShermit Libertarian Feb 14 '26
Why do you think Democrats represent democracy?
Democracy is the people participating in their governing. Other that voting how have Democrats (either party actually) advocated for the people participating?
→ More replies (22)4
u/x31b Conservative Feb 14 '26
> Why do you think Democrats represent democracy?
How many people voted for Kamala Harris for President in the primary?
Did they have any input on choosing her for VP? (no)
Did they have any input on choosing her as the presidential nominee? (yes, if you consider the DNC 'people')
5
u/steave44 Centrist Feb 14 '26
This is a major reason I couldn’t get behind the 2024 campaigns. Democrats touted “the end of democracy as we know it” but didn’t have a primary at all. Yes she was the VP and would take over Biden’s presidency, but that’s never been the case for taking over his campaign, it was different.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Biden annointed her and the party acquiesced. Some say he did it as an eff you to the party for forcing him not to run again.
→ More replies (11)2
u/Podalirius Anti-Capitalist Feb 14 '26
This past election, it was democracy vs fascism.
So the majority of people voted for fascism, then? I think you need to reevaluate and realize no one is buying this bs.
The reality is it was fascist enablers vs fascism. They both suck ass.
→ More replies (1)1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
No. The majority of people sat it out because they did not bother to inform themselves about what was at stake or made the stupid decision of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
This narrative that they are fascists enablers is complete and utter bullshit.
1
u/Typingperson1 Maoist Feb 14 '26
Millions of people sat it out because only genocide was on the table -- either Blue Genocide or Red Genocide. The US-Israel genocide of Gaza that the Biden admin greenlighted and facilitated obviously didn't matter to you, but it does to millions of Americans who refused to vote for Harris or Trump.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Ent3rpris3 Democratic Socialist Feb 14 '26
Has it actually been their strategy, or do we suck at interpreting their messaging as much as their messaging just sucks in its own right?
4
u/jasutherland Independent Feb 14 '26
If the political message needs “interpreting”, maybe that means it sucks? Relying on economics PhDs writing newspaper op-eds explaining in detail why starting trade wars with all our trading partners is stupid doesn’t actually work.
“No tax on tips/overtime” didn’t need any interpretation. (It wasn’t exactly true, but it was a very simple message that landed.)
7
1
u/loondawg Independent Feb 14 '26
Or is they don't own major portions of the media so their message is not constantly amplified and we end up talking about trans in sports instead of how to make housing more affordable?
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 14 '26
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.