85.2%

[canpakes]

[Gadianton]

Joey made an important observation.

[Dr Exiled]

I'm intrigued by your proposal. Perhaps a populist left would be a good counter to the supposed Trump populism on the right? What do you think?

Unfortunately, or fortunately, populism can be controlled if there is an "Obama" figure to sell out the attacking forces, basically tricking them. So, this could work again. He was brilliant in how he claimed he wanted to attack the castle but refused in the end to do anything in the name of looking to the future. Perhaps Pete Buttigieg could be that guy? So, while unleashing the larger population that always wants to attack the smaller ruling class, a carefully vetted puppet or someone part of the correct group could lead the superior party to power once again, without having a large mass of left/right lower classes attacking the chosen.

[Gunnar]

If we continue to think that the number one reason progressives face criticism is due to Republicans trying to portray them as irrational, we will fail to confront the issues within the party. It seems that your point is centered around the necessity of safeguarding the progressive agenda at all costs, as we cannot permit the Republicans to be right in any way regarding progressives. What if I am right and the progressive agenda has become too polarizing for American voters to support? How can we engage in a conversation about advancing beyond their agenda to create a party that resonates with average Americans if we are perpetually focused on shielding them from the perceived threats posed by Republicans?

Progress and common sense: To me, nothing is more common sensical than being in favor of progress. We as individuals and as a society are not perfect. There will always be room for improvement. Continual progress requires that we recognize that fact and always be willing to seek and consider better, more effective and more equitable ways of improving our society and how we do things. So why has "Progressive" (and, by implication, progress itself) become a pejorative for any other than the ultra-rich and powerful, who obviously regard preserving the status quo as their major priority, to the detriment of us "lesser" humans. I don't think that the Democrats really lost the election because they were too progressive. I think it more likely that they lost because they were perceived by many Americans for not being progressive enough and didn't try hard enough to distance themselves away from the very status quo that so many Americans are angry about.

For example, Kamala Harris (apparently on the advice some of her campaign managers) foolishly backed away from her advocacy of universal healthcare which at least 57% of Americans say they want. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3 ... re-survey/

A majority of adults in a new survey said that they believe it is the job of the federal government to ensure health care coverage for all Americans, but most also prefer a private health care system over a government-run option.

The 57 percent of respondents supporting the idea that ensuring health care coverage is the job of the federal government is the highest mark in Gallup’s polling since 2018. An overwhelming majority of Democrats share this view in the new survey, with 59 percent of independents concurring. Just 28 percent of Republicans support the idea.

I suspect she lost a significant amount of her support for that reason alone, plus other ways in which she seemed to moderate some of her previously stated more progressive stands on the bad advice of some of her wealthy, corporate-minded advisors and donors, who are very much a part of the hated status quo.

[Gadianton]

If we continue to think that the number one reason progressives face criticism is due to Republicans trying to portray them as irrational, we will fail to confront the issues within the party.

Criticizing progressives isn't the same as criticizing the Democratic party by calling it progressive.

It seems that your point is centered around the necessity of safeguarding the progressive agenda at all costs, as we cannot permit the Republicans to be right in any way regarding progressives.

No hound, I don't believe the Democratic party is significantly progressive, despite Fox News says. You even admit it's only 12% progressive.

I agree with some of what Julie had to say, however, I think Shermichael Singleton from that same clip got closer to the problem:

"...(Biden said in a speech that his) presidency has been historic, changing lives in rural communities. Well, Donald Trump was able to improve his standing in rural communities all across the country. He talked about the economy being the strongest, although he did acknowledge some people are still struggling. Well, economic dislocation is still a very real thing, it's why I would argue vast majority of people voted for Trump....I think it's why Trump was able to increase his margins with Latinos, specifically Latino men. They will need to do what the Republican party did after Romney lost to Obama..."

If Singleton is right, the left may not need to do much to win next time, since inequality is likely to only increase under Trump, whether he stalls or whether he makes it rain pure chaos.

There is an overarching problem of declaring victory for the economy when presidents really don't determine the economy, and in the case where Americans are mad about inflation, linking yourself to the fantastic economy that the little people think is bad is very much a Romney-like failure. Perhaps Biden should have acknowledged the economy was terrible, in terms of how the little people see it, but point out what he had done to make it a little better?

Aside from the culture-war stuff you bring up Julie seems to think Democrats should quit being distracted by all the right-wing stunts and focus on what their platorm is. I do agree with that. Quit putting the latest outrageous thing Marjorie Taylor-Greene says on the front page.

The biggest problem I have is that it sounds like we need to build a real platform in addition to more adequate messaging, and I'm just not sure such a platform is possible.

[Hound of Heaven]

If Singleton is right, the left may not need to do much to win next time

https://youtu.be/NikZRUW1MNE?si=NLAydbGGbEbB7o4l

When our party has deviated so significantly from fundamental principles that we risk losing key democrats like Ana Kasparian, we are facing serious challenges! I never imagined I would witness this. Ana and Cenk from The Young Turks are now appearing on more conservative shows and podcasts, seeking a middle ground that could potentially bring together MAGA populism with their vision of liberal populism. I believe it's a commendable approach for them to seek common ground with conservatives. However, the way Ana passionately expresses how Democrats have negatively impacted her and her family's life in this video is quite troubling for me as a lifelong Democrat.

If we begin to lose members of TYT, we will face significant challenges. I consider TYT part of independent media.

Here is a video featuring Ana on a conservative talk show passionately criticizing the Democrats whom she believes have negatively impacted her life in the community. This is not an ideal circumstance. We must determine how to put an end to this situation before we permanently alienate the youth vote. Like I have previously, she talks about how we are being manipulated by a tiny fraction of our party.

[Gadianton]

Hound,

What do you think of this guy's campaign to re-align the Democratic Party?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfBtlvfysjw&t=981s

[Gunnar]

Hound, here’s a link to the 2024 Democratic Party platform. If there are troublesome elements within it, it may be more practical to discuss them from the standpoint of the current platform rather than refer to a version from 36 years ago.

You can search for terms like diversity, equity and inclusion individually (‘DEI’ itself isn’t found within it) to critique the party’s approach, and suggest alternatives.

https://democrats.org/wp-content/upload ... ATFORM.pdf

I read through that platform and found nothing that any intelligent, rational, moral and fair-minded person would find objectionable, and much that was highly commendable. After reading it, I grieve more than ever before that Kamala Harris didn't win! Honestly, can anyone reading that find anything horrible or objectionable about it? it lists many of the principles that have contributed to whatever greatness this country has achieved and can make it even better as shining example on the hill for the rest of the world to follow. I think that if a majority of the American people had bothered to become well-informed enough to read it or become at least somewhat familiar with it, The Biden/Walz team would have won a landslide victory!

[Gunnar]

I concur with nearly everything she expresses in this video. She seems hesitant to assign blame to the progressives, likely aware that doing so could provoke a backlash against her. However, it's clear that she's attempting to communicate that the loss in the election can be attributed to the progressives.

Consider the trend of including pronouns after one's name that has gained popularity among progressives. Apologies, but that simply gives the impression that one lacks knowledge and the capacity for effective communication. Therefore, that is why she claims we no longer resemble the party of common sense.

I agree to the extent that the Democrats could have and should have communicated more effectively than they did, especially by trying harder to publicize their excellent 2024 platform, which should have persuaded any fully cognizant, well-informed and fair-minded voters. I do not agree that progressives deserve blame for the loss. If anything, I think they would have done better had they been more clearly progressive, but certainly not to the extent of using violence and property destruction to make their points.

We already have the terms Hispanic or Latino; why is there a need to refer to Hispanics or Latinos as LatinX? This attempt to alter the language in order to uplift a specific group ultimately backfired, resulting in Trump securing 13% more of the Hispanic vote compared to 2020.

I think it ridiculously nitpicky to chastise them for using the term "Latinx", rather than Hispanics or Latinos. They seem synonymous to me, and I doubt any offense was intended for or perceived by Latinos, unless they were ridiculously nitpicky.

I’m not suggesting that progressives shouldn’t be included in the party; rather, it’s important to recognize that they represent a small segment of the overall party. Many everyday Americans have become weary of their complex agenda, which was clearly dismissed in this election. The most challenging aspect will be locating Democrats who are unafraid to confront the progressive bullies and assert that their actions are detrimental to the party.

I'm glad you're not suggesting that progressives shouldn't be included in the party. If anything, they currently represent too small a segment of the overall party. Why are even some Democrats so seemingly paranoid about progress? Progress to me merely means being willing to acknowledge we are not yet perfect and willing to continually consider how we can improve. On the other hand, I acknowledge that conservatives also deserve to be included. Working together (mutually respectfully, of course) both conservatives and progressives form a negative feedback loop that helps to prevent both stagnation and flying dangerously off the rails.

Do you think that the typical 40 under Democrat, particularly those who are progressive, is even aware of what a blue dog Democrat is? If so, isn't it concerning for our party that the pragmatic faction has been completely overlooked over the past 15 years, as the progressive wing has effectively silenced all other factions within the party?

I don't believe that the progressive wing has effectively silenced all other factions within the party. I firmly believe in the importance of continuing progress, but I agree it must always be pragmatically tempered by both progressives and conservatives respectfully dialoguing with each other, with no attempts of bullying by either side.

ETA: Pragmatism, to me, means simply "that which works well." It is not exclusive to either conservatism or progressivism.

[Moksha]

Robert F. Kennedy's (Trump's pick to head the Health Dept) staff is petitioning to revoke the approval of the polio vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/16/us/p ... marks.html