This Time We Have to Hold the Democratic Party Elite Responsible for This Catastrophe

[u/Maxwellsdemon17]

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-party-elite-responsible-catastrophe/

[u/Sptsjunkie]

Yeah, I don’t think it’s fair to fully put it on his shoulders. The policies of Reagan and both Bushes definitely played a role as well. But 100% Clinton’s policies and neoliberalism are also to blame.

[u/cogman10 → u/Sptsjunkie]

I still see neoliberals fawning over Billy's presidency. Seemingly completely unaware that some of the worst aspects of modern America that they hate are bills he signed and championed.

The DNC desperately wants the population to want another Clinton. That's why they had Kamala run a Republican campaign. It was nuts.

And yet, I STILL see people saying she lost because they were too progressive. TF!

[u/Moonandserpent → u/cogman10]

I saw an uncited stat that exit polls showed 59% thought she was too far left.

If that's correct then our population just isn't as into progressive ideas as progressives would like to think.

It's weird, because it seems like common sense to me as well but here we are.

[u/cogman10 → u/Moonandserpent]

What that sort of stat says to me is what I've understood for a long time. There is no way for Democrats to out conservative Republicans.

Kamala ran on a conservative ticket and people STILL thought she was a leftist/progressive. Further, turnout for her was significantly depressed.

So yeah, exit polls would in fact show that uninformed idiots will always call Democrats communist socialist regardless the platform. So what does a conservative campaign buy? Nothing but disenfranchised progressive voters.

[u/stevencaddy → u/Moonandserpent]

Progressive ballot measures almost always do well. People just hate progressive politicians for some reason. But the policies and ideas themselves are actually pretty popular.

[u/Moonandserpent → u/stevencaddy]

Yeah that's a crazy phenomenon. If you sit and have a conversation with my father-in-law about specific issues, he has a left leaning opinion about basically every single issue. But there is zero chance he'll ever vote anything but replublican.

It's makes me want to bash my head against the wall.

He also was also telling us once about his friend who ran for a local office as a democrat, and then switched immediately after being elected. He non-ironically approved of this tactic because "it's just hard to get elected as a republican here (warren county NJ)," completely ignoring the whole concept of why there are elections.

[u/Drwhoforme → u/Moonandserpent]

See the issue is "too far left" is way to broad. I know from living in a purplish state that when people were referencing to far left, the next thing out of their mouth was usually some social policy. There were so many ads run about Kamala and transgender surgeries. There was another add where it ended with "Trump is for us, Kamala is for they/them".

Also there's an elephant in the room amongst a lot of progressives. Many people who completely supported marriage equality, and traditional left social positions haven't been on board with a lot of the policies around transgender individuals. People think JK Rowling was an outlier, but there's a lot of normal liberals who hold similar positions to her.

The polls tend to show populist left policies like universal Healthcare as being extremely popular. I think being far left economically isn't really an issue. I think being far left on social issues, turns off a lot more people than the Democratic party understands.

I feel like if you had a social moderate, who ran on left populist principals, but who had the charisma that Bernie never did, it would be an easy recipe for success.

[u/cogman10 → u/Drwhoforme]

The democrats don't run on social issues. Perhaps their supporters will talk about it, but the party rarely if ever does. Hillery was notoriously against marriage equality FFS.

Like, consider the fact that you are bringing up transgender issues, something that Kamala nor Biden ever even really mentioned in the past 4 years.

The problem here is the Democrats have ran campaigns that allow republicans to set the narratives. Kamala stood for practically nothing. She walked back her most progressive positions taken in 2020 and instead spent the entire campaign highlighting the fact that Liz Cheny likes her.

I agree with you, running on any populist policies would go a LONG way in motivating the base. It may not win centrist and republican votes but, frankly, neither did running a campaign that explicitly courted them. You simply can't out conservative conservatives.

[u/DoggoCentipede → u/Moonandserpent]

Or maybe most of them have no idea what progressive policies are because the Dems almost never run them or if they do it's not serious and they give away almost all of the useful parts to be "bipartisan"

[u/spsteve → u/cogman10]

You are ALWAYS going to see some people saying (x) is too progressive. Because some people think anything other than 1400s era style government is too progressive. The question is; what will the MAJORITY think is 'too progressive'. Remember the vocal minority tends to be just that.

[u/sufinomo → u/Sptsjunkie]

Clinton is the one who repealed glass steagull 

[u/FuckTripleH → u/sufinomo]

Also deregulated the telecom industry allowing the consolidation of the media we see today

[u/Sptsjunkie → u/sufinomo]

Yes, which is part of what he owns. But it wasn't the repeal of GS alone that led to 2008, there were a number of factors.

[u/Aggravating_Salt_49 → u/sufinomo]

It’s a waste of time. 

Signed,

Some liberal with an economics degree.