The Democrats Are Determined Not to Learn From Their Failure
21d 5h ago by lemmy.world/u/return2ozma in politics from jacobin.com
Failure? Pretty sure the oligarchy is getting exactly what they want.
They've been able to effectively convince the k-hive that it wasn't their failure; that it was the failure of voters. Those convinced of this narrative are the biggest threat to being able to stop fascism using electoral or other tools.
For decades, we've always heard from them it's someone else's fault when we fail.
Thankfully she has zero chance of getting the nomination...I'm terrified it's going to be Buttgieg
Buttigeig is an empty suit you pour money into then it stands up and walks around. His primary claim to fame was sabotaging Bernie in 2020. And apparently being an "excellent" transportation secretary (you know, while fucking over unions under biden) I guess. I'm not saying they aren't a threat but they're so far up Ezra Kleins ass I don't see how they can pretend they aren't anything but a thirdway walking cat-turd.
The DNC definitely fucked Bernie over, but rolling over and letting them get away with it again made me lose all respect for him.
Don't worry. It'll actually be newsome.
Or Pritzker, Or shapiro who is their real favorite. But one hard core zionist is the same as any other really. Even Mark Kelly is a committed zionist. AIPAC would be fine with him, and people seem to support him for no other reason than he's a Nasa guy. Thats all centrist dems seem to need.
I think AOC has a better chance than he does.
AOC has no chance of securing the Dem nomination unless she signals the DNC and Dem donors that she is now a died in wool capitalist who will play deep state ball.
Plenty of dems are winning without the support of the DNC and their donors, Bernie came close too and I think most of the party base regrets not choosing Bernie in 2016.
We will see what happens.
Been hearing a form of this for over ten years. Just no. They lost to Donald Trump. They must reflect on why the fuck that is without blaming everyone but themselves.
What failure? They've done their job perfectly as controlled opposition. The real failure is people expecting anything else from them.
I'm tired of having the same discussion over and over again with neo-liberals that they aren't anywhere near left and their mandates of "less harm" or "lesser of two evils" doesn't work anymore. So they have no actual platform or real plans for anything substantial that would be secured. Letting things float on in good faith.
Lesser of two evils is just for general elections where you only have two choices and you need to slow the rise of fascism.
Progressives need to get on with primarying the fuck out of establishment Democrats. When you have a progressive running against a fascist in the general, polls have shown that the progressive ideas will win....if the voters are focused on policy rather than succumbing to emotional manipulation.
MAGAs always want to make every election about what people want to do with their own genitals. And Dems usually go along with it.
They've already started talking about James Talarico's genitals. They are fascinated by them.
Preach. I'm pretty far left and I am constantly being spammed for money by Dem fundraising. I tell them they can pry it out of my cold dead fingers, or they can come up with a platform better than, "well at least we aren't trump."
The death of Neoliberalism
, ironically Neoliberalism has killed itself by being too successful, it has never been easier for people with a lot of money to move their fortune and businesses elsewhere.
So certain people and companies become nigh untaxable and impossible to regulate, now if it was a case that these people just furthered themselves and their business that would be one thing.
But they don't have interesting ideas about race, or "the woke", or climate change, or a whole host of unpleasantness so they use the power they have to further their petty aims. and narcissistic tendencies.
And now the dam is broken with Musk and Trump shattering all norms, who exactly is going to tell them no in the future?
Who can tell them no?
Whatever is behind Samuel L. Jackson (seat cushions?) looks like a pack of hotdogs.
Diner seat cushions, but now they will forever be hotdogs.
The Democrats are a capital party just like the Republicans. We do not have a labor party in the US. Fascists and racists have their Republican Party, but liberals only have the lesser evil. There is no loyalty. We need a third party to represent labor. The two party/winner take all system is a fucking joke.
There are third parties, they’ve even spoiled some elections. I think you mean a VIABLE third party.
The lesser evil of fascism is still fascism. Just with a pride flag in June.
You have a party that is desperate to go back to a past utopia that never existed and another that is determined to maintain a status quo that absolutely failed.
Democratic socialista need to change their name to the labor party and start championing Bernie's message of the past 40 years. Appealing to people on the right and left
This is exactly the scenario that the Democratic party is working so hard to quash.
Is not that they don’t know.
All of them know.
The moderate Democrat politicians know they are a doormat for the corporate donor class. They refuse to enact meaningful change because then they lose their corporate donor money (and they’d have to do real work.)
MAGA politicians know they are betraying America to be a doormat for Donald Trump. They refuse to stand up to him because then they lose their billionaire donor money/Trump pardon protection (and they’d have to grow a conscience).
Our government has been captured by dejected cynics and sadistic sociopaths who only work for and represent people with a lot of money.
This is by design. A country for the rich by the rich from the start. And people have the gall to act surprised at the corruption that was there from the start. Our first President was set to become the world's first billionaire adjusted for inflation. If he had not died so young he would have.
One thing that really sucks about today's world is that everything seems too big to fail.
Shitty car dealers? Sorry can't remove them. Shitty banks? Sorry too powerful. Shitty cable? Sorry it's the only option. Shitty cellular? Sorry only service. Shitty political party? Sorry other option is worse.
Capitalism has a way of squeezing everything into a few hands where we are basically fucked once it reaches the end stage.
The problem is that during the run up you seem to get better service / value as it's fighting for the top spot, but once there you are totally fucked.
The problem is that during the run up you seem to get better service / value as it’s fighting for the top spot, but once there you are totally fucked.
This is the essence of enshittification
In my long study of history there is always a tipping point. 1789, 1840, 1905, 1917 - people just took power back, or made a serious effort to do the same. Not that it was perfect either. The history of humanity is one of struggle against the elites.
In the case of the US, corporations being recognised as actual living, breathing human beings only made revolution a certainty. The only question is when? I'm an old fart, so I hopefully won't be around to see the inevitable chaos.
There have only been a few places in history where the people actually took back control temporarily with Haiti being one of them. Of course now they have one of the most extreme wealth gaps around.
If the history of the world has been a struggle against the ruling class, that struggle has amounted to a wet fart.
I don't know about that? France, the United States, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Philippines, Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania, the fall of the Romanovs in Russia were all a thing.
Besides which, I think that you are missing my point. Success isn't guaranteed in Revolution, that's why I included 1905. I was talking about tipping points that lead to revolution. What happens next can go either way.
The wet fart bit is that you just used Hati to disprove a point that I never made in the first place.
Sorry, I am not counting revolutions that amounted to trading one aristocracy for another.
I never said you made that point, I was just talking. I simply don't believe your revolutions were that revolutionary. I gave an example of a truly revolutionary movement that has amounted to one of the largest wealth gaps in the world.
This is teaching us a bigger lesson, one that so many glaze over.
I take that point. I also make the point that at the beginning of most revolutions the outcome is unknown. Entrenchment of a new regime can only be understood once the outcome has been decided. To make your argument you are permitted to accept or discount revolutions according to your whim.
My entire point was about historical tipping points. In this very simple concept I have been misunderstood. One person accused me of encouraging revolt. You seem to think that my argument doesn't work because a great many revolutions fail. You are right. A great many do. But I'm not advocating for revolts nor suggesting that they always work. I'm saying that when conditions reach a certain point, they are almost inevitable. Not always even then. North Korea is a case in point.
I totally get what you are saying but I will reserve the right to judge revolutions based upon who started them and their actual results.
I have often had a thought experiment just what it would take for US citizens to rebel. Things are pretty bleak for a lot of people already. The US government has been waging a slow walk genocide with the War on Drugs since before I was born. Millions of families destroyed.
Clearly gun violence, overdoses, excessive incarceration, systemic sexism/racism, and environmental degredation has taken an incredible toll on the US population. The reality is most people don't even realize this and probably never will. So I am a bit dubious that there will be any sort of cultural revolution soon.
Now if by revolution you mean the US descending into some sort of techno feudalist/fascist hellscape then I would probably say it looks like we are already here.
I’m an old fart, so I hopefully won’t be around to see the inevitable chaos.
If you've got no stake in this and nothing to lose, you probably shouldn't be giving advice.
I've got no advice to give. Just making a historical observation.
Over time patterns in human societies emerge. Pointing them out doesn't constitute advice, nor the promotion of events. Sadly, we can be prisoners of those events, mostly events that are beyond any individual's control.
Spotting smoke on a far distant ridgeline doesn't cause the fire that comes roaring down towards your house.
Democrats win by failing. For their corporate bankrollers.
Like a boxer getting paid to throw a match?
Exactly like that, except the paying is a few steps removed so it "doesn't count as bribery"
Weird that AIPAC isn't mentioned at all in the comments.
You've mentioned it now. ✅
Now go on and make a point.
Whoa... Big news. They're determined about something.
As a European trying to work out the policy differences between Republicans and Democrats, they don't seem to be significant. Mainly how elements are interpreted /expressed during campaigns or counter campaigns.
Question for our American cousins: Is this because it's (overall) what the US population wants to buy into with votes or would a less Ultracapitalism stance not have enough interest?
If a less capitalist party magically appeared with the capital to compete it would sweep the democrats and republicans out of office. The economic grind for no apparent gain is consistently one of the top issues in elections. It just turns out that 100 million dollars of ads can absolutely convince people that this year the politicians will actually help them.
It is incredibly difficult if not impossible to start a new party. You need grassroots campaigns in every state and district just to even get on the ballot. It’s intentionally hard to form a new party because the constitution was designed in such a way to discourage group think and parties.
The Constitution has been pretty well subverted in that matter. It actually made small parties pretty easy because the representation ratio was small enough that Jeb the farmhand could get elected by drinking with enough people in different taverns. That's been exploded by the refusal to add any new seats to Congress since the 1940's. So now nobody is getting elected without millions in personal or PAC money. The easiest way to access that money is the DNC and RNC.
The idea that Senators and Representatives would act autonomously in the interests of their constituents was disproven almost immediately. Parties formed in Washington's lifetime.
Some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
I see them as CDU vs AfD or PP vs Vox.
At this point I assume more malicious intent than incompetence.
They know. They just insist that their ideology is all that matters and everyone should just "shut up and follow" and somehow it will all work out. This is what established politicians (read as in this case: establishment democrats/career politicians) standby. We know this doesn't work.
This is why people need to start voting for actual progressives. Look at what they say versus what they vote for. Compared to who is challenging them.
Then match it with the outcomes of those voted on policies. Is it so hard? Because I know a good amount of people can't seem to even bother.
Add in the bit of, "how do you know the challenger will actually be faithful on their promises?". Well, clearly the status quo (aka, the same person you elect in) isn't going to make the change you want, so why keep them?
This is why getting a third party Going and Voted is important.
Ain't gonna work. That'll just split whichever side of the FPTP duopoly you hate less and the ones you hate more will win. Don't do it.
For any of that to be plausible you need to change the voting system first.
The sad truth is that the only viable option is to slowly turn the massive ship in primaries and local elections and eventually that'll bubble to the top.
And to change the voting system, you need to have more than two effective parties so that the legal arguments and damages can be demonstrated in practice. They ain't gonna change it for "wannabe voting" / "unrealised votes", not unless heads start literally rolling. So it's one of the two.
It is. Multi party properly representative democracy is obviously desirable. There is just no clear path from here to there since FPTP makes it impossible and whoever wins in FPTP doesn't want to change it.
I guess you can try revolution. Good luck. I'll be cheering you on from an ocean away.
The best revolutions come from across the ocean!
Are people still pretending they don't understand it was written by a single freelancer?
That the people now running the DNC, didn't run it during 2024?
Because I legitimately don't understand how anyone who only knew those two facts, would still be blaming the people running the DNC since 2025 for what this report says was done wrong in 2024...
So it seems like the safe assumption, is people don't understand at least one of those two things. Most likely both.
Especially when they repeat "Democrats won't learn their lesson" literally half a term deep into the DNCs pivot away from neoliberalism. To think they haven't learned the lesson yet, just means that person hasn't paid attention since Biden lost the election.
It's still bad that the most generous interpretation is the DNC is being fleeced by incompetent freelancers.
It also implies that the DNC has little interest in understanding why they lost. No mention of Biden's age, even if to say it had no effect. No mention of Gaza, even if to say it had no effect.
If they have a better post-mordem, that does explore these topics I'd love to see it.
It makes it seem like they weren't that serious about beating Trump if they're still willing to hire incompetent people that avoid tough analysis.
Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are still the House and Senate leader for the dems. Jefferies is Pelosi's handpicked successor.
What part of the leadership do you believe has changed? What are their names?
It also implies that the DNC has little interest in understanding why they lost
Th voting members knew why they lost immediately, that's why they elected Marin instead of another neoliberal....
What part of the leadership do you believe has changed?
The chair is a dictator and can do whatever they want with zero accountability...
So when the chair changes, it's like a new president, they can set their "admin" however they want.
2 years ago they elected Ken Martin, who spent a decade running Minnesota and turned it from purple to one of the most progressive politicians of any state.
It's honestly not hard to look into him, but unless you understand the basics of the DNC (what I've said here is enough) it doesn't seem like a huge change.
But people have fought 30 years (arguably 50) trying to get us to where we are now.
It's not done, but billionaires want us to give up and check out already
It's this anticipatory self‑sabotage that always makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reality is that the DNC has changed. While it's not perfect, it's far from where it was at. Hell the run in TN-7 shows that. Republicans designed the district to be R+22 and came up in that election as R+9. Democrats were able to get a ground game going under the nose of the Republicans.
What happens is that people don't see ENOUGH change and just go full tilt doomer. Nothing changes overnight. People need to get over themselves. If Democrats do what they did for the special election in Tennessee for at least ten years straight, then Republicans are doomed. But there's this propensity that if it doesn't happen in the next twenty-four hours then it'll never happen.
I really strongly encourage Democrats to give up on the doomer act here. Change is difficult, actual change takes time.
Yeah i seriously see this looking from the outside. There's a whole gradient of nuance between the extremes of "It's over, the billionaire backed DNC are Republicans just with nice words, nothing will ever change" and "We did it, it's over for Trump, MAGA and the Republicans, Democrats have it in the bag, everything will be okay without any further action from us". You can be optimistic or skeptical about whether change for the better can happen, but you don't have to be completely nihilist nor complacent.
Keep going, keep envisioning what progress you want to see for the future, what changes and prosecution you want to see to prevent the resurgence of MAGA, and work towards that.
If people don’t turn up to vote for you THAT IS YOUR FUCKING FAULT. Why the fuck is this so hard to understand?! I don’t give a fuck if republicans went and personally paid everyone a million dollars to vote for them, losing to that is still your fault! The team/political party that fucking loses must accept the fault for that! That’s the first fucking step to changing! Holy fucking shit why the fuck is this so hard to understand?!
(“Actual change takes time” imagine me saying that in the most snide fucking way as i remember how fucking fast my right to healthcare was snatched away from me as a woman. The privilege to not see how fast things are changing! Things can change fast! That’s what’s fucking happening right now!)
It’s this anticipatory self‑sabotage that always makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy
It's the billionaires desperately wanting to depress Dem primary turnout...
If they can get someone like Newsom to the general, he would name the new DNC chair if elected.
And neoliberals would get the party back. We can't afford to let that happen, so the most important thing is getting people to vote in the Dem primary
Are people still pretending they don't understand it was written by a single freelancer?
That the people now running the DNC, didn't run it during 2024?
Perhaps, but the article does say
Martin’s first misstep was arguably appointing his consultant friend Paul Rivera to head the task
So it doesn't seem like your pal Martin is at all blameless here.
Buddy...
What do you want?
On Thursday, Martin apologized.
“When I was elected DNC chair, I commissioned an after action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent, and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party,” Martin said. “When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over.”
Martin went on: “I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced. After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize.”
“For full transparency,” Martin continued, “I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.”
Hours later, Martin told DNC members on a call that Paul Rivera, the report author, no longer “is with or advises the DNC in any capacity,” according to a source on the call.
“I apologize. Being a leader at any level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and frankly those not of your creation,” Martin said. “This was a major mistake. I own it, and now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me.”
What are you actually upset about here?
I'm not upset. I'm not who down voted you. Hell, I'll up vote you to restore balance to the force.
But since Martin commissioned the report from his buddy, that seems like a significant lapse in judgement. Not fatal, but concerning.
And your constant simping for the man is just a tiny bit grating. I hope you're right, but it's alway you, and only you, making those points. Again concerning.
I think you're confused still....
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or...
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
Edit:
And since you care enough about votes to bring it up, I downvoted you for "glazing". And completely deriding the conversation.
What about this are you actually upset about?
You said "I'm not upset"...
But I think it's because you don't understand the words you're seeing...
Sigh, so that's who you are. Whatever. The glimmer of hope you've been furiously peddling just got that bit dimmer.
Did you think this was a super important rare thing that is never done and a huge deal?
Or...
Are you aware (win or lose) a report like this is always done?
The problem is with who was tasked with making the report. If it had been commissioned before your Big Daddy took power, and he had to deal with a sub-standard report and what to do with it, yeah, bad day at the office. But he commissioned it from this friend of his and that is concerning.
That means he's not just someone having to clean up the mess, he's part of the reason there is a mess in the first place.
Like I said, not fatal, but concerning.
Wait, are you Martin? I have a hard time seeing why anyone else would simp for him quite this hard. And do so entirely alone.
If
So...
You still haven't looked into what actually happened?
You're just super sure the billionaires have a valid reason to put you against the DNC?
I quoted the article. I'd love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin's predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn't "a friend of his".
Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.
Why start now?
Oh. Great.
They figure they don't need to when the opposing party is the nazis
So they're the perfect depiction of Americans.
Fucking retards dragging the whole planet down the shitter. All of you.
voters determined to make both sides the same and never do a damn thing
The Ds prove their ridiculous incompetence right in front of you, and still you blame the voters.
Are you Maxine Waters?
I can't believe people forget we have an electoral college. They have overturned the popular vote multiple times.
What does that have to do with the 2024 election? Trump won the popular vote, too
No he didnt. They cheated, and we all know it. The idea that MAGA won 2024 "fair & square" is as much a Democratic hoax as Biden stole the 2020 election is a MAGA hoax.
No, I don’t believe he won the popular vote in 2016. Beyond that, genuinely who knows.
Did you have a stroke? What's this have to do with 2024?
Because it doesn't matter what Trump or his administration says about their own popularity past 2016. Of course they're going to just say whatever.
Both sides are the same. Democrats have taken up Republican's bullshit rhetoric about boarder security, they vote with republicans to fund ICE, to continue to fund a genocide, are OK with the illegal war in Iran, and the invasion of Venezuela.
Bro they're the same fucking party.
Show me where Democrats supported ANY of those things on your list, THEN you can say both sides are the same. But they aren't because Dems opposed every single one of those things, with the possible exception of some Corporate Establishment Democrats supporting Israel Gaza Genocide.
ICE is STILL unfunded because Dems (and some MAGAs) have voted against it every time, and not a single Dem has supported the AmerIsraeli War® or the invasion of Venezuela. They don't support the future invasion of Cuba, either.
Fetterman is the primary DINO, and he does not represent the party.