The leaders of the Democratic National Committee announced they plan to learn absolutely nothing from their embarrassing loss to President-elect Donald Trump.
Exactly what is it they’re supposed to learn? I’m tired of this generic self-flagellation and blame game that says exactly the same thing every loss, but gets rounds of back slapping when the exact same tactics net a win.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The reason we lost is because people didn’t vote. Not because they voted for trump. So some apathetic MFs handed trump the win. We should ask them why they allowed that to happen.
E: y’all downvoting a legit question and position? Pretty hypocritical to push aside someone asking a real question about change so the question doesn’t get seen. We want change, but we don’t want anyone to ask us what it should be?
Do you think the dems should learn anything from this or should they do the same thing again next time and pray the apathetic people change on their own?
If dems want to win they have to find a way to motivate those apathetic people instead of just telling them they are stupid.
What dems should learn is that they need to offer something that clearly improves people’s lives. Universal healthcare or Medicare for all would be a great position to run on and 16 years ago I thought the dems were going to move in that direction but now it seems they’ve given up on the idea.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The first thing that comes to mind is that Democratic politicians should remember who their core voting block is. They need to give up on the triangulation nonsense. Republicans already have their Anointed One and will never vote for a shoddy imitation, and that very act of imitation is driving away the progressive vote.
I feel like you answered your own question there: they should have run a better candidate. A more appropriate candidate, one who appeals more to the needs of those apathetic Americans, would naturally have resulted in higher turnout.
State level electoral reform will allow a bigger spectrum of political parties to represent those unengaged voters. It will also allow those voters to make the democrats their backup pick if their preference didn’t win.
More people represented means more voters. More voters means more democratic votes. Why is the democratic party saying no to these easy votes?
The leftists here are absolutely convinced that the Dems just need to run a left platform and it’ll be a landslide. What actually happens is that every time the Dems rely on the left they lose.
Next election the Dems will go hard center and likely win.
…when was the last time the democratic party ran a legitimately progressive platform?..i’m not talking about vacuous platitudes, i’m talking about articulated commitment backed up by tangible, substantive, follow-through changing the nature of established paradigm?..
Go through history: Carter told people to cut back and got fucking yeeted. After successive losses Clinton went center, as you do against an incumbent, on the economy and won. Gore when left with climate change and lost. Obama relied on “hope” and won after Bush’s disastrous wars. Hillary said she’d have a map room to fight climate change and lost. Biden went center, as you do against an incumbent, and won. Kamala tried the same “hope” as Obama, but she lost because “it’s the economy, stupid”. Every time they lost it’s because they relied on the left that didn’t show up, and they only win when they go center.
Ok: Obama ran on broad “hope” and having energy. It was enough after Bush’s disastrous wars.
And btw what was his thanks for the ACA? It was to lose control of the house of reps for the next 6 years so he couldn’t do anything else. Aka, the left never showed up.
I mean Obama’s term had like a third of the great recession and the brunt of its effects. According to Wikipedia,
While the recession technically lasted from December 2007 – June 2009 (the nominal GDP trough), many important economic variables did not regain pre-recession (November or Q4 2007) levels until 2011–2016. For example, real GDP fell $650 billion (4.3%) and did not recover its $15 trillion pre-recession level until Q3 2011.[95] Household net worth, which reflects the value of both stock markets and housing prices, fell $11.5 trillion (17.3%) and did not regain its pre-recession level of $66.4 trillion until Q3 2012.
It’s a miracle he even kept the presidency in these conditions. See also: Biden’s unpopularity even though he was by all means a generally decent (if genocidal) president.
He won in the middle of it. But anyway, the point was that he delivered left policy. If the demand was so great, if it’s this thing you see on lemmy “if they just went left it would be landslide victory after landslide victory” then that should have given him at least some victories in the next 6 years. But it didn’t. The left never shows up.
Exactly what is it they’re supposed to learn? I’m tired of this generic self-flagellation and blame game that says exactly the same thing every loss, but gets rounds of back slapping when the exact same tactics net a win.
What is it exactly that should be done differently?
The reason we lost is because people didn’t vote. Not because they voted for trump. So some apathetic MFs handed trump the win. We should ask them why they allowed that to happen.
E: y’all downvoting a legit question and position? Pretty hypocritical to push aside someone asking a real question about change so the question doesn’t get seen. We want change, but we don’t want anyone to ask us what it should be?
Don’t campaign on maintaining the status quo when the status quo sucks
Do you think the dems should learn anything from this or should they do the same thing again next time and pray the apathetic people change on their own?
If dems want to win they have to find a way to motivate those apathetic people instead of just telling them they are stupid.
What dems should learn is that they need to offer something that clearly improves people’s lives. Universal healthcare or Medicare for all would be a great position to run on and 16 years ago I thought the dems were going to move in that direction but now it seems they’ve given up on the idea.
…“baby steps” they called that corporate handout, fomented by a groundswell of apologists that patience would be rewarded in due course…
sixteen.
f*cking.
years.
The first thing that comes to mind is that Democratic politicians should remember who their core voting block is. They need to give up on the triangulation nonsense. Republicans already have their Anointed One and will never vote for a shoddy imitation, and that very act of imitation is driving away the progressive vote.
I feel like you answered your own question there: they should have run a better candidate. A more appropriate candidate, one who appeals more to the needs of those apathetic Americans, would naturally have resulted in higher turnout.
State level electoral reform will allow a bigger spectrum of political parties to represent those unengaged voters. It will also allow those voters to make the democrats their backup pick if their preference didn’t win.
More people represented means more voters. More voters means more democratic votes. Why is the democratic party saying no to these easy votes?
Because the dnc exists to keep left leaning parties from ever gaining traction in this country
The leftists here are absolutely convinced that the Dems just need to run a left platform and it’ll be a landslide. What actually happens is that every time the Dems rely on the left they lose.
Next election the Dems will go hard center and likely win.
Next election.
Our only hope is that trump is old and won’t care about stealing the next election. His minions however may.
I think our hope following this moment is obstructionism. In congress or by blue state governors or otherwise.
I’ll be around for the next election if one happens, but I would suggest coming up with a plan B.
Filibuster is the only one and they will go around it.
…when was the last time the democratic party ran a legitimately progressive platform?..i’m not talking about vacuous platitudes, i’m talking about articulated commitment backed up by tangible, substantive, follow-through changing the nature of established paradigm?..
Go through history: Carter told people to cut back and got fucking yeeted. After successive losses Clinton went center, as you do against an incumbent, on the economy and won. Gore when left with climate change and lost. Obama relied on “hope” and won after Bush’s disastrous wars. Hillary said she’d have a map room to fight climate change and lost. Biden went center, as you do against an incumbent, and won. Kamala tried the same “hope” as Obama, but she lost because “it’s the economy, stupid”. Every time they lost it’s because they relied on the left that didn’t show up, and they only win when they go center.
Obama says what the fuck are you—oh it’s that guy again. Just do your thing.
Ok: Obama ran on broad “hope” and having energy. It was enough after Bush’s disastrous wars.
And btw what was his thanks for the ACA? It was to lose control of the house of reps for the next 6 years so he couldn’t do anything else. Aka, the left never showed up.
I mean Obama’s term had like a third of the great recession and the brunt of its effects. According to Wikipedia,
It’s a miracle he even kept the presidency in these conditions. See also: Biden’s unpopularity even though he was by all means a generally decent (if genocidal) president.
He won in the middle of it. But anyway, the point was that he delivered left policy. If the demand was so great, if it’s this thing you see on lemmy “if they just went left it would be landslide victory after landslide victory” then that should have given him at least some victories in the next 6 years. But it didn’t. The left never shows up.