Does the Democratic party actually have a platform capable of beating the incumbent Trump Republicans? Or is it just this kind of stuff? Ban kids from YouTube?
Obviously the end result is the same, but I think the motivation is different.
They dont care about constitution. And they are in position to reinterpret it however they want to, regardless of its text and meaning.
They dont really care about porn now tho.
Maybe. Most of the debate that I hear feels similar to social media commentary -- teen boys getting their brains fried by constant access to stimulus. I don't hear anything about onanism or sinning.
Mind you, I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but just that most of the arguments I hear are saying "we think this is an identifiable and secular harm."
Credibly fixing both social media and cost of living would be an effective platform across the West.
depends on how or who you poll. I dont think it is popular. It's just that there's a lot of stigma when you try to argue against "saving the children" type policy - which is why this gets used to pass laws that otherwise would be difficult to pass if the true intentions were revealed.
> Credibly fixing
"credibly" is carrying a lot of weight here.
What polls are you looking at?
They are going to find out soon enough.
It’s a shit message, but they’re apparently permanently damaged by the 1980 landslide re-election loss to Reagan and incapable of moving on. IDK if liberal democracy will survive here long enough for us to see if another wing of the party can ever get those folks to let them try something else.
[edit] not for nothing, Obama lightly hinted at a move away from that in his campaigning (if not his governing) and it seemed to work pretty damn well. Why they didn’t double down on that is anyone’s guess, but I’d suppose it rhymes with “bobbying”.
[edit] I mean yes 1984's map was even worse, but 1980's was reeeeeal bad. Six states won in 1980, versus one in 1984. And we have a guy who won a pretty ordinary split of states and less than a majority of votes-cast calling his win in 2024 a "landslide", lol. No, Reagan's elections are what a landslide looks like.
[edit edit] I mean I don't really want to quibble over the details, it probably was the one-two punch of those that really set the direction and we seem to agree on the basics that it was Reagan's crushing electoral success that set the tone for Democrats for up until... well, still today, largely.
Trump won during a time where incumbents lost by ~10 points. He narrowly beat a candidate that lost their only primary run by <2 point.
Trump's very vocal minority is very good at making people think there is a silent majority.
However, the democrats have been elected quite a lot this millennium and they've fully shown they're incapable of making necessary reforms so there's going to keep being populist candidates until there's new blue blood.
As it is we now have two parties obsessed with “regulating” the morality of citizens while bleeding them out financially.
Democracy has been known since its invention to be extremely vulnerable to such actors. It's vulnerable to it because it's nearly impossible to counter.
Your critique is valid to some degree, but Trump won simply because he had the shamelessness to lie over and over and over again that he'd bring prices down. That's it.
No "positive, pragmatic suggestions" are electorally stronger than simple untruths stated with confidence ad infinitum.
Which consultants said that?
Biden won because he came hot on the heels of Trump's complete inability to actually govern.
Which specific pragmatic, positive visions did Biden put forth that are so distinct from Harris's that they won in one case and lost in another?
I said that there's no "pragmatic, positive message" that overcomes simply lying and having an entire media and political apparatus that supports it.
Biden's primary advantage was running against a guy who was demonstrably a complete shit show as an actual incumbent. That was memory-holed by the same shameless lying (e.g. ask Republicans who they think "locked people down" during COVID).
Biden (and Harris) then had a similar disadvantage going into 2024.
It's extremely, extremely silly to act like voters were looking for pragmatic messages lol. Simply no evidence for that.
They were primarily looking to get rid of the incumbent, as was the trend across all democracies during a period of extreme inflation.
One reason that incumbents are doing so poorly is that they promise nothing, and deliver it. Nations are in decline across the West, and all that candidates are allowed to offer is more of the same neoliberal pablum. Anyone who attempts to offer something different faces a coordinated attack from the media and incumbent political class, and the only ones seemingly able to break through the resistance are dishonest right-populists. The left has to come up with a solution other than dismantling (excuse me, “fortifying”) democracy, which appears to be the EU solution.
There was none.
It turns out that actually you don't need pragmatic, positive visions of the future to win. In fact, we have plenty of evidence that pragmatic policies at all are a massive electoral liability when facing someone who is, again, willing to simply lie about everything.
In Trump, you have clear evidence that people do not need pragmatic solutions to anything. Somehow you are pulling from that the conclusion that Democrats are not pragmatic enough.
What makes you believe there is public appetite for pragmatic solutions? Enough to win a national election?
"Immigrants are the problem" or "I will bring prices down on day one" have a fundamental memetic advantage that, in a lazy and unengaged populace, will win in 100% of scenarios.
The real issue here is the GOP not holding themselves accountable to something better than suicidal demagoguery. The opposing party cannot prevent this from being successful. That's why it's a known, fundamental flaw of democracy.
You're doing the far lazier, "ascribe all failures to the thing I do not like, and all successes to the thing I do like." Evidence should be trivial to produce but you cannot.
And yes, a major faction electing a demagogue is a real spot of trouble. It has been known as such literally since the invention of democracy.
It wouldn't be considered a known vulnerability because it's solved by "well just talk about a pragmatic, positive vision for the future!" lmao
Evidence: I was there, do your own research if you care so much. This isn’t a formal debate, and anyone who has eyes, ears, and a brain can figure it out.
You keep shouting demagogue, demagogue! As if anyone outside of the political class cares. Solve the people’s problems or there will be more (and worse) demagogues. It’s your only option.
Where we disagree is your assertion that that is the necessary and sufficient solution.
Those are entirely distinct claims.
People have won elections for a long long time without pragmatic solutions to real problems (case in point: 2024). You have basically zero evidence this is even a relevant point in elections whatsoever.
The actual necessary solution is entirely on the GOP's side. So long as they're in the throes of a cult of personality, then a sufficiently large part of the electorate will be immune to logic.
And yes: this is very bad. It is a deeply inconvenient fact, but the inconvenience of it does not render it less factual.
It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.
> It sounds like you would rather claim a lack of agency (it’s all up to the big bad Republicans) rather than even attempt to implement a pragmatic, common sense strategy. And this is why the Democratic Party finds itself rudderless.
Huh? No. It sounds like instead of reading the words in front of you, you're just arguing against the claims you want me to be making.
Harris was a terrible candidate, we don't disagree there.
Again: We disagree in your assertion that pragmatic policies on the oppositional side are all that's required to win against a demagogue.
If that's true, please tell me why demagogues have long been known to be a real vulnerability in democracies?
Answer directly: If that's all that's necessary, then why did the Founding Fathers even bother to write extensively on this problem?
I never said that this is the only thing you need. You need other things as well, including a modicum of charisma, a good network on the ground, and solid fundraising to support the efforts. And a party that won’t fight its own candidate after the primaries (oh, and you should actually hold a primary).
Demagogues are a problem in every kind of government when the quality of governance declines. You just don’t often hear about it in dictatorships because the demagogues are either killed or they flee to another country. But demagogues are a sort of release valve for public frustration that’s grounded in material reality, and if you suppress their rise long enough then you eventually get a civil war, collapse, or revolution. The only solution is to fix the problems that lead people to seek out radical change.
Anyway, it’s clear we’re talking past each other, I have no desire to continue this thread further.