Bears01 Posted Sunday at 04:59 PM Posted Sunday at 04:59 PM Democrats desperately need to start getting away from Hollywood too. It's not why they lost, at all, but it just reinforces the stereotype that they're out of touch with the average American. How is Katy Perry/gaga/Beyonce gonna help pay my bills? We said this in 2016 but they AGAIN repeated the same mistake, but this time they don't have the excuse that they "won the popular vote" 10 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said: Shut up, I want to see GhostBox storm the Capitol Oh my GOD 2
shelven Posted Sunday at 05:00 PM Posted Sunday at 05:00 PM Ossoff would have been toast in 2026 if Harris had won, but I actually think he's the slight favourite now. He seems reasonably well liked, 2026 will likely be a good year overall for Dems as backlash to weird Trump nonsense inevitably starts, and Georgia had the second smallest rightward shift of any swing state this election. 5
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:03 PM Posted Sunday at 05:03 PM 6 minutes ago, anti-***** said: Either way, once again, 100 million people did not vote. So if they wanna get more votes in the future, might wanna go reach out to them. Seeing as abortion doesn't hold sway anymore on legislatures due to ticket splitting the Dems could start on Israel. But seeing as that apparently isn't changing I'm at a loss, as any voter movement will only kick in once passage of major legislation is felt which takes time which we don't have. And voter propositions on minimum wages aren't moving attribution of said policy proposals to the Dems. And we don't have control, and protests will be mocked as a stunt.
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:06 PM Posted Sunday at 05:06 PM 4 minutes ago, shelven said: Ossoff would have been toast in 2026 if Harris had won, but I actually think he's the slight favourite now. He seems reasonably well liked, 2026 will likely be a good year overall for Dems as backlash to weird Trump nonsense inevitably starts, and Georgia had the second smallest rightward shift of any swing state this election. If Ossoff wins in 2026 (which won't happen due to new GA voting laws) he is absolutely the frontrunner but until there's major policy shifts from the DNC he'll be defeated.
Tovitov Posted Sunday at 05:07 PM Posted Sunday at 05:07 PM 5 minutes ago, shelven said: Ossoff would have been toast in 2026 if Harris had won, but I actually think he's the slight favourite now. He seems reasonably well liked, 2026 will likely be a good year overall for Dems as backlash to weird Trump nonsense inevitably starts, and Georgia had the second smallest rightward shift of any swing state this election. I'm curious what Kemp decided to do going forward. He could go for senate, but it might be a tall order in a Trump midterm. Depending on how popular/unpopular Trump is though, I could see him sitting 2026 out and running against Vance in the primary as an anti-Trump voice.
Bears01 Posted Sunday at 05:08 PM Posted Sunday at 05:08 PM 2 minutes ago, Vermillion said: Seeing as abortion doesn't hold sway anymore on legislatures due to ticket splitting the Dems could start on Israel. But seeing as that apparently isn't changing I'm at a loss, as any voter movement will only kick in once passage of major legislation is felt which takes time which we don't have. And voter propositions on minimum wages aren't moving attribution of said policy proposals to the Dems. And we don't have control, and protests will be mocked as a stunt. I fully expect democrats that have the right intention and want to win but don't have the charisma or juice to win nationally will take the right lessons from this election (like Murphy for example) and the democrats that are primed to be front runners for the nom to take the wrong lessons entirely from this. They'll look at the exit polls from NY and see "we need to be the most pro Israel party of all time!" 2
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:08 PM Posted Sunday at 05:08 PM 24 minutes ago, 19SLAYty9 said: Slotkin 2028. Who's ready for that journey Electoral wipeout. Thank u, next. 4
Tovitov Posted Sunday at 05:11 PM Posted Sunday at 05:11 PM 1 minute ago, Vermillion said: Electoral wipeout. Thank u, next. I feel like she'd make a good VP candidate if she's popular enough. Young, midwestern, decent speaker.
Ghiles Posted Sunday at 05:11 PM Posted Sunday at 05:11 PM Idk but they all look extremely evil to me 1
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:12 PM Posted Sunday at 05:12 PM Just now, Tovitov said: I feel like she'd make a good VP candidate if she's popular enough. Young, midwestern, decent speaker. CIA agent, centrist, overweight. Good luck with base turnout, good luck in the primary. Sorry to be blunt.
Redstreak Posted Sunday at 05:13 PM Posted Sunday at 05:13 PM (edited) 14 minutes ago, Bears01 said: Democrats desperately need to start getting away from Hollywood too. It's not why they lost, at all, but it just reinforces the stereotype that they're out of touch with the average American. How is Katy Perry/gaga/Beyonce gonna help pay my bills? We said this in 2016 but they AGAIN repeated the same mistake, but this time they don't have the excuse that they "won the popular vote" Oh my GOD Imagine if Shawn Fain got a state tour with Kamala and not Liz Cheney or Beyoncé Edited Sunday at 05:14 PM by Redstreak 2
Bears01 Posted Sunday at 05:13 PM Posted Sunday at 05:13 PM 1 minute ago, Tovitov said: I feel like she'd make a good VP candidate if she's popular enough. Young, midwestern, decent speaker. She'd have to drastically start shifting her political policies now. "Moderate/status quo/boring Democrat" won't cut it anymore 1
Tovitov Posted Sunday at 05:14 PM Posted Sunday at 05:14 PM Just now, Vermillion said: CIA agent, centrist, overweight. Good luck with base turnout, good luck in the primary. Sorry to be blunt. I get what you mean, but the idea that Slotkin being told she's too fat to be VP is sending me 3
Communion Posted Sunday at 05:15 PM Posted Sunday at 05:15 PM 3 minutes ago, anti-***** said: My point was that the messaging should be more concise. And there you showed examples of it. I never meant that the platform itself shouldn't be more progressive, it should. But it's sad that Trump's messaging, blaming everything on certain groups of people, seems to work time after time. If Obama ran on hope and change, for Trump it's fear and going back. Either way, once again, 100 million people did not vote. So if they wanna get more votes in the future, might wanna go reach out to them. Well, yeah, but the entire point for the left is that you make it so most people aren't swept up in such fear-mongering. The ACA has been amazing and appreciated by Americans as a set of regulatory legislation, but especially in 2016, voters still felt the reality of the below: Why is why it's funny to see someone like Chris Murphy suddenly fashion himself as a populist. He should reflect on his cowardice and coddling of the Dems' high-income base and why he's long tried to offer "alternatives" to Medicare For All and fight against it as a bill because he's been motivated by that high-income base and high-income donors. 2
anti-bitch Posted Sunday at 05:16 PM Posted Sunday at 05:16 PM 2 hours ago, Vermillion said: No, but seriously. Can you imagine that, even today, how many couples are putting on a show, pretending to be the perfect nuclear family, when the chances are that one or both of them probably wished for something else in life? And that's such a taboo, nobody wants to talk about it. With all the talk about the declining birth rate, I fear they will start pushing the idea a heterosexual nuclear family hard again. And I hope people who don't want that for themselves find the strength to fight back. 3
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:21 PM Posted Sunday at 05:21 PM 1 minute ago, Tovitov said: I get what you mean, but the idea that Slotkin being told she's too fat to be VP is sending me MAGA doesn't mind fake tanner and hair plug surgery because he's a man and he's their man. There's a double standard that's not budging so we have to work with it. Sam Brown would be considered an exception, but he lost in huge part thanks to his war wounds, which Trump made fun of at large, so my theory still holds. I'm sorry but we don't have the time or resources to be subtle anymore. 1
ATRL Moderator khalyan Posted Sunday at 05:22 PM Author ATRL Moderator Posted Sunday at 05:22 PM In a perfect world that includes a reshaped DNC, do you think Rashida Tlaib would have any chance at the presidency? 1
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:24 PM Posted Sunday at 05:24 PM Just now, khalyan said: In a perfect world that includes a reshaped DNC, do you think Rashida Tlaib would have any chance at the presidency? NO You are SMARTER than this, Jesus
ATRL Moderator khalyan Posted Sunday at 05:29 PM Author ATRL Moderator Posted Sunday at 05:29 PM 2 minutes ago, Vermillion said: NO You are SMARTER than this, Jesus I do think it's time to think outside of our expected norms when it comes to who will lead the Democratic Party in the future. The aspects that I think would hold Tlaib back in a general election are not aspects that I think might matter in the near future. This is not a push for her to lead the ticket, but more of an invitation to think outside the box moving forward. I mean, you can obviously always run someone like Pat Ryan for a big office in the future if you want to avoid those issues 1
19SLAYty9 Posted Sunday at 05:29 PM Posted Sunday at 05:29 PM 38 minutes ago, khalyan said: One of my coworkers said his favorite politician currently is Tulsi because she went to war and she switched parties so to them, she can appeal to both sides Americans are ******* morons. No wonder we got Trump. 1 1
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:35 PM Posted Sunday at 05:35 PM 3 minutes ago, khalyan said: I do think it's time to think outside of our expected norms when it comes to who will lead the Democratic Party in the future. The aspects that I think would hold Tlaib back in a general election are not aspects that I think might matter in the near future. This is not a push for her to lead the ticket, but more of an invitation to think outside the box moving forward. I mean, you can obviously always run someone like Pat Ryan for a big office in the future if you want to avoid those issues Great motivator, and Pat seems nice enough, but Rashida, rightly or wrongly, is seen as WAY too toxic and will be decades from now to a general electorate. 3
Bears01 Posted Sunday at 05:36 PM Posted Sunday at 05:36 PM 12 minutes ago, khalyan said: In a perfect world that includes a reshaped DNC, do you think Rashida Tlaib would have any chance at the presidency? Love Rashida (she's the bravest member of Congress by far) but come ON and yall think I'm crazy for thinking that an electoral powerhouse (in MI at least) like Whitmer is our best option for 2028…. 1
Vermillion Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM Again, Chris can only say this because he's not going anywhere I don't see this dynamic changing because the white working class and now Latino male working class is buying the Republicans cultural excuses for their problems as well as their economic solutions. And with Citizens United Dem neolibs will continue screaming that they need a cashflow framework from neolib donors to WIN. This logjam will only break with a Dem personality to override it like Trump/MAGA and Bernie's now finished. So now what. 1
ATRL Moderator khalyan Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM Author ATRL Moderator Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM 7 minutes ago, Vermillion said: Great motivator, and Pat seems nice enough, but Rashida, rightly or wrongly, is seen as WAY too toxic and will be decades from now to a general electorate. You're very likely right with Tlaib specifically, but I do think the overall electorate will open up to options in the near future that we might find unelectable at the moment. 6 minutes ago, Bears01 said: Love Rashida (she's the bravest member of Congress by far) but come ON and yall think I'm crazy for thinking that an electoral powerhouse (in MI at least) like Whitmer is our best option for 2028…. Maybe we should avoid all blue-wall electoral powerhouses tbh... 1
Communion Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM Posted Sunday at 05:43 PM (edited) 53 minutes ago, Redstreak said: Quote "Defend our democracy against a would-be dictator... polled dead last" while "progressive economic policy with condemnation of billionaires, corporations and the politicians who serve them, tested best with blue-collar, service & clerical workers" It feels like Dems forgot that the... bold are largely who the base is. Unions are great, but so often they've become synonymous with industrialized jobs that either don't exist anymore (thus 90% of workers are not part of a union) or which the average Democratic constituency is not part of. When I think of unions, I think of.... steel workers, male factory workers, truck drivers and teamsters. And these people do deserve support from Democrats. But also... that is not who most Democratic-leaning voters are. The most common union a Democratic-leaning voter is gonna be part of, if at all, is.. a teacher's union. The kind of economy that existed in a factory workplace for most working class Americans was shifted to a service-based economy post-globalization. Most poor people aren't working on factory assembly lines anymore. They're working at cash registers. They work part-time, high turnover jobs in hospitality and healthcare Edited Sunday at 05:44 PM by Communion 1
Recommended Posts