And by center they mean to the right. They were never on the left. Guess they'll soon be high fiving about how great it is to use slurs again. A reminder that minimum wage should now be $45,000.
It calls for Democrats to return to the vital center
And by center they mean to the right. They were never on the left. Guess they'll soon be high fiving about how great it is to use slurs again.
A reminder that minimum wage should now be $45,000.
This seems like good advice though. America is not “on the left”. According to Gallup’s latest figures (2025 annual averages), more Americans described their views as “very conservative” or...
This seems like good advice though. America is not “on the left”. According to Gallup’s latest figures (2025 annual averages), more Americans described their views as “very conservative” or “conservative” (35%) than as “very liberal” or “liberal” (28%), with 33% identifying as “moderate.” If you want to be elected, the centre is skewed conservative.
I think a self reported single axis poll is misleading tbh. If you poll people on individual policies that are associated with the left (healthcare, gun control, immigration reform, drug...
I think a self reported single axis poll is misleading tbh. If you poll people on individual policies that are associated with the left (healthcare, gun control, immigration reform, drug legalization, etc) there's often majority support. On other issues I think there's often underlying values aligned stymied by bad communication. There's not a neat dichotomy or smooth continuum where a moderate is equidistant between left and right. People want principled parties arguing for their interests not politicians who slide around based on poll data.
There's also this notion that Democrats should move to the right, but Republicans get a free pass on their continued movement right. Perhaps chasing their movement and allowing them to control the overton window just results in ceding policy ground rather than capturing any new electorate.
This is a very good point. The words “conservative” and “liberal” are not specific and must have different meanings in each person’s mind, and even at different times of the same person’s life. I...
This is a very good point.
The words “conservative” and “liberal” are not specific and must have different meanings in each person’s mind, and even at different times of the same person’s life.
I think there has been a lot of propaganda to disparage the word liberal in the US, and also to disparage individual politicians. For example, Hillary Clinton is disliked by a large number of people for reasons they cannot really explain. There is wide support for ACA but not Obamacare even though it’s the same thing. So many people may agree with many policies but they’ve been trained to say or think certain words are bad.
It’s not just in politics, but in religion too. Christianity is largely considered right wing in the US, but there are aspects of the teachings that are left wing. So you can have one Christian who thinks the religion is about going to church and getting angry at gay people, but another who thinks it’s all about helping poor people.
Yup. You could essentially lump every single moderate under liberal if you managed to undo the propaganda that liberals hate god and guns. Turns out most people want lives to be better, and...
Yup. You could essentially lump every single moderate under liberal if you managed to undo the propaganda that liberals hate god and guns.
Turns out most people want lives to be better, and conservatives only want that for their chosen in group (insofar it retains their power).
Hillary Clinton is a war hawk, opportunistic entitled leech. Her time as NY Senator was all the proof that was needed for the left. She was quite possibly the worst possible person to put against Trump. Especially when people are not taking kindly to every president having the same last name.
Re Clinton: You could not find a single republican voter who knew any of the things you mentioned. They would think she’s a socialist who did something illegal about emails and something evil in...
Re Clinton: You could not find a single republican voter who knew any of the things you mentioned. They would think she’s a socialist who did something illegal about emails and something evil in Benghazi.
Insert "well actually" about Mother Teresa here. Agreed though, it's the one trick, lie and make the thing sound not just bad but evil through sheer repetition.
Insert "well actually" about Mother Teresa here.
Agreed though, it's the one trick, lie and make the thing sound not just bad but evil through sheer repetition.
It's damn near impossible to find a universal-good person. I guess MLK Jr would be a better choice, but the right already froths (in secret) because of obvious reasons.
It's damn near impossible to find a universal-good person. I guess MLK Jr would be a better choice, but the right already froths (in secret) because of obvious reasons.
Welllllllllllllllllll........ There's no one perfect, pedestals don't serve us well. But it doesn't matter since the fomenting of hate is unrelated to reality.
Welllllllllllllllllll........
There's no one perfect, pedestals don't serve us well.
But it doesn't matter since the fomenting of hate is unrelated to reality.
They really don't. But at the same time: a lot of people are very listless in life and need some sort of role model to look up to, be it a politician, celebrity, athlete. Anything that let's them...
pedestals don't serve us well.
They really don't. But at the same time: a lot of people are very listless in life and need some sort of role model to look up to, be it a politician, celebrity, athlete. Anything that let's them collectively agree around a singular perso.
If one isn't offered, they will find one, and a self appointed role model always sells snake oil. I'm tired of snake oil salesmen.
I remember back in 2016, I marveled at how close the election would be just because both candidates were so bad. Like, if either had been up against any other candidate, that other candidate...
I remember back in 2016, I marveled at how close the election would be just because both candidates were so bad. Like, if either had been up against any other candidate, that other candidate would've had a clear edge. Both were pretty contentious even within their own parties. But each one had so many bad qualities that they were on even ground.
I think it was that dumb email scandal right before voting day that pushed the scales in Trump's favor at the last minute. The election genuinely seemed able to go either way.
If people actually wanted "moderate" Democrats, then folks like Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin would be the rising stars in the Democratic party and John Fetterman would be a folk hero....
If people actually wanted "moderate" Democrats, then folks like Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin would be the rising stars in the Democratic party and John Fetterman would be a folk hero. I'll admit that I run in different circles, but I don't see a lot of buzz around them outside of your everyday television pundits. Maybe there's a silent majority out there, but they have some peculiar insights when the pollsters call up.
Is this the kind of leadership that people want? Or is it the result of some clever marketing from the big money funded machine within the party? Have democratic primary voters been voting on their interests, or have they been chasing after the candidates they've heard are the most electable?
For us in PA, he was a folk hero and (for me at least) a blueprint for the type of candidates Democrats should be running in order to find their way out of the wilderness they seem to be in....
John Fetterman would be a folk hero
For us in PA, he was a folk hero and (for me at least) a blueprint for the type of candidates Democrats should be running in order to find their way out of the wilderness they seem to be in. Fetterman was the kind of politician people in Pennsyltuckey could relate to, outside of the God and guns candidates. Sadly, the stroke really changed Fetterman. I don't see him going much of anywhere after his term runs out.
Related, the podcast I listen to, Head in the Office was supposed to do an interview with Mallory McMorrow running for a position in Michigan, who also wanted to back out of another interview with...
Related, the podcast I listen to, Head in the Office was supposed to do an interview with Mallory McMorrow running for a position in Michigan, who also wanted to back out of another interview with MattXIV on Instagram. If you see the actual positions of these "moderate" Democrats most people would be appalled.
This is the standard circle from the democratic diehards and it's part of the reason we're in the mess we're in. Lose terribly. Point out all the reasons they lost. Nothing changes New elections...
This is the standard circle from the democratic diehards and it's part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.
Lose terribly.
Point out all the reasons they lost.
Nothing changes
New elections
Tell anyone pointing out that nothing has changed is making "both sides" arguments and downplay any and all travesties.
For 5), I do wish people would give realistic solutions in the now instead of just saying "it all sucks". It does all suck, but first past the post is all about picking what sucks less. If there's...
For 5), I do wish people would give realistic solutions in the now instead of just saying "it all sucks". It does all suck, but first past the post is all about picking what sucks less. If there's no mid or long term plan to change FPTP, saying it all sucks is just a rant, not an enlightenment. Especially when you realize
helplessness reduces voting turnout
one party tends to benefit more from high turnout
So it's secretly endorsing a candidate to engage in such practice.
I’d like to see people vote for the Democrat, because obviously it’s still important to vote for a bad candidate over a worse candidate… But protest every DNC event, harass officials (legally and...
I’d like to see people vote for the Democrat, because obviously it’s still important to vote for a bad candidate over a worse candidate…
But protest every DNC event, harass officials (legally and constructively, i.e. with an out if they act in constituents’ interest), send and vote for outside candidates in primaries, until one-by-one they’re replaced by members more in-touch with the average voter. I simply can’t imagine them operating when almost their entire base is against them, every public appearance is protested, every unmoving figure is slandered; and the more staffers replaced the easier it gets. Don’t hesitate to harshly criticize Democratic Party members even if you want people to vote for them over Republicans: some people will still be confused, but I believe that’s inevitable, because the member will be harshly criticized anyways by Republicans, and you’re helping by (again) explaining that a bad candidate is better than a worse candidate.
And perfect is the enemy of good. I’d prefer a candidate with a strong economic policy whose social policy is basically “live and let live”: I think (besides being easier to elect) that would help minorities, who are often poor, more than a strong social policy.
This is how the far right has taken over the republican party. They vote for the republican candidate religiously, but relentlessly push their representatives to the right and primary any that...
This is how the far right has taken over the republican party. They vote for the republican candidate religiously, but relentlessly push their representatives to the right and primary any that don't fall in line.
I am very frustrated by all of this. The report is comically terrible; not releasing it looked bad, releasing it is somehow worse. Looking like a party of evil masterminds is better than looking...
I am very frustrated by all of this. The report is comically terrible; not releasing it looked bad, releasing it is somehow worse. Looking like a party of evil masterminds is better than looking like a party of incompetent buffoons 100% of the time.
The one upside is that perhaps this will be the end of Ken Martin.
“I apologize,” [Martin] said. “Being a leader at every level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and those not of your creation. This was a major mistake. I own it, and now it is time for us to move forward at the D.N.C.”
What an asshole. If you're owning the mistake, you don't get to point out during your apology that it "wasn't of your creation."
Direct link to the report. I skimmed it earlier. Definitely first draft quality. There’s a good chance it was never completed. Unlikely to satisfy any of the Dem factions. There’s no major...
I skimmed it earlier. Definitely first draft quality. There’s a good chance it was never completed. Unlikely to satisfy any of the Dem factions. There’s no major discussion of issues (Gaza, inflation, crime/anti-social behavior, etc), and while I understand wanting to focus on political strategy over concerns that change cycle to cycle, given the significance there should’ve been at least some analysis. However, there is a good breakdown comparing Harris’ performance in NC versus Josh Stein’s in his gubernatorial race, although there aren’t cited sources which limits how much you can take away from it.
There’s never going to be discussion on issues in a report like this because issues are largely exogenous to anything the DNC has control over. Policy positions are driven by the candidates...
There’s never going to be discussion on issues in a report like this because issues are largely exogenous to anything the DNC has control over. Policy positions are driven by the candidates themselves, the party apparatus just exists to deal with coordination, fundraising, messaging and comms, staffing, etc. and that’s what the report tried to focus on.
These autopsies are also stupid because nobody is actually interested in a legitimate post-mortem they just want fodder to legitimize the argument that “everything would have been better if everyone had just done [my specific basket of preferences] wah wah.” You can see that discussion beginning to unfold in this very thread! But do you think the 2012 GOP post-mortem concluded that what they really needed was to establish a cult of personality around a carnival barking reality show clown? NO! They were saying you needed Marco Rubio or Jeb!
However, there is a good breakdown comparing Harris’ performance in NC versus Josh Stein’s in his gubernatorial race
Genuinely stupid comparison to make IMO. You’re telling me all we need to do is make sure the Republicans run a Nazi Gooner whose race makes him anathema to a quarter of the party he represents in every contest? Cool! Way to pick a generalizable example!
The first step to change is accepting yourself. This report tells me the DNC is still in denial and can't talk about the Inconvenient truths. It inadvertently also told me there's zero care in...
These autopsies are also stupid because nobody is actually interested in a legitimate post-mortem they just want fodder to legitimize the argument that “everything would have been better if everyone had just done [my specific basket of preferences] wah wah.”
The first step to change is accepting yourself. This report tells me the DNC is still in denial and can't talk about the Inconvenient truths. It inadvertently also told me there's zero care in even trying to communicate whatever they were forced to push out, because having such an important report being ridden with typos is beyond disgraceful.
I have my own views and thoughts on topics, but more than anything else I want actual adults in the room. I want conviction even if it's in a direction I disagree with. That doesn't seem to be in the RNC (hijacked by the shifting whims of a narcissist) nor DNC (directionless for what's going on a decade now).
Really just feel no one cares. They just want to keep the status quo until they retire or die off. And those in power sure aren't setting up to retire (at least, not until Trump became so controversial that a record number of R's aren't bothering to re-run)
I think you imagine these party National Committees to be more than they actually are. These are functionally just Rolodexes and event planners. They are not analysts. Even people who run to chair...
I think you imagine these party National Committees to be more than they actually are.
These are functionally just Rolodexes and event planners. They are not analysts. Even people who run to chair this thing come in with big dreams about what they will do to redefine the party and it’ll turn out they’re just managing a call center with a “policy shop” staffed with the nepotism-hires who were too useless to get sucked into a family business or linked up with a political rising talent.
All the action happens in campaigns and state parties. The “national party,” for all intents and purposes, is just an empty suit that powers on whenever a President of that party is in power. Absent the presence of a party leader it’s just a coordinating body.
And by center they mean to the right. They were never on the left. Guess they'll soon be high fiving about how great it is to use slurs again.
A reminder that minimum wage should now be $45,000.
This seems like good advice though. America is not “on the left”. According to Gallup’s latest figures (2025 annual averages), more Americans described their views as “very conservative” or “conservative” (35%) than as “very liberal” or “liberal” (28%), with 33% identifying as “moderate.” If you want to be elected, the centre is skewed conservative.
I think a self reported single axis poll is misleading tbh. If you poll people on individual policies that are associated with the left (healthcare, gun control, immigration reform, drug legalization, etc) there's often majority support. On other issues I think there's often underlying values aligned stymied by bad communication. There's not a neat dichotomy or smooth continuum where a moderate is equidistant between left and right. People want principled parties arguing for their interests not politicians who slide around based on poll data.
There's also this notion that Democrats should move to the right, but Republicans get a free pass on their continued movement right. Perhaps chasing their movement and allowing them to control the overton window just results in ceding policy ground rather than capturing any new electorate.
This is a very good point.
The words “conservative” and “liberal” are not specific and must have different meanings in each person’s mind, and even at different times of the same person’s life.
I think there has been a lot of propaganda to disparage the word liberal in the US, and also to disparage individual politicians. For example, Hillary Clinton is disliked by a large number of people for reasons they cannot really explain. There is wide support for ACA but not Obamacare even though it’s the same thing. So many people may agree with many policies but they’ve been trained to say or think certain words are bad.
It’s not just in politics, but in religion too. Christianity is largely considered right wing in the US, but there are aspects of the teachings that are left wing. So you can have one Christian who thinks the religion is about going to church and getting angry at gay people, but another who thinks it’s all about helping poor people.
Yup. You could essentially lump every single moderate under liberal if you managed to undo the propaganda that liberals hate god and guns.
Turns out most people want lives to be better, and conservatives only want that for their chosen in group (insofar it retains their power).
Hillary Clinton is a war hawk, opportunistic entitled leech. Her time as NY Senator was all the proof that was needed for the left. She was quite possibly the worst possible person to put against Trump. Especially when people are not taking kindly to every president having the same last name.
Re Clinton: You could not find a single republican voter who knew any of the things you mentioned. They would think she’s a socialist who did something illegal about emails and something evil in Benghazi.
Oh yes. I was purely talking about the middle-left.
The right would froth at the mouth calling for the head of Mother Theresa if Fox News said to.
Insert "well actually" about Mother Teresa here.
Agreed though, it's the one trick, lie and make the thing sound not just bad but evil through sheer repetition.
It's damn near impossible to find a universal-good person. I guess MLK Jr would be a better choice, but the right already froths (in secret) because of obvious reasons.
Welllllllllllllllllll........
There's no one perfect, pedestals don't serve us well.
But it doesn't matter since the fomenting of hate is unrelated to reality.
They really don't. But at the same time: a lot of people are very listless in life and need some sort of role model to look up to, be it a politician, celebrity, athlete. Anything that let's them collectively agree around a singular perso.
If one isn't offered, they will find one, and a self appointed role model always sells snake oil. I'm tired of snake oil salesmen.
I remember back in 2016, I marveled at how close the election would be just because both candidates were so bad. Like, if either had been up against any other candidate, that other candidate would've had a clear edge. Both were pretty contentious even within their own parties. But each one had so many bad qualities that they were on even ground.
I think it was that dumb email scandal right before voting day that pushed the scales in Trump's favor at the last minute. The election genuinely seemed able to go either way.
If people actually wanted "moderate" Democrats, then folks like Abigail Spanberger and Elissa Slotkin would be the rising stars in the Democratic party and John Fetterman would be a folk hero. I'll admit that I run in different circles, but I don't see a lot of buzz around them outside of your everyday television pundits. Maybe there's a silent majority out there, but they have some peculiar insights when the pollsters call up.
Is this the kind of leadership that people want? Or is it the result of some clever marketing from the big money funded machine within the party? Have democratic primary voters been voting on their interests, or have they been chasing after the candidates they've heard are the most electable?
For us in PA, he was a folk hero and (for me at least) a blueprint for the type of candidates Democrats should be running in order to find their way out of the wilderness they seem to be in. Fetterman was the kind of politician people in Pennsyltuckey could relate to, outside of the God and guns candidates. Sadly, the stroke really changed Fetterman. I don't see him going much of anywhere after his term runs out.
I see him becoming a FOX pundit.
Related, the podcast I listen to, Head in the Office was supposed to do an interview with Mallory McMorrow running for a position in Michigan, who also wanted to back out of another interview with MattXIV on Instagram. If you see the actual positions of these "moderate" Democrats most people would be appalled.
This is the standard circle from the democratic diehards and it's part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.
For 5), I do wish people would give realistic solutions in the now instead of just saying "it all sucks". It does all suck, but first past the post is all about picking what sucks less. If there's no mid or long term plan to change FPTP, saying it all sucks is just a rant, not an enlightenment. Especially when you realize
So it's secretly endorsing a candidate to engage in such practice.
I’d like to see people vote for the Democrat, because obviously it’s still important to vote for a bad candidate over a worse candidate…
But protest every DNC event, harass officials (legally and constructively, i.e. with an out if they act in constituents’ interest), send and vote for outside candidates in primaries, until one-by-one they’re replaced by members more in-touch with the average voter. I simply can’t imagine them operating when almost their entire base is against them, every public appearance is protested, every unmoving figure is slandered; and the more staffers replaced the easier it gets. Don’t hesitate to harshly criticize Democratic Party members even if you want people to vote for them over Republicans: some people will still be confused, but I believe that’s inevitable, because the member will be harshly criticized anyways by Republicans, and you’re helping by (again) explaining that a bad candidate is better than a worse candidate.
And perfect is the enemy of good. I’d prefer a candidate with a strong economic policy whose social policy is basically “live and let live”: I think (besides being easier to elect) that would help minorities, who are often poor, more than a strong social policy.
This is how the far right has taken over the republican party. They vote for the republican candidate religiously, but relentlessly push their representatives to the right and primary any that don't fall in line.
I am very frustrated by all of this. The report is comically terrible; not releasing it looked bad, releasing it is somehow worse. Looking like a party of evil masterminds is better than looking like a party of incompetent buffoons 100% of the time.
The one upside is that perhaps this will be the end of Ken Martin.
What an asshole. If you're owning the mistake, you don't get to point out during your apology that it "wasn't of your creation."
Direct link to the report.
I skimmed it earlier. Definitely first draft quality. There’s a good chance it was never completed. Unlikely to satisfy any of the Dem factions. There’s no major discussion of issues (Gaza, inflation, crime/anti-social behavior, etc), and while I understand wanting to focus on political strategy over concerns that change cycle to cycle, given the significance there should’ve been at least some analysis. However, there is a good breakdown comparing Harris’ performance in NC versus Josh Stein’s in his gubernatorial race, although there aren’t cited sources which limits how much you can take away from it.
There’s never going to be discussion on issues in a report like this because issues are largely exogenous to anything the DNC has control over. Policy positions are driven by the candidates themselves, the party apparatus just exists to deal with coordination, fundraising, messaging and comms, staffing, etc. and that’s what the report tried to focus on.
These autopsies are also stupid because nobody is actually interested in a legitimate post-mortem they just want fodder to legitimize the argument that “everything would have been better if everyone had just done [my specific basket of preferences] wah wah.” You can see that discussion beginning to unfold in this very thread! But do you think the 2012 GOP post-mortem concluded that what they really needed was to establish a cult of personality around a carnival barking reality show clown? NO! They were saying you needed Marco Rubio or Jeb!
Genuinely stupid comparison to make IMO. You’re telling me all we need to do is make sure the Republicans run a Nazi Gooner whose race makes him anathema to a quarter of the party he represents in every contest? Cool! Way to pick a generalizable example!
The first step to change is accepting yourself. This report tells me the DNC is still in denial and can't talk about the Inconvenient truths. It inadvertently also told me there's zero care in even trying to communicate whatever they were forced to push out, because having such an important report being ridden with typos is beyond disgraceful.
I have my own views and thoughts on topics, but more than anything else I want actual adults in the room. I want conviction even if it's in a direction I disagree with. That doesn't seem to be in the RNC (hijacked by the shifting whims of a narcissist) nor DNC (directionless for what's going on a decade now).
Really just feel no one cares. They just want to keep the status quo until they retire or die off. And those in power sure aren't setting up to retire (at least, not until Trump became so controversial that a record number of R's aren't bothering to re-run)
I think you imagine these party National Committees to be more than they actually are.
These are functionally just Rolodexes and event planners. They are not analysts. Even people who run to chair this thing come in with big dreams about what they will do to redefine the party and it’ll turn out they’re just managing a call center with a “policy shop” staffed with the nepotism-hires who were too useless to get sucked into a family business or linked up with a political rising talent.
All the action happens in campaigns and state parties. The “national party,” for all intents and purposes, is just an empty suit that powers on whenever a President of that party is in power. Absent the presence of a party leader it’s just a coordinating body.