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.
This is not unique to democrats. Reasonable republicans have been derided as RINOs since the 90s, and cuckservatives since maybe 2015. I actually think part of Trump’s success was a direct result...
There's also this notion that Democrats should move to the right, but Republicans get a free pass on their continued movement right.
This is not unique to democrats. Reasonable republicans have been derided as RINOs since the 90s, and cuckservatives since maybe 2015.
I actually think part of Trump’s success was a direct result of that “course correction” so maybe there’s a lesson there. Perhaps abandoning the centre and rallying the dirtbag left is a reciprocal route to victory. However, I don’t really think so: my read of the American public there really is a structural disadvantage right now that favours republicans because Americans really are pretty conservative.
Americans are far more conservative than dirtbag leftists believe, primarily on the basic stuff about how to live your life. But they’re generally fairly open to progressive policy choices, what...
Americans are far more conservative than dirtbag leftists believe, primarily on the basic stuff about how to live your life. But they’re generally fairly open to progressive policy choices, what they shut down on is the sort of intentionally provocative rhetoric talking about deconstructing institutions and redoing norms they care about, like their religion or cultural totems.
Progressive policy framed as advancing those things, like helping families or reforming police works fine until people get the fringe “abolish the police” level takes. Helpfully, all the major media channels are dominated by right wing news and opinion havers who will nutpick progressive spaces for the most unhinged takes and shove them in people’s faces all day.
Thats the real reason conservatives have an advantage. They have an entire parallel media universe. They also have a well constructed career pipeline for promising talent in their political and media worlds to be groomed basically from high school. They have strong networking organizations that enforce ideologically flexible norms as long as you don’t touch one or two electrified rails. And they can plug you into all kinds of prestigious and well paid jobs if you’re in that pipeline.
There is no analogous system for liberals. If you want to work for a Dem org or non profit you grind your way up in fundraising until you hit middle management in a competitive and severely underpaid industry. And then you go nowhere unless you have networks in media or law or big business who will pay you to write a book or start a communications consultancy. It’s all on your own initiative to move up in the world and the money doesn’t come from the establishment, you’re always trying to break in.
I've always read that, when stripped of inflammatory terms, US-ians tend to be more aligned with liberal stances on policy issues. Went looking for those facts and found this: source
I've always read that, when stripped of inflammatory terms, US-ians tend to be more aligned with liberal stances on policy issues. Went looking for those facts and found this:
In our new article in Sociological Inquiry, we analyzed public opinion data from 2004 to 2020 to develop a more nuanced picture of American political attitudes. Our aim was to do a better job of figuring out what Americans actually think about politics, including policies related to race and racism.
Using a new analytic method that doesn’t force us to think in terms of dimensions at all, we found that, over the past two decades, Americans can be broadly divided into five different groups.
In most years, slightly less than half of all Americans had consistently liberal or conservative views on policies related to the economy, morality and race, and thus fall into one of two groups.
“Consistent Conservatives” tend to believe that the free market should be given free rein in the economy, are generally anti-abortion, tend to say that they support “traditional family ties” and oppose most government efforts to address racial disparities. These Americans almost exclusively identify themselves as Republicans.
“Consistent Liberals” strongly support government intervention in the economy, tend to be in favor of abortion rights and pro-same-sex marriage and feel that the government has a responsibility to help address discrimination against Black Americans. They mostly identify as Democrats.
But the majority of Americans, who don’t fall into one of these two groups, are not necessarily “moderates,” as they are often characterized. Many have very strong views on certain issues, but can’t be pigeonholed as being on the left or right in general.
Instead, we find that these Americans can be classified as one of three groups, whose size and relationship to the two major parties change from one election cycle to the next:
“Racial Justice Communitarians” have liberal views on economic issues like taxes and redistribution and moderate or conservative views on moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. They also strongly believe that the government has a responsibility to address racial discrimination. This group likely includes many of the Black evangelicals who strongly supported Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, but were also deeply uncomfortable with his expression of support for same-sex marriage in 2012.
“Nativist Communitarians” also have liberal views on economics and conservative views on moral issues, but they are extremely conservative with respect to race and immigration, in some cases even more so than Consistent Conservatives. Picture, for instance, those voters in 2016 who were attracted to both Bernie Sanders’ economic populism and Donald Trump’s attacks on immigrants.
“Libertarians,” who we find became much more prominent after the tea party protests of 2010, are conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues and have mixed but generally conservative views in regard to racial issues. Think here of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who think that the government has no business telling them how to run their company – or telling gay couples that they can’t get married.
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.
Yeah, that's mostly fine. The idea should be to energize people and give hope rather than suck all the energy out of the room and make people sluggish to even get out of bed, let alone to a poll....
Yeah, that's mostly fine. The idea should be to energize people and give hope rather than suck all the energy out of the room and make people sluggish to even get out of bed, let alone to a poll.
I want that protest energy towards the DNC as well (and on a side tangent, that's why the "protests do nothing" narrative is so toxic. If you've been to a protest, you know the kind of energy present. It's contagious); that's completely different from "Nothing changes -> downplay any and all travesties.", which is an energy leech. That desensitization burns society worse than any act of corruption.
@scroll_lock wrote an excellent post on effective protesting and advocacy: https://tildes.net/~society/1n6v/protests_are_great_the_next_step_is_advocacy_heres_how_to_do_it_effectively
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.
Maybe. But they have enough sway that they affect national policy via who they "allow" to be voted in. So they should be taken seriously. If we could just cleanly break from them and form a proper...
you imagine these party National Committees to be more than they actually are.
Maybe. But they have enough sway that they affect national policy via who they "allow" to be voted in. So they should be taken seriously.
If we could just cleanly break from them and form a proper coalition to drown them out, I wouldn't care how incompetent they are. But part of that incompetence comes from having such a deep cultural moat. And I hate that.
All the action happens in campaigns and state parties
campaigns funded by the coordination of the national party. To a point where primaries may not ever reach some states because so many candidates drop out.
They don’t “allow” who gets voted in. People get voted in through primaries which get decided based on candidate’s charisma, their pull with the activist base in their district, and their ability...
They don’t “allow” who gets voted in. People get voted in through primaries which get decided based on candidate’s charisma, their pull with the activist base in their district, and their ability to raise money with donors.
Even the calendar you’re talking about isn’t really decided by the DNC, it’s a negotiation between all the state parties with incumbent tenured political leaders being the most influential voices.
Most of those decisions happen at the state level. The national establishment has far less power and influence than everyone assumes. The US doesn't have a Westminster system, parties are actually...
But they have enough sway that they affect national policy via who they "allow" to be voted in. So they should be taken seriously.
Most of those decisions happen at the state level. The national establishment has far less power and influence than everyone assumes. The US doesn't have a Westminster system, parties are actually incredibly weak. That's part of how the tea party beat out Bush-era Republicans.
weak enough to be downplayed when it comes to strategy and direction, strong enough to make sure no other party rises up to really oppose them. So by your logic, some state policy maker in...
parties are actually incredibly weak
weak enough to be downplayed when it comes to strategy and direction, strong enough to make sure no other party rises up to really oppose them. So by your logic, some state policy maker in Pennsylvania or Geogia or some other swing state is the real mastermind that kept Bernie Sanders from getting a proper primary for 12 years?
The tea party is an interesting point, but it's ultimately driven by a cult of personality, and not a proper party with goals and aspirations. It'll fall apart as quickly as it took over the GOP.
The US only having two major parties is somewhat orthogonal to the national entities being weak. The duopoly is unfortunately stable due to the US electoral system; it has very little to do with...
weak enough to be downplayed when it comes to strategy and direction, strong enough to make sure no other party rises up to really oppose them.
The US only having two major parties is somewhat orthogonal to the national entities being weak. The duopoly is unfortunately stable due to the US electoral system; it has very little to do with the parties themselves.
That's why there have been such massive shifts in party politics and identity over time rather than new parties rising up to replace them. In any other system, it'd be insane for the pro-slavery party to eventually become the primary party for black Americans.
The tea party is an interesting point, but it's ultimately driven by a cult of personality, and not a proper party with goals and aspirations. It'll fall apart as quickly as it took over the GOP.
If the parties were strong and had any semblance of power, Republicans would've killed Trump's candidacy or deposed any number of the reps they hate, like Ted Cruz. The tea party has effectively ruled the GOP for over a decade at this point. It also predates Trump's ascension, so I don't think it's purely driven by a cult of personality.
I think I understand what you're saying here. But it also feels so paradoxical. The idea of parties is stable, but the parties themselves are weak. There feels like there's a missing piece here to...
The duopoly is unfortunately stable due to the US electoral system; it has very little to do with the parties themselves.
I think I understand what you're saying here. But it also feels so paradoxical. The idea of parties is stable, but the parties themselves are weak. There feels like there's a missing piece here to really wedge this idea into my head.
In my case, I vote Democrat simply because I haven't seen a strong 3rd party that more closely aligns with my views rise up yet. But I'm trying to find that kind of candidate. Mamdami is a perfect example of nearly everything I'd want done, but I know he can't run for president.
I hope that "Mamdami" pops up, but candidates I see for 2028 are either not quite there or I feel they may better serve in congress. Still people I'd vote for but I'm not sure if they are the "glue" that can truly start the process of fixing what's broken.
It also predates Trump's ascension, so I don't think it's purely driven by a cult of personality.
It didn't gain much momentum until Trump. The Tea Party setup a lot of scaffolding, indeed. So I don't want to downplay that. But trump is what gave them the power to push their policies. And Trump himself is easy to manipulate in the good familiar ways lobbyists know.
The issue is that Trump himself broke the party over that very decade, and especially so over 2025 alone. He never had the actual competence to at least pretend to serve the people who supported him (unlike, say: Reagan. Someone who at the very least kept a competent cabinet running things "as usual" as he tore down government systems).
The nation is souring on him and he's left no idea of a successor. It's ironically enough a similar issue to the DNC signaling; we don't have an idea of "who's next". Unlike the democrats, I don't see too many republicans stepping up either (and for obvious reasons; no one wants to "challenge" Trump).
There's a good book about the paradox of parties in the US: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691248554/the-hollow-parties In short, the US political system was not designed around...
In short, the US political system was not designed around parties. Parties fundamentally break some of the founders' incorrect assumptions. As a simple example, the founders never pictured congress refusing to impeach a sitting president because of party allegiances; they expected each branch to jealously and independently guard their influence.
You mostly have to look outside Anglophone countries to find better democracies. Australia's is arguably the best in the English speaking world due to mandatory voting.
Bernie Sanders had two proper primaries. He lost both of them fair and square. He had a firm ceiling on support that topped out at about 30% of the party and struggled to expand beyond that. It...
Bernie Sanders had two proper primaries. He lost both of them fair and square. He had a firm ceiling on support that topped out at about 30% of the party and struggled to expand beyond that. It didn’t take a “mastermind” it just took him being unable to get a majority of the caucus on his side.
The GOP is structurally undemocratic in how it apportions delegates and selects candidate channels, both through their winner-take-all delegate math for Presidential candidates and the message discipline they have once they pick a guy. This all comes out of their dependence on big money donors and the power of conservative media, which both enforce pretty strict ideological conformity along their red lines. So you can actually run and win and then win a general as a purely factional candidate like Trump. This doesn’t work on the other side.
The Democrats are structurally way more coalitional, with decision making devolved out to a thousand different kingmakers. Rising in the ranks involves being very good at managing that coalition and getting buy in from a whole slew of different stakeholders. Bernie Sanders was bad at this and actively antagonized large swathes of the coalition he needed to win. There also isn’t a whole nationwide media apparatus or centralized donor base to make sure that whoever Dems pick as their guy gets lockstep support from the party rank and file. So if you make a point of antagonizing everyone instead of currying favor with them you’re gonna lose. You need to have a solid majority of the caucus behind you to actually rise.
The Republicans historically did actual policy-level post-mortems. They didn't follow through on the recommendations as expected as you point out, but it's reasonable to expect a serious report...
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.
The Republicans historically did actual policy-level post-mortems. They didn't follow through on the recommendations as expected as you point out, but it's reasonable to expect a serious report that analyzes the loss from every angle.
The report is embarrassing, and not in the way anyone expected.
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’ve yet to hear anything credibly bad about Fred Rogers
Imagine how the country would look now if he’d served even part of a term as president.
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.
This is not unique to democrats. Reasonable republicans have been derided as RINOs since the 90s, and cuckservatives since maybe 2015.
I actually think part of Trump’s success was a direct result of that “course correction” so maybe there’s a lesson there. Perhaps abandoning the centre and rallying the dirtbag left is a reciprocal route to victory. However, I don’t really think so: my read of the American public there really is a structural disadvantage right now that favours republicans because Americans really are pretty conservative.
Americans are far more conservative than dirtbag leftists believe, primarily on the basic stuff about how to live your life. But they’re generally fairly open to progressive policy choices, what they shut down on is the sort of intentionally provocative rhetoric talking about deconstructing institutions and redoing norms they care about, like their religion or cultural totems.
Progressive policy framed as advancing those things, like helping families or reforming police works fine until people get the fringe “abolish the police” level takes. Helpfully, all the major media channels are dominated by right wing news and opinion havers who will nutpick progressive spaces for the most unhinged takes and shove them in people’s faces all day.
Thats the real reason conservatives have an advantage. They have an entire parallel media universe. They also have a well constructed career pipeline for promising talent in their political and media worlds to be groomed basically from high school. They have strong networking organizations that enforce ideologically flexible norms as long as you don’t touch one or two electrified rails. And they can plug you into all kinds of prestigious and well paid jobs if you’re in that pipeline.
There is no analogous system for liberals. If you want to work for a Dem org or non profit you grind your way up in fundraising until you hit middle management in a competitive and severely underpaid industry. And then you go nowhere unless you have networks in media or law or big business who will pay you to write a book or start a communications consultancy. It’s all on your own initiative to move up in the world and the money doesn’t come from the establishment, you’re always trying to break in.
I've always read that, when stripped of inflammatory terms, US-ians tend to be more aligned with liberal stances on policy issues. Went looking for those facts and found this:
source
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.
Yeah, that's mostly fine. The idea should be to energize people and give hope rather than suck all the energy out of the room and make people sluggish to even get out of bed, let alone to a poll.
I want that protest energy towards the DNC as well (and on a side tangent, that's why the "protests do nothing" narrative is so toxic. If you've been to a protest, you know the kind of energy present. It's contagious); that's completely different from "Nothing changes -> downplay any and all travesties.", which is an energy leech. That desensitization burns society worse than any act of corruption.
@scroll_lock wrote an excellent post on effective protesting and advocacy: https://tildes.net/~society/1n6v/protests_are_great_the_next_step_is_advocacy_heres_how_to_do_it_effectively
Fewer people voting does seem to be one of the primary goals of the Republican Party right now.
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.
Maybe. But they have enough sway that they affect national policy via who they "allow" to be voted in. So they should be taken seriously.
If we could just cleanly break from them and form a proper coalition to drown them out, I wouldn't care how incompetent they are. But part of that incompetence comes from having such a deep cultural moat. And I hate that.
campaigns funded by the coordination of the national party. To a point where primaries may not ever reach some states because so many candidates drop out.
They don’t “allow” who gets voted in. People get voted in through primaries which get decided based on candidate’s charisma, their pull with the activist base in their district, and their ability to raise money with donors.
Even the calendar you’re talking about isn’t really decided by the DNC, it’s a negotiation between all the state parties with incumbent tenured political leaders being the most influential voices.
So among these folk, are there any to look out for that will hoist in a progressive-style candidate?
Literally Bernie Sanders. Figures like AOC are also increasingly influential.
Most of those decisions happen at the state level. The national establishment has far less power and influence than everyone assumes. The US doesn't have a Westminster system, parties are actually incredibly weak. That's part of how the tea party beat out Bush-era Republicans.
weak enough to be downplayed when it comes to strategy and direction, strong enough to make sure no other party rises up to really oppose them. So by your logic, some state policy maker in Pennsylvania or Geogia or some other swing state is the real mastermind that kept Bernie Sanders from getting a proper primary for 12 years?
The tea party is an interesting point, but it's ultimately driven by a cult of personality, and not a proper party with goals and aspirations. It'll fall apart as quickly as it took over the GOP.
The US only having two major parties is somewhat orthogonal to the national entities being weak. The duopoly is unfortunately stable due to the US electoral system; it has very little to do with the parties themselves.
That's why there have been such massive shifts in party politics and identity over time rather than new parties rising up to replace them. In any other system, it'd be insane for the pro-slavery party to eventually become the primary party for black Americans.
If the parties were strong and had any semblance of power, Republicans would've killed Trump's candidacy or deposed any number of the reps they hate, like Ted Cruz. The tea party has effectively ruled the GOP for over a decade at this point. It also predates Trump's ascension, so I don't think it's purely driven by a cult of personality.
I think I understand what you're saying here. But it also feels so paradoxical. The idea of parties is stable, but the parties themselves are weak. There feels like there's a missing piece here to really wedge this idea into my head.
In my case, I vote Democrat simply because I haven't seen a strong 3rd party that more closely aligns with my views rise up yet. But I'm trying to find that kind of candidate. Mamdami is a perfect example of nearly everything I'd want done, but I know he can't run for president.
I hope that "Mamdami" pops up, but candidates I see for 2028 are either not quite there or I feel they may better serve in congress. Still people I'd vote for but I'm not sure if they are the "glue" that can truly start the process of fixing what's broken.
It didn't gain much momentum until Trump. The Tea Party setup a lot of scaffolding, indeed. So I don't want to downplay that. But trump is what gave them the power to push their policies. And Trump himself is easy to manipulate in the good familiar ways lobbyists know.
The issue is that Trump himself broke the party over that very decade, and especially so over 2025 alone. He never had the actual competence to at least pretend to serve the people who supported him (unlike, say: Reagan. Someone who at the very least kept a competent cabinet running things "as usual" as he tore down government systems).
The nation is souring on him and he's left no idea of a successor. It's ironically enough a similar issue to the DNC signaling; we don't have an idea of "who's next". Unlike the democrats, I don't see too many republicans stepping up either (and for obvious reasons; no one wants to "challenge" Trump).
There's a good book about the paradox of parties in the US: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691248554/the-hollow-parties
In short, the US political system was not designed around parties. Parties fundamentally break some of the founders' incorrect assumptions. As a simple example, the founders never pictured congress refusing to impeach a sitting president because of party allegiances; they expected each branch to jealously and independently guard their influence.
You mostly have to look outside Anglophone countries to find better democracies. Australia's is arguably the best in the English speaking world due to mandatory voting.
Bernie Sanders had two proper primaries. He lost both of them fair and square. He had a firm ceiling on support that topped out at about 30% of the party and struggled to expand beyond that. It didn’t take a “mastermind” it just took him being unable to get a majority of the caucus on his side.
The GOP is structurally undemocratic in how it apportions delegates and selects candidate channels, both through their winner-take-all delegate math for Presidential candidates and the message discipline they have once they pick a guy. This all comes out of their dependence on big money donors and the power of conservative media, which both enforce pretty strict ideological conformity along their red lines. So you can actually run and win and then win a general as a purely factional candidate like Trump. This doesn’t work on the other side.
The Democrats are structurally way more coalitional, with decision making devolved out to a thousand different kingmakers. Rising in the ranks involves being very good at managing that coalition and getting buy in from a whole slew of different stakeholders. Bernie Sanders was bad at this and actively antagonized large swathes of the coalition he needed to win. There also isn’t a whole nationwide media apparatus or centralized donor base to make sure that whoever Dems pick as their guy gets lockstep support from the party rank and file. So if you make a point of antagonizing everyone instead of currying favor with them you’re gonna lose. You need to have a solid majority of the caucus behind you to actually rise.
The Republicans historically did actual policy-level post-mortems. They didn't follow through on the recommendations as expected as you point out, but it's reasonable to expect a serious report that analyzes the loss from every angle.
The report is embarrassing, and not in the way anyone expected.