Democratic (Party) Direction

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

or hollywood actor

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

But he's right that liberal funders ought to be funneling money to actually liberal media — a case I'm going to be making a lot myself to some of those funders in the coming year! I hope they're receptive.

Two of our union leaders wrote this piece and I think it's spot on:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-economy-election-working-class/

― underminer of twenty years of excellent contribution to this borad (dan m), Thursday, December 12, 2024 1:14 PM (twelve minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

good piece

The Clintonian love affair with globalism, job retraining for workers whose jobs were shipped to low-wage nations, and bootstrapping through taking out student loans to secure post-secondary degrees has never been anything but a slow-burning trash fire for the millions of academically mediocre high school graduates or dropouts.

Democrats can side with corporate interests, or they can win elections. But they cannot do both.

This seems otm. At one time you could Obama your way out of this paradox but those days look gone for good

Kathy Hochul is holding a therapy session with 175 corporate reps,CEOs to "calm the nerves of the NYC business elite" in wake of Brian Thompson killing; promising state assistance for corporate security to combat "domestic terrorism."

"Demonization of corporate executives is… pic.twitter.com/XNZsAHGLXl

— Luke Goldstein (@lukewgoldstein) December 13, 2024

I love that California gives high school grads the ability to go to community college essentially for free and realize they are not cut out for post-secondary degrees.

Then again, many colleges have basically had to significantly water down expectations due to so many diploma-earning teens being functionally illiterate and unable to perform basic mathematical calculations without aids

So... 24 year old David Hogg as the new party vice-chair:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/dnc-vice-chair-david-hogg

the democratic party's 80-year old wing has decided to pass power on about 55 years forward, a total diss to gen x and millenials

Gen x is used to it

always cracks me up that JD Vance is a millennial

I'll ride with anyone going my direction.

I'd ride...

Never mind.

BOSS HOGG

This is doubtlessly not a novel thought but I haven't been able to stop thinking it: isn't the corner the Democrats paint themselves into again and again, that as the party of the intelligentsia they should have a clear analysis of the problems facing Americans and a plan for overcoming them, but that any honest analysis ultimately leads to the necessity for overthrowing capitalism as it is practiced in America, and the Democrats can't allow themselves to "go there", so they end up as a party of half-measures, where you always suspect they're holding something back?

The Republicans don't have this problem. They're not expected to have a clear analysis. They're simply expected to let the big dogs eat, and everybody else gets thrown into the Hunger Games. There's a refreshing simplicity to this. It's honest!

And, footnote, this is why Bernie was so popular, and the Roganites loved him, because he doesn't mind being called a socialist and a communist, he doesn't bristle at being called woke, he doesn't mind just going ahead and going where his analysis leads him?

If patron saint FDR scoffed at the GOP when they accused him of wanting to topple capitalism, what makes you think this crop will? C'mon.

Oh I'm under no illusions!

i don't think most of the Dem leadership ever get within a thousand yards of an honest analysis that would lead them to capitalism itself being the problem - there's a giant academic/pundit sphere that reproduces sincere faith in, and enthusiasm for, half-measure reformism and neoliberal market worship. these clowns really believe what they're selling IMHO!

capitalism as it is practiced in America

ty for making this distinction, I think it's key

I have been v happy with the Oregon senators so far but god damn folks would it kill you to score a symbolic arrest?

Sarah Jeong (who was in Korea when the coup attempt took place):

"And people talk about how Koreans 'showed up for their country' but like. Why do you think they showed up where they showed and when they showed up? The opposition party was literally sending SMS alerts and mass-printing glossy color cardstock signs for their voters"

https://bsky.app/profile/sarahjeong.bsky.social/post/3li42kivfok2c

― jaymc, Thursday, February 13, 2025 6:07 PM

these clowns really believe what they're selling IMHO!

idk i think a lot sincerely believe in their useless strategies (and most of the rest have enough incentives that they don't care) but that's a bit different to believing what they're saying, like most of them definitely didn't believe all that stuff they said during the campaign about trump being a threat to democracy given how they're acting now

Surely there is someone charismatic under the age of a million years old who either a) thinks like Bernie & who could galvanize a movement that would actually motivate a significant voting bloc, or b) could reliably spout the ideas that Bernie has already eloquently expressed hundreds of times & would actually etc

i'm not an accelerationist by any means - i think that not only can it get much worse, but that getting worse doesn't necessarily lead to anything better. people eating raw onions during the dark ages would find no solace in the idea that their misery was accelerating our glorious present.

buuuut, i think there's a real power/idea/courage vacuum in the democratic party right now, noticeable even more than usual. i think an incredible movement could fill that space. the doesn't have a lack of ideas of how a meaningful future could exist, and it doesn't have a lack of courageous, passionate people. they're embedded in communities, they're the people keeping things going right now, in the absence of political leadership and vision. the most powerful ideas on the left are driven by equity, sharing, and community, and the right wing doesn't have an equivalent for that except in churches.

it's an old thought and nothing new, but yes, i do think god is dead, that we killed him, and that many people are now a bit spiritually lost. the traditional third places are gone, for many people, and replaced with objects, technology, dreams of being immortal (not even joking, unfortunately), and the thrill of watching digital monetary values change. fine. let the right wing provide a home for those who love the material 21st century capitalist life - there are a lot of them! but i think most people desire something else, and sadly, as time goes on they don't even know what they're longing for, any more. (i think they're longing for pre-internet, and people under the age of 35 or so don't have memories of that, ooof). a political party that i would be enthusiastic about has an answer for these problems, or at least acknowledges them.

^ not sure if the app attributes quotes properly, but this is z_tbd from the “faucet of bullshit” thread. A booming post.

Am Canadian, but we’re suffering the same malaise — all the center and left parties have is “vote for us, we’re not as awful as they are” and ffs, people just want a good dream to rally around. And if they can’t get a good one they’ll take a bad one over no dream.

At least up here, for a week or so, there’s been an animating force in hating on Trump & his revanchism, but once again that’s not a thing to get behind, it’s a thing to deny, and if we don’t grow a national identity soon we’ll be outta steam. Anyhow, that’s one for the old and corrupted thread.

Yiiiikes

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2025/03/02/democrats-in-despair-00206883

The party should “embrace patriotism, community, and traditional American imagery”;
Democrats should “ban far-left candidate questionnaires and refuse to participate in forums that create ideological purity tests” and “move away from the dominance of small-dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate”

bleh sorry for formatting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVr45IJkKU

FWIW it's Third Way, so it's exactly what you'd expect them to say under any circumstances

there's a NYT editorial board op-ed about what the Democratic Party needs to do to regain voters' trust, and the section on how dems need to admit that they "moved too far left" is making me mad. i was going to write a longer post than that, but i just wanted to vent and not waste my time on a Saturday morning.

The NYT's ideal Democrat is a mid-century Rockefeller Republican.

I need some help understanding if I just heard what I think I heard in this interview… pic.twitter.com/kOkCAoVgP5

— Zackory Kirk (@zackoryk) May 19, 2025

this is getting out of hand. bernie, it is time to take a stand on caitlin clark vs angel reese

andrew shulz is an utter turd

I watched a Buttigieg interview with Schulz recorded a couple weeks ago b/c a friend insisted I do. He did fine.

...because he came across as the tolerated Gay Friend. Now here's Sanders doing it's not race it's class, etc.

I don’t totally understand what’s wrong with that Bernie clip

table do you disavow bernie bros or not??

I think the issue is that by appearing on the show of a white comedian who Kendrick dissed Bernie may be subliminally showing his support for Drake.

I don’t really understand whether that’s supposed to be a joke question— I don’t really understand who Bernie Bros are/were ?

That said, Bernie seems right on in that clip.

idk i think it’s somewhat disappointing in context, but then again you don’t look to bernie for being some hyper online guy, he probably dgaf who andrew schulz is, which is probably for the best.

Why is it disappointing? If Bernie spots some potential voters at the beach, on a bike or up a pole, in a podcast studio, or in the bathroom he goes right in there and starts conversing. And the other people didn't.

Up a pole

I often speak to politicians when I am up a pole

I'm not sick but I'm not well

Medicare 4 All

it's disappointing because andrew shulz is a brain dead racist edge lord piece of shit, so saying what bernie said in the context of his podcast is going to lead people to assume that he's letting ppl off the hook for being racist, that people are just "too sensitive nowadays" etc etc.

on the other hand, perhaps it's best not to give a shit about the comedian podcast " " space " " , and in any event bernie's policies are -- by far -- the ones that would make the most meaningful differences in terms of racial inequity. i think a lot of people bristle at the phoniness of corporate / dem party DEI initiatives, so i don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to call it what it is, and point instead to the actual work that needs to be done. but, to say the least, it can be a tough needle to thread when right-wing culture war shenanigans have weaponized every aspect of this discussion, so imo it's not great form to through out some, "well, obviously bigotry is a real problem" -- because it IS NOT OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE APPARENTLY

also, here's zack kirk on bernie in that same thread:

He prioritizes being “cool” and going “viral” over doing the real work.

so, a charlatan or at least a very stupid man

*to throw out some

Right, but is Andrew shulz's audience all also brain dead racist edge lord piece of shit? And if so, is that something ingrained or something that can be modified a percent here, a percent there, over time?

I feel like Bernie's goal here isn't to change anyone's perception of Andrew Schulz, not should it be. Its to reach Andrew Schulz's audience, and not use that time to talk about Andrew Schulz

That's what Buttigieg did a couple weeks ago. I watched the show, my only time, at the behest of a centrist-leaning friend who's enamored by the guy way more than I am. I came away rather impressed with his lightness, command of policy, and ability to charm the fuck out of these bros, who by the end were begging him to come back.

Going on about “identity politics” is cringe, I think one of the leftish pols who isn’t a century old might have phrased that better, been a bit more savvy about who you might alienate while chasing one partic audience. Was basically fine tho, the only real sensible response to being asked to account for how the hobgoblin of the “Bernie bro” comported itself on the internet 8 years ago is “fuck off lmao” but he probably couldn’t have said that

(The latter I infer to be k3vs point)

yes

oh i see