No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger

Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek

Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.

Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.) BTW: I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn’t show for Harris.

Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.

And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don’t think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn’t work anymore.

Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don’t expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.

How is asking for evidence done in bad faith?

I literally explained this immediately after I said it.

I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.

That’s literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.

I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence.

So, “just trust me bro”. Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.

This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.

Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren’t progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don’t even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people’s lives are shit, it’s populist messaging that gets their vote.

You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can’t just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren’t just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren’t seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it’s with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn’t. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.

It wouldn’t hold up to whom? The Senate? I’d like to say that even Democrats could spin that in their favor, but maybe they are that weak. The Supreme Court? What exactly would they do about it? Remember the national guard enforcing integration? The court has no enforcement arm, so just have the national guard escort and physically seat the new judge. All through the process, keep pounding on the message that the Senate is free to step up and do their duty at any point they choose.

You don’t think Republicans would play it that way? I think that will seem pretty damn tame next to what we are likely to see in January.

And people stay home because they do understand how politics works.

You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it?

It’s definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. That’s what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesn’t begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trump’s anti-war signaling was bullshit couldn’t be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nation’s CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that’s been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn’t changed it’s modeling since the 90s.

You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim.

Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.

Apathy caused democrats to lose voters in the 2024 election. Sowing more apathy won’t improve voter turnout.

Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can’t nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.

As I said, I’ll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It’s not going to be a one way street.

This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost

Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that’s hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats “doing better”. That’s the last I’m going to say on this dumb side argument.

Harris interviewed on Fox News also.

An interview is not a town hall, and I didn’t just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris’ interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.

If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that’s fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.

I’m just not interested in your games. The topic is what they did do. The possibilities of what they could have done are limitless, and you can nitpick the potential flaws of any response. What they did do and what they are still doing is a genocide, and the culmination of decades of Israel paving the way for it to happen.

it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left.

Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.

You’re not doing work for me.

I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map.

It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.

I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.

If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?

I must be missing something.

That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?

You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.

Care to share those studies?

Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.

Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?

Progressives, this, and this.

Better in what way?

Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.

Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right.

Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren’t exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don’t know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.

Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.

Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn’t something that most voters (or politicians if we’re being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.

To not support democrats is to support republicans.

Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.

What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?

The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.

It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That’s what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn’t always conform to Democratic expectations.

In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That’s not something they have been willing to do.

What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn’t swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.

Whatever apathy was down, Democrats did it to themselves. Our job right now is to crush the damn establishment that is intent on continuing to do it. They are trying to throw out a million reasons why this loss was anything but their fault, just so they can go back to business as usual. That cannot happen again.

If you think infighting hurts a party, then why the hell do the Republicans own all three branches? Infighting is critical to prepare the party and build a narrative where voters know what the party is about.

No, now is not the time to play nice with the establishment that got us here. They are lining up a new batch of clones as we speak.

If you want to help the Democrats, then get behind Ben Wikler (best option I’ve seen so far) out of Wisconsin for the DNC chair position. The establishment is going to try and quietly shuffle one of their useless clones while nobody is looking, so look, and tell everyone you know to look. Write to your Democratic representatives and tell them the party needs to find it’s feet again with actual leadership that knows how to connect with working class voters.

So, it’s not what Democrats do in office that matters. It’s not how they dodge and weave every question in every interview until nobody even remembers what was asked. Democrats lose because people are mean to them? Is nobody ever mean to Republicans then?

Yes, but they don’t have the best record on the Supreme Court.

It’s hard to spread FUD about establishment Democrats when they are all clones. America knows exactly what to expect from a Democrat, and it’s not much.

We have a DNC election coming up very soon, and the midterms after that. This is the time to challenge what it means to be a Democrat. If Rahm Emanuel gets the DNC chair, then the next ten years look to be very much like the last ten.

Apathy doesn’t get sown, enthusiasm does. Apathy is the default and it’s the job of a politician to inspire.

I weep for the timeline where Bernie won the 2020 primary.

He could have done it any time between the 6th and the 20th last time and didn’t. He might do it now, or he might not. It all depends on whether he sees personal advantage in it. Trump is big on loyalty, but it only flows one way. The reality is that Trump despises MAGA.

Justice for oligarchs wasn’t on the ballot. No matter which party won, the ruling class was going to remain more equal than the rest of us.

Maybe next time Democrats can do a better job of judging the character of their nominees.

and convicted in a fair trial.

To be fair, that’s kinda just what pardons are for.

I almost want to give Hunter a break because he never would have even been charged if his dad wasn’t President. Then I remember how he misused his father’s status for personal gain. I figure that takes the first issue off the table.

Knowing the Democrats, they would probably get the expansion then fail to confirm any judges, allowing Trump to fill every seat.

It’s actually made a little worse by EVs because of battery weight.

Avocados tell you what the end game is. The cartels are going to use their money hordes to form corporations. Then they will buy out the government to take over Mexican sovereignty. That’s how the US “defeated” organized crime.