Post-match: So what is next for the Democratic Party? (Post 2024)

She'd have gotten primaried by a White male. Whether the White male who won the nom would have beaten Trump, I can't say.

Describe that shift. What do you consider monumental? Folks being on TV shows and commercials?

All I see is

1) a series of court decisions, Supreme and certainly some regular, which often ruled that Whites didn't have the legal standing to do something or not do something where Black people were involved. Most of those decisions were made more than 20-30 years ago. Those IMO aren't societal shifts- they're decisions made above the heads and against the wishes of the society they affected.

2) Action taken by the Black community against certain kinds of segregation or mistreatment- boycotts, sit-ins, civil disobedience, that sort of thing.

I don't see is any evidence of monumental societal shifts. The history of the Struggle is this: We ask for inclusion, the courts grant it (all past tense, BTW), and Whites grudgingly go along until they're too numb from the pain to care. Or they pack up and move. The reason we know a shift wasn't made is because justice had to be sued out of the oppressor. And we're now seeing what we thought was progress was just a phase. America is still America; she just decided last week to remind us, for the second time in a decade.

 

Apropos of this thread ...

The Democrats’ Refusal to Break With a Broken System Cost Them Dearly

The party has followed its affection for Beltway institutions and their stodgy norms to its logical endpoint—getting locked out of power. It’s time for a rethink.​

 

Good call, but I didn’t really see anything helpful.

here are the concluding two paragraphs:

In the end, there was nothing Democrats could have done to win the 2024 election—not with any issue or any candidate—as long as they were put in the position of having to defend a status quo system that had fallen out of public favor, in the mistaken belief that the American people hold it dear to their hearts and would choose to keep it over Trump’s promise of smashing it all to pieces.

If there are to be elections in the future that are free and fair (a prospect that is sadly now less than certain), then Democrats must start developing a bold, clear, easy-to-understand set of structural changes to how government is organized and how it works. They must meet most voters—and nonvoters—where they live. Before anything else, Democrats must tell voters: “We hear you. The system sucks. And here’s what we’re going to do about it.”
​

Here’s the thing: the necessary structural changes ARE NOT EASY TO UNDERSTAND, which is why the “smash it” crowd digs them some Trump. I mean, I agree with that last sentence, but what are those “easy to understand” fixes. There are two paragraphs where the author floats some ideas . . . But to the Trump world, those ideas sound boring a.f.

So we’re moving into a position not too dissimilar from that of the Soviet Union after the Berlin Wall fell. And Trump is clearing the way for oligarchs to come in and get even richer off the fragments.

 

Not sure I'm aligned with the similarities with the Soviet Union after the Berlin Wall. However, I actually did tell my wife that I expected that this will be the start (alright, it's probably already started) of the US Oligarchs rule.

 

It started, at the very least, when Citizens came down. You could argue even earlier but certainly by then, it's been an oligarchy.

 

I was trolling for Knave rep.

Probably either the economy. Possibly as “whatever pisses you off the most.”

 

Alright. Fine.

 

Another article apropos to this discussion:

When Will Democrats Learn to Say No? - Adam Jentleson, New York Times:

Archive Link - https://archive.is/nRRtZ

Supermajority thinkers should concede nothing on righteousness. In politics, winning elections is the moral imperative. You go into this business to change people’s lives for the better. That means changing policy, and to change policy you have to win. Those who would rather lose elections so that they can feel better about themselves leave the real suffering to the people they claim to fight for. No one wins when we lose. It is time to start winning again.
​

One more phrase from this piece: "Ruthlessly prioritizing winning".

What a concept!

 

What moran wrote that and are there gambling sites that I can place my bet on when he'll go to the camps?

 

This is a good discussion about young men.

 

This is a subtle and interesting take on the "deliverism" debate that's going on:

The problem wasn’t that the party failed to sell the public on what it delivered, it was that it provided them with the wrong things, politically speaking. “We didn’t deliver what people wanted—help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives. Instead we delivered more remote things—bridges and roads, clean energy, future jobs in future chip fabs,” Ron Klain, Biden’s first chief of staff, told me. Noting that Biden’s Build Back Better agenda was pared back significantly in order to secure Sen. Joe Manchin’s vote, he added, “Losing the caring stuff hurt us badly.”​

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/why-deliverism-didnt-deliver-for

Not sure I buy this take, either fully or partially, but it's an interesting theory.

 

I will always go with "you can't defeat a celebrity cult leader" unless Dems ran another swing state white guy like 2020 Biden. 'Merica's apparently not ready for a woman for whatever reason. Maybe Michele Obama could've pulled it off this year.

 

I kind of buy it. Cost of living (especially housing/rent, restaurants, service industry in general) is what made everyone so upset.

Subsidizing childcare would have been a really big win for the Dems. The child tax credit too. Same with elder care subsidies.

Granted, not all voters would have benefitted, but I think it could have been enough people to think that they weren’t worse off than they were under Trump to keep Biden from those disastrous polling numbers before he dropped out.

if Biden stayed in the race even with those subsidies made into law with the IRA, I think he still loses.

It is just sad that even though the country really is more 55/45 Dem, or higher, when it comes to policy, that equivalent Dem majorities will never be realized again.

 

See, I want to believe this but then I remember everyone's spending habits the last few years. Grumpy me is remembering his friends complaining about costs and then I see them posting pictures of them going to Japan or Europe for vacation. Or the coworker constantly ordering DoorDash/UberEats/GrubHub. Or my favorite, people driving SUVs and pick-ups complaining about gas.

The other thing was media. CNN and that idiot family of nine (And the mother got the cost of milk wrong even).

That said, it's still cheaper to cook at home than to go out constantly.

 

I think that perception vs reality is a stumbling block. But it is clear that cost of living increases definitely increased the perception that things were worse. Yeah, prices went up and you got an equivalent raise, but you thought that raise was actually going to make things easier, and that did not happen.. = worse.

 

It's almost as if you guys are talking about an entitled generation that believes they have the right to everything they want without having to actually pay for any of it (literal or metaphorical). Trust me, we see it in the classroom all the time. Students feel entitled to a good grade but don't think they have to do any work (or learning) for it. These people are now voting.

 

Scott Galloway tries.

He talks of the problem of the lost young men all the time. From a left, pro business perspective.

But he doesn't have that red pilled, podcast centric echo chamber behind him in the same way.