• Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 minutes ago

    Thanks to idiot non voters there will not be a chance to dump these policies since there wont be another election

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Democrats: “Understood. We must try harder to win over the center-right.”

    • LittleBorat3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Based on the assumption that it was some economic issue, that lost them the votes, this article is pretty good.

  • takeda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This is BS. People saying Kamala was too liberal, or too centrist, she was riding too much on Biden achievements or not enough etc etc.

    The real reason for this is that majority of people no longer get their news from MSM, they get their news from social media which are hevily slanted for trump. Not only GOP understands how influential those are, but they are helped with foreign entities who are free to use these media as well.

    This also isn’t just happening to US but also to Europe.

    The fucking solution is to get your family off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc. it is a cancer and essentially hacks their brain.

    You might think that social media is great, because everyone can have a voice. This might be true for sites like Lemmy, but in other places what you post is irrelevant, because their algorithm controls what others see. It is very clever, because they can hide behind freedom of speech to not restrict the sites, while essentially still having full control of what it is shown and zero consequences.

    With AI they don’t even need people anymore they can generate content themselves and say it is a real user.

    Why do you think companies involved in social media are also heavily invested with generative AI?

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 minutes ago

      The fucking solution is to get your family off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc. it is a cancer and essentially hacks their brain.

      What you’re implying here is that people aren’t smart enough to navigate social media intelligently, without being duped by propaganda and group think, yet you are.

      Protecting dumb people by hiding them from social media, is a bad fix for a symptom of other major problems. Fixing symptoms like this is never a good solution.

      What we need is education massively overhauled, to the point it would be unrecognizable to what we have today. People should have the critical thinking skills and educational background to laugh there ass off and shrug off right wing propaganda, and never let it take hold.

      This is a much bigger problem, and we’re losing significantly, but it’s what should be discussed instead of just hiding social media from people.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It goes beyond just that. I think a Democratic presidential candidate could do well addressing elitist thinking in general. I think they could do quite well with a pledge not to appoint anyone to their cabinet or to a court that graduated from an Ivy League school. One of the reasons we keep seeing the same shitty approaches is that both parties recruit heavily from the same handful of schools. This they’re recruited from the same social circles. I would suggest that candidates just flat out state that they’ll be filling all their major spots with people who got their education at state schools.

  • Montagge@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Wait, so apparently Americans don’t want neoliberal economic policies so they didn’t vote for Kamala, but instead voted for Trump and his neoliberal economic policies?

    This shit is stupid and old already. It reeks of people using unhealthy coping mechanism to deal with the idea that the average American shifted even further right.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Trump verbally promised to change the system. Harris said the system is doing great, you’re doing great, anyone who says they aren’t doing great doesn’t understand the economic genius that is Biden’s economy.

      The predictable happened. Democrats were warned when Biden tried to take a victory lap on the economy in 2023. They ignored that warning and didn’t attempt to pass legislation they knew was required. Even if they failed they could have been seen fighting for the people. We know they knew what the required legislation is because Biden suddenly promised national rent controls right before being forced to step aside. Then Harris silently kept them in her campaign but didn’t highlight them again until a week before the election. When she was desperate.

      Until Democrats actually show, in their actions, that they’re fighting for the working class, the beatings will continue. And no shutting down strikes and one vote on minimum wage isn’t going to cut it. They need to be in the news every week on some aspect of the financial pain the working class feels, and repeats are not only okay, but necessary. A term has 208 weeks in it, that’s enough to press several issues. They can also do a quarterly podcast, this entire idea of silently governing was proven inferior by FDR. Even Obama had the petition system which generated national conversations. People do not expect that a quiet government is doing something. In fact they are suspicious of it.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Trump’s economic policies aren’t neoliberal so much as mercantilist. He wants tariffs and trade wars. (There’s obviously also a dash of fascist policies where he wants companies to serve him.)

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Fascism was the rebranding of mercantilism. State supported industry with a blurry line between state and private actors and owners, all ultimately supported by imperial conquest and colonialism.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      The average american doesn’t know what neoliberal economic policies are, but the average american can feel the impact of neoliberalism on a daily basis. Convincing people you have a solution to what everyone knows is wrong (even if your solution is even more neoliberalism and blaming minorities, the old reliable) is what get people in booths.

      Conversely, saying things are fine the way they are is the easiest way to lose an election.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        8 hours ago

        What killed Biden and Harris was the outright denial of what people were feeling.

        “The economy is hurting us!”

        “What are you talking about, Jack? We have the best economy ever! Look… inflation is only 3% (on top of 3%, on top of 9%), we’re doing GREAT! Not a joke! I’m serious!”

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      1/3 of voting age Americans voted for Trump (that 3rd wants fascism)… 1/3 for Kamala, and 1/3 stayed home… A lot of the 1/3 that stayed home did so because they don’t want neolib policy, and probably a lot of the 1/3 that voted for her also don’t want neolib policy. There’s very little to support the idea that anyone “shifted right”… They shifted home when they weren’t given an option to vote against genocide and other neolib bullshit

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        No there is not 1/3rd that wants Fascism. There is a small percentage that want a Christian Nationalist government, but most Trump voters just seriously think he did a better job with the economy. They don’t have an economic education and they know it was easier to feed their families when he was president.

        Don’t other people who should be your allies. Division of the working class works in the favor of the elites and extremists.

      • aceshigh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        No. The majority 40% didn’t vote, and roughly 30% votes for trump and Harris.

    • bestagon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The people that like trump like that shit. The people that vote dem, at most, tolerate it but the harder they lean in that direction the less enthusiastic their base is about voting for them

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    12 hours ago

    My message to the dnc

    Fuck you we elected Bernie and you ran Hillary and then we elected Bernie and you gave us Biden. Fuck you.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They knew Bernie might actually improve the lives of Americans and our rich overlords shudder at the thought of that.

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Who elected Bernie in 2020? Biden wiped the floor with him. Maybe more people should’ve voted for Bernie in the primary then.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I mean, the commenter is overstating what happened in 2016 and 2020, but Biden did not, “wipe the floor,” with him. Obama and the DNC convinced every centrist to drop out, consolidating the moderate vote around Biden, while Warren stayed in, splitting the progressive vote, and Bloomberg used his personal wealth to run anti-Bernie ads. Then Biden had to ask Bernie to help him craft a platform just so he could be electable. It’s less that, “Biden wiped the floor with him,” and more that, “the entire Democratic party lined up to block Bernie so Biden could limp over the finish line.”

        • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Which is normal politics. Why didn’t Warren and Bernie make a deal then?

          Face it- if he can’t win a primary then that’s on him. And this is coming from someone who voted for him in 2020.

          Point being- people need to stop acting like there is some mythical force stopping progressives. If they truly were that numerous then Bernie would’ve been elected as the candidate in 2020 (2016 I’ll give you the DNC fuckery.)

          Moreover, they could elect AOCs all over the country too. But guess what- either they aren’t that numerous or they’re lazy as shit. Either way, you get “centrist” candidates like Biden. People seriously need to wake up and either start voting en masse in the primaries or realize that America is just not that progressive.

          • blandfordforever@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I recall that in 2016, it was apparent to me that those in control of the media were intentionally giving Bernie as little coverage as possible. The stuff they were doing was blatant, once you became aware of it.

            I remember seeing a news segment where they said something like, “The current leading Democrat in the primaries is Hillary Clinton. Yeah she’s doing great. Also in 3rd place is Martin O’Malley or something.” They would just blatantly omit Bernie.

            I kept seing stuff like this and it really made an impression on me. Then, when the whole GameStop stock thing happened and all those private investors were making tons of money, taking it from rich hedgefunds, the media started telling everyone how dumb they would be to try to get in on the action. They were protecting the interests of the rich. It was a little intimidating to see them all do it, implying who was really in control of information and public perception.

            So, I disagree. It’s not as simple as, “America is not that progressive.”

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Buddy, half your comment history is whining about non-voters costing Harris the election, and you’re gonna turn around and say, “less people voted for Bernie, deal with it?” Bernie had the entire party lined up to block him; name another candidate the party has done that to. Meanwhile, Harris had a level playing field with Trump and he wiped the floor with her.

            Face it- if she can’t win an election then that’s on her. And this is coming from someone who voted for her in 2024. People seriously need to wake up and either start voting en masse in the general elections or realize that America is just not that moderate.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              or realize that America is just not that moderate.

              I think we can look at the House of Representatives for a better representation of how moderate/progressive the electorate is. Where a statewide or national election requires a lot of money, a single district is much more accessible for a candidate with a smaller staff to campaign in.

              I think the real crux of our problem is the distance between how people feel about individual progressive policies vs how they feel about progressive people who espouse all those policies. The right has been very successful at linking the culture war issues to progressives and demonizing them as SJWs, to distract from actual policy proposals.

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 hours ago

                I don’t think that’s entirely correct. If what you were saying about progressive politicians were true, Bernie Sanders would not be the most popular politician in the country. I think the real problem is that the Democrats are no longer credible messengers of a working class message. I think that’s why Dan Osborne won by not only running as an independent, but flat out rejecting the local Democrats endorsement.

                Also, it’s important to remember that it was the centrists who pivoted towards culture war issues when they no longer had a progressive economic message they could run on. As Hillary Clinton said during the 2016 primary:

                If we broke up the big banks tomorrow…would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Bernie is the most popular politician in the country? Regardless though, what popularity he has does not extend to all people who espouse progressive ideas, so other factors are at play.

                  I also don’t see that as a pivot as much as a slow march towards equal rights that dems have been fighting for for decades. And even so, it does not have much to do with the messaging strategy employed by the right. We’re not fighting against facts, we’re fighting against a messaging framework that paints progressive people as bad while ignoring the content of progressive policy proposals.

            • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              It is non-voters. Whether they’re left leaning or center or whatever really doesn’t matter. They’re going to get it one way or the other. They had a chance to drive the car more left but decided it wasn’t worth showing up so now it’s going full speed right wing back to the 50s and worse.

              Congrats?

              I mean, you’re basically making my point. People who don’t vote decide the election with their inaction. Whether it was not coming out for Bernie or not coming out for Kamala, it’s the same thing.

              So yes, thank you for proving my point better than I could. I appreciate the assist.

              Bonus- Bernie finished behind Kamala in Vermont. So let’s not act like progressivism is some silver bullet here.

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Buddy, you’re proving mine. If Bernie’s loss in the primary is proof that Americans aren’t that progressive, then Harris and Hillary’s losses in the general prove that Americans aren’t that centrist. You can’t have it both ways.

                So that would mean that the majority of the electorate is far-right, which would make no sense given how strongly progressive ballot measures overperformed against the Harris campaign, or why Bernie polled more favorably against Trump than Clinton or Biden. Somehow, Americans would have disliked centrist and progressive politicians and like far-right politicians, but for some reason prefer progressive policies, and also favor the most high profile progressive in the Senate…or, Occam’s Razor, people prefer progressives, but the Democrats keep rat-fucking them in the primaries in favor of centrists.

                • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 hours ago

                  It makes perfect sense when you realize places like Missouri and Florida voted for abortion rights yet also voted for Republicans and trump all over too.

                  And again, there’s no big magical force keeping progressives out of winning primaries. They just don’t. So again, my point, either people aren’t that progressive or progressives fucking suck at voting. Either way, same result.

                  Moreover, we’ll use your metric of progressive policies winning over Harris and analyze why she won more over Bernie himself. Must mean people are more moderate right?

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Part of me thinks Bernie never really wanted to be president, I think he thinks he can do more good as a senior senator pushing the DNC left while trying to stop the right from whatever evil they’re planning this week, and maybe he can, but so far that hasn’t worked very well. If he and the squad broke ties with the DNC and started their own party, and were able to pull enough of the left off the couch and away from the DNC to make the DNC the “spoiler” that needed to “fall in line or else Trump wins” that would be the best imo

            • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Kind of a reverse Freedom Caucus. I could potentially see that working. Then again, people say AOC is no longer pure, etc. so I’m not sure progressives have the stomach to stick together long enough for that to work.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 hours ago

        that comment confused me as well. with hilary. yeah but 2020 honestly people wanted more of a conservative sure thing because some yahoos thought they would shake things up in 2016 by letting trump win. hmmm. I wonder what type of canidate will be in 2024 and whos fault it will be that its not a liberal enough canidate.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    “Nothing will fundamentally change” + “there is not a thing that comes to mind.”

    Two killer statements.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      To be fair Biden’s “nothing will fundamentally change” is a lot better with context. “There’s not a thing that comes to mind” is fucking inexcusable though.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        To be fair Biden’s “nothing will fundamentally change” is a lot better with context.

        To be fair, it became clear over the course of 4 years that it was correct at face value.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Before the 1980s that used to be the unions paying and funding campaigns. The reason Democrats started chasing and boot-licking oligarchs. Is because the unions stopped funding elections and campaigns at the rate they had been before the 1980s. If you can figure out why that was. There were two solid hints given. Then we could probably understand why they’re seeking funding from oligarchs. And how we should probably go about changing that.

      People love to complain about Democrats begging for oligarchs money without understanding why. Which helps the oligarchs. And gives them even more control over the DNC than they would have otherwise. I’m not saying we should accept the oligarch funding and ownership. But until we come to terms with why that came to be and address it appropriately. It won’t end anytime soon.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It sounds like you’re saying we need to bribe our politicians to get them to represent us. Is that what you’re getting at? Because I fundamentally disagree with that concept.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Only if you consider funding bribing. Was it bribing when the unions financed the Democratic party before 1980?

          • Narauko@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Yes. All money needs to be removed from politics with the same amount given to all candidates to run with and dark money investigated and prosecuted. Politicians shouldn’t be NASCAR teams, and lobbying should be called what it actually is.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I agree. The irony is that we’re going to need money and resources to do that. I would rather it wasn’t from oligarchs. The question is then who from. Democrats have “technically” broken fundraising records repeatedly with small donors. Every 4 years. Which is a tiny meaningless record. Republicans and conservatives spend MULTIPLES of that 4 year aggregate EVERY YEAR. On campaigning and messaging.

              It was recently revealed that many conservative media personalities and influencers . People like Tim Poole were being paid millions of dollars a year. To put out one barely edited propaganda video a week. To put that in perspective, over the course of two weeks. With 1/5th the effort of a left leaning media personality like Sam Cedar. They make more than he does in a year. In just two weeks. This isn’t isolated either. A big group were found to be unregistered foreign agents of Russia because of this. And Russia didn’t invent it. Our own oligarchs have been patronizing conservative media outlets and influencers like this for decades.

              How do we compete with that? Serious question.

              • Narauko@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Strict campaign finance laws, where all political donations go to a bipartisan elections department and then are split equally between all candidates in graduated stages from the primaries through until the general election. No contributions to candidates directly, no PACs or Super PACs (they can exist but fund everyone equally), no ads paid for outside the provided war chest. Any dark money found results in IRS forensic audits and criminal penalties for the campaigns.

                If you want more money for your “side”, you get it at roughly 50% of what you put in. The “other side” gets the other half. Should still drive donations, including mega-doners, because their candidate still gets more money for ads and campaigning. This also allows 3rd party candidates to compete equally at all stages. If we can get graduated polling too this should spur a further plurality of viable candidates.

                Political commentary from news and independent “journalism” on places like YouTube would still be covered under free speech, but audits are allowed to look into them being dark money ads with the above consequences for the campaigns.

                Foreign ads are what they are unfortunately, but the IRS is good at finding US money laundering through offshore institutions. Make sending money to foreign assets to be spent circumventing these laws especially steep. A few campaign managers and money managers getting 20-life or going to Gitmo for laundering campaign money through Russian agents should help curb some shenanigans.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  Sounds great. How do we get there? Campaign finance laws are written and voted on by politicians. Why would a politician funded by oligarchs cut off their own funding?

                  If you want campaign finance reform, you need politicians in office who are willing to vote for it. Which means you need to get them into office. Which means their campaigns need funding.

                  That means we need a plan to fund campaigns in the current landscape, before reform.

        • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You can disagree in principle, but that’s what liberal democracy is, and that’s what participating in it in any meaningful way entails.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      A campaign for someone people wants will pay for itself. Everything will be provided and the press will be free if it wishes to remain clicked and watched

      This billion dollar campaign frenzy every 4 years is an industrial complex that needs to die

    • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Who do you think would occupy that power vacuum? Because, just like spreading open your butthole in outer space while in orbit, shit will blow out.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Next time there should be a populist movement to write in a progressive candidate. Why couldn’t a populist candidate overrun the DNC like Trump did with the RNC?

    • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Because Trump does represent a lot of the policies that Republican party support. Christian nationalism, low taxes for the rich, white supremacy.

      It was apparent when the Alaskan governor ran for VP. (I forgot her name.) It consolidated behind Trump because he was a buffoon who could be manipulated to get their main aims to be fulfilled.

      None in the DNC would want anyone other than a establishment candidate to be theirs. This was true when Hillary was nominated, when Biden was nominated and also when Harris was nominated.

      Biden would have lost too if not for the previous 4 years of Trump. With Harris promising to continue putting finger in her ears and walking the same path which might have given respite if people could have let it continue 4-8 years. But who knows if they would have lived to see those days.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Because it’s hard for actually intelligent people to worship a moron.

      Edit: actually you’re right… we could have had Bernie.

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It would be relatively easy to take over the DNC (and the state and local parties), but very few people outside the establishment know how politics within the party works