Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 10/30/2025 at 1:48 PM, Chad Fuck said:

You either get hard core into WWII history, or smoking meats.  There is no middle ground.

Option 3:

image.jpeg.cec6c50c70cfb004285b5e957421f253.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I am skeptical they have some big technocratic plan. Technocratic bills are what they do when they grudgingly have to do something. And you know what? The Biden era technocratic schemes were actually pretty good, they just did not in any way sufficiently address the crisis the country was facing. The other problem with the technocratic approach is that the Republicans can easily undo them in about ten seconds whereas the changes the Republicans make linger in the system for decades.

But even to the extent this is true it is based on the idea that everybody likes the status quo and agrees it is good and we just need to make a few adjustments which is a very 1990s way of thinking.

They have a beginning of a plan. The makings of one, if you will.

Seriously I was imprecise. The congressional leadership doesn't have a plan. They're fucking clueless and soft af. I'm hoping a dynamic congressional election leads to a pres candidate who has some fire in the belly and populist ideas for change. 

Posted
On 10/31/2025 at 9:37 AM, Chopper said:

Platner is taking on water

 

It's possible Platner is doing shit that doesn't sit right with this guy.  It's also possible that Platner has enough baggage that Wertheimer is worried that it might limit his career.  I'm not much for blaming the "Party", as I think it is overly simplistic to imagine the Democratic Party as a bunch of fat cats drinking cognac, smoking cigars, and deciding which candidate they will put up for what slots.  But, it's worth noting that until maybe 2019, it was the policy to blackball any vendor who worked for a candidate trying to primary an incumbent Democrat.  Putting financial pressures on the people that can support candidates is a way to put your thumb on the scale.  If multiple staffers have bailed, it's possible that the word is out that this campaign will not look good on your resume for future campaigns, or for appointments might Dems control in the future.  Or it could be that Platner is regularly doing stupid shit that is causing those around him to bail.  Either is plausible. 

Posted
34 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

The inability for most Dems in positions of power to interpret these results with nuance is maddening.  Yes, some of Mamdani's success is probably not replicable in other parts of the country.  But a lot of the excitement is generated from the fact that he's young, energetic, knows how to talk to the people, and seems like he actually cares.  That shit is replicable fucking everywhere.

Yes. AOC is absolutely the best presidential candidate the democrats have because she actually answers questions she gets asked and she can talk to people like they are actually people. None of the policy bullshit even matters. Basically nobody voting against the democrats even disagrees with their policy positions.

Posted
4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Yes. AOC is absolutely the best presidential candidate the democrats have because she actually answers questions she gets asked and she can talk to people like they are actually people. None of the policy bullshit even matters. Basically nobody voting against the democrats even disagrees with their policy positions.

Re AOC, I think you are correct she's a great candidate by skill.  I think the likelihood of success is small given she's had the Hillary Clinton treatment given to her by the right.  The middle - who she'd have to win over - has heard over and over how "radical" she is.   Plus woman, plus Latina.  I wish it weren't this way, but all signs point to retrograde beliefs in America.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Re AOC, I think you are correct she's a great candidate by skill.  I think the likelihood of success is small given she's had the Hillary Clinton treatment given to her by the right.  The middle - who she'd have to win over - has heard over and over how "radical" she is.   Plus woman, plus Latina.  I wish it weren't this way, but all signs point to retrograde beliefs in America.  

AOC would wipe the floor with anyone else running and your concerns are not real. The main problem with AOC is there would be a lack of unity and self sabotage from the dems if she ran. If she had the org behind her it wouldn't be close. 

Posted
Just now, Chad Fuck said:

Re AOC, I think you are correct she's a great candidate by skill.  I think the likelihood of success is small given she's had the Hillary Clinton treatment given to her by the right.  The middle - who she'd have to win over - has heard over and over how "radical" she is.   Plus woman, plus Latina.  I wish it weren't this way, but all signs point to retrograde beliefs in America.  

The democrats have absolutely no chance to win even a single vote from anyone who cares about any of that.

Posted
6 minutes ago, immamac said:

AOC would wipe the floor with anyone else running and your concerns are not real. The main problem with AOC is there would be a lack of unity and self sabotage from the dems if she ran. If she had the org behind her it wouldn't be close. 

 

3 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

The democrats have absolutely no chance to win even a single vote from anyone who cares about any of that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan. 

But I think you all underestimate the hate on the right, and the uncertainty of the middle.  I agree, however, disunity in the Dem party could also contribute.  

In any case, that all adds up to unrealistic for me.  

I'd love to be proven wrong on this.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Basically nobody voting against the democrats even disagrees with their policy positions.

This needs to be plastered on every DNC office across the country.

Elections are not about policies.  They are about vibes.  People subconsciously decide who they want to vote for and THEN craft an internal reasoning for why they feel that way.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The problem with populism is that populists of any stripe are objectively terrible at governing. Across time and space, I struggle to think of a populist who did a good job anywhere at scale, which is a function of populist rhetoric invariably offering simplistic and unrealistic solutions and promises against real, complex problems. 
 

There’s always the old “lie about being a populist” trick but you can’t pull the football forever and eventually someone will come along who actually does the stupid shit and either makes a hash of things or just overturns democracy to avoid consequences. This basically happened with the republicans. 
 

We got here because most of America treats real elections like student council elections: vote for the stupidest and most unreal shit because deep down you believe adults will remain in control. Only that’s not how it works in real life. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

This needs to be plastered on every DNC office across the country.

Elections are not about policies.  They are about vibes.  People subconsciously decide who they want to vote for and THEN craft an internal reasoning for why they feel that way.

Are you saying people aren't naturally attracted to cookie cutter, Ivy league educated, management consultant trained, focus group tested, corporate Democrats?

Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The problem with populism is that populists of any stripe are objectively terrible at governing. Across time and space, I struggle to think of a populist who did a good job anywhere at scale, which is a function of populist rhetoric invariably offering simplistic and unrealistic solutions and promises against real, complex problems. 
 

There’s always the old “lie about being a populist” trick but you can’t pull the football forever and eventually someone will come along who actually does the stupid shit and either makes a hash of things or just overturns democracy to avoid consequences. This basically happened with the republicans. 
 

We got here because most of America treats real elections like student council elections: vote for the stupidest and most unreal shit because deep down you believe adults will remain in control. Only that’s not how it works in real life. 

The problem is the non-populists are soulless worthless idiots. If the non-populists had dynamism and leadership and a bold plan and vision I would happily line up behind them.

But that option does not exist.

Posted
1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

The problem is the non-populists are soulless worthless idiots. If the non-populists had dynamism and leadership and a bold plan and vision I would happily line up behind them.

But that option does not exist.

I mean, I wouldn't call AOC or even Mandami populists. They both have a very astute grasp of the complexities of governance.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I'm not even sure that would do it.  Her views on campaign finance are anathema to both parties.  She's in the Roosevelt mold (both TR and FDR) where everyone in power is going to hate her until she has the Presidency.

Edited by kevwun
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

They hoped they could co-opt Trump because of how greedy he is and it largely worked for his first term.  AOC isn't motivated by money though and Democrats love tearing down their own candidates almost as much as Republicans do.

Posted
1 minute ago, kevwun said:

They hoped they could co-opt Trump because of how greedy he is and it largely worked for his first term.  AOC isn't motivated by money though and Democrats love tearing down their own candidates almost as much as Republicans do.

Didn't work for mamdani and everyone is ready to bail on the party if you haven't seen the polling. It's over for them the progressives will take action or the party dies. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

I don't know if it will work, but I agree the current version of the party aren't going to be the ones who fix anything.  I think it will take more pain before the country turns to AOC or someone like her on the national level.  

Edited by kevwun
Posted

The Democratic party as we know it is essentially dead. It either refreshes itself with young, energetic candidates or it goes on as a zombie version of what it has been.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, G650 said:

The Democratic party as we know it is essentially dead. It either refreshes itself with young, energetic candidates or it goes on as a zombie version of what it has been.

And if this was a movie, I would find the symbolism of the leaders being demented octogenarians a little on the nose.

  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, G650 said:

The Democratic party as we know it is essentially dead. It either refreshes itself with young, energetic candidates or it goes on as a zombie version of what it has been.

You'll vote for zombie Democrats and like it, mister!

Posted
49 minutes ago, G650 said:

The Democratic party as we know it is essentially dead. It either refreshes itself with young, energetic candidates or it goes on as a zombie version of what it has been.

This--to @956 Worldwide point, the constant talk about this as a conflict between center-left and left is the wrong way to look at it.  

It's a contest between generations and their comfort in communications mediums, not ideology.  Mamdani's platform isn't winning a Senate race in Nebraska and the next version of a successful Democratic party needs to have space for both visions.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

Mamdani's platform isn't winning a Senate race in Nebraska and the next version of a successful Democratic party needs to have space for both visions.  

You know what that means?

FOCUS GROUPS!!!

 

Posted (edited)

One thing that’s incredible is that the avowedly DSA guy is weakest versus the “establishment” D candidate among people in public or subsidized housing. Many such cases. 

 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One thing that’s incredible is that the avowedly DSA guy is weakest versus the “establishment” D candidate among people in public or subsidized housing. Many such cases. 

 

 

I mean, I don't find it incredible that the guy vowing more affordable housing is popular with those paying exorbitant market rates, but maybe that's just me.

Posted
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One thing that’s incredible is that the avowedly DSA guy is weakest versus the “establishment” D candidate among people in public or subsidized housing. Many such cases. 

 

This concept is getting lots of play on the lefty podcast circuit, but culture leads politics.  

Voters aren't rejecting left policy preferences; they've rejected the messengers in contested spaces.  

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, G650 said:

 

I mean, I don't find it incredible that the guy vowing more affordable housing is popular with those paying exorbitant market rates, but maybe that's just me.

That’s completely separate from being upside down with (presumably) the lowest income and most socially subsidized demographic. 
 

My own hunch is that no one is threatening to take away those benefits; so they are already functionally socialized. And law and order messaging consistently does well among lower-income demographics while the foreign policy stuff is largely irrelevant at best. I think this can explain a lot of Trump btw. 
 

This is unironically the median American voter: 

 

image.jpeg.6d281948bc5c112a8d1cf41fd3dc92b4.jpeg

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

That’s completely separate from being upside down with (presumably) the lowest income and most socially subsidized demographic. 
 

My own hunch is that no one is threatening to take away those benefits; so they are already functionally socialized

 

Well, what I am saying is I don't think that's a hunch, I think it's pretty obviously the case.

Posted
6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This was the Barrack Obama formula. Difference being that Obama honed his rhetoric, skills, positions very early in a statewide race. 

Bill Clinton as well.

Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One thing that’s incredible is that the avowedly DSA guy is weakest versus the “establishment” D candidate among people in public or subsidized housing. Many such cases. 

 

I think Mamdani is just much more popular across the board, but sure let's hyperfixate on results from these 111 people that would be well-within the margin of error, from a no-name pollster.

4 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Mamdani's platform isn't winning a Senate race in Nebraska

If any Democrat ran on his platform there, he would beat the spread, by a lot, and possibly flip the seat.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If any Democrat ran on his platform there, he would beat the spread, by a lot, and possibly flip the seat.

 

4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

People who have votes that can be flipped aren't voting for anyone's platform.


Well, the evidence is that the Democratic brand is so tarnished there an independent does better, so I’m not sure what underpins @chainsaw’s faith here.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

People who have votes that can be flipped aren't voting for anyone's platform.

I disagree. If you listen to what they need, are clear about what you plan to do (down to a slogan), and fanatical about repetition, the voters will reward that.

Posted

I am slightly skeptical that freezing rent, making buses free, and opening state-run bodegas resonates in Grand Island like it does in NYC, but sure. I’ll keep an open mind here. 

Posted
4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One thing that’s incredible is that the avowedly DSA guy is weakest versus the “establishment” D candidate among people in public or subsidized housing. Many such cases. 

 

"Relatively" is doing a lot of lifting there; Cuomo's numbers look like shit. The only crosstabs he leads in are 55-65, 66+, and living in subsidized housing.  That's it.  

Cuomo is +1 on responders over 55-65 and +3 on the over 65 crowd.  I am willing to bet age strongly tracks with native-New Yorker and those born in the US.  In other words, if you normalize for age, I'm guessing the correlation would for birthplace would look weaker.  The same might be true for subsidized housing - 47% of the households in subsidized housing in Bronx County are 62 or older.  That goes up to 68% for 51 or older.  That wouldn't cover all the difference, but it likely makes up a lot of it.  

The biggest thing this tweet is telling me is that some folks are squinting really hard to find something bad for Mamdani in those numbers.  And that older Democrats are more conservative - shocking.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I am slightly skeptical that freezing rent, making buses free, and opening state-run bodegas resonates in Grand Island like it does in NYC, but sure. I’ll keep an open mind here. 

Good fucking Christ, man, you are a smart person. Just think for one second instead. It's obviously not about shipping those specific policies to the rest of the country.

It's broadly about listening to your god damned constituents and talking about shit they actually give a fuck about, and promising to do things that will materially make their fucking lives better, instead of doing the classic establishment Democrat bullshit like throwing out inane policies no one fucking cares about like tax breaks for small business owners (thanks Kamala, or whatever thimble-headed moron on her team that came up with that), as if most of the potential Democratic voter base in America gives a shit of a fuck about shit like that.

Posted
5 hours ago, LCHorn said:

This--to @956 Worldwide point, the constant talk about this as a conflict between center-left and left is the wrong way to look at it.  

It's a contest between generations and their comfort in communications mediums, not ideology.  Mamdani's platform isn't winning a Senate race in Nebraska and the next version of a successful Democratic party needs to have space for both visions.  

Exactly - They need to be able to run candidates that can win in places with very different voters. It’s not a one size fits all. 

Joe Manchin could be a frustrating asshole but it’s better to have him as a West Virginia Senator than the fascist riding the Rascal with his bulldog.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Good fucking Christ, man, you are a smart person. Just think for one second instead. It's obviously not about shipping those specific policies to the rest of the country.

It's broadly about listening to your god damned constituents and talking about shit they actually give a fuck about, and promising to do things that will materially make their fucking lives better, instead of doing the classic establishment Democrat bullshit like throwing out inane policies no one fucking cares about like tax breaks for small business owners (thanks Kamala, or whatever thimble-headed moron on her team that came up with that), as if most of the potential Democratic voter base in America gives a shit of a fuck about shit like that.

Ok, well, that’s not a platform. If your argument is “promising to do what people want” is good politics, I won’t argue. I
 

Mamdani is really, really unpopular at the national level. He’s killing it in NYC, no argument. To extrapolate his winning coalition of upwardly-mobile, highly educated people and young foreign born New Yorkers to a national electorate that is much older, less-educated, more native-born, and less wealthy is a bit of a stretch. Not to mention— there are actually Republicans out there fighting back. 
 

Especially since the data shows he’s really not well liked at all among people who have heard of him. 

image.thumb.jpeg.7ce8995e1c9b74b153779af7fbe3809d.jpeg

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bill Clinton as well.

Bill and Barack are easily two of the three most successful politicians of the past 50 years (Reagan being the third) and a good chunk of the leading D intellectuals are convinced that they are part of the problem. 
 

If you give off normal guy energy and make voters believe you like America, they will make you president as a D. This even worked for Biden. 

Posted

The DNC needs to stop trying to court voters who voted for Trump in 2024. There are no centrists anymore, if people are too either ignorant or stupid to vote for Trump... why bother worrying about being too radical for that small subset of voters? Instead, generate some excitement and energy by being "radical" and offering healthcare, daycare, etc. and court the 1/3 of the country that sits out every election cycle. For fucks sakes the next time I hear Pelosi/Schumer/Jeffries worry about alienating themselves from some of the voters on the right... "Well, look... we have to be willing to embrace a little bit of fascism and racism, otherwise we risk losing out on those potential swing voters." The DNC has done nearly as much as the RNC to shift the Overton window as much as it has in recent years due to their pointless capitulation at every opportunity to not offend Cletus.

Posted
19 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Ok, well, that’s not a platform. If your argument is “promising to do what people want” is good politics, I won’t argue. I
 

Mamdani is really, really unpopular at the national level. He’s killing it in NYC, no argument. To extrapolate his winning coalition of upwardly-mobile, highly educated people and young foreign born New Yorkers to a national electorate that is much older, less-educated, more native-born, and less wealthy is a bit of a stretch. Not to mention— there are actually Republicans out there fighting back. 
 

Especially since the data shows he’s really not well liked at all among people who have heard of him. 

image.thumb.jpeg.7ce8995e1c9b74b153779af7fbe3809d.jpeg

 

I don't agree, it absolutely is a platform. It's what politics is supposed to be. Listening to your voters, speaking to them instead of at them, learning their pain points and offering ways to ease them. He's popular locally because he is offering things that people (actual people, not business leaders) in his constituency want. Yeah sure, those specific pain points don't necessarily play well at a national level but who cares? You alter your messaging and policy positions to fit a national audience, something that the Harris campaign failed abysmally at, which no one ever wants to admit.

Mamdani is just doing the same shit Obama did, as you alluded to earlier, which is what works.



×
×
  • Create New...