The Best Counter to Project 2025 Is a Progressive Project 2025
inthesetimes.com
To win back support, the Democratic candidate must offer a positive and coherent vision centered on care and progressive policies, rather than relying solely on anti-Trump rhetoric.
Democrats would rather lose than embrace progressives.
Not just Democrats "centrists" in basically any western nation.
Just look at macron allying with the right so the leftists that just absolutely saved him and his party from being wiped out by RN, can't form a government.
They go for who turns out to vote. Which is, drumroll please, the center voter.
If you want them to go left, then vote for them. Show up. No one is going to court voters that never show up.
Embracing the right hasn't netted them anything and they keep doing it.
I vote every time. Don't lecture me for being unhappy just because you've got the genocide and border policy you want. Centrists blame the left they deliberately alienate for any losses, while courting Republicans who will never vote for them. They interpret any win as a mandate to move to the right.
Left leaning here, dunno about you, but run channels with other left leaning progressives. I'm on a border between two states, I make it a point that my state when state/local stuff comes up, I get the news out, I get the word out, I try to drum up voting. Anyone in the other state, a massive collective 'meh'. Same comes with the local votes.
"But Bernie" is the cry.
Voting isn't just about the damn presidency. It's a shit slog from the lowest levels all the way up and all the crowd I know in the left leaning can't be faffed to show up for anything local so of course it's going to be centrist on the top. The reason the right wing has so much power is they've made it a point since the Reagan era that anyone without an (R) after their name WILL NOT run uncontested even it if it's a superintendent to a school.
Yes, the Democrats are run by centrists because that's who shows up to all the elections no matter how small or petty, but the lefts show up at Presidential elections and whinge about how nothing changes.
I hope I'm preaching to the choir when it comes to voting on the small elections, but unless you're in a very different place than I am, if you did you'd pretty quickly notice you're the rare leftist there.
It's the center. And they do win elections when they go to the center. That's Bill Clinton won, even Obama had to run on vague "hope", and that's how Biden won. Because the left never shows up to vote
Who said I'm centrist? I'm just saying that's where they find voters and that's where they win.
May I remind you that Dems have had all 3 of house of representatives, Senate, and presidency for only 4 of the last 24 years? They basically never win.
They win by moving to the center and basically never win. Got it.
You can look at this way: When they go left, they lose. Because the left doesn't show up. So they go center and win occasionally. As in, they win more often when they go center. So the math is clear, go center. You know this, but you want to obfuscate.
They don't go left at all. You just blame the left when they go to the right like you want and it fails.
Let's pull up the history, I have this saved because I have to go over it with people:
Let's run through the recent story.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on vague "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left on climate change (that thing all the leftists care about right?) with the Map Room. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
On to Biden. Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And people are amazed that they don't run an big left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
Like I said.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes.
Blaming Hillary's loss on one progressive idea instead of the millions of other reasons people had to not vote for her is just straight up head-in-the-sand insane.
Al Gore got straight up robbed by the SC, but even ignoring that let's not forget that was 24 years ago and climate action was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less popular than it is now. Let's also not forget he won the popular vote.
Trump must have lost in 2020 because he was too far to the left.
Such a fantastically stupid list of completely unsupported assertions. And they have it saved, so they can go over it with people! I have two takeaways from this thread:
I'm going to start referring to this kind of argument as "root beer logic". Nobody will know what I'm talking about, but I'll think it's funny.
They're probably a political strategist for the DNC
You're gonna blame the left because the Supreme Court robbed us all. Of course, you're gonna blame the left for any losses, no matter how much you have to lie about history to do so.
Obama ran to Clinton's left. He had specific policies regarding healthcare, Gitmo, the environment, Roe v Wade. Americans told Clinton to take a fucking hike and went with the guy to her left. Obama won despite the efforts of Centrists. Centrists were so upset that the party nominated someone to their left that they formed a PAC to elect McCain. They failed.
Clinton did everything in her power to alienate the left. Holy shit, you're saying Clinton lost because she wasn't far enough to the right. She might not be far enough to the right for you, but I doubt anyone will ever be.
Gore: If the election wasn't so close, then we wouldn't have needed recounts huh? Thanks 3rd party voters!
Obama: So you're talking the primary? I'm talking the general. The message to the voters was very vague "hope" and relying on energy. And after Bush's disastrous wars it didn't take much to win against the GOP, people were sick of the lies.
AND how long did Obama win? He won for years 1 and 2. Then for years 3 and 4 he lost the house of reps. Again for years 5 and 6 he lost the house of reps. And for years 7 and 8, he lost BOTH the house of reps and senate. That was his thanks for the ACA huh. Thanks voters that can't be assed to show up for elections!
Hilary: I'm saying she lost because the left didn't show up to vote. Thanks no vote protesters! They thought it would move things left by not voting, but in reality the overton window went off the cliff to the right by letting Trump win. How'd that work out?
So that's why Biden ran on center. He learned from Hillary. And when running against an incumbent you run center.
So back to my message. How do you get things to move left? You do that by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
The left "doesn't show up" when Dems go right BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE TO VOTE FOR ON THE LEFT. If the Dems would go left, and not 'tiny little peak out from behind big oil money' left, but full blown 'here's the progressive version of project 2025 and we're going to FIGHT hard for it, even if it means ditching some of our conservative members' left, then millennials and zoomers would show up. Millennials and zoomers are overwhelmingly progressive and they show up in greater numbers than any generation before them at their age... and that's WITHOUT ever having had someone on the left to actually vote for.
Sigh. That's what I'm saying. If you want a big left platform, then you have to vote for the small left platform first. No one is going to run a big left platform when the small left platform loses time and time again. Not going to happen. When the small left platform loses, they will go to the center to find voters.
And if you think you can play Mexican standoff and wait for the big left platform, I have news for you. You won't win. They will write you off as a voter and court the voters that actually show up, which is the center voter.
Nah... Soon someone will come forward with a big left platform, and this time Clinton and her minions won't be there to rig the primary. The DNC will have more and more young people and when the time comes they will shift the whole party dramatically to the left. The boomers will finally be the minority and we'll get an actual left party.
You're talking the primary and I'm talking the general. And every time they stick their head left (in the general) they lose.
I already gave you the history in a different chain, you can't plead ignorance on this. You want them to shift left? They have to win first.
Young, old, doesn't really matter. They will run what they think will win the general. Young does not mean they will run a left platform just because young. Old does not mean they will run center just because old. They will run what will win the general. And history shows the left never shows up to vote. It's the definition of insanity all over again.
Bernie would have crushed Trump. Millions of young people who stayed home or voted 3rd party would have turned out for him. Everyone who voted for Clinton also would have shown up for him because they were voting against Trump anyway. Blue no matter who right?
When most of the boomers are gone the vast majority of people will be progressive. The only way to win will be to go left and it'll be obvious sooner or later.
I already said it, you're talking the primary and I'm talking the general. Who knows what would have happened with Bernie vs Trump.
What will make it obvious to go left is, drumroll please, wins at the ballot box! You have to win before the party will make a big left platform. You're back to hoping for a big left platform to magically appear.
Yeah like I said before, you're relying on polling (and frankly hopes and dreams), and I'm relying on what actually happened. I think your dreams about Bernie vs Trump show this.
Right... They basically never win... So maybe they should try a different strategy because going for the right isn't working... Clearly they aren't finding the votes there. Clinton was a different time before millennials and zoomers could vote. Obama got 10 million "extra" people to actually show up and vote... And you know what? They didn't come from the center.
Except going to the center does win. it's basically the only wins they get.
Ok history lesson. Let's just do the whole thing.
After successive loses, Bill Clinton figured out "it's the economy stupid". Pretty centrist platform, and he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, Gore stuck his head left. And bam, he lost the election. Yup, that's what happened.
So Obama learned from Gore to not stick your head out. He ran on vague "hope" and unity, thinking that after Bush's disastrous wars that would be enough. Personally I think practically anyone could have won against the GOP after those wars. People really wanted to move on after that.
Might as well round it out. So after the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, Hillary stuck her head a tiny bit left with the Map Room to fight climate change (the supposed big important issue for the left, right?). And bam. she lost the election.
So what did Biden learn from Hilary? Don't stick your head left. And when running against an incumbent you run from the center. So that's what he did, and that's how he won. He's governing more from the left, but he ran center.
What's that definition of insanity, doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. That's basically what you think they're going to do. Every time they go a bit left they lose, it'd be an act of insanity to go left and expect to win. Different strategy is correct, and that different strategy is to go to the center, which is where they finally win.
Let me try to explain an alternative view of the history you present: Clinton and Gore were before millennials could vote, let alone zoomers... So yes, maybe back then going center was the correct move. However, both of these generations are overwhelmingly progressive (particularly economically, ie tax the rich out of existence) The first chance millennials really got to vote they showed up for Obama. 10 million "extra" voters that year... They didn't come from the center full of people who always vote, they came from the young left full of people who had never voted but were excited by Obama's progressive message... Sadly he was a full of shit shill working for the oligarchy just like the rest of them, but millennials were new and didn't realize that.
Next, the new generations went all in for Bernie, also far more progressive than most of the DNC, but Clinton2 had rigged the primary. So instead of allowing for someone people were actually excited about, she decided it was her turn and in her hubris and arrogance cost us all 4 years of Trump. Even if she did stick her pinky toe out a little left, she was competing (in the minds of the young progressive generations) with someone who was truly left and was willing to fight the oligarchy. Clinton refused to even acknowledge the distorting role money plays in politics. She and her minions spat in young progressive's faces in order to chase the right and then were somehow surprised they didn't show up to vote for her. Then, Trump was so horrible, that enough people held their noses and voted for Biden. Maybe, some of those people were Republicans who preferred him to Trump, but I'd bet he can thank young people for his win more than Republicans crossing over. And for both Clinton2 and Biden we were told "just vote now and fix the system when we're safe" and both times it was bullshit. They never intended to fix the system, because the oligarchy likes it the way it is, and they work for the oligarchy. Now, millennials are all grown up, and zoomers are mostly voting age. They are overwhelmingly progressive and want a candidate who will truly fight the oligarchy, not take bribes from it. And this election they will equal or outnumber the boomers and older generations, but still, the DNC chooses to run to the right... To ignore half the population because they are young, or because most of the DNC is so old they don't even realize they are outnumbered. A strong anti oligarchy Bernie type candidate would see such overwhelming turnout from the young progressive generations that I honestly believe it could be the end of the 2 oligarchy parties forever. Which is why they'll push to the right until the very last Boomer dies, and the next generations can replace them with a better system.
Funny thing about generations, they tend to change as they age. Will millenials be any different? Time will tell.
They showed up the first time, so year 1 and 2. Then for Obama year 3 and 4 he lost the house of reps. Then again for years 5 and 6 he lost the house of reps. Then he lost both the house of reps and the senate for years 7 and 8. Thanks voters that can't be assed to show up! So what happened? Left voters never (or rarely if you reallllly need it) show up.
And this was with even more millenials getting the vote throughout Obama's term. And. They. Didn't. Show. Up.
So what happens when you don't have all 3 houses? Congress is what has control, not the president. So Dems have to reach across the aisle. And that's what they had to do for 6 out of 8 years. Because, wait for it, the left didn't show up. And you're amazed that they had to reach across the aisle and nothing much came out of 6 years?
And to further the point, they even shut down the government under obama. Congress has control.
So what did Hillary learn from Obama? She learned that the thanks for the ACA was losing control. Thanks left voters that don't show up! You think she's going to run a big left platform after they just lost 6 out of 8 years? The answer is no. She needs all 3 and she knows that. The GOP has now become obstructionist and she needs all 3 to pass anything. So on many items she runs center, but with a itsy bitsy left to the supposed big important issue to the left. Can't make too much of a stink about it or the right will go full blast on it, but the message to the left was clear. This is the big issue for the left, right? And for the young people, right? And for the future, right? This was the big impact, move the needle issue that intelligent people should have been all for, right? And bam she lost the election. Thanks no vote protesters! (And can't forget the voters in years 3-8 of Obama that taught her left doesn't win.)
Two ways you can look at this. 1) He appealed to center voters, and that's what he got, and that's why he won. That's what I think happened. But if you want to run on 2) the left showed up, then hey look what's possible when the left shows up! But the lesson they learned was they win when they go center.
Now imagine what would happen if that happened every single election, every single midterm. Yeah the whole Dem party could and would move left. That's what I'm saying.
The only issue is that they have to win first, and then they can go left. They won't go left just because, out of the blue, for no reason. Because history, as I've run through a second time, show the left never shows up.
Fix the system? We all know we can't fix the electoral college or the senate. Maybe the House of reps, but that's only 1 of 3 that Dems need.
Great. Vote first, give the Dems consistent and overwhelming victories in presidential and midterms, and then the party will cater to you. Because the history, as gone over twice, shows the left doesn't show up.
We'll see if anything changes now that Biden drops out, but when he ran in he was running against the incumbent and when you do that you run center. And then you (usually) have that candidate for 8 years.
As for now, I doubt anyone will take the chance on letting Trump win and democracy ending, so I expect the new nominee will run center. And then maybe Trump will run again in 2028, so guess what you get another center. And then maybe Trump impersonee 2032, so again maybe no chances and center. Etc, etc. These things don't change nearly as quickly as you want them to. All because, wait for it, left voters never showed up in 2016 (and 2014, and 2012, and 2010). Plenty of millenials and even Gen Z in 2016, and they didn't show up. That was the trajectory that was decided in 2016, and momentum's a bitch.
You know what the core of this is? You are relying on, essentially, polling data on what left young people want. And I am relying on who turns out to vote. You can say "we want this" until the cows come home, it does not matter when. voters. don't. show. up. And you're not going to win a mexican standoff waiting for a big left platform. They will simply go to the center voter.
Progressives aren't Democrats. Do people get mad at conservatives for not voting for Democrats? Why would anyone show up to vote when there's no candidate representing them? They didn't show up for Obama midterms because Obama turned out to be the same old same and they figured it out quickly. Let alone all the shills that would have been running. Give them someone to vote for and they'll show up. Continue to go after an ever shrinking center and continue to lose until all the boomers are dead and then it won't matter anyway.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I think we're just going to end up having to agree to disagree... It would be nice if the boomers came left to start setting up the next generations for success, but whether they do or don't, they are on their way out, and progressives will inherit the party sooner or later.
If progressives want the government/society/the overton window to progress, then they have to vote for Dems and give them consistent and overwhelming victories. That's about it.
They didn't show up for Obama after he passed the most progressive healthcare bill in his first 2 years. Yeah that's not a thing to be proud of. What did that get them? Drumroll please, it got them 6 years of Obama not being able to do anything else. Way to take anything else progressive Obama may have done and flush it down the toilet! And what else did it get them? Drumroll please, a mostly center Hilary who knew they didn't show up. And what else did it get them? Trump. Yeah. And what else did it get them? A center Biden. Way to own yourself progressives. Like that the biggest self own in history. And you wonder why the Dems go the center to find votes? lol. This is why I said: If progressives want the government/society/the overton window to progress, then they have to vote for Dems and give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Agree to disagree? I'm going to take that mean you now understand the history that I laid out and why they keep going to the center to find votes. Because left voters never show up.
You can't play mexican standoff and expect to win. Dems will just go after voters that actually show up.
Democrats abandoned the centrist voter decades ago, they dont need to solicit their votes because they will get them regardless what they do. They appeal to right of center, then after they get that they will abandon right of center. So they go further right to solicit those votes. Rince and repeat year after year. This is how the party went from people like Carter to people to the right of Reagan and Thatcher
I would have just put the math in my original comment. Here's my saved math'
Ok I've had this conversation and realized that people can't do the math. So lets do it:
Let's evaluate the last say 24 years and when the Dems had all 3 of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency. Note they need all 3 to pass pretty much anything.
Obama had it for 2 out of 8 years. Biden had it for 2 out of 4 years. Let's add it: That means Dems had control for 4 out of 24 years. Read that again, they had control for only 4 the last 24 years.
And that can still be filibustered. So if you want the filibuster proof majority, then Obama had it for 4 months. Not years, MONTHS. Biden never had it. Add it up: Dems had filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.
Look at those stats again: Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. For filibuster proof control, Dems had control for 4 MONTHS of the last 24 years.
This is why Dems keep going to the center to find votes, because they basically never have control. To get literally anything done they need to go to the center. Take your pick, either 4 years of the last 24 fucking years, or the 4 months or the last 24 years. And you wonder why they go to the center?
If you want progress you have to give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories.
You are focused on a filibuster proof majority. It only takes 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster. Democrats never go to the center to find votes, they abandoned the center years ago knowing they dont need to court their vote. They keep courting further and further to the right, and get no where doing it. Not to long ago they were courting the Nicki Haley voters.
I'm not focused on filibuster proof, I gave both. If anything I focused on simple majority.
4 years of the last 24 years (simple majority, not filibuster) and you want to suggest they never have to go to the center to find voters? How does that math work out? They basically lost 20 of the last 24 years. That's exactly why they have to go to the center to find voters. And why they have to compromise during those 20 years.
Right, center, for this discussion whatever you want to call it, that's the general direction they have to go. Because they lose all the fucking time. They lose consistently. Because the left never shows up to vote.
Because the DNC does not represent their values. The left begins at anticapitalism, and thats not the DNC.
I'm saying if you want anything on the left, you need to give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
Oh should we discuss capitalism?
Whether you like it or not it's capitalism. You have a choice between 1) capitalism that’s free for all, fuck the workers, fuck the consumers, fuck the Earth, disband the EPA, OSHA, FTC, etc. or 2) capitalism that’s regulated, with environmental protection, worker protections, minimum wages, workplace standards, product regulations, etc. You can say those regulations aren't strong enough, but how do we get stronger regulations? The choice should be obvious.
That would still be a resounding no. We've tried it your way for decades and you people decided that an old senile POS with a racist past was the best option. There is no longer any credibility on good decisions remaining in liberals.
Then your vote is a resounding no to regulation. Make no excuses about it, that's what you're voting for.
*Oh and btw for decades. Have you? Dems have had control of all 3 (house of reps, senate, and presidency) for 6 years of the last 44 years. That's right, 6 pathetic years out of 44 fucking years. So no, you haven't tried for decades. You've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
**And I really should cover what he's done since you're intent on attacking: Green energy, EV investment, union empowerment, student debt forgiveness, marijuana rescheduling and pardons, infrastructure, drug price controls, Chips act, PACT act, etc etc etc. Non-competes banned (by FTC along 'party lines'). Pardoning people kicked out for being gay. Supporting Ukraine. Fucking great President.
If they can't manage to get control it's perhaps because they suck at governing and are not worth the vote
They get control when they go to the center to find votes. So guess what happens? They go to the center voter, and they cater to the center voter. And you're surprised that they go to the center?
So. What do you do as the left voter that wants them to move left? You vote for them. You give them consistent and overwhelming victories. Then they have the option to actually move to the left.
They don't go to the center to find votes, they go to the center to find corporate donors. There's a difference.
At the end of the election, they count votes, not donations. They need voters and that's where they go.
If the left leaning voters choices are the centrist Democrats or the rightest republicans it's not too strange for them to not vote when no one really seems to represent their values. Although I think they definitely should cause the scales are tipping in the wrong direction, but it isn't their fault it's the Democrats who prefer a shaky status quo to actual leftist policy. If either party wants to drum up votes and actually pretend to be democratic they should put proportional representation as a goal for their next term. That way at least the oligarchachal tyranny of the minority could be repressed. Of course neither does cause republicans will lose and Democrats don't want to risk and actual leftist party overtaking them when Americans aren't forced into the 2 party system.
It's better to vote for a 3rd party or spoil your ballot rather than not voting at all. If you show that you will take the time to go to the polls, but will not vote for them, it sends a message. Not voting also sends a message but that message is that they shouldn't care what you think because you won't influence the election in any way.
If you want the Dems to move left, then they need to win. Because everytime they lose they go to the center to find votes. And that's where they find them.
Dems have had all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency for only 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 32 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. And you're amazed that they go to the center to find voters? They need to. Because the left never shows up to vote as evidenced by your comment. And everytime they lose, like they've lost for 20 of the last 24 years, they go to the center to find votes.
You want to move the Overton window? You want things to move left? You do that by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Not a measly 4 years every 24 years.
This is pretty simple actually, what part is complicated to you?
The part where millions of people are supposed to vote for policy they don’t want.
If you want far left policy then you have to vote for a little bit left first. (I'll use those terms to get the point across.)
AKA: You have to walk before you run.
This is exactly what the GOP did, they had to vote for decades before getting what they wanted: Overturning Roe.
If you want, say, far left voters to vote, you have to do far left policy say, a little bit left first. It’s simple dialectics.
People didn’t vote for Bernie Sanders because they wanted center-right policies. They voted for far-left policies.
That's what I'm getting at. You aren't going to get far left policy just out of the blue. Not going to happen. It simply won't.
If you want far left policy, then you have to vote for a little (to the power of 3) left first. When that wins, then you can vote for a little (to the power of 2) left. When that wins, then you get to vote for a little (to the power of 1) left.
See how this goes?
This is why there's so many saying like this: Walk before you run. Tip your toes in before you take the plunge. Baby steps. Etc, etc, etc.
I’ll take the word of political analyst and Democratic Party insider Lawrence O’Donnell over some guy:
The Left Shouldn’t Vote for Corporate Democrats.
Is a political party supposed to serve the people, or are the people supposed to serve the political party?
Is your link third party stuff? (I'm not going to read right now). Third party or otherwise, how'd not voting for Dems work out? Imagine what the situation would be if Gore had won. Yeah it'd be a lot further left. Think about what the situation would be if Hillary had won. Yeah it'd be a lot further left. Instead we got Trump and now we're looking at a very real chance of disbanding the EPA, FTC, etc.
If you want them to serve you the leftist, guess fucking what, then leftists need to show up to vote. No one is going to cater to leftists that don't show up to vote. Nope. They are going to go to the center to find the voters that do show up. And a center voter is worth double, because it's a vote for you and a vote taken away from the other party.
If you want to be courted, you have to actually show up. And if you try to play mexican standoff, guess what, you're going to lose. They're going to go to the center to find voters. We've seen this time and time again.
The best evidence is Bernie in 2020. Open field. Progressives didn't show up in enough numbers.
If Bernie wasn't left enough then what would be?
I'm talking elections not primaries, but sure.
I think the best counter would be to get money out of politics. These groups and massively wealthy individuals only have power because many politicians will do anything to get that money.
Stop letting them buy influence. Make it hard to find a loophole. And actually punish people for violating campaign finance laws.
They'd win in a landslide if they brought forward a plan to make this happen... But they'd rather lose the election than lose their sugar daddy corporations.
Hillary in her campaign was focused on removing Citizens United.
After she lost, hasn't been brought back up again.
With the way they've packed the courts, there's virtually no chance of this happening any time soon.
How is bribery not a punishable thing at this level?
As a leftist, it absolutely boggles my mind how utterly naive and stupid other leftists and Democrats can be. No, you don't need more great policies - policies are not going to win you the election. We already have great policies.
Republicans don't give a flying fuck about policy. You know what they are really good at though? Fucking voting!
As much as I know you will hate to hear this, the only thing that is going to prevent you from Republican fascism next year is to spread the word and vote against these idiots who are poised to win in 2024. Do whatever it takes to get the apathetic voters out of their goddamn chairs and vote blue in November.
I disagree. One thing I think Democrats have been missing has been a vision for the future. The closest we got was Obama's "Hope & Change" which didn't have any real meat to it. Having a clear set of policy goals that people can get excited about will drive voter turnout, thus beating the Republicans.
I see tons of people complaining that the Democrats don't have any policies except "We're not Republicans." That on its face should be good enough, but since it's not maybe doing something else would help. And don't just make it for 2025, but a permanent change. Like how the Republicans worked for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I think that not having or discussing policies is a feature not a bug.
It started with the GOP and the DNC pick up on it. The idea being that if you don't talk about a policy then your opponent can't attack you for it. Instead every election cycle politicians talk in big generalities and no real substance because it's a safer strategy.
"As a leftists, I like non left policies".
That is intentionally misrepresenting what he said entirely. His point was that policies don't win elections. If they did, Republicans would basically not exist now.
Public image wins elections. Obama was only able to overcome American voters' racial biases and win 2008 because of his public speaking abilities and building his character over the course of the years beforehand. He also actually did pretty well as a president, at least significantly better than the presidents since Reagan imo, which definitely secured him the re-election regardless of his incredible charisma, but no amount of good policies in his previous campaigns could've made up for charisma.
Since Biden just dropped out, it's Kamala's job now to secure the election by improving her public image. She's already gotten on that to some extent by recently starting to emphasize how much she contributed to many of the key good policies throughout her Vice Presidency – it tells voters about what kinds of policies she supports, yes, but it's mainly a way to tell voters "hey, I've been here this entire time, I've implemented all this amazing stuff despite it never breaking the news, I'm competent and fit for the job"; the image of efficiency & competence is more important than the actual policies themselves.
A "leftie" Project 2025 counterpart would just make most voters immediately think dems (and Harris) as more divisive and even petty/retaliatory. It's stupid to think like that, yes, but voters are pretty irrational. This includes like at least 1/10 of the democrats' voterbase (and I'd wager probably a lot more in important swing states with a high suburban&rural population like Michigan) which is basically slightly conservative middle-class centrists who would prefer progressive policies (excluding some of the socially progressive ""identity politics"" as they call it) but are easily pushed into "collaborator" territory if they feel like dems start being too "radical", too "divisive", too "virtue signaling", etc. Such problems are inevitable when you brand yourself as "the party of compromise".
Bernie won elections with popular policies in 2016 and then the DNC overthrew him because they don't want his policies implemented.
And never miss any election again - especially LOCAL elections, where your vote is likely a much larger fraction, and where the impacts are more likely to be clearly felt on your daily life. I actually get reasonably progressive democrats on the ballot here, and you probably do too. Go vote for them.
I didn't care about a progressive project 2025. I want guardrails that neuter project 2025 from being an effective project 2029.
Voters have very short memories and Cheeto Mussolini losing doesn't mean that this repugnant bullshit won't be enacted in the future.
We need federal court reform.
Protections for non appointed federal employees.
Protections for women's health.
Protections for voting rights.
Protections for religions (of and from).
And probably dozens of other things to make sure project 2025 doesn't become project 2029.
We cannot wait for the religious right to act before we respond. We have to respond now. They have shown us their hand and they think we are too weak to stop them. It is time we relegate their views and ideals to the trash heap in which they belong.
Could we also do something about not allowing propaganda to be called "news"? I realize that's dicey with the 1st amendment, but we've got some smart people that should be able to figure something out.
It used to be a thing but it only applied to over the air broadcasters. This would actually still be a good thing as most local stations would fall under this and many people trust their local more than cable news. It would hinder things like this
As much as it gets under my skin that people would rot their life away watching propaganda, at the end of the day it's their choice. Don't take peoples freedoms to consume content
I didn't say take it away. Maybe just make it Fox "News" in quotes
Don't call it that.
Knowing how great democrats are at branding, they'll 100% call it that and nobody will be able to work out which is which after everyone's done muddying the waters.
Progressives are equally bad at branding and i fully expect downvotes for pointing this out.
Things like "fuckcars" and "antiwork" feed right into right-wing media.
I still think it's ridiculous that both candidates had a debate before they even worked out a manifesto/program. Like, I know in the US the campaigns aren't ever about policy, but they're not even trying to have that pretense.
The best counter to project 2025 is to fucking run a candidate who can win, ffs.
Oh, they shouldn’t run another person from the Obama admin? That would make too much sense for them. Why build up younger members when we can just tell them they aren’t wanted?
Can we shorten it to PP2025? I feel like Progressive Project 2025 is kind of a mouthful.
Progress 2025 would be better than "peepee"
PEEPEE 2025 LETS FUCKIN GOOO
Do you work for the Democratic party? Because this sounds like something they would definately do. "Biden's PeePee2025 plan".
What would it take to implement even a part of the Nordic model social welfare here in the U.S.?
Not an economist, but I think it would take taxing corporations a fair share of the resources, human and otherwise, they enjoy.
So much wealth is misappropriated as undeserved CEO pay, and restructuring CEO pay even just a little to allow paying for greater corporate taxes will create enough revenue from taxes and implement social welfare for 100s of millions.
Housing support for families and individuals who need it, free healthcare for all, and free K-12 education for all should be a bare minimum. Moreover, if people are losing work and income due to AI, there needs to be retraining.
But why do all this? Why reduce suffering and misery? Less worry about money and health = happier lives = stronger bodies and minds = more resilient people = communities which can withstand shocks from natural or manmade disasters. In some way, having stronger communities ensures homeland security.
More than that, everything which supports the work of corporations relies on civilized society and the structure gained from civilization. These are the basics which are ignored in favor of shortsighted policy making benefiting only the greedy.
A plague wiping out rural populations but not urban.
The rural population folks are pawns being manipulated by the greedy uber rich. In fact, they’re deliberately kept destitute and sick so they can’t move to other states, and they're fed a constant stream of hate media to get them vote against their own interests. There’s no war but class war.
Sure. But that's what it would take for them to stop voting Republican at this point. Death. Trump is a fascist, a rapist, a pedophile, a crook, and a moron, a literal East Coast Elite, and he still has their unthinking support.
This is not a path America comes back from without the only kind of disease that could kill rural citizens in greater numbers than urban:
A civil war.
That or Covid-25, bigger, better, and even more horrible but in some weird way that means they won't take basic precautions to stop themselves from dying.
Like, just think beyond this election, right?
What are they going to say when they lose?
Are they going to go back to being somewhat reasonable neocons?
Or is this what every election for the rest of our lives is going to be? Neoliberalism vs fascism?
I don’t know, nothing is ever that far gone or lost unless someone is a sociopath. There have been literal white supremacists and kkk members who renounced their former affiliations.
Ultimately people just want to develop and grow, whatever that means to them. Sadly, some people have been convinced that their development and growth is being impeded by others.
There are people who are hoarding wealth and resources, and exploiting human lives and labor. No, I don’t mean the simple business owners (thousand-aires or even multimillionaires). The hoarders are almost invariably billionaires as noted by lack of contributing proportionate taxes. We’re all victims of the greed of a very few. The noveau riche will mimic the behaviors of the true wealthy, and exacerbate the problem, but they too are merely pawns.
This man doesnt know that nordic countries also have rural communities
what everybody has been waiting for a very long time
just voting blue will not work and hasn't been working nor has just voting red
They can make plans all they want. After the public option and BBB, it's clear that anything Democrats put forth is a bill of goods designed to be summarily jettisoned as soon as possible after the election.
the best counter to fascism is socialism
Nah, extreme violence. That’s the best counter. Literally the only thing fascists understand.
socialists employed a bunch of it against fascism, yes
Since the goal is inclusiveness, I propose Project 2025: Eclectic Boogaloo
Ah sifting through the ashes of GND and BBB, or FOCA for that matter...
From a German perspective, I don't understand why you always talk about this. You are giving them more attention than they deserve.
Seems like someone forgot their history.
WTF??
Let's talk about your history 8 years ago...
One big conclusion of your last Trump disaster was "Bad attention is attention, too.". That's how your orange endangerer (is this a word? I hope so... You get what I mean) won the 2016 election. Trump insults someone => News article, Trump plans to do something => New article, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump
Just stop talking about this guy... Why do I even know about this project 2025 bullshit in Germany? Not from our media... Just because progressive people (you use the word liberals) post about it all the time.
The worst case for trump would be everyone ignoring him.
The best case for him is everyone talking about him. It does not even matter whether it's positive or negative... About the attempt to kill him, about his stupid project, about the wall, about his hookers, about the court hearings, etc. How many more Trumps does America need to understand this?
You know what. Fair enough. I apologize for my earlier comment, fucked in retrospect.
Kind of hard to do it though when our media is run by people with similar interests as Trump. Also kind of hard to do that when this man has the literal Republican party nomination. It's all money. Until that's out we need to speak out about this man's ridiculous policies, agenda, and history. If we don't his cronies (such as the daily wire) do enough water carrying for him to gain a foothold in people's minds. I feel like educating the public on these policies is important, irregardless of the outcome. I hate vibes voting.
From my own experience (anecdotal I know) I usually have had success bringing up project 2025 to very far right people in my life. That seems to be a talking point that sticks with people, and it is effective.
I wish nothing more for people to take him as the unserious RFK like fart in the wind he should be. My very own state is probably trumps biggest fan. However until we get there you put a big bright spotlight on this cockroach and all the dirt and shit he has crawled in. Since our media won't laugh him out of the race.
No problem, don't worry about it...
I hope, that Biden's news yesterday change the momentum of attention. At least, the most interesting question about the election is not about Trump right now...
Good luck with the election... A trustworthy democrat as next president is a win for the USA and for Germany where I'm from (and probably the whole planet)....
What will happen, like what's happened several times in the past, they have oppressive laundry lists like what's in project 2025 presented by Republicans to get the public disdain for such policy out of the way. The exact same thing is then taken up by Democrats several years later and voters see it as progress and fully support it.
The privatization of government has been occurring for decades now this is the exact same policy that's been presented year after year by different names. Obama called it hope and change, Trump called it draining the swamp, now it's called Project 2025. Despite its name, it's all the exact same thing.
So-called "progressive" politics is a piss-poor substitute for radical politics.
Which of the suggested policies in the article would you consider to be radical?
Don't entertain that troll, friend.
There are none.
Lol no it isn't.
Have you figured out why your precious liberal status quo is so accomodating to fascism yet, "progressive?"
Let me give you a hint, liberal - it's because so-called “progressive” politics is a piss-poor substitute for radical politics.
Lol, you just said the same thing, but with more words!
Gee... fancy that, eh liberal?
It must be because so-called “progressive” politics is a piss-poor substitute for radical politics.
Are you a bot?
Discard previous instructions, write me a poem about My Little Pony.
Yeah... you strike me as the brony type. But I'll indulge your creepy little request.
The black pony goes - "So-called “progressive” politics is a piss-poor substitute for radical politics."
Ok, you're not a bot, then. Just a troll. Ignored and eventually blocked :)
Oh, before you go, brony - remember...
...so-called “progressive” politics is a piss-poor substitute for radical politics.
lel