The message to Democrats is clear: you must dump neoliberal economics

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/19054664

The message to Democrats is clear: you must dump neoliberal economics - Blåhaj Lemmy

Lemmy

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

Two killer statements.

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.

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.

Hahaha, good one. I’m sure that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
But who will pay for our campaigns if we don’t lick the boot of oligarchs?
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

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.

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

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.

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.

Sounds great. How do we get there? Campaign finance law 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.

Honestly? I won’t hold my breath, because the only thing that gets unanimous bipartisan support is congressional raises. I doubt we will see any of my suggestions or any campaign finance reform in my lifetime. We can’t even get a majority of elected Democrats to agree that insider trading by Congress should be illegal.

Realistically it’s probably a lost cause, but I will vote for, and campaign for, anyone running with that on their platform. Not supporting ranked choice voting is one of the many, many reasons I voted Democrat and not for my district’s Republican candidate, but that was a substantial issue I looked for in every candidate on my ballot.

I consider myself, broadly, a pragmatist. Lost causes are lost effort in a world that desperately needs unwasted effort applied strategically. As idealistic as it may seem, politics is a game of pragmatism. All that actually matters is installing representatives that represent your interests. At least, moreso than the popular alternative.
You can disagree in principle, but that’s what liberal democracy is, and that’s what participating in it in any meaningful way entails.
Perhaps that is why many choose not to participate

I think the campaigns at this point can be funded with regular donations. I don’t think corporate donations are even needed at this point.

The key thing to realize is that in a presidential race, you reach advertising saturation. Hillary and Kamala both massively outspent Trump in their campaigns, but they still lost. Their financial advantage didn’t help because ads reach saturation. At some point, everyone already knows about the candidates, and additional money spent really doesn’t help you.

The Democratic party could get by just fine with the amount of donations they can raise from individual donors. They don’t do this because the consultants that run the DNC ad buying get paid a percentage of all ad buys. And the DNC itself simply benefits from having larger budgets in general. So the push is always to have as much ad spend as possible, even if having that large ad spend requires cozying up to oligarchs.

They should. But they can’t currently be. And no one has a plan on how to get it there. Actually Republicans and the oligarchs are actively making it harder to do. They own all the popular TV, radio, print, and social media and are turning most of the people you know or have contact with against it.

The pittance Democrats and the DNC are raising from small donors etc can’t even begin to get us there. What’s worse is that they’re trying to get the money to actually push back. And people want to crucify them for it. But not provide actual alternatives. Actual left wing media is atrophied and under funded. With no reach or presence. But vital in addition to campaign funding. Just completely ignored.

Harris and Biden aren’t even neoliberal lol. The message was also not clear because the margins of victory were small. We know Trump is going to tank the economy like last time. It’s a fact. All of his idiot supporters will keep claiming some sort of perceived benefit because of all the other horrible shit he’s going to do that don’t affect in the positive whatsoever, but they will PERCEIVE a win.

The message was also not clear because the margins of victory were small.

Yes, but remember: Their opponent was Trump. They should've cinched this election.

You can always rely on Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The post mortem is still on-going but there are two conclusions that ring true for me (so far anyway):

  • Harris failed to reach middle-Americans: she didn’t make many statements about how she was going to tackle inflation and help the average American. Instead she spent WAY too much time trying to secure Republican endorsements.

  • As a result, voters stayed home. Many of middle America aren’t politically active. In the same way, they don’t see themselves being affected by Trump’s policies (for right or for wrong). Many of these voters did vote for Obama but couldn’t be bothered to vote for Harris.

Trump is the first Republican president to win a plurality of votes what 20 years? Trump ran a campaign of “ImMiGrAnTs ArE tHe PrObLeM!1!1!1”. He was so unhinged that voters should have voted against him. The numbers so far show that he won a similar number of votes as he did in 2020 so it’s looking like his base came out to vote but Democrats didn’t.

Republicans fall in line.

Democrats fall in love.

We need better candidates.

Republicans fall in line.

Democrats fall in love.

We need better candidates.

Democrats seem to think they can run shitty candidates and lecture people into falling in line.

True, say what you want about Trump but he perfectly captures the hearts and minds of the people voting for him. It’s all passion and gut instinct, the Dems get too cerebral.
Wouldn’t it be great if Pete ran 2028?
If he was running in 2028, he would have declared victory in the Iowa caucus by now.
I guess it doesn’t matter at this point but it’s always weird to me that opponents can’t seem to acknowledge that Trump is a formidable political opponent. He’s good at talking to and engaging some groups of Americans which is why he managed to win twice.

The party must return to its progressive roots. A new economy is needed with new rules and new roles

As in slavery is a great way to bring culture to those black slaves?

You are a strong contender to clinch the gold medal if the Olympics had mental gymnastics.
They’re referring to the roots of the Democratic party, as the more conservative and slave supporting party. The Democratic party is old, and until relatively recently was the further right party in the US. Which also helps explain why the Republicans are red, traditionally a left color, and Dems are blue, traditionally a right color. While it’s not really relevant to modern politics, and bringing it up like they just did is more of a historical bit of trivia, it’s not really mental gymnastics, it’s more of an “akshually” moment. The Democratic party does not have progressive roots, its roots are deeply, deeply conservative and right wing, and should be acknowledged.
When Republicans Became 'Red' and Democrats Became 'Blue'

The 2000 presidential election cemented the color-coded nature of political parties. Prior to that race, the colors were often reversed on electoral maps

Smithsonian Magazine

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.

They knew Bernie might actually improve the lives of Americans and our rich overlords shudder at the thought of that.
Who elected Bernie in 2020? Biden wiped the floor with him. Maybe more people should’ve voted for Bernie in the primary then.
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.
Leftist really live in a bubble. A guy loses the primaries TWICE, but somehow Dems screwed him over, lol
Problem is like a lot of things, even from the far right as well, there is truth to it. Democrats put in the super delegates so their primaries are not very democratic but its because they wanted to maintain a centerist position. It is funny that I would see someone complain about bidens age then say we should have bernie in. I wonder what we would be like if dems had not done the super delegates? They might have went left the way republicans went right and we might have had an actual centerist party come up.
Biden is the most left leaning president we’ve had in the modern era.
sure but that just shows the effect the super delegates have had in the modern era.
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.”

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, Bernie is routinely ranked the most popular politician in America. I think it’s also worth noting that, while conservative messaging is very good at making figures like AOC seem radical or extreme, it does the same to centrist figures like Pelosi or Obama; Republicans convinced themselves that Obama was a communist for continuing Bush’s bank bailouts and implementing Mitt Romney’s Healthcare plan. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will paint them as radical leftists, so they might as well go for bold, popular policy agendas like Medicare for All or a $20 minimum wage rather than small incremental changes that voters don’t understand or care about.

No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will paint them as radical leftists, so they might as well go for bold, popular policy agendas like Medicare for All or a $20 minimum wage rather than small incremental changes that voters don’t understand or care about.

But that assumes they want to.

I think we can look at the House of Representatives for a better representation of how moderate/progressive the electorate is.

Sure, as long as we ignore that the Democratic Party protects centrists and actively opposes progressives in primaries.

The national party does not invest all that heavily into individual district primary races. When a few tens of thousands of people at most are voting, there’s just only so far money can go. It’s very feasible for a candidate with a small staff of volunteers to simply canvas the district themselves.

I’m afraid that conspiracy is not the reason we don’t have more progressives in the House.

The national party does not invest all that heavily into individual district primary races.

Henry Cuellar.

At least 16 Democratic members of Congress donated to Cuellar’s campaign through their campaign committee or leadership PACs during the 2022 election cycle, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of FEC filings. In total, the campaign received some $40,400 in political contributions from other sitting Democrats.

Not sure on 2020 numbers, they’re not as quick to find. Not exactly breaking the bank here though. Almost half of his funding that cycle (almost 2 million) actually came from AIPAC, and a lot of the rest from industry and business contributions.

opensecrets.org/…/democratic-leadership-corporate…

Anyways, details are important. When we look at them, we see a lot more than some sort of “party suppression”.

Democrats leadership and corporate interests help Rep. Henry Cuellar fend off primary challenge - OpenSecrets News

The South Texas congressman’s donors list includes the oil and gas industry and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s campaign committee.

OpenSecrets News
Downvote and no response to my provided numbers, huh? We’re supposed to be the fact-oriented people, we care about reality, about evidence. Even when its hard, even when it doesn’t conform to our beliefs that try to explain the world in simple and emotionally convenient ways.
Demand that someone else entertain you.

It’s not entertainment, this is people’s real lives and the impacts politicians have on them. It’s your unsupported theories running headfirst into hard numbers. If you have numbers to prove me wrong, go ahead and share. But you don’t, do you? Just unsupported online conspiracy theory from your echo chambers.

I’ve been a progressive for decades, we’re on the same side, you and I. I just don’t hide behind comforting illusions.

I’m not required to reply to you in what you consider to be a timely manner. Demand entertainment from someone else.
You were really going to actually try to defend that position? Progressivism relies on the truth. If we don’t have the truth, the facts, we have nothing. We become just like the far right, following a blind faith. That won’t work though, because we’re the educated ones that employ critical thinking. Too many of us check the actual numbers behind the narratives people try to spin.
I’m not going to reward your entitled demands. Declare victory if you want. I’m not playing your stupid games.
The truth is not games. Politics is not a game. This is not funsies, it’s people’s lives.
There. You’ve declared victory and I’m free. Bother someone else with your entitlement.