It took Republicans:
•40 years but they gutted the EPA
•50 years but they repealed Roe v Wad
•60 years but they gutted the VRA
All three are wildly popular policies with the American people. Republicans don't care. Gutted them anyway. Point is, any Democrat running for office for anything short of revolutionary change to the status quo should just stay home. We need a political revolution, not centrist cowardice.
@farbel are you kidding me? are you trying to tell me hillary offered anything besides not being trump? are you calling people greedy for asking dems to codify and safeguard some of these things?
democrats do not do these because they want republicans to fuck things up, so that they can run on "not being them" and benefit from republican's shifting the overton window to the right.
To answer your question, neither Hilary or Kamala would have been as bad
And both would have followed the #tradDem (political equivalent for politicians of all genders to the tradwife) policies that left so many Americans with unaffordable housing, medical debt, student debt, low wage jobs.
Tthe TradDems fully embraced neoliberal myths re market, free trade, as well as tough on crime, in ways the focused on minorities. Glass Steagall repeal laid the foundation for 2008 crash, for example. Biden getting Thomas onto SCOTUS. Insisting that insurance companies have a critical role to play in healthcare.
And the tradDems were very fond of AIPAC $$$, leading to the horrors in Palestine and related Middle East debacles.
So yes, I voted D in every election for over 40 years because #GOP was worse. But the tradDems created fertile ground for MAGA and their very wealthy enablers.
@malnourishedradica,[email protected]
@farbel
I don't disagree. As I said, I voted for HC, JB and KH.
My point is that the Ds have failed to offer good support for any but the relatively well to do. (And yes, I am lucky enough to have benefited from those policies.). And that's in part why so many came to believe that the Ds were the party of the wealthy.
And that failure to support what had been a robust middle class, and failure to develop policies and programs that uplifted low-income communities (more than just food stamps and housing assistance, in other words) means that claims of "I will fix it" reach people who don't trust the traditional leaders.
And saying we need to move to the center ignores that the "center" did nothing to address core challenges facing well over half of the population.
@farbel
1) Look at the net favorability of the Dems right now. That is not consistent with a party that has earned the trust of the electorate. (https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/democratic-party)
2) Some Democrats have tried to do good things isn't a strong endorsement.
3) tacking to the center on money issues means saying we can't afford to necessary things.
4) I've had enlightening discussions with conservatives on social hot button issues. Those are not the thing cratering Dems - if the outreach is done. There are maybe 30% of religious bigots you can't reach. Had a discussion with on guy when canvassing, freaking out about trans kids in school. When we drilled down into the issues, he calmed down - most of his fears were based on the bigots lies, and discussing the issues calmed him down. And he realized that he loved his kid, and would love his kid if the kid was trans. Remarkable turnaround. And not the only such experience.
Yes, I've been telling my representatives (all Ds) and the DNC and the DCCC that they need to tell me more than that the GOP is bad (until 2016) and DJT is bad( since then)
No response, that's all I get from them- "give us money, the other side is bad"
If voters are blamed for not understanding how good the Ds are, I fear the wrong people are being blamed.
But then, why change anything when you're in a loosing streak? After all, the other side will prove even worse, so voters will come back to us. Not a convincing strategy.
Qasim Rashid, Esq.
David Scott Moyer
oneida
Paul Wermer, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0