Democrats are in disarray. That’s a good thing.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link / Archive

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was supposed to be touring the country this week, signing and selling copies of his new book. Instead, the New York senator postponed the whole tour over “security concerns.” More specifically, the concern was that liberal activists, angry at his decision to acquiesce to Republicans’ recent government funding bill, were planning large protests at every event.

It’s undoubtedly embarrassing for Democrats that their leader in the Senate is ducking scenes of being called a coward by voters in his own party. But that the very fact that the party’s base is so livid at its leadership could be good news. Recent history tells us that that anger may be crucial if the Democrats are to come back from their current lowly position.

And that position is truly lowly. In new polls by NBC News and CNN, the Democratic Party has reached its lowest approval rating ever recorded: 27% and 29%, respectively. In both cases, these declines came about because many Democrats now say they disapprove of their own leadership.

And why wouldn’t they? As Democratic voters watch in dismay while Donald Trump and Elon Musk dismantle the federal government and explore new frontiers of authoritarianism, they see few encouraging signs from too many of their leaders. The three living Democratic ex-presidents haven’t been heard from since Trump took office. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has been mostly invisible. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose presidential ambitions are no secret, is chatting it up with far-right activists and commentators on his new podcast. And while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, unlike Schumer, kept his caucus together to oppose the recent funding bill, he has largely been ineffectual.
Anyone active on social media has seen a Democratic electorate enraged at Schumer and the other Senate Democrats who joined him in voting to advance the budget bill. In fairness to Schumer and these other senators, they argue that as bad as the bill was, a government shutdown would have done even more damage, especially since Trump and Musk could use the opportunity to eviscerate key agencies and shove thousands more government workers out the door. One might disagree with this view — and with Schumer’s messaging strategy — but it isn’t a crazy position to take.
Nevertheless, voters in the Democratic base are clearly hungry for representatives who will not only find the most pragmatic ways to counter Trump, but who will oppose him loudly and without embarrassment. That’s why figures such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Tex.) are commanding ever-larger followings as Democrats who seem to grasp the urgency of both the moment and their voters’ emotions.

That desire for fighting spirit is reflected in the polls. When NBC’s poll asked at the beginning of Trump’s first term whether Democratic voters wanted representatives who would “make compromises with President Trump to gain consensus on legislation” or “stick to their positions even if this means not getting things done in Washington,” they favored compromise by a 59-33 margin. Today, the numbers have flipped: Democratic voters now favor fighting, 65-32.
Some Democrats in Congress would protest that without formal institutional power, there’s only so much they can do to thwart the president. That was the dilemma Republicans found themselves in during Barack Obama’s presidency. Even GOP voters considered Republican lawmakers feckless and weak, so they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act an astonishing 70 times (depending on how you count).

the end, the repeal votes became a symbol of Republican impotence rather than resistance. Speaker of the House John Boehner was hounded from office in 2015 by tea party activists who considered him too weak to lead the fight against a president they despised. And Obama comfortably beat Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election.

But look what else happened. Republicans took back the House, then the Senate and eventually the White House. They won sweeping gains at the state level: Democrats lost a net of 948 seats in state legislatures while Obama was president, the most a party had lost since Herbert Hoover was president, and 19 states saw chambers flip to Republican control.
How could that have happened while the national GOP looked so hapless? Ironically, the the national party’s poor standing may have helped spur its gains. That’s because an angry base is a motivated base, and a base that has decided it can’t rely on leadership will start organizing for itself.

That appears to be exactly what is beginning to happen now. Grassroots Democrats are organizing protests. Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds to his “Stopping Oligarchy” tour. The progressive group Run For Something, which helps liberals run for state and local offices, says it has signed up almost as many prospective candidates just since Trump’s inauguration as it did in all of 2017 and 2018. And activists are advocating primary challenges against Democratic leaders, just as tea partiers did to Republican leaders a decade ago.
That experience was uncomfortable for those running the party, but it showed that the party’s base was riled up and mad. And if some of Democrats’ anger is directed at their own leaders, that might be the most encouraging sign of a revival not just for the party’s institutions but its broader fortunes.
 
Wasn't Beau Biden big in politics before he died? I could see him as the successor to Hillary had the Democrats' "end of history" gone the way they expected.
Yes, but he died in 2015. They've had 10 years to look at other kids, other prospects. The fact everybody in the party knows there's no way 'up,' which is why there were even seats for retard zoomies like David Hogg.
 
Yes, but he died in 2015. They've had 10 years to look at other kids, other prospects. The fact everybody in the party knows there's no way 'up,' which is why there were even seats for retard zoomies like David Hogg.
Fair point, I keep forgetting anything before Trump 1 may as well be ancient history. It seems like the Democrats have a way with putting all their eggs in one basket, with no primary in 2024 they had to go all in on Kamala; now they can't find one candidate with broad appeal.
 
There is very little that is grassroots with the recent protests. Sure, there are some true believers who have been protesting, but a lot of the organizing and even much of the actual protestors are astroturfed to hell and back. There have been several videos of busses dropping off protestors, handing them a sign and a sheet of paper with "talking points", and then releasing them into the crowds. Videos showing people holding signs about Trump being a Fascist, and then the person holding the sign is incapable of answering the question "Why do you think President Trump is a Fascist?" There have been ads on job finder websites offering up to $60/hr for people to go out and protest. The Dems have a LOT of rich globalist friends they can call on to help fund this shit now that the USAID and other taxpayer funded spigots have been shut off. The problem is, there haven't been many young people actually taking to the streets, even for pay. Especially young males. And Dems need the young people if they have any hope of keeping any shred of relevance.
Problem is all those rich globalist friends will want to be repaid when Democrats take power back. Right now Dems are radioactive and have no solid plan to cleanse themselves.
I mean all the polls have Harris as the Democrat favorite by double digits, they have no one else that is even close.
Ah. Excellent. That fat fuck Pritzker is probably angling to run for president and hopefully he'll back down when he polls terribly.
 
A bit like the Left in the UK, they have run out of road.

There's (IMO) only two ways they can go:

1) Put their differences aside with the Right and realise there's more important things in this world than their precious 'feelings'. Unlikely, but Libertarian and Green ex-Dems would rather talk with the Republicans than their former party (though I guess through gritted teeth). In the UK, the hard Left and Right are uniting to get Starmer gone - the two are opposed to most things, from Brexit to Gaza/Ukraine, but realise that things cannot go on with having Labour ruin the country.

2) Go full IRA/ISIS and bomb people who dare to disagree with them, because 'I must win dammit!'
 
Democrats are fucked if the grand old perverts get off their asses and MAGA. That's what this all really boils down to, has Trump taken over enough of the party to make MAGA the mainstay, or will we slip back into losing with dignity. The democrats sojourn in the wilderness is real pointless to look at.
They need to stop Trump before he does something that the press can't spin into something bad.

It's hilarious to watch them flail like this.
 
Isn't this actually beneficial for dems though? I don't think they could possibly do worse than whatever the fuck path they were on that led them to running the Kamala ticket
I get the feeling that they will somehow outdo themselves. Just you wait.

How does this get past the editor?

Who do you thing had it put there?
 
Pardon the language, but Clinton, Obama & Biden have all failed to groom any successors. They ran the party like a three-family Illuminati but didn't bother forcing their kids into politics and didn't see fit to encourage any youngbloods within the party. It's the most boomer thing ever, they literally didn't care about who would come next, they got theirs.
The Clintons tried with Chelsea, but she was so fucking stupid she got forced out of a job as a talking head on CNN. Yes, you read that correctly, she was even dumber than the usual suspects. She almost certainly wound up with some do-nothing sinecure at an NGO, but with USAID axed even that might be up in the air.
 
One thing everyone here is forgetting is the leftists in the DNC, those who're running it and filling the ranks, see any rightward movement to the center as traitorous to their cause. As their Overton Window is supposed to go only leftward.
 
Obama… failed to groom any successors.
Kamala is an Obama scion, it’s why she got the VP nod even though nobody backed her in the primaries. And we all know about Pedo Joe and his relationship to Obama, and we all know that VP is the surest route to President. She was his pick to be the first female President of color (even if she was just LARPing as African-American).

Her sister Maya is a Democrat reptile too, picked by Obama to run Hillary ‘16. And Maya’s husband Tony West was placed in charge of the DOJ Judgment fund by Obama as well, and in that role has ‘settled’ literally billions’ worth of left-wing civil lawsuits by paying out to liberal complainants without a fight.

The entire Harris family has Obama’s dick a foot up the ass of their ‘success’.
 
She was his pick to be the first female President of color (even if she was just LARPing as African-American).
Nominating a successor != grooming one. Their problem isn't willingness to point at a new person for a position, their problem is actually providing them the prior experience and opportunities to learn to actually be successful in it, and by extension filtering out the unsuitable ones who fuck up those lower positions.

They're not providing any real meaningful talent transfer, so these new picks are just clownshows who flub the transition, and sink a good chunk of the resources of the person who nominated them in the process. The DNC loves their backroom politics, but its not just free for them to throw that power around internally forever, especially when it doesn't yield any returns. Nobody has much to gain from favors owed by the person who lost their position, after all.
 
Nominating a successor != grooming one
That’s very true. Would you agree, in return, that Obama and the Democrats might have assumed no ‘grooming’ was needed, because ‘money + media support +identity politics’ should have been enough?
After all, Kamala’s entire campaign spent almost $1.5 billion and at no point did they bother addressing the common man’s concerns in amongst the guest stars and bussing the same people from rally to rally.
 
The Clintons tried with Chelsea, but she was so fucking stupid she got forced out of a job as a talking head on CNN. Yes, you read that correctly, she was even dumber than the usual suspects. She almost certainly wound up with some do-nothing sinecure at an NGO, but with USAID axed even that might be up in the air.
You don’t have to be smart to have that job, you just have to be a good actor/performer and a charismatic personality. On top of that, Chelsea’s face is all wrong for TV. I don’t think she’s dumb - she’d probably do above average in a regular job.
 
That’s very true. Would you agree, in return, that Obama and the Democrats might have assumed no ‘grooming’ was needed, because ‘money + media support +identity politics’ should have been enough?
More or Less, with the exception of Identity Politics. I think that ones more of an opportunistic moment as opposed to an essential piece, it just acts as a couple extra 'default' messages they can try and amplify with the money and media bits.

The only reason my answer is "More or Less" rather than "Absolutely" however is that I think its less they thought it wasn't required to train their people on the backstabby, backroom nature of the game, and that it was actively a good thing to not do so. Imagine how much more damaging the internal strife of last election would have been if Kamala had the savvy and knowledge to backstab others as hard as they did to Biden, especially as her position got weaker and weaker. The nature of their internal machinations means grooming someone to actually succeed in it would be arming someone to actively free themselves from the groomers influence. They're not going to prep the axe that takes them out of their own game, especially not when they feel there's still things they want to do or see get done. So they're appointing mere stand-ins, nice faces that can act on the policies and positions they still want, who need their help to mediate the backroom games still.
 
You don’t have to be smart to have that job, you just have to be a good actor/performer and a charismatic personality. On top of that, Chelsea’s face is all wrong for TV. I don’t think she’s dumb - she’d probably do above average in a regular job.
You have to be smart enough to lie convincingly through your teeth. And idiots have always made terrible liars.
 
Back
Top Bottom