Republicans made an entire industry out of hating democrats way back in the 90s. They’re not going to work with us. Ever. And every time Democrats try to work with them it has ended up badly.
I think this is certainly true of the Republican Party. But ignoring republican voters is political suicide. There are too many of them. They must be reckoned with, one way or another.
They cheered for the party that said they were going to improve things, while the Democrats looked at the abysmal state of America and said “Yeah, things are going well, expect more of the same”.
Stealing Republican voters is a viable strategy, but the Democrats need to address the economic issues that drive those votes, not just buddy up with Republican war hawks like Harris did
To be clear I’m not saying their behavior is harmless or excusable. But we fundamentally have to reach at least some of them, I just don’t see a way to stop what’s happening otherwise. I don’t like it but that’s the reality of the situation.
Maybe one way to avoid it would be to come to some kind of detante where the federal government more or less ceases to be the main seat of power and the states become far more autonomous. I’d be open to this but it doesn’t seem very popular or likely given that fascists won’t want to weaken their grip on power over blue states.
But we fundamentally have to reach at least some of them, I just don’t see a way to stop what’s happening otherwise.
Republicans have never taken that approach with Democrats, they’ve taken the exact opposite, and yet somehow they got into a commanding position. Weird how that works, huh?
The reality is that the “conventional wisdom” of the Democratic party of appealing to the median voter, reaching out to “moderate Republicans” by using people like Dick Cheney just doesn’t work. No matter how rational it may appear at first glance, it’s been tried over and over again and it just doesn’t work. The reality is that voters are more complex than that, and Trumpism cannot be defeated without understanding why it worked it the first place.
The left and right are not fundamentally symmetrical and cannot use identical tactics and expect similar results. Most crucially, the right can align with the wealthy and powerful in society and use their wealth and control of media to allow a minority coalition to win power. There is no equivalent strategy the left can pursue. Our only strength is that we want to help people and we are more accepting of diversity, which allows us to create mass movements more easily. But that’s really the only way we’re going to ever make real progress, and that means building a very large coalition that at minimum includes moderates, traditionally disenfranchised people, etc. We cannot win with just the base, it simply won’t work.
This is the most important group. A third of the population doesn’t vote. You have to give them something worth voting for, and being “not Trump” or “the party of reason” doesn’t cut it.
It’s a myth that independent is the same as moderate. This group includes people who are fed up with the establishment and the status quo, and it also includes low-information voters who vote based on vibes. You wanna engage them, you gotta have energy, you gotta have people who are enthusiastic to vote for someone and willing to promote them organically. Giving them more of the same thing we’ve had for decades isn’t going to reach disengaged voters, by definition, if it did, they wouldn’t be disengaged. It’s also not going to do anything to peel off Republicans, if you actually talk with them, they hate generic Democrats more than just about anything, and Clinton/Biden/Kamala had extremely low crossover appeal, despite putting substantial effort into it because they all read as generic democrats.
I have die hard Republican family members who the only democrat they ever had a nice thing to say about was Bernie Sanders, and the worst criticism of him they had is that “he’s not actually as different from the rest of the democrats as he puts on.” These people regard Clinton/Biden/Kamala as virtually demons. Why? Because for a lot of people, it’s not just about right or left, it’s also about “establishment vs outsider” and “fighter vs compromiser” and things like that.
You put a far-left candidate out there making fire and brimstone speeches about how billionaires are fucking you and we’re going transform the economy to work for ordinary people, someone who’s unapologetic and not afraid to pick fights with both parties’ establishment, that’s going to excite people, it’s gonna offer something new, it’s gonna cut across established cultural battle lines and bring more people into the political process. It could’ve worked with Bernie, if he’d been given a real chance, and it could work with someone similar in the future.
The thing is that this commitment to keep putting out moderate establishment centrists may not be far-left, but it’s far-Democrat. It’s far-blue tribe. The people these people appeal to were probably always going to vote Democrat regardless. Allowing left-wing policy may be more “extreme” on the left-right axis but it’s more flexible and adaptable on the other axes I mentioned. And at the same time, it would allow them to appeal to people’s direct material interests, and many left wing policies are broadly popular for that reason, even among people who end up voting Republican.
I think you’re interpreting this as me saying that we need moderate candidates to appeal to people who voted for Trump but I actually agree with most of what you wrote. I don’t think just any old leftist would work but my point is there does need to be some strategy or effort to widen the coalition, not just do everything the core voters want maximally.
For me, ideally this means left policies but maybe packaged in a slightly more palatable way. One thing that makes Trump appealing is that he’s been successful at convincing low-information voters that he’s some kind of reasonable, common-sense businessman. I don’t think this would exactly work for us but the point is that the persona and energy of the candidate is extremely important.
Carter started implementing the neoliberal economic policies that Reagan would take further, he was the one who started tearing up the New Deal and abandoning unions and the working class. I’d probably say JFK was the last defensible president, but hell, I’d take Nixon over Carter. There’s a reason he lost in a such a landslide.
Deregulation of radio, end of the fairness doctrine (thank u Reagan) and the subsequent rise of “local talk radio” sponsored by evil billionaires and spouting the vilest shit imaginable.
which led directly to fox news and the tea party faction of Republicans and well, now here we are
The 90s was when Republicans first began the scorched earth tactics against Clinton. It was when all the conspiracy theory shit started. They planted the first seeds of populism then.
Republicans made an entire industry out of hating democrats way back in the 90s. They’re not going to work with us. Ever. And every time Democrats try to work with them it has ended up badly.
Republican oligarchs aren’t going to change. Republican voters can and do.
Class warfare is in full effect and the billionaires need the rest us to stay divided so that they can continue their war on us.
People keep saying Republican voters change, but never enough of them for long enough to make a difference
I think this is certainly true of the Republican Party. But ignoring republican voters is political suicide. There are too many of them. They must be reckoned with, one way or another.
Republican voters cheered on the entire time.
They cheered for the party that said they were going to improve things, while the Democrats looked at the abysmal state of America and said “Yeah, things are going well, expect more of the same”.
Stealing Republican voters is a viable strategy, but the Democrats need to address the economic issues that drive those votes, not just buddy up with Republican war hawks like Harris did
Trump only got three million more votes in 2024. Harris got six million fewer votes than Biden.
Democrats and independents sat at home because of the lack of a plan to improve things from the Dems.
To be clear I’m not saying their behavior is harmless or excusable. But we fundamentally have to reach at least some of them, I just don’t see a way to stop what’s happening otherwise. I don’t like it but that’s the reality of the situation.
Maybe one way to avoid it would be to come to some kind of detante where the federal government more or less ceases to be the main seat of power and the states become far more autonomous. I’d be open to this but it doesn’t seem very popular or likely given that fascists won’t want to weaken their grip on power over blue states.
Republicans have never taken that approach with Democrats, they’ve taken the exact opposite, and yet somehow they got into a commanding position. Weird how that works, huh?
The reality is that the “conventional wisdom” of the Democratic party of appealing to the median voter, reaching out to “moderate Republicans” by using people like Dick Cheney just doesn’t work. No matter how rational it may appear at first glance, it’s been tried over and over again and it just doesn’t work. The reality is that voters are more complex than that, and Trumpism cannot be defeated without understanding why it worked it the first place.
The left and right are not fundamentally symmetrical and cannot use identical tactics and expect similar results. Most crucially, the right can align with the wealthy and powerful in society and use their wealth and control of media to allow a minority coalition to win power. There is no equivalent strategy the left can pursue. Our only strength is that we want to help people and we are more accepting of diversity, which allows us to create mass movements more easily. But that’s really the only way we’re going to ever make real progress, and that means building a very large coalition that at minimum includes moderates, traditionally disenfranchised people, etc. We cannot win with just the base, it simply won’t work.
This is the most important group. A third of the population doesn’t vote. You have to give them something worth voting for, and being “not Trump” or “the party of reason” doesn’t cut it.
It’s a myth that independent is the same as moderate. This group includes people who are fed up with the establishment and the status quo, and it also includes low-information voters who vote based on vibes. You wanna engage them, you gotta have energy, you gotta have people who are enthusiastic to vote for someone and willing to promote them organically. Giving them more of the same thing we’ve had for decades isn’t going to reach disengaged voters, by definition, if it did, they wouldn’t be disengaged. It’s also not going to do anything to peel off Republicans, if you actually talk with them, they hate generic Democrats more than just about anything, and Clinton/Biden/Kamala had extremely low crossover appeal, despite putting substantial effort into it because they all read as generic democrats.
I have die hard Republican family members who the only democrat they ever had a nice thing to say about was Bernie Sanders, and the worst criticism of him they had is that “he’s not actually as different from the rest of the democrats as he puts on.” These people regard Clinton/Biden/Kamala as virtually demons. Why? Because for a lot of people, it’s not just about right or left, it’s also about “establishment vs outsider” and “fighter vs compromiser” and things like that.
You put a far-left candidate out there making fire and brimstone speeches about how billionaires are fucking you and we’re going transform the economy to work for ordinary people, someone who’s unapologetic and not afraid to pick fights with both parties’ establishment, that’s going to excite people, it’s gonna offer something new, it’s gonna cut across established cultural battle lines and bring more people into the political process. It could’ve worked with Bernie, if he’d been given a real chance, and it could work with someone similar in the future.
The thing is that this commitment to keep putting out moderate establishment centrists may not be far-left, but it’s far-Democrat. It’s far-blue tribe. The people these people appeal to were probably always going to vote Democrat regardless. Allowing left-wing policy may be more “extreme” on the left-right axis but it’s more flexible and adaptable on the other axes I mentioned. And at the same time, it would allow them to appeal to people’s direct material interests, and many left wing policies are broadly popular for that reason, even among people who end up voting Republican.
I think you’re interpreting this as me saying that we need moderate candidates to appeal to people who voted for Trump but I actually agree with most of what you wrote. I don’t think just any old leftist would work but my point is there does need to be some strategy or effort to widen the coalition, not just do everything the core voters want maximally.
For me, ideally this means left policies but maybe packaged in a slightly more palatable way. One thing that makes Trump appealing is that he’s been successful at convincing low-information voters that he’s some kind of reasonable, common-sense businessman. I don’t think this would exactly work for us but the point is that the persona and energy of the candidate is extremely important.
I just don’t see a way to stop this happening, period.
We’ve been trying to reach them for decades to no avail.
Nothing can stop this.
Username checks out lol. Many things are possible even if they don’t feel like it at the moment. And all things end sooner or later…
nelson mandela said “it always feels impossible until it is done” or something to that effect
Good luck. I’m sure it will work now that they’re even more radicalized and divorced from reality.
democrats working with republicans led us to weimar joe and the appeasement era
time for my catchphrase. biden was the best president of my lifetime.
which is so fucking sad. the last good president this country had was imo jimry carter. before that, probably fdr, and before that grant
Carter started implementing the neoliberal economic policies that Reagan would take further, he was the one who started tearing up the New Deal and abandoning unions and the working class. I’d probably say JFK was the last defensible president, but hell, I’d take Nixon over Carter. There’s a reason he lost in a such a landslide.
I don’t see what jimmy carter accomplished to rate him higher than half the ones after him.
Wha… how do yo…
Lord help us. It will be many years before I read something that stupid again…
What industry? And what happened in the 90s?
Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been spouting bile and making bank from it for 30 years.
I’m glad he’s dead.
Deregulation of radio, end of the fairness doctrine (thank u Reagan) and the subsequent rise of “local talk radio” sponsored by evil billionaires and spouting the vilest shit imaginable.
which led directly to fox news and the tea party faction of Republicans and well, now here we are
The 90s was when Republicans first began the scorched earth tactics against Clinton. It was when all the conspiracy theory shit started. They planted the first seeds of populism then.