Which theory best explains the USA Democrats identity crisis? Which are the TOP 3 reasons? Twitter leftist had 30K vote & I wanna compare here?

[DrPepper12]

So much to choose from...

[Lynx122]

They're not representing the people that's the biggest factor. You see how many people show up to the fight the oligarchy rally by Sanders, it's because he actually has a message for regular people. The polls showed Sanders would have beaten Trump. But the Democrats would rather lose with a candidate that maintains the status quo than win with a candidate that will force them to adopt new policies. If Democrats were not corrupt they could support the message of Bernie Sanders but because they are, they need to undermine him. Everything else is just a symptom of the main issue. Democrats focus on woke issues because they can't focus on representing the working class.

That's my opinion anyway.

[DrPepper12]

Great analysis!! 💯😃

[Lynx122]

Thanks you :)

[Friendlybro79]

@Lynx122 spot on. Money in politics is a big problem and the moderate democrats are just like the avg republican taking donations from big corporations and the rich.

[blueonblack22]

It’s funny how Bernie gets all quiet and dismissive about “trans ideologies” and other DEI crap now. I hate the old communist pos BUT I have to admit he’s not stupid. Unlike the Jasmine Crocketts and other race baiting morons in Democratic Party Bernie actually knows most Americans are fed up with crap.

Earlier on so the called race, gender and LGBT + half the alphabet identity politics were really all just a guise for class warfare. But now Bernie and crew are going to back the well with good ole’ class warfare politics with his “oligarchy” takes. That’s just so rich coming from a man who became a millionaire himself by publishing a book about socialism while touting about the great evil of “millionaires and billionaires” for decades.

With that said I actually have to admit his strategy is actually very clever. He’s betting on the economy crashing because of the Trump tarriffs. While not likely I have to admit Trump’s aggressive push on that is risky. But what could also happen is there could be an economic downturn that is un-related to presidential policy. Bernie knows the American people will blame Trump regardless if it’s his fault or not. Just like they blamed him for COVID and democrats absolutely took inch of advantage of that as possible in 2020.

So Bernie plans to tap AOC on the shoulder and groom her for a 2028 presidential run. He not only will have people blaming Trump for a recession but capitalism in general.

Evil and abhorrent but I have to admit is very clever tactical psychological warfare.

[Friendlybro79]

@blueonblack22 like many people you're not really understanding nothing they speak of is communism lol. I appreciate your thoughts of course but remember politics is about strategy to win so you can try to pass things that evoke the change you really want. In a snap shot They just believe paid family leave, higher wages, the ultra rich should pay their fair share of taxes, and healthcare for all important to most Americans, and it is. We're getting screwed and a few rich billionaires, that control way too much, have more money that most of us combined.

They're fighting really popular things but are demonized, and I can hear it in your opinion.

Right wing says they're radical so they're radical right? This isn't communism it's fighting corruption from the people and their money that buy politicians.

Capitalism can benefit the innovative and should but we're at the point in the board game called oligopoly where a few people have almost everything while everyone else doesn't have enough saved for an emergency over 1000 dollars. Whatever is in place now isn't working, hence why Trump won, but how it won't change , since the people that pay to benefit themselves and themselves only, are the ones surrounding Trump.

[sawno]

That moment you write a lengthy explenation on your phone and cloudflare eats the comment...

[sawno]

But alright ill try to retype it a second time, if this fails ill give up.

The democrats had a strong genuine liberal identity but they abandoned it and shoved all the liberals out. They understood that the establishment is evil and succesfully began a protest movement against wallstreet. So wallstreet panicked and deployed diversity as a devide and conquer tactic. The whole political space got flooded with identity politics and used the socialist communist oppressor vs opressed thing towards things like gender, sexual identitiy and race.

They also successfully established within the remaining democrat base that you "trust the experts" and that those who don't are the out group. That means their original base who understood the importance of liberty, who understood that war is bad and just a ploy for profit a lot of the time, who understood the power imbalance between citizens and corporations and who value real debate got kicked out or left after having seen how anti-liberal that party has become.

All those real liberals fighting for liberty? They are conservatives now. Not the Christian fundamentalists from the generations before us trying to conserve an oppressive orthodoxy but the real liberals trying to defend and conserve liberty while the left is imposing their own orthodoxy. The left chased away all the real liberals and became the establishment they fight against. Sure there's very radical communists who want to overthrow society altogether thinking they will be in power, but when your all towing the line of the big corporations and they share your talking points you ARE the establishment.

That means the current US right is everyone that isn't you, an actual diverse group all currently working towards the same goal. More liberty, less government control and since they believe in capitalism more space for real trade and small businesses rather than sheer corporate domination.

[sawno]

The left is to busy doing whatever the news steers them towards, anyone who disagrees is automatically evil so the ones left don't learn. You took so many blue pills that you genuinely think its all about equality of outcome by force, and being inclusive by excluding those who disagree. Being anti-racist trough racial discrimination. Standing up for womens rights by letting men into their spaces. And standing up for people with different sexualities by maximizing the differences, putting the abnormal ones forward and then demanding we find it normal, instead of pushing the narrative that were all people and who you are attracted to is an insignificant detail.

Thats why they are lost, they have been completely ideologically subverted and the only thing left is whatever subversive messaging the corporations pump in. Many see it, all of them got pushed out or don't dare to speak up anymore.

It means the soul of the left merged with the right. Because on the right something similar happened. The more populist liberal types have hijacked the tradional right, maga is much closer to old school democrats than it is to bush. Its why people like RFK switch, they recognize that. And because the hijack was successful that liberal center you used to have is there now. Now they gotta keep it on track ensuring its not hijacked and that they keep Trump sharp at doing the right things so that both trump and the establishment beneath him don't mislead and hijack us again.

What do you need to do? What the people want you to do. If I ran as a democrat i'd have a platform. A platform of overcoming differences, a platform of increased democracy, a platform of ensuring corporations can't abuse their power, a platform of anti corruption. Take whats working in maga and then build that into a more democratic version since your supposed to be democrats. Be genuinely liberal again, and I as a real liberal would support it.

[Friendlybro79]

@sawno This is well thought out and sorry you had to retype. That sucks.

Could you elaborate on a few things because I don't want to assume things.

You mentioned democrats trust the experts or your out. I can say this is pretty accurate for the most part but, I don't think it means expert as in singular it means experts in total, like just a number for arguments sake, 97% say one thing, it seems like the right assumes it's always a lie if it isn't fitting their ideals. A confirmation bias to accept expert opinion or not.

I think humans not just democrats or republicans do this at times but it seems to be the maga mentality that's difficult to have a conversation about. Another example of this to court room decisions too. An allegation against a Democrat is a guilty verdict and actual verdict in a courtroom against a Republican is a rigged court. I have trouble discussing things with people over this and wondered your thoughts.

So in the spirit of healthy debate, not trying a get ya, but trying to understand your point deeper, would you mind elaborate on this?

Then a follow up would be how can we trust a politician over the majority of experts in any field when we know mostly all moderate democrats and republicans take donations from the rich and super PACs

[sawno]

@Friendlybro79 I can elaborate yes (I went in detail since you seem to enjoy it). Its two sperate things at play that stem from 1 big difference, again it will be nuanced in the sense that this won't be all the way down to every individual I'm just describing general trends.

So, what's going on? Authority vs "common sense". And this basically divides which side you land on.

Lets do the left first, the left democrat types tend to be very responsive to authority. You have to agree with the narrative or your not part of it and must be banned. Thats what the left wing online moderators tend to do for example. Your with us or your a facist is basically the mentality of their grunts. To answer what you want we actually have to look at a more interesting group the left wing people who do actually seek to challenge the right and try to change minds. Their arguments are also grounded in authority. This established outlet said so, this peer study says so, all scientists agree so it must be true. And if genuine information is not from a reputable source they dismiss it. That has overlap with fact checkers censoring dissenting opinion. Now the reason that it is this way for them is simple, its a self sustaining ecosystem. The left wing ideologes have very successfully taken control over the institutions, so all the established sources have their bias. And from the beginning they have been told which sources to trust. You can have 70% of experts agree on a topic where both sides agree, the left wing group will be likely to dismiss the 30% if people in a position of authority such as a news channel shows the claims of the 70% with data and studies.

[sawno]

I think when I say it like that if your left wing you should go, yes makes total sense why does the right not do this? Lets get the grunts out of the way first because I am not going to make the claim the right is immune from idiots who just like their left wing counterparts repeat the talking points of their side. They don't want the left banned which is a plus, but they do like to dunk on them for being wrong in their eyes. But just like the intellectual left you have the intellectual right. But for a right winger what they trust is entirely different so lets dive in the main meat of your question.

[sawno]

How does the right, me included think. They have an establishment critical mindset so ill give you a typical example with flat earth. Flat earth used to be the norm, so all established science, news outlets, papers, etc will have been sure that the earth was flat until someone proved it to be round. Now flat earth is a minority standpoint, not a right wing one but since the right is tolerant towards people they disagree with a flat earther is more likely to be right wing. What the right is sensitive to is if your right, not if you have a position of authority. Their world view being so anti establishment is one that starts with questions. Take climate change as a good example, why is it that my country is claiming there is a climate change issue while simulaniously switching from clean earth gas to burning wood to solve this issue? That makes absolutely no sense, but it is very profitable. That will provoke a right winger not to believe the narrative because if you truly believed climate change to be an issue introducing more co2 by burning would would never have been the solution. So then they dig and find an organization like clintel making succesfull arguments against climate change. That means that for now Clintel wins, they debunked the all scientists agree narrative by breaking down why this is false and do counter evidence as to why its not a big deal. In the mind of the right winger its now up to someone to debunk clintel's claims. And now the important one, they expect people to stop spreading claims others debunked. If outlets lie such as with the fine people hoax they will never believe them again no matter how prestiege.

[sawno]

So on one side you have people sensitive to authority and their world view is shaped by the acedemic world, meta studies and main stream news sources. On the other side you have a group for who a meta study is irrelevant if the meta studies logic can be debunked. Its very much if its true its true no matter what and that side has seen so many lies their default attitude is disbelief. They don't believe NIST's analysis a plane can take a skyscaper down, they do believe the 3 hour scientific analysis as to why this is nearly identical to controlled demolition since this presentation shows hard evidence including the nist models and why those are wrong. Its then required to show them a detailed breakdown as to why that analysis is wrong if you want to change your mind again, any argument that this scientific analysis was done by an untrustworthy source does not hold because your trusted source lied to them and this guy with the 3 hour analysis had no detectable lie.

You will be able to use this lense for everything. Someone who falls in line with authority will respond to the authority of a judge. Someone burnt by authority will want to analyize every detail of the case to make sure that its up to snuff.

Basically never argue authority with a right winger, ask them what they base their claims on and debunk it if its wrong. But be prepared to acknowledge they are right if you can't debunk their claim, even if your front page news claims otherwise.

[sawno]

Lengthy post over haha

[Friendlybro79]

Well thank you for the thought out reply and I agree with a lot of what you said and I am a progressive in policy and we should mind our own business on social issues and learn how to co exist.

Being progressive i am totally anti establishment and I that's a common ground progressive democrats and the right share.

I also agree we should question experts and not blindy trust anyone but we eventually have to say where is my knowledge on this topic vs an expert, vs is common sense measurable? It's funny how we all say things are common sense but it seems like nobody has it lol. Common sense many times turns into the ignoramus effect. For ex flat earthers are wrong and you can believe what you want but it should not be ok to allow those people to make decisions for all things physics. Someone has to say you are allowed to be wrong but no one should say you're out if society if you don't agree.

I don't see real life examples of people being exiled for being anti vaccine. I do believe this is where freedom of speech just turns into screaming matches, while although legal, non productive.

I can also agree experts don't know everything as in the case of science, it's not always right, evolves, and changes. For some I can see that as a good reason to be cautious about science saying it's safe to take this XYZ thing.

I won't get into a vaccine debate anymore because it's not worth it and also not my intention to argue whatever your beliefs are, but freedom to be wrong about listening to sound advice, that a non expert has no educated understanding in something can and will be our downfall, if we allow people's feelings to be more important than our public safety.

It's tough because I don't believe we should force things on people but the better question is how can we build better trust in institutions because I do agree we can't blindly follow everyone. How do you know when your common sense is rooted in actual sense vs fear and or just wrong.

[Friendlybro79]

Oops I said exiled for being anti vaccine when I meant being excited for being anti expert. My bias (hey I'm human) might be showing a little but that's ok. I'm not being disingenuous lol

[Friendlybro79]

Oh my and the run on sentences. Why I shouldn't do this while at work on my phone. Pardon

[sawno]

@Friendlybro79 before I get in to it, flat earthers are easy to debunk because all you gotta do is ask them which flat earth map is correct according to real world flight times. They can't do it.

You almost handed me an easy one because being anti vaccine was incredibly easy to proof. I only had my job despite openly admitting to my boss when asked because I am well versed so I was able to make a logical case why it would have been bad for me to take and when they then challenged it morally I was morally consistent enough that it got a lot of respect. Ton of people got ousted from their friends, families and jobs.

But its a good case study also and I think the people against the vaccine were proven right on this one

[sawno]

If you take the left wing view then all the authorative voices agree the vaccine will stop transmision so you must take it in solidatrity. Wait no we meant you won't get sick. Whats that? Right they meant you get less sick. Well you may not be that much less sick but you will have less chance of getting really sick.

[sawno]

Meanwhile on the right people did pay attention and very importantly here went against Trump. It was Trumps doing and we dislikr it about him. He rushed the vaccine. There were experts who were warning. For example in a hearing a doctor testified that when you get an immune response to a vaccine tempoarily your immune system is om high alert and is now better protected against any virus, even if you administer the wrong vaccine. But this protection only lasts a few weeks. Others pointed to the vaccine efforts for Sars1 and other rapidly mutating flu viruses and pointed to research that was done which showed a dangerous overreaction to the virus in the animals that had it. Which was similar to the pneumonia, that was also a dangerous overreaction. They also warned that mrna had a chance of effecting the dna, and if that were to happen you'd be in trouble.

[sawno]

Before we dive into the now lets detour. I was the first to warn of the virus because I had good sources. I knew immediately about the wuhan lab of virology because the wet market it broke out was across the street from it. So I went to their website typed in the word bat and saw with my own eyes they did experiments with bats and corona viruses. For a long time it was denied as the point of origin, while now this is openly seen as true. It took a while for the authorative sources to acknowledge it.

[sawno]

The dna thing I don't know if that was right or not, but it was certainly a possible cause as to why there's still spike protein is found today despite it being way past what they say it would stay in the body for. And in those people thats happening its causing immune disorders.

And then you had the duration of the pandemic, there was a genuine issue which ended in the summer of 2020. Thats when the death graph was no longer parralel to the positive case graph. The fact they went this long with lockdowns after I won't forgive.

[sawno]

The people I adviced not to take this vaccine are all thankful now. We did all get the virus with the exact same symptoms as the vaccinated peers. But we don't have the potential long term effects.

It was the spike protein after all that was the dangerous part of the virus, and for that alone I did not find it smart to take.

So in short. Its not that its not based on experts, but in a situation where all experts are forced to tow the line and some give good counter arguments the same logic vs authority applies. If they fail to counter that informstion I have thats not even presented to the public and the information I have is counter to what they are saying why would I believe what they say over the experts I followed who were also doctors?

[Friendlybro79]

Ok we don't have to talk vaccines because we have strongly different opinions. I don't agree with some of what you said here but that's ok. I have a friend that is a scientist and deals with vaccines. Known her for 25 years and there's a lot of angles people spin on it. You're not wrong that it was you won't get it, to you won't get really sick and die because the virus evolved. That said the more I have thought about it, despite my feelings, you should not have to get a flu or Covid shot. That wasn't really what I was asking. I accidentally used vaccines as an example and I shouldn't have because my real question is

You said common sense is the right and the left is all expert or you're out of here lol. Paraphrasing of course.

This is the question I'm curious.
Common sense doesn't really mean anything because it seems like most people say no one has it. That said, at what point does someone that thinks they have common sense able to assess they don't know what they're talking about and are literally repeating right wing echo chambers just like you say the left (and people do this too) does?

Common sense isn't something to brag about ignoring say medical advice (non vaccine related) and they just don't feel like the doctor knows what they're talking about. If a court says a Republican is guilty and convicted it's fake but when they have a mere allegation for a person on the left that's enough to be guilty because of the same common sense you describe.

[Friendlybro79]

We are absolutely free to be wrong and say incorrect things but you can acknowledge many right wingers would never respect authority or an expert just because it doesn't line up with their confirmation bias. So ifa court says your guy is guilty, it just can't be true because the other response with the common sense argument you get' "Well come on... You really think Biden didn't (insert anything they haven't been able to prove in a courtroom). Or the "You really think he's innocent?") And I say well if a court is presented evidence and it goes through the system and they say he's guilty, that's the best we can say as we have to accept the verdict and try to appeal of necessary. Ultimately after appeals if it's guilty we have to go with this. As imperfect as we are it's the best we have. But you certainly can't say anything allegation is enough evidence which the right does all the time. Unless it's their guy then allegations are fake, it's not technically rape, the judge was rigged lol. It's crazy lol

[Friendlybro79]

I believe experts are way more prepared and understand complex topics better than the avg Joe who can't watch more than a 20 second ticktock video without getting distracted or get passed a headline lol. They're free to be this way but it should not be their rule of what is common sense.

[sawno]

@Friendlybro79 I put common sense in quotes since its not a good term but one that gets thrown around a lot (Was part of my critisism towards the right to keep it balanced), as in they just wing it based on what seems logical and is well presented. In reality though its mostly argument merrit based. If the argument is solid it has to be debunked rather than disagreed with. While on the left disagreeing with it due to the authority of a different source is a more normal thing.

But "common sense" can derail into a confirmation bias for sure, and that's the weakness of the right. If you don't trust authorative sources you can go to far in skepticism and reject things that are true. But the tricky part remains that there's so many left wing sources and mainstream news outlets I had to dismiss due to being dishonest.

Its a tricky situation for the left trying to deradicalize people on the right because your sources are not believed. You'd really have to engage on the argument itself, track down the original source and present a case. Then its effective.

And yes, what your pointing out is a real issue when people who have no idea what they are talking about misunderstand what the intellectual right is saying and use similar common sense logic without making sense. That fly's off the cliff.

[sawno]

Ill also give you a counter to the court thing since you brought it up a few times now. People on the right have seen plenty of rigging going on especially with trump. For example the convicted felon part while in reality he only did a misdemeanor way beyond the statute of limitations. To upgrade it to a felony an underlying crime had to be present, but the corrupt judge instructed the jury that they did not have to establish what crime that was. Them suspecting there probably was one was sufficient. Thats obviously bogus, in a normal trial you have to establish fact. They could have rightfully convicted him to be a felon if they presented evidence of what he was covering up, and the jury voted that this specific coverup took place. That was what the law they had to follow for his charges required.

So if someone is exposed to that, plus knows that activist judges were appointed by soros they can come to the conclusion that the courts are rigged against the conservatives and thus if it happens to a democrat it must be that they lost on their own turf so they probably did it.

So here's how to successfully debate that. You refer to the case they have grief about and how judges can be biased and corrupt. Now you point out all the discrepancies of the case of the democrat as to why their case was also mishandled. If they don't have counters to this and your not dealing with a close minded grunt it will be persuasive.

Lastly ill give you two people who I don't consider pro trump but do find persuasive. Jimmy Doore and Anomaly. They criticize Trump on valid points and come with receipts, while also praising trump for the things he does well. That earns trust and keeps people like me from thinking Trump is a trustworthy president.

[Friendlybro79]

Thanks for clarifying. I think we agree on a bunch of stuff. This one thing I would like to offer a different perspective while also acknowledging your point to be fair.

"While on the left disagreeing with it due to the authority of a different source is a more normal thing."

You made this point that I believe is true but with context. I think we both know media sucks and presents each side in a divisive way to keep us from being able to talk like this.

Here's what I think needs to be offered to add to our point.
This is obviously the entire right but the left has to contend with every wild eye conspiracy theory from sources that people have never heard of, a random online post from a website that has no credentials, and trust me bro sources as a rebuttal to say 99% of economists for ex. So it's easy for someone to say hey I found a source called buttholenews. com (haha this cracked me up pun intended more than it should) and I have to be like yeah this is not real haha. Alternative news doesn't mean fake to me. I dislike the MSM.

[Friendlybro79]

This is obviously not the entire right shit lol" I said this is obviously the entire right as a typo

[sawno]

@Friendlybro79 Its the other side, its why its my core argument. You have seen to much shit from smartertogethersupersolutionsnewscast. blogspot. com and we have seen to much shit from cnn. So I'd say the right is way more likely to find buttholenews a fine source as long as the info is well presented and credible and they haven't encountered lies on it yet. Although I think many prefer to listen to long form analysis and podcasts over reading pages, I do at least since those then bring in a variety of sources on their own.

Ill give you an outdated video as an example, one of many videos on a channel I followed back then but who I currently don't follow since he is very one issue and cover it well which currently is the israel palestine thing trough a biased lense which I am not interested in. He did have an anti-vaxx bias obviously, but you take that into account. For the pro-vaxx bias I could visit any mainstream site and you cast a wide net and compare them to each other. https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5/TDWU-11-22-21:0

That video will show you the format, its a near 2 hour news and commentary show with a variety of sources, all shown on screen. So critical thinkers like me can then verify any claim made by following the source chain. He's not 100% correct, but he's 100% transparent in how he comes to his conclusions which then becomes a jumping off point. If he makes a wrong analysis you can see the data for yourself and draw different conclusions. Its that level of transparency I miss on sites writing articles with "An anonymous source familair with the matter said".

[Friendlybro79]

I Understand what you're saying. The more we talk I start to think that a big issue is when people believe something to be true they just search for a voice that will repeat what they want to hear. I don't want to know anything other than the truth and humans aren't always honest or just wrong sometimes in good faith.

I can say Experts can be wrong but just not trusting experts because you think it's a scam isn't evidence. I can create a new flat earth like claim to another topic, make it sound compelling and I could trick people into believing it all because of lack of trust in institutions. I dont think the right is any less susceptible to propaganda but I think based on my conversations with avg Maga Republicans, they are not critical thinkers and believe anything their side says. One way for me to tell someone on the right is not acting with critical thinking is when they can't seem to find any fault with anything Trump does and says or anything the right does for the matter. Especially if they argue against a Republican politician speaking up against Trump that seems cult like to me. I am super critical of the left for many reasons you shared, and I think you thought through your words intelligently. I appreciate the conversation thanks!

[sawno]

@Friendlybro79 It is a big issue but not an intentional issue, its because if you have established views and logic its easier to digest info that locks in to that. I can tell you 1+1=3 for example. If you take that sentence as a math equation it makes no sense and its wrong. If it was said in the context of two parents getting a kid it suddenly makes sense. Same thing with expectations of information, if one approaches a subject with the mindset that climate change is real a paper funded by a big establishment is going to be credible and easily believed. If one approaches a subject that climate change is a hoax to bail out the banking corporations by making people pay for an expensive energy transition the same paper would be seen as not credible if it was paid for by a financial instiutions charity. (Not a real example, but I think you get the idea why either belief would accept or dismiss sources).

I do want to encourage you to watch a bit of that video I linked though since it will show its not just loose claims. For example at 25:00 he verifies a substack article he is presenting by going to the UK governments official website and using their own official data as a source. At 13:00 he is citing a scientific study. At 40:00 he's reading off info from the NIH. You don't have to believe any of it because I am not trying to convince you on the subject, I'm just trying to show you the presentation style I personally trust. Its a variety of independent and established sources, and then the established ones tend to be platforms promoting the opposite bias but still agreeing. When you normally promote the opposite but still agree that carries due to raw evidence a lot of weight.

[sawno]

And yes, if you know what your doing you can make a believable lie. It will hold until someone disproves it. If your disproven and continue to peddle it you will be seen as not a credible source. For example during the same period there was a doctor claiming that viruses don't exist at all. But the logic presented didn't hold up to reality, dismissed it as a result even if I was initially sympathetic to her. Same can be said in the other direction when a coverup is at play, the idea that the twin towers came down by just a plane including a third building that was not hit is a lie many believe, but its also a lie told by authorities sources even if there is video evidence to the contrary.

There's an important thing you mention "Especially if they argue against a Republican politician speaking up against Trump that seems cult like to me". The right wing does that trough dialogue. If I hear right wingers say something uninformed I correct them, its not same team so no scrutiny nonsense. Its welcome, and we like to be kept sharp usually. But yes, if someone is to dumb to have thoughts on their own no matter the side its talking points and shut down. But when I see Trump fans attacking him over project warpspeed, when I see them getting mad the epstein files didn't get released, when a decent number of them speaks out when he goes against what they want it gives me confidence. I did not see that mentality on the left nearly as much.

But yes, I enjoy the open minded conversation. Gave you a follow!

[supercutebutt]

Democrats lost because people had two choices and they wanted "change." Lots of people (mostly those living within the doofus community) have the impression that Trump understands business (fucking stupid because Trump bankrupted casinos, which are basically unbankruptable). So after the global economy got rattled by the pandemic, Trump talked like he knew how to fix things with his business savvy. The problem is, he knows shit. He was President when the pandemic started and when the pandemic was raging and he didn't know shit then, either. And now we are all suffering because of it. This was predicted but dummies didn't listen to the wise. But really, Trump's main appeal is to bigots. So they will make excuses for their cult leader as long as he continues the to hate the people they hate. The rest of us are already sick of him AGAIN. So Democrats will take over the next time. The Republicans will scream bloody murder and try to convince voters to give them another chance. That's how this works.

[msmissydc]

So here is the thing, we here in germany have more parties than just two and the more extreme parties won massive ammounts of votes. The previously moderate right party did win votes after going much more right wing. The left party nearly trippeled their votes.

Seeing that I think they went too moderate, they are not a party of Trump enemies even if Trump tries to make them that. All their reason to vote for them was to not vote trump. Why not get more woke, more left, hell even more populist because thats working atm. People dont want the median. They want change and if only one party is offering that they ignore all the actual policies that party brings as seen with Trump voters.

[sawno]

I don't see that, they have already moved the needle so far left all the normal liberals are right wing now despite not changing positions. They have to cater more to the center.

[msmissydc]

Actually it's quite the opposite when you look at political science. Most moderate parties have moved to the right with the only exception being far left parties.
If they didn't change position then they would move the the right that is true, but they did change, so the public opinion is, that the left radicalized because moderate politicians moved to the right.
Abou-Chadi T, Krause W. The Causal Effect of Radical Right Success on Mainstream Parties’ Policy Positions: A Regression Discontinuity Approach. British Journal of Political Science. 2020;50(3):829-847. doi:10.1017/S0007123418000029

[msmissydc]

The emote is a "3 )" I hate auto emotes WTF.

[SolitarySolace]

This poll oversimplifies the identity crisis by reducing it to a few popular talking points, but the issue is much more nuanced. Democrats are struggling to balance progressive ideals with practical policy, and the influence of social media and online discourse only amplifies the divisions.

Blaming one person or group doesn’t solve the problem—it’s the deeper tension between different factions of the party: progressives, moderates, and those affected by the shifting economic realities like inflation or the state of the border. And to act like there’s just one villain, whether it’s Biden or Harris, misses the point entirely.

Instead of pointing fingers, we need a more thoughtful conversation about the future of the party—one that recognizes the importance of unity without sacrificing the need for genuine reform.

- Eva ❤️

[Anonymous]

Based on the list, too woke, the border and inflation. One of the biggest issues based on my observation is the Democratic party, the party of tolerance, have become extremely intolerant towards everyone who doesn't agree with them. During this past election I stayed home because of all the intolerance and toxicity I was getting from fellow Democrats. Another problem with Democrats and the party based on my observation, instead of taking their loss to Trump as another wake-up call and learning what went wrong and didn't work and what needs to be done next time to improve odds of winning, they refuse to take responsibility for their loss and choose to play the race and gender card to explain their loss. Sure race and gender did play a role in this past election, but it was so miniscule it made no difference on the outcome. To have any chance of winning in the future, Democrats need to dial way back on woke issues and focus on issues that affects average Americans.

[blueonblack22]

Well I don’t think having too much testosterone is an issue for democrats.

But jab aside moderate democrats just can’t stand up the radicals in their base. Why? Their too afraid to which has led to a doubling down of the insanity. So surprise surprise democrats have lost the likes of Joe Rogan, RFK Jr and the very “evil” Elon Musk. Funny how he is used to he heralded by democrats prior to his buyout of twitter.

Now it’s like this:

[seeyounexttuesday]

The best theory is reality. The modern democrat party has gone so far left with their toxic empathy that they have lost the support of the majority of Americans. There's a reason democrats leave the party to join Trump's team. They have become increasingly unhinged and disconnected from reality. You're proof of that.

[dustybiker2]

They are weak and can't even come together as a party to decide a simple plan. Scattered. When they do get mad they sound like an aunt petunia who's had too much to drink.

[exitseven]

Trump's appeal. The Border and Inflation. That's what won the election and that is what is keeping the democrats in the basement.

[Friendlybro79]

If I had to guess.. Too woke, the border, inflation

[Anonymous]

Too woke. Not actually dealing with problems.

[Dongie]

I'd say all of the above but exchange testosterone for lack there of.😏

[blackeagle007]

Kamala didn’t offer shit. Only reason trump won

[beefcakebradybatson]

Not being the party of the non- broligarchs.

[jshm2]

None.

Trump stole the election, most likely.

[lightbulb27]

Delusional thinking?

[Likes2drive]

Too woke maybe

[Pterodon]

Too woke and insane

[jimmy2]

Harris, burden and buden regime failt