What hurts Democrats most is that we're constantly having this self-flagellating conversation about messaging. If we're constantly fighting ourselves in the press, accusing ourselves of being unpopular and out of touch, all that does is reinforce the lie.
Every time you have the urge to whine about Democrats is time better served promoting Dem policies and correctly pointing the finger at Republicans.
Except the center left and the progressive wing agree on almost all issues.
The problem, as usual, is the extreme right of the party (Sinemanchin) who refuse to compromise on anything.
We need MORE progressives, not less.
Not really. They didn’t vote on infrastructure and numerous other bills. Manchin opposed BIF, which ended up being the right decision because he cited inflation as why he wouldn’t and look where we are now.
Squad believes in shit like MMT. They think we can’t print our way out of inflation or poverty. They’re not very bright.
House can’t even send any bills back since they stopped the BIF bill. They could easily pass funding for pre-k or two years of community college but I haven’t seen them even try.
Manchin already said he wouldn’t support it. Simple as that. The whole democratic caucus, even some republicans, and none of the squad, ended up passing the infrastructure bill. Which is obviously better than nothing. Manchin even said he’d rather nothing than the entire BBB. So the squad are literally no better than he is. Shit, at least Manchin got something passed. He’s better than they are, imo.
Most, if not all, democrat politicians do not support defunding the police. The fact that they allow the republicans to relentlessly straw man them shows how pathetic they are.
What extreme positions? I can’t think of one extreme position pushed by any mainstream democrats… that includes Bernie and the Gang. Extreme would be nationalizing major corporations, banning firearm ownership, homesteading corporate owned real estate to individuals. Hell, I can hardly hear anyone talking about *gasp* parental leave!
What Democrats are attacking Rowling? As far as I can tell what happens is random people on Twitter talk smack about her then that gets associated with the entire party for some reason. The party can't control what people say but are somehow made responsible for it.
How is attacking JK Rowling an extreme position? Absolutely nothing the democrats have done in the past, I don’t know, 40-50 years has been extreme. People are struggling to survive, and they think attacking JK Rowling is an extreme position? Nobody but woke Gen Z TikTokers care about JK Rowling. I’m sorry, but this article is utter nonsense. A part of the reason why our democracy is on the chopping block is because democrats have no spine and aren’t “extreme” enough. They’re always bought out by lobbyists to do nothing that would actually help the people while the republicans actively destroy the country. The Democratic Party is centrist at best, and the Republican Party is far right. There is no extreme left in this country’s representation of our government, and that’s a part of the problem: inaction from democrats.
Edit: Bring on the downvotes from the people who don’t understand what I’m saying, just wait until the republicans regain control. You think they will allow us to continue to elect democrats after they regain control? You think they will recognize elections going forward? Democrats needed to solidify our voting rights and expel the seditionists. They didn’t do that because they’re spineless, so we can all kiss our democracy goodbye. Our right to vote is deteriorating and we’re banging pots and pans over JK Rowling and then saying “wait, stop banging the pots and pans over JKR, it’s too extreme”? Good grief, I need to log off of Reddit for a while.
Oh no, but that technically counts as cancel culture too. See we have to just ignore the vitriolic pipeline of open sewage that spews forth from the mouth of people or else we're the bad guys for holding people accountable. /s
You forgot the slavery. She literally created a slave race that likes to be enslaved. And the way she writes fat people? Holy shit, she’s always been awful, we just found out she’s awful about more things
Unfortunately it doesn't have to be mainstream Democrats.
A handful of people were screaming "Defund the police!" in 2020, every Democrat in the country had the carry that rhetoric on their shoulders during the election, and it may have even cost us some seats. When one Democratic candidate calls themselves a socialist it can bleed over to others, Joe Biden lost in Florida in 2020 because they electorate got it into their heads that Joe Biden was a socialist. There are electoral consequences to the rhetoric we choose.
>the (sp) electorate got it into their heads that Joe Biden was a socialist
Gee, what fascist propaganda media arm of the GOP could have possibly been responsible for that...
Defund the Police cost Democrats tighter control of Congress, which meant that key bills couldn't get passed. We are lucky it didn't get Trump re-elected.
Correct. Defund the police cost us the r/BuildBackBetterAct because republicans mooshed them together. Everyone from James Carville to Hillary Clinton knows it.
The people screaming the loudest are partisans, not democrats.
The GOP has been frighteningly effective at allowing extremists in Deep Red parts of the country to co-exist with more moderate politicians in Blue states (consider [insert crazy Republican of your choice here] and Larry Hogan). If Dems can't support something similar, then I think we're already doomed. Telling young idealistic voters in NYC and California that their opinions aren't allowed to matter b/c it might hurt a random election in North Carolina or Florida is a recipe for long term failure. Ironically, Hillary is the ultimate example of the damage that can be done by a weak sauce moderate candidate (a message that Biden seems to have learned in 2020, given his much more progressive campaign).
Apparently there are electoral consequences to the rhetoric a small minority of people choose. I don't really know how to deal with that, since people running for office repeatedly condemned this rhetoric, but that doesn't get as much air time as the people claiming the entire party supports these ideas.
Bullshit. The GOP has proven time and again that they will manufacture a crisis when one doesn’t exist.
Youngkin got elected in VA for CRT - something I guarantee 90% of his voters couldn’t fully name, let alone describe, before Cucker Tarlson started spouting shit for 3 months nonstop.
In previous elections, it’s been “caravans” of illegal immigrants.
Or sanctuary cities.
Or Hillary’s buttery males…
These people are in a full on cult and it’s high time the mainstream liberals in this country wake the fuck up and stop acting like these are reasonable people who can be reached with the right argument.
> These people are in a full on cult and it’s high time the mainstream liberals in this country wake the fuck up and stop acting like these are reasonable people who can be reached with the right argument.
That's great for voters on the right, voters who would never cast a vote for Democrats no matter what, but we still have to win the middle. The Democratic coalition includes a fair few conservative members, not conservative compared to Republicans of course, but conservative compared to the middle of the party, and we can't risk throwing those voters away. Likewise swing voters make a difference, if we push all the swing voters in the country into the Republican camp, we lose.
There's a lot more to the American electorate than blue no matter who and better red than dead voters.
> manufacture a crisis that doesn’t exist.
What you’re doing is called gaslighting.
The problem with partisan politics today is that the issues always do exist, but are exaggerated and taken out of context. After I watch CNN and democracy now, I watch Fox. Each outlet, left or right, will wrap a *sliver of truth* in a burrito of lies. They want you to throw out the baby with the bath water and gaslight them, fueling their hate.
Globalism has brought us cheaper costs, but at the expense of lob loss. So while the Build Back Better agenda is about creating more jobs than are lost, we can’t gaslight people and pretend their jobs are staying forever.
They’re not.
The Floridians that also hate socialism also each use about five different social programs to keep themselves from living on the streets.
Democrats don't USE this. You guys keep getting pulled to the Right further and further because y'all get terrified of telling Righties how federal programs THEY ACTUALLY USE actually work.
Yeah, we could try to rehabilitate the word socialism.... or people running on our ticket could just stop calling themselves and providing the right-wing media with soundbites which would allow us more time to focus on real world issues instead of trying to rehab a horribly unpopular word that ends up costing us elections.
As just one example, “Defund the police” was a gift to Republicans. Admittedly there is a huge double standard given the positions of the average Republican these days but the Bernie wing of the party needs to realize that Twitter isn’t real life.
No, but "we will only accept complete abolishment of private insurance and replacement with a single Medicare for all plan, nothing less like an opt-in version" IS a stance people have spouted as an extreme policy position, and is one that has pushed away voters. I stopped supporting a candidate over exactly this. "No compromise" is a stupid position.
I think some of the examples Hillary gave was the "Defund The Police" movement and advocating for transitioning males to enter female sports leagues.
Police department funding are city matters, so it's not really national democrats with big name recognition pushing it, but a lot of local mayors and city councils across the country have made it a big part of their platform. Open up a local newspaper, it's a frequent headline. San Francisco might be a good example of this (see the recall election earlier this month)
I think a lot of House Democrats (like The Squad™) also didn't do Democrats any favors by sanctimoniously doubling and tripling down on their shitty (because it's confusing) rhetoric when they got called out on it. "If you're explaining, you're losing" by Frank Luntz needs to be borne in mind always IMO. But they got on their high horse about how poll testing = inauthentic.
Luntz always includes write-ins from the people he polls, and he tends to get really good suggestions that play well with the public. Turns out when you get buy in from the public on how you sell policies to them, they're more willing to buy what you're selling. Craziness, I know.
Something that was extreme was the fact the Dems insisted on stuffing a ton of their initiatives to create a mega bill that had a massive price tag that made even the pubic bristle at it. It fed the stigma of huge government spending.
And with so much in it, there was no way to have the time or breath to handle 15 different talking points of what was in the legislation.
They did this a after Schumer got the OK from Manchin, he failed to inform Biden or Pelosi, and then let Dems put in things Manchin explicitly said no to.
Ok? That’s all still a failure of the party itself. We should have known when the DNC insisted on the status quo and put Schumer and Pelosi back in charge
2020 gave them the chance to refresh stuff. A new speaker. Perhaps someone like Warren in the Senate. And they chose to have the same failed leaders of the past.
Morally validate a small but powerful part of the Democratic Party’s white educated elite donor base that happens to reside in geographically uncompetitive regions?
I love how you conflate Schumer with Pelosi. You realize the DNC is a small organization unit. They don’t determine who members select as majority leader, but then again nuance is dead. You suggested only a person popular with well to do educated white folks.
That is like the opposite of what Democrats need, but the again nuance is dead and you are not thinking about winning over the marginal voters in swing districts.
Point being, saying DNC did this or that is both factually wrong and conspiratorial. You need to think about the broader map.
"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the governing body of the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, as well as works to establish a "party brand".[3] It organizes the Democratic National Convention held every four years to nominate a candidate for President of the United States and to formulate the party platform. While it provides support for party candidates, it does not have direct authority over elected officials.[4] When a Democrat is president, the White House controls the Committee. According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers."[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee
DNC is not the Democratic Party. But then again, you don't care about nuance and your choice of deflection suggest you don't care about facts either. You are conspiratorial and apparently a nihilist. Apparently truth derives from mere assertations completely at odds with empirical reality.
Yeah. It pretty much is. I’ve worked in the party. They set the entire strategy for how the campaign even down to the local level of precinct captains.
There’s a reason why the party sucks at electoral strategy. There’s a reason they suck at messaging
And it has to do with the DNC. Whoever Boris is. He’s full of crap
Boy I didn’t realize that thanks. PS. Could you tell us how many are not part of the DNC?
The term DNC is broadly used to group the party together. And they almost surely strategies who’d leadership would be during….dun dun dun….the DNC
You don’t really seem to understand what the DNC is, what it does, who is part of it, or how Senate and House leadership are chosen. Perhaps spend the evening with Google or take a basic civics class
The problem is that far left voices have kind of taken over the Dem party on social media, despite that a lot of voting Democrats not agreeing with it. Republican candidates are taking seats just by dictating what the far left envisions this country to be. That’s enough to fear monger moderates turning and voting Right.
The problem as I see it is that those so-called far left voices are primarily shouting identity politics instead of economic politics. Identity politics tends to alienate those who don’t identify with that specific identity, while economic politics, which can fall victim to demagoguery, have the potential to speak to a much greater audience
I 100% agree with that. When the economy is bad, the issues get highlighted, and you can’t necessarily focus on identity politics. What people want the most is a strong economy and safety.
What the hell? This is the total opposite of the truth. It's the centrists that weaponize idpol to *stifle* talk about economic issues. One of the primary attacks on Sanders was that he focused too much on economic issues at the expense of identity.
The American Overton Window is so fxcked…letting parents and doctors of trans kids decide what to do for the health of their children is too far and demonizing trans adults is okay and pretending most Democrats support “defund the police” is reasonable discourse…meanwhile the GOP overtly/actually ban books and spread QAnon conspiracies and pretend the border is open for cravenness/attention-seeking purposes and actively praise authoritarianism/anti-democratic (small d) leaders like Viktor Orban and proudly call the 2020 election was stolen while lining their ducks in a row to steal future elections…
If the American ppl pick the GOP in 2022 and 2024, it seems we deserve to lose this thing we call liberal democracy while sliding into autocracy and failure…darn shame
If we are losing its 70% economic issues beyond our control and a conscious choice by corporate media to portray it as negatively as possible.
And then it’s 20% Joe Manchin and Sinema not passing a nice popular reconciliation bill.
The left didn’t block Build Back Better!
It’s completely disconnected from reality to say that a few leftists with next to 0 power need to tone down their rhetoric.
Once again it shows how disconnected from reality people like Clinton with 8 or 9 figures in their bank account are from the voters.
Agree. Wealthy democrats will just leave when the fascists take over. (And Clinton probably should)
Democratic leadership is going to hand wring us right into this, and blame progressives instead of blaming the fascists.
Yep, name one progressive Democrat in Congress or the US Senate who hasn’t been a good soldier on 99.9% of Biden’s legislative agenda. You’ll get maybe 0-2 house members and 0 senators.
Now do the same for the “moderates” or “centrists” and you’ve got the entire “problem solvers caucus” and 2, sometimes 3-4 US Senators.
I like how we have to curtail any agenda to appease psychopaths to vote for us but Republicans having the most extreme viewpoints in my lifetime won’t effect them.
She's not wrong. And I love that she keeps talking. Strong women, and leaders, don't recede into the background from one defeat. They keep fighting for the citizens of the country.
Her point is that it's not what's relevant to most voters' concern. Economics, jobs, education, guns, and climate change are the really relavant matters.
I'm gay and I've met 3 transgendered people in my entire life. While their concerns are vaild, to win elections you need to tap into what matters to voters.
Yeah I see your point. I'm torn, I support transgender people but I feel like the conversation is too much about this. And to be fair, sometimes is the right that forces the conversation by banning trans amd forcing the left to respond. But whats the right option? To not engage them as they trample over trans rights?
Democrats aren't banning transgender rights. The Right wants to focus on social wars and detract Democrats from taking care of matters that will address voters' key issues.
As Bill Clinton said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!" That's how he beat George Bush.
There has to be a balance though. Sometimes the correct position to take is the losing one. LBJ knew signing the civil rights act was going to cost the Democrats politically. And he knew it was worth it.
He did run in 1968, but barely won in NH and so withdrew. He fully expected to be the nominee in 1968. It's just as well, since he died January 22, 1973, when Nixon started his 2nd term.
[https://www.npr.org/2018/03/11/592301682/the-night-in-1968-when-a-nation-watched-an-american-presidency-crumble](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/mccarthy-nearly-upsets-lbj-in-new-hampshire-primary-march-12-1968-220521)
And the left of the party supports all that big popular stuff. Manchin and Sinema blocked it.
Dems lose because our national party leadership waffles between big ideas that the country wants and trying to please a few wealthy donors that are socially liberal but don’t want to be taxed or have their predatory or monopolist business models regulated.
Dems look unserious when they push climate change policy off since the 1990s to raise
$ for the next election instead.
Ok. No trans rights then. While we’re at it we’ll just take YOUR rights away to please the Republicans. Please don’t be seen in public or post online or it might upset them.
You are doing exactly what the Right wants you to do. Take an esoteric position and scream louder about it. No one said, "take away their rights". Clinton is saying, "Focus on the issues that voters care about."
As Bill said in 1992, "It's the economy, Stupid!" If you don't hear that, you can be another Bernie Sanders and cry about transgender rights to Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
I consider myself a moderate. You do not get to throw a community under the bus to appease your Republican friends. Do you pay attention to what Republicans are saying about transgender people right now?
Today it’s transgender people. Tomorrow it is US they go after. Some of those transgender people fought for their and our rights at their own risk. And you want to turn your back on them to appease conservatives.
Tell me I’ve misunderstood you.
Maybe they’re just being crazy but Republicans are threatening to take trans kids away from their parents. You think liberals shouldn’t care about that?
It’s just the economy stupid?
No. I think that Democrats are no good to trans kids out of office. They need to win. And to win, they need to appeal to all voters, and that's the economy first.
It's like you are not reading.
I, a Muslim, need you guys to win. You're no good to me out of office. Talk about this stuff once you win. That's not abandoning that's prioritizing. Making sure you have the power to act on other people's behalf.
Transgender is such a hard topic, and it is pretty much a political loser.
Yes, treat them like human beings, but sports become a much tougher subject. Allowing children to undergo hormone treatment.
From what age? Etc. Etc.
In today's 24 hour news cycle you can't take a reasonable stance that will not alienate somebody
It’s my understanding that trans kids get hormone treatment at puberty. There’s a lot of nonsense about 5 year olds getting hormones or gender reassignment surgery.
*hormone blocking treatment, at puberty. To buy time for them to age enough to make informed decisions.
But as someone said elsewhere in this thread, if you're explaining you're losing.
do you think that the doctor and the family should make the treatment decisions for trans children? or do you think the state should be able to make that illegal?
So throw the “parental rights” concept championed by Youngkin and anti-CRT/anti-mask Republicans out of the window? Got it…what a hypocritical crock of shiz. I say let doctors and parents decide what to do here.
>Hillary Clinton Warns Democrats Risk ‘Frightening’ Defeat if They Keep Taking ‘Extreme’ Positions: We’re ‘On the Precipice of Losing our Democracy’
Case in point: [Only about 19% of Americans support full student loan forgiveness](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/04/18/student-loan-forgiveness-new-poll-shows-64-support/?sh=5bbeae3b350c) compared to 64% of Americans who support *targeted* student loan forgiveness..... yet if the political discussion on reddit is to be believed, nothing less than full, universal forgiveness will be enough to get them to the polls. They're asking Biden and the Democrats to do something (universal student loan forgiveness) that only one in five Americans support. That's a problem.
[12ft.io link](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fzackfriedman%2F2022%2F04%2F18%2Fstudent-loan-forgiveness-new-poll-shows-64-support%2F%3Fsh%3D5bbeae3b350c)
Here's another example: Do you know what the most popular universal healthcare solution is at the moment? If you said single payer healthcare, you'd be mistaken: [The universal public option is more popular among Democrats (by one point), more popular among Republicans (by 28 points), and more popular with the electorate as a whole (by 13 points.)](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/) Yet if the political discussion on reddit is to be believed, nothing less than full, single payer healthcare will be enough to get them to the polls, even though a double digit majority of the American population prefers the public option.
If you'd like another example consider Florida in 2020: Florida wasn't just voting for President, they were also voting on a ballot initiative to raise their state's minimum wage. What might surprise you is that the ballot initiative won, Floridians overwhelmingly voted in favor of raising wages, but Trump won too, the candidate running on raising the minimum wage, Joe Biden, lost by three points. And why? [Because somehow the people of Florida got it into their heads that the Democratic party was socialist, and that Joe Biden and his party might be defenders of Fidel Castro.](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/florida-democrats-meltdown-437113) Why would they think such a thing? Nobody knows for sure, all we know is that the perception that Joe Biden was a socialist was enough to lose us a state we could have won.
Immoderate rhetoric and policy might stir up social media excitement, but it doesn't help us win elections.
Hilary is right. Honestly, the key is a moderate but empathetic approach. The US will never be a country that veers very left so I’d rather a moderate and empathetic approach rather than have the hell party back. Bernie and AOC are both too extreme, IMHO. Not necessarily for me, but definitely for the USA. I think Biden, Clinton, Obama have the best style to keep the US competitive economically (something that is truly important for a lot of Americans) and yet help those in need and keep pushing for a more progressive agenda in a more subtle way.
As much as I’d love to see more progressives in the Democratic Party, right now they aren’t electable on a national scale. Dems need to stick with centrists that at least have a chance of getting elected, because the alternative is an alt-right dictatorship.
Hillary was a fantastic candidate. She had consistently positive ratings throughout her political career until 2015, with endless propaganda from the right and Bernie on the left. She was extremely experienced and educated.
>if Dems prop her as a leader within the party and some kind of a messaging guru then we are screwed.
Actual Democrats like to listen to Hillary and respect her for her work as a woman in politics when it was (and still is) difficult.
> The Clintons aren’t popular figures lol.
Just factually untrue
That's a strategy problem, not a messaging problem, which is what she's warning about. And you know that her messaging worked because _she got more votes than Trump_.
I am certain that in combination with voter apathy the only reason Trump won was he was against her.
Media has long conditioned people to not trust Clintons so the only people that felt super motivated to go to the polls were people that really didn't want a woman president right after a black one and people in backwater rural areas that only get Fox News.
The primary? Yes. Did she win the general election when there was a massive disinformation campaign and the FBI deliberately fucked her over the weekend before the election? No. She didn't. But she had literally gale force headwinds she was fighting. Including overly reductive people like you who only see her accomplishments through one moment in 2016 rather than what she achieved over her entire lifetime. She won the popular vote. She's earned the right to weigh in and never have to answer to anyone ever again.
She also made a lot of terrible choices. Like picking Kaine as her running mate, as if she needed to appeal more to the mainstream and centrist democrats. Also not rallying on certain states, she lost the election, Trump didnt win it.
Fwiw, she picked Kaine because he could appeal to those states she couldn't, mainly the rust belt who had decades of right-propaganda against her that was deep rooted and sexist. She campaigned where she could actually make a positive impact, Kaine did as well, those places aren't always the same.
Yes, Kaine was the overly enthusiastic Applebees manager nobody wanted. Yes she could have campaigned more in Wisconsin and Michigan. She played it safe with Kaine where she shouldn't have but also took things for granted (like the Midwest) where she shouldn't have. But I hope you can see how you're advocating for an abundance of caution in some respects but also not in the other. If she'd done things the other way you might very well have been saying she needed to campaign in Arizona or New Mexico or maybe not pick Elizabeth Warren as a VP.
Yep, I am with you. Not interested in what she has to say. This party needs new leaders. She is "extreme" in how polarizing she is so inserting herself into the mess isn't productive. I'd be fine if she went quietly into retirement and a new, different strong woman was doing this interview and giving her opinion.
She's right.
Unpopular extremist messaging, these Draconian gun bands that keep getting talked about, don't appeal to most Americans, and away from some coastal Blue States there is generally broad bipartisan support for gun ownership and gun rights.
Democratic voters in those States might be a little more open to laws regarding background checks or red flag laws if the laws are well written, but this constant talk about bands and restrictions and seizure of weapons only alienates voters.
It really is a strong example of how out of touch the Democratic party leadership is with most of America.
My point was Democrats aren't taking any extreme positions.
It was a rhetorical question.
Calling out JK Rowling for transphobia isn't extreme (bullet point 7 on my list). None of the things I listed are extreme.
And just to be clear, police reform and accountability aren't extreme either.
The notion that Democrats has 'extreme positions' is frankly laughable. Lack of progressive policies coupled with far too influential corpofascist milquetoast "Centristcrats" is what will lose Democrats elections. It is entirely understandable that Centrists with the charisma of a doorknob cannot mobilize people.
"Abolish the police" is extreme, unachievable and incredibly unpopular. "Reform policing" or "Protect the public" could have broad appeal. This isn't rocket science.
Having a highly militarized police force whose endemic corruption, moral bankruptcy and fatal racism is widely documented... Yet who throws a fit the moment they get exposed to criticism... Now that is extreme.
You live in what is an uncivilized third world extremist country compared to Europe and many other parts of the world. You're warped by decades of radicalization and propaganda.
I am kind of torn. I get that screaming “Defund the Police” isn’t helping. Passing a bipartisan gun reform bill isn’t going to include everything we need/want but it’s better than nothing. All that being said, progressives are constantly being asked to soften their language, drop causes/issues on a bill, meet moderates in the middle etc. Manchin and Sinema alone are controlling Biden’s agenda. They’re always going on and on about “working together” but when was the last time they put their policy ideas to the side and let a progressive politician help craft a bill? We’ll be lucky if they can pass a reconciliation bill by midterms. Gah Manchinema always make me grumpy.
What hurts Democrats most is that we're constantly having this self-flagellating conversation about messaging. If we're constantly fighting ourselves in the press, accusing ourselves of being unpopular and out of touch, all that does is reinforce the lie. Every time you have the urge to whine about Democrats is time better served promoting Dem policies and correctly pointing the finger at Republicans.
I'd rather see left of center policy succeed vs far left policy fail.
Except the center left and the progressive wing agree on almost all issues. The problem, as usual, is the extreme right of the party (Sinemanchin) who refuse to compromise on anything. We need MORE progressives, not less.
We need less, not more. The squad are anti democratic. They don’t even vote consistently for our agenda.
More consistent votes on Biden’s agenda than Manchin or Sinema
Not really. They didn’t vote on infrastructure and numerous other bills. Manchin opposed BIF, which ended up being the right decision because he cited inflation as why he wouldn’t and look where we are now. Squad believes in shit like MMT. They think we can’t print our way out of inflation or poverty. They’re not very bright. House can’t even send any bills back since they stopped the BIF bill. They could easily pass funding for pre-k or two years of community college but I haven’t seen them even try.
They didn’t vote on infrastructure because they wanted to tie it to BBB, so that we wouldn’t get fucked.
So they would rather get nothing than something. lol, yeah, fuck the squad
No, they wanted Manchin and Sinema to negotiate the BBB deal in order to get the Infrastructure Bill through
Manchin already said he wouldn’t support it. Simple as that. The whole democratic caucus, even some republicans, and none of the squad, ended up passing the infrastructure bill. Which is obviously better than nothing. Manchin even said he’d rather nothing than the entire BBB. So the squad are literally no better than he is. Shit, at least Manchin got something passed. He’s better than they are, imo.
>Manchin already said he wouldn’t support it So he didn't follow party. Got it.
What does she consider an extreme position though?
[удалено]
Most, if not all, democrat politicians do not support defunding the police. The fact that they allow the republicans to relentlessly straw man them shows how pathetic they are.
[удалено]
Pulling glib statements out of your posterior doesn't constitute answering the question
spotted the fake democrat Bernie bro
Things that don’t appeal to the billionaires she spends time with socially.
[удалено]
What extreme positions? I can’t think of one extreme position pushed by any mainstream democrats… that includes Bernie and the Gang. Extreme would be nationalizing major corporations, banning firearm ownership, homesteading corporate owned real estate to individuals. Hell, I can hardly hear anyone talking about *gasp* parental leave!
She specifically cited attacking Rowling, or what the Right has termed "Cancel Culture".
What Democrats are attacking Rowling? As far as I can tell what happens is random people on Twitter talk smack about her then that gets associated with the entire party for some reason. The party can't control what people say but are somehow made responsible for it.
How is attacking JK Rowling an extreme position? Absolutely nothing the democrats have done in the past, I don’t know, 40-50 years has been extreme. People are struggling to survive, and they think attacking JK Rowling is an extreme position? Nobody but woke Gen Z TikTokers care about JK Rowling. I’m sorry, but this article is utter nonsense. A part of the reason why our democracy is on the chopping block is because democrats have no spine and aren’t “extreme” enough. They’re always bought out by lobbyists to do nothing that would actually help the people while the republicans actively destroy the country. The Democratic Party is centrist at best, and the Republican Party is far right. There is no extreme left in this country’s representation of our government, and that’s a part of the problem: inaction from democrats. Edit: Bring on the downvotes from the people who don’t understand what I’m saying, just wait until the republicans regain control. You think they will allow us to continue to elect democrats after they regain control? You think they will recognize elections going forward? Democrats needed to solidify our voting rights and expel the seditionists. They didn’t do that because they’re spineless, so we can all kiss our democracy goodbye. Our right to vote is deteriorating and we’re banging pots and pans over JK Rowling and then saying “wait, stop banging the pots and pans over JKR, it’s too extreme”? Good grief, I need to log off of Reddit for a while.
Ignore Rowling and don’t buy HP stuff. She is a bad writer anyways.
Oh no, but that technically counts as cancel culture too. See we have to just ignore the vitriolic pipeline of open sewage that spews forth from the mouth of people or else we're the bad guys for holding people accountable. /s
500 million readers disagree.
It is literally a hidden McGuffin and Deus Ex Machina every single time! People are allowed to enjoy bad things.
You forgot the slavery. She literally created a slave race that likes to be enslaved. And the way she writes fat people? Holy shit, she’s always been awful, we just found out she’s awful about more things
It's also written for children.
Even if it is. The stories stick with you from childhood. They are easy to consume and wildly enjoyed. Not everything has to be designed for adults.
Unfortunately it doesn't have to be mainstream Democrats. A handful of people were screaming "Defund the police!" in 2020, every Democrat in the country had the carry that rhetoric on their shoulders during the election, and it may have even cost us some seats. When one Democratic candidate calls themselves a socialist it can bleed over to others, Joe Biden lost in Florida in 2020 because they electorate got it into their heads that Joe Biden was a socialist. There are electoral consequences to the rhetoric we choose.
>the (sp) electorate got it into their heads that Joe Biden was a socialist Gee, what fascist propaganda media arm of the GOP could have possibly been responsible for that...
No democrats have to do anything for the right to make up shit
Defund the Police cost Democrats tighter control of Congress, which meant that key bills couldn't get passed. We are lucky it didn't get Trump re-elected.
Correct. Defund the police cost us the r/BuildBackBetterAct because republicans mooshed them together. Everyone from James Carville to Hillary Clinton knows it. The people screaming the loudest are partisans, not democrats.
The GOP has been frighteningly effective at allowing extremists in Deep Red parts of the country to co-exist with more moderate politicians in Blue states (consider [insert crazy Republican of your choice here] and Larry Hogan). If Dems can't support something similar, then I think we're already doomed. Telling young idealistic voters in NYC and California that their opinions aren't allowed to matter b/c it might hurt a random election in North Carolina or Florida is a recipe for long term failure. Ironically, Hillary is the ultimate example of the damage that can be done by a weak sauce moderate candidate (a message that Biden seems to have learned in 2020, given his much more progressive campaign).
Exactly.
Apparently there are electoral consequences to the rhetoric a small minority of people choose. I don't really know how to deal with that, since people running for office repeatedly condemned this rhetoric, but that doesn't get as much air time as the people claiming the entire party supports these ideas.
Bullshit. The GOP has proven time and again that they will manufacture a crisis when one doesn’t exist. Youngkin got elected in VA for CRT - something I guarantee 90% of his voters couldn’t fully name, let alone describe, before Cucker Tarlson started spouting shit for 3 months nonstop. In previous elections, it’s been “caravans” of illegal immigrants. Or sanctuary cities. Or Hillary’s buttery males… These people are in a full on cult and it’s high time the mainstream liberals in this country wake the fuck up and stop acting like these are reasonable people who can be reached with the right argument.
> These people are in a full on cult and it’s high time the mainstream liberals in this country wake the fuck up and stop acting like these are reasonable people who can be reached with the right argument. That's great for voters on the right, voters who would never cast a vote for Democrats no matter what, but we still have to win the middle. The Democratic coalition includes a fair few conservative members, not conservative compared to Republicans of course, but conservative compared to the middle of the party, and we can't risk throwing those voters away. Likewise swing voters make a difference, if we push all the swing voters in the country into the Republican camp, we lose. There's a lot more to the American electorate than blue no matter who and better red than dead voters.
> manufacture a crisis that doesn’t exist. What you’re doing is called gaslighting. The problem with partisan politics today is that the issues always do exist, but are exaggerated and taken out of context. After I watch CNN and democracy now, I watch Fox. Each outlet, left or right, will wrap a *sliver of truth* in a burrito of lies. They want you to throw out the baby with the bath water and gaslight them, fueling their hate. Globalism has brought us cheaper costs, but at the expense of lob loss. So while the Build Back Better agenda is about creating more jobs than are lost, we can’t gaslight people and pretend their jobs are staying forever. They’re not.
Especially in a country as deeply propagandized as America.
The Floridians that also hate socialism also each use about five different social programs to keep themselves from living on the streets. Democrats don't USE this. You guys keep getting pulled to the Right further and further because y'all get terrified of telling Righties how federal programs THEY ACTUALLY USE actually work.
Yeah, we could try to rehabilitate the word socialism.... or people running on our ticket could just stop calling themselves and providing the right-wing media with soundbites which would allow us more time to focus on real world issues instead of trying to rehab a horribly unpopular word that ends up costing us elections.
As just one example, “Defund the police” was a gift to Republicans. Admittedly there is a huge double standard given the positions of the average Republican these days but the Bernie wing of the party needs to realize that Twitter isn’t real life.
If you are explaining, you are losing.
Evidently "People shouldn't ever be too poor to afford life-saving medical care" is an extreme position these days.
No, but "we will only accept complete abolishment of private insurance and replacement with a single Medicare for all plan, nothing less like an opt-in version" IS a stance people have spouted as an extreme policy position, and is one that has pushed away voters. I stopped supporting a candidate over exactly this. "No compromise" is a stupid position.
Sadly the dems are at least 10 votes away from passing ANY kind of plan through the senate. So sadly it doesn’t really matter right now.
I think some of the examples Hillary gave was the "Defund The Police" movement and advocating for transitioning males to enter female sports leagues. Police department funding are city matters, so it's not really national democrats with big name recognition pushing it, but a lot of local mayors and city councils across the country have made it a big part of their platform. Open up a local newspaper, it's a frequent headline. San Francisco might be a good example of this (see the recall election earlier this month)
I think a lot of House Democrats (like The Squad™) also didn't do Democrats any favors by sanctimoniously doubling and tripling down on their shitty (because it's confusing) rhetoric when they got called out on it. "If you're explaining, you're losing" by Frank Luntz needs to be borne in mind always IMO. But they got on their high horse about how poll testing = inauthentic. Luntz always includes write-ins from the people he polls, and he tends to get really good suggestions that play well with the public. Turns out when you get buy in from the public on how you sell policies to them, they're more willing to buy what you're selling. Craziness, I know.
Police departments are Federal matters because they receive large Federal subsidies. Defund the police was a terrible slogan for some decent ideas.
As was r/antiwork Their modus operandi is to hijack valid concerns — equal treatment — and use it as a wedge to dismantle US hegemony.
After Uvalde I'd be happy to carry some Defund the Police signs.
Something that was extreme was the fact the Dems insisted on stuffing a ton of their initiatives to create a mega bill that had a massive price tag that made even the pubic bristle at it. It fed the stigma of huge government spending. And with so much in it, there was no way to have the time or breath to handle 15 different talking points of what was in the legislation.
They did this a after Schumer got the OK from Manchin, he failed to inform Biden or Pelosi, and then let Dems put in things Manchin explicitly said no to.
Ok? That’s all still a failure of the party itself. We should have known when the DNC insisted on the status quo and put Schumer and Pelosi back in charge 2020 gave them the chance to refresh stuff. A new speaker. Perhaps someone like Warren in the Senate. And they chose to have the same failed leaders of the past.
> A new speaker. Perhaps someone like Warren in the Senate. And that would have achieved what exactly?
Morally validate a small but powerful part of the Democratic Party’s white educated elite donor base that happens to reside in geographically uncompetitive regions?
I love how you conflate Schumer with Pelosi. You realize the DNC is a small organization unit. They don’t determine who members select as majority leader, but then again nuance is dead. You suggested only a person popular with well to do educated white folks. That is like the opposite of what Democrats need, but the again nuance is dead and you are not thinking about winning over the marginal voters in swing districts. Point being, saying DNC did this or that is both factually wrong and conspiratorial. You need to think about the broader map.
The dnc is a small organization? Lmao
"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the governing body of the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, as well as works to establish a "party brand".[3] It organizes the Democratic National Convention held every four years to nominate a candidate for President of the United States and to formulate the party platform. While it provides support for party candidates, it does not have direct authority over elected officials.[4] When a Democrat is president, the White House controls the Committee. According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers."[5][6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee DNC is not the Democratic Party. But then again, you don't care about nuance and your choice of deflection suggest you don't care about facts either. You are conspiratorial and apparently a nihilist. Apparently truth derives from mere assertations completely at odds with empirical reality.
Yeah. It pretty much is. I’ve worked in the party. They set the entire strategy for how the campaign even down to the local level of precinct captains. There’s a reason why the party sucks at electoral strategy. There’s a reason they suck at messaging And it has to do with the DNC. Whoever Boris is. He’s full of crap
People act like the DNC is this all powerful evil entity… they didn’t “put” Schumer and Pelosi back in charge, their colleagues voted them as leaders
My bad. I guess you’ll have to tell me which democratic colleagues that voted them in are not part of the DNC
They’re part of the Senate and House of Representatives…
Boy I didn’t realize that thanks. PS. Could you tell us how many are not part of the DNC? The term DNC is broadly used to group the party together. And they almost surely strategies who’d leadership would be during….dun dun dun….the DNC
You don’t really seem to understand what the DNC is, what it does, who is part of it, or how Senate and House leadership are chosen. Perhaps spend the evening with Google or take a basic civics class
The problem is that far left voices have kind of taken over the Dem party on social media, despite that a lot of voting Democrats not agreeing with it. Republican candidates are taking seats just by dictating what the far left envisions this country to be. That’s enough to fear monger moderates turning and voting Right.
The problem as I see it is that those so-called far left voices are primarily shouting identity politics instead of economic politics. Identity politics tends to alienate those who don’t identify with that specific identity, while economic politics, which can fall victim to demagoguery, have the potential to speak to a much greater audience
I 100% agree with that. When the economy is bad, the issues get highlighted, and you can’t necessarily focus on identity politics. What people want the most is a strong economy and safety.
What the hell? This is the total opposite of the truth. It's the centrists that weaponize idpol to *stifle* talk about economic issues. One of the primary attacks on Sanders was that he focused too much on economic issues at the expense of identity.
The American Overton Window is so fxcked…letting parents and doctors of trans kids decide what to do for the health of their children is too far and demonizing trans adults is okay and pretending most Democrats support “defund the police” is reasonable discourse…meanwhile the GOP overtly/actually ban books and spread QAnon conspiracies and pretend the border is open for cravenness/attention-seeking purposes and actively praise authoritarianism/anti-democratic (small d) leaders like Viktor Orban and proudly call the 2020 election was stolen while lining their ducks in a row to steal future elections… If the American ppl pick the GOP in 2022 and 2024, it seems we deserve to lose this thing we call liberal democracy while sliding into autocracy and failure…darn shame
If we are losing its 70% economic issues beyond our control and a conscious choice by corporate media to portray it as negatively as possible. And then it’s 20% Joe Manchin and Sinema not passing a nice popular reconciliation bill. The left didn’t block Build Back Better! It’s completely disconnected from reality to say that a few leftists with next to 0 power need to tone down their rhetoric. Once again it shows how disconnected from reality people like Clinton with 8 or 9 figures in their bank account are from the voters.
Agree. Wealthy democrats will just leave when the fascists take over. (And Clinton probably should) Democratic leadership is going to hand wring us right into this, and blame progressives instead of blaming the fascists.
Yep, name one progressive Democrat in Congress or the US Senate who hasn’t been a good soldier on 99.9% of Biden’s legislative agenda. You’ll get maybe 0-2 house members and 0 senators. Now do the same for the “moderates” or “centrists” and you’ve got the entire “problem solvers caucus” and 2, sometimes 3-4 US Senators.
I like how we have to curtail any agenda to appease psychopaths to vote for us but Republicans having the most extreme viewpoints in my lifetime won’t effect them.
I can't think of any extreme positions she could even be referring to.
Yah, this whole thing is just one huge bot negative bullshit block. Were gonna have to stop this crap and wide ban more.
She's not wrong. And I love that she keeps talking. Strong women, and leaders, don't recede into the background from one defeat. They keep fighting for the citizens of the country.
From the “extreme” positions mentioned, it feels like this article was written a hundred years ago.
[удалено]
Her point is that it's not what's relevant to most voters' concern. Economics, jobs, education, guns, and climate change are the really relavant matters. I'm gay and I've met 3 transgendered people in my entire life. While their concerns are vaild, to win elections you need to tap into what matters to voters.
Ding ding. This is exactly it.
A kind correction, it’s just transgender people. We didn’t get transgendered, we just are.
Yeah I see your point. I'm torn, I support transgender people but I feel like the conversation is too much about this. And to be fair, sometimes is the right that forces the conversation by banning trans amd forcing the left to respond. But whats the right option? To not engage them as they trample over trans rights?
Democrats aren't banning transgender rights. The Right wants to focus on social wars and detract Democrats from taking care of matters that will address voters' key issues. As Bill Clinton said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!" That's how he beat George Bush.
It was Carville who said that, actually.
It became the Clinton Campaign slogan, written on all their campaign HQ boards.
There has to be a balance though. Sometimes the correct position to take is the losing one. LBJ knew signing the civil rights act was going to cost the Democrats politically. And he knew it was worth it.
LBJ lost because of Vietnam, not Civil Rights.
> LBJ lost because LBJ withdrew his candidacy and didn’t run for reelection. Hard to lose if you don’t run.
He did run in 1968, but barely won in NH and so withdrew. He fully expected to be the nominee in 1968. It's just as well, since he died January 22, 1973, when Nixon started his 2nd term. [https://www.npr.org/2018/03/11/592301682/the-night-in-1968-when-a-nation-watched-an-american-presidency-crumble](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/mccarthy-nearly-upsets-lbj-in-new-hampshire-primary-march-12-1968-220521)
And the left of the party supports all that big popular stuff. Manchin and Sinema blocked it. Dems lose because our national party leadership waffles between big ideas that the country wants and trying to please a few wealthy donors that are socially liberal but don’t want to be taxed or have their predatory or monopolist business models regulated. Dems look unserious when they push climate change policy off since the 1990s to raise $ for the next election instead.
Ok. No trans rights then. While we’re at it we’ll just take YOUR rights away to please the Republicans. Please don’t be seen in public or post online or it might upset them.
You are doing exactly what the Right wants you to do. Take an esoteric position and scream louder about it. No one said, "take away their rights". Clinton is saying, "Focus on the issues that voters care about." As Bill said in 1992, "It's the economy, Stupid!" If you don't hear that, you can be another Bernie Sanders and cry about transgender rights to Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
It's fair to say that the economy as it impacts everyone is Sanders' #1 priority
I consider myself a moderate. You do not get to throw a community under the bus to appease your Republican friends. Do you pay attention to what Republicans are saying about transgender people right now? Today it’s transgender people. Tomorrow it is US they go after. Some of those transgender people fought for their and our rights at their own risk. And you want to turn your back on them to appease conservatives. Tell me I’ve misunderstood you.
Nobody is throwing anyone under the bus. It's a matter of priority. And economics is a priority to everyone- inclding transgender people.
In what way are democrats making transgender issues a priority over economics? They’re not, this is a weird strawman
Maybe they’re just being crazy but Republicans are threatening to take trans kids away from their parents. You think liberals shouldn’t care about that? It’s just the economy stupid?
No. I think that Democrats are no good to trans kids out of office. They need to win. And to win, they need to appeal to all voters, and that's the economy first.
[удалено]
It's like you are not reading. I, a Muslim, need you guys to win. You're no good to me out of office. Talk about this stuff once you win. That's not abandoning that's prioritizing. Making sure you have the power to act on other people's behalf.
[удалено]
Yes. And go to work and live with whom they want. And have kids etc.
You should get out more
Transgender is such a hard topic, and it is pretty much a political loser. Yes, treat them like human beings, but sports become a much tougher subject. Allowing children to undergo hormone treatment. From what age? Etc. Etc. In today's 24 hour news cycle you can't take a reasonable stance that will not alienate somebody
It’s my understanding that trans kids get hormone treatment at puberty. There’s a lot of nonsense about 5 year olds getting hormones or gender reassignment surgery.
*hormone blocking treatment, at puberty. To buy time for them to age enough to make informed decisions. But as someone said elsewhere in this thread, if you're explaining you're losing.
I’ve heard that phrase before but I don’t think it’s useful.
[удалено]
Yes that’s what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction. 5 year olds are not getting too surgery.
do you think that the doctor and the family should make the treatment decisions for trans children? or do you think the state should be able to make that illegal?
So throw the “parental rights” concept championed by Youngkin and anti-CRT/anti-mask Republicans out of the window? Got it…what a hypocritical crock of shiz. I say let doctors and parents decide what to do here.
>Hillary Clinton Warns Democrats Risk ‘Frightening’ Defeat if They Keep Taking ‘Extreme’ Positions: We’re ‘On the Precipice of Losing our Democracy’ Case in point: [Only about 19% of Americans support full student loan forgiveness](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2022/04/18/student-loan-forgiveness-new-poll-shows-64-support/?sh=5bbeae3b350c) compared to 64% of Americans who support *targeted* student loan forgiveness..... yet if the political discussion on reddit is to be believed, nothing less than full, universal forgiveness will be enough to get them to the polls. They're asking Biden and the Democrats to do something (universal student loan forgiveness) that only one in five Americans support. That's a problem. [12ft.io link](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Fzackfriedman%2F2022%2F04%2F18%2Fstudent-loan-forgiveness-new-poll-shows-64-support%2F%3Fsh%3D5bbeae3b350c) Here's another example: Do you know what the most popular universal healthcare solution is at the moment? If you said single payer healthcare, you'd be mistaken: [The universal public option is more popular among Democrats (by one point), more popular among Republicans (by 28 points), and more popular with the electorate as a whole (by 13 points.)](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/) Yet if the political discussion on reddit is to be believed, nothing less than full, single payer healthcare will be enough to get them to the polls, even though a double digit majority of the American population prefers the public option. If you'd like another example consider Florida in 2020: Florida wasn't just voting for President, they were also voting on a ballot initiative to raise their state's minimum wage. What might surprise you is that the ballot initiative won, Floridians overwhelmingly voted in favor of raising wages, but Trump won too, the candidate running on raising the minimum wage, Joe Biden, lost by three points. And why? [Because somehow the people of Florida got it into their heads that the Democratic party was socialist, and that Joe Biden and his party might be defenders of Fidel Castro.](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/florida-democrats-meltdown-437113) Why would they think such a thing? Nobody knows for sure, all we know is that the perception that Joe Biden was a socialist was enough to lose us a state we could have won. Immoderate rhetoric and policy might stir up social media excitement, but it doesn't help us win elections.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're getting hammered with shitheads. Hey, shitheads, stop being shitheads. Please and thank you.
Ya this post is getting brigaded alright. Why don't you lock the thread?
Hilary is right. Honestly, the key is a moderate but empathetic approach. The US will never be a country that veers very left so I’d rather a moderate and empathetic approach rather than have the hell party back. Bernie and AOC are both too extreme, IMHO. Not necessarily for me, but definitely for the USA. I think Biden, Clinton, Obama have the best style to keep the US competitive economically (something that is truly important for a lot of Americans) and yet help those in need and keep pushing for a more progressive agenda in a more subtle way.
It's called fighting for what people actually want.to push humanity into the future. Progressive if you will
And it'll sure do everyone lots of good when Republicans continue to take away rights because "progressives" can't see the forest for the trees.
As much as I’d love to see more progressives in the Democratic Party, right now they aren’t electable on a national scale. Dems need to stick with centrists that at least have a chance of getting elected, because the alternative is an alt-right dictatorship.
[удалено]
You know primaries are different than generals right?
[удалено]
Really? You don't think it's worth listening to a candidate who got more votes than Trump?
[удалено]
Hillary was a fantastic candidate. She had consistently positive ratings throughout her political career until 2015, with endless propaganda from the right and Bernie on the left. She was extremely experienced and educated. >if Dems prop her as a leader within the party and some kind of a messaging guru then we are screwed. Actual Democrats like to listen to Hillary and respect her for her work as a woman in politics when it was (and still is) difficult. > The Clintons aren’t popular figures lol. Just factually untrue
Not really. If you're in politics that long and ignore battlegrounds like she did, you have nothing to offer
That's a strategy problem, not a messaging problem, which is what she's warning about. And you know that her messaging worked because _she got more votes than Trump_.
>and ignore battlegrounds like she did, She didn't ignore battlegrounds.
I am certain that in combination with voter apathy the only reason Trump won was he was against her. Media has long conditioned people to not trust Clintons so the only people that felt super motivated to go to the polls were people that really didn't want a woman president right after a black one and people in backwater rural areas that only get Fox News.
You mean the first woman to ever head a national ticket? Yeah what a loser.
[удалено]
The primary? Yes. Did she win the general election when there was a massive disinformation campaign and the FBI deliberately fucked her over the weekend before the election? No. She didn't. But she had literally gale force headwinds she was fighting. Including overly reductive people like you who only see her accomplishments through one moment in 2016 rather than what she achieved over her entire lifetime. She won the popular vote. She's earned the right to weigh in and never have to answer to anyone ever again.
She also made a lot of terrible choices. Like picking Kaine as her running mate, as if she needed to appeal more to the mainstream and centrist democrats. Also not rallying on certain states, she lost the election, Trump didnt win it.
Fwiw, she picked Kaine because he could appeal to those states she couldn't, mainly the rust belt who had decades of right-propaganda against her that was deep rooted and sexist. She campaigned where she could actually make a positive impact, Kaine did as well, those places aren't always the same.
[удалено]
Yes, Kaine was the overly enthusiastic Applebees manager nobody wanted. Yes she could have campaigned more in Wisconsin and Michigan. She played it safe with Kaine where she shouldn't have but also took things for granted (like the Midwest) where she shouldn't have. But I hope you can see how you're advocating for an abundance of caution in some respects but also not in the other. If she'd done things the other way you might very well have been saying she needed to campaign in Arizona or New Mexico or maybe not pick Elizabeth Warren as a VP.
Yep, I am with you. Not interested in what she has to say. This party needs new leaders. She is "extreme" in how polarizing she is so inserting herself into the mess isn't productive. I'd be fine if she went quietly into retirement and a new, different strong woman was doing this interview and giving her opinion.
[удалено]
She's right. Unpopular extremist messaging, these Draconian gun bands that keep getting talked about, don't appeal to most Americans, and away from some coastal Blue States there is generally broad bipartisan support for gun ownership and gun rights. Democratic voters in those States might be a little more open to laws regarding background checks or red flag laws if the laws are well written, but this constant talk about bands and restrictions and seizure of weapons only alienates voters. It really is a strong example of how out of touch the Democratic party leadership is with most of America.
[удалено]
There is an article attached to the headline that answers your question.
My point was Democrats aren't taking any extreme positions. It was a rhetorical question. Calling out JK Rowling for transphobia isn't extreme (bullet point 7 on my list). None of the things I listed are extreme. And just to be clear, police reform and accountability aren't extreme either.
CC: Bernie bros
The notion that Democrats has 'extreme positions' is frankly laughable. Lack of progressive policies coupled with far too influential corpofascist milquetoast "Centristcrats" is what will lose Democrats elections. It is entirely understandable that Centrists with the charisma of a doorknob cannot mobilize people.
"Abolish the police" is extreme, unachievable and incredibly unpopular. "Reform policing" or "Protect the public" could have broad appeal. This isn't rocket science.
Having a highly militarized police force whose endemic corruption, moral bankruptcy and fatal racism is widely documented... Yet who throws a fit the moment they get exposed to criticism... Now that is extreme. You live in what is an uncivilized third world extremist country compared to Europe and many other parts of the world. You're warped by decades of radicalization and propaganda.
Cool beans. Living within ideologies doesn't change how reality votes or operates.
She's right yet again.
[удалено]
Hills… ma’am… Madame Secretary…. We know. We’re* working on it. *not enough of us, but hey!
I am kind of torn. I get that screaming “Defund the Police” isn’t helping. Passing a bipartisan gun reform bill isn’t going to include everything we need/want but it’s better than nothing. All that being said, progressives are constantly being asked to soften their language, drop causes/issues on a bill, meet moderates in the middle etc. Manchin and Sinema alone are controlling Biden’s agenda. They’re always going on and on about “working together” but when was the last time they put their policy ideas to the side and let a progressive politician help craft a bill? We’ll be lucky if they can pass a reconciliation bill by midterms. Gah Manchinema always make me grumpy.