654
Sanders and Warren push Democrats to fight for workers and ‘unrig’ economy
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
654 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2440 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Form your own party. Dump the useless liberals. Reconstitute the SPA and team up with the unions.
Thats more of a step 2 or 3. Step 1 is that everybody needs to start putting pressure on the DNC and make sure they understand that we’re not going to take it anymore. And I’m not referring to that bullshit “not voting” rhetoric, because not voting is tantamount to voting republican.
Once the DNC is forced to listen to us plebs again, then it’ll be a good time to look at breaking out into more parties. But we need to put the fear of whomever they pray to in them first.
The reality of American political process is that it takes at least a billion dollars to run a Presidential campaign. (Thanks, SCOTUS) That kind of money doesn't come from unions, social activists, or proletariat donors. It comes from corporations and billionaires, and those people don't like revolution.
Until someone can demonstrate that you can get more votes with progressive, worker-friendly policy proposals than with a well funded propaganda machine, the DNC is going to keep chasing the less conservative billionaires. And no third party will even be relevant.
As long as the DNC is chasing billionaires, we have no second party.
I mean we very obviously do. We have two corporate oligarch parties, but I would much rather have the tech billionaire club that brought us the Gates foundation or the Allen institute and isn't actively trying to kill a large portion of the country than the one that sees what Israel is doing to Palestine as a good model of how to clean up the riffraff
No. We have a viable party that chases billionaires with credibility behind it, and the Democratic Party that chases billionaires while pretending that they are for working people, and kills their own viability because they have no credibility with either group.
As long as they chase billionaires, Democrats are not a viable second party. From a functional standpoint, we have only one party.
Does viable have a different definition for you that doesn't include winning roughly half of elections?
No, it takes a billion dollars to lose an election. Trump could of ran on a shoestring budget and he still would of won.
The thing is, a message that’s simple, resonates, and allows people to blame others will always win out over a message calling people to pull their own weight and do the complicated but correct things.
Idk, Harris vastly outraised Trump (over $1B in 3 months) and it... didn't move the needle.
Progressives need to distill their ideas down into smart, easily repeated ideas (Billionaire bad, union good) that can spread via social media, aren't inflammatory (defund the police, etc), and aren't based on fear and loathing but rather a message of hope.
Money doesn't win the election, it's more of an entrance fee, and campaign financing is more complicated than just 'the campaign.' You have to account for PACs, party, and all the free messaging from sympathetic media outlets. Bernie pinned his hopes on going viral on social media, and mostly demonstrated that it's not a viable strategy, at least at the Presidential level. Might work OK for smaller races, like AOC, in a geographically small, relatively young district, but not nationally. Most people actively avoid political messaging, which is a fundamental problem if you plan to rely on organic distribution of a political message through social media. Especially social media controlled by billionaires that might be hostile to messages like 'billionaires bad, unions good.'
We certainly agree on the broad strokes. I think part of the allure of the MAGA messaging was that it was often shared by a highly approachable racist that people were already comfortable with, so the political bits could just sorta be sprinkled in as needed alongside other ideas that people already agreed with.