I've noticed a lot of these articles lately, but they all come at the problem (why the Democrat elite and the candidates themselves are not in sync with the majority of voters) at different ways, and that's good.
I think the answer is much more mercenary than most people who have any regard for the party want to admit. The Democrat Party for years was the party of the working class and the downtrodden (and that synced quite well with civil rights issues because the issues the minorities faced--like voicelessness and disenfranchisement--were the same issues the working class and downtrodden faced in general). But civil rights issues were addressed for the most part, and somewhere along the way the Democrat Party got a taste of what it is to serve corporate and big money masters, and they liked it. And for years they got away with it. They could virtue signal and shame by turns and keep their base in line, and let's be honest, the Republicans had not much to offer (they were preachy, constantly interested in going to war, and totally corporate captured), so they carried on. But then Donald Trump came along and rode a wave of populist dissatisfaction with things as they are . . . and the Democrats can't figure out how to handle it. They can't figure out how to have their cake and eat it too, as the old cliche goes.
What happened when Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton commented that male to female transgender athletes should not compete in women's sports is a perfect example of this dynamic.
The cultural alliance of "progressives" and billionaires is thousands of years old. "Progressive" values are another name for aristocratic values. Since Old Testament times, kings and aristocrats have been flexible about marriage and sex, while peasants have been strict about those matters. The "left" always loses the support of peasants when it satisfies its status needs and caters to the aristocrats.
What these clueless boomers blaming 'the groups' fail to understand is that the concepts of 'left' and 'right', as they were understood in previous generations, fail to really mean anything to younger voters. Trump for example is regarded by many people as a right wing maniac-- for good reason given his general dislike of immigrants, obsession with executive power, and war against the liberal intelligentsia-- but a big part of his appeal also comes from just ideologically neutral populism. This includes gesturing at least superficially towards what were previously understood as left coded positions: criticizing forever wars abroad, opposing free trade agreements on the grounds that they hurt blue collar workers, etc. If you remember the 90s/early 2000s, the only people skeptical of free trade were people like Ralph Nader, and the only presidential candidate speaking out against the Iraq War was Dennis Kucinich. So these were left-coded views, but they look very prescient in 2024. The sincerity of Trump's views on these topics is a separate question--so far he's stocking his cabinet with neocons, Silicon Valley venture capitalists, and assorted cranks and conspiracy theorists--but many people voted for him because of these stated views that would have been understood in the 90s as left leaning positions. The point is they are popular views, and thus Trump aligned himself with them without regard to where they would land on some superficial left-right spectrum.
To win, Democrats need to get out of this dated framework of thinking about how far 'left' or 'right' they should go and just adopt popular positions. For example, going all in on something like transwomen competing in sports is an unpopular left-coded view, and they should moderate on that, or at least not make it a central part of their message; more broadly, they need to stop speaking in a language that is only intelligible to people who have masters degrees in gender studies or something. But when it comes to something like pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza, this is a left-coded view that was actually very popular, even among some conservative leaning voters; Trump's vague suggestions of un-involving the United States from foreign conflicts seemed to resonate with voters (even though so far he's given no indication of following through on this idea). On the flip side, becoming the party of lawyers and bankers and abandoning priorities like affordable health care may have been understood as 'moderation' in years past, but it's a deeply unpopular framing; the Clinton era 'coalition of the ascendant' is now a coalition of all the people who are broadly blamed for the fact that normal people can't afford to buy a house.
The Adam Jentlesens of the Democrats are going to try to browbeat the party into distancing themselves from anything that seems 'left' and adopting a 'moderate' Clinton era triangulation platform that might have been appealing in the 90s, but they need to stop thinking in those terms at all and just prioritize things that voters like. And they need to throw these Adam Jentlesen types overboard and find some candidates who are more exciting and can speak directly to the communities they have been alienating.
Excellent comment. Sums up the appeal of Trump outside of traditional Republican constituencies and the sclerotic nature of the Democrats really well, and without the dumb buzzwords that people with a vested stake in either like to use.
In the end, a bunch of positions prioritized by what party operatives think is popular is not going to form a coherent party that can get elected and, more importantly, govern. For that, you have to decide which people (voters) you're going to back, and then back them with ongoing policy that is in their interest. The Democrats used to have the loyalty of many working class voters even if those voters didn't agree with every policy, but the Democrats stopped backing those people, and they belong to Trump now. Democrats can't just tweak the messaging next time and expect to get that loyalty back. The Republicans have to screw up first, before those voters are in play again. This could be several cycles.
I really liked this, but I’ve heard an interesting response to this point: “The ACLU is influential in liberal-left circles but it has no actual power over someone like Harris, who was running for president when she filled out the questionnaire.”
The response is that the ACLU and similar groups are funded by the same wealthy people and foundations that donate to candidates. So if a candidate tries to stiff-arm one of the groups, the group will run to Mommy (the donors) and complain. You can maybe get around that if your funding base is really grassroots and broad (like Bernie) but most Dem politicians don’t have that.
The impact of donors on LGBT policy is something I think could be further explored. But I don't think the ACLU was able to do that on a range of issues where Harris didn't agree with them, and there were quite a few, so it might not fit in this case.
The Harris 2024 campaign is probably not the best example of the phenomenon I outlined because she raised a ton of money from a wide range of sources so “running to Mommy” wouldn’t have worked with her. But I think it may be in play for lower level politicians like less well known members of congress.
And '24 was a general election with the looming threat of Trump, so many donors could convinced to bite their tongue and shut up and not make a fuss. Primaries are a different game, altogether.
It's a distinction without a difference, however these noxious ideas became the Dems' platform and policies. But the argument belies one of the primary undercurrents in contemporary US politics. On one hand, I don't like the strongman approach of the GOP, as it tends towards autocracy and dictatorship characteristics. On the other hand, this squishy, unaccountable, waterballoon of a Democratic Party is exceedingly frustrating, slipping and sliding around with some faceless ill-defined "system" blamed for every failure.
The dems left the voters, and especially the working class voters behind—wayyyy behind. RFK jr himself is a good example. Tulsi was a democrat and even ran for POTUS as a democrat. The dems chose to listen to the Groups and to their donors, but not to the working class voters. They of course said all the words they always say about unions and wages and boosting the middle class, but their actions belied their words. People could see through the green energy scam, the open border (bringing in cheap labor), the crime increase, the ineffectual urban schools, the price inflation for eggs and houses, and the large and growing debt.
The amazing thing to me is that the dems would even bad-mouth the voters. They were “garbage” and “deplorables”. And they would lecture the voters about what they needed to do and how they should appreciate the great economy of 2021-24. Not sure how they thought that would win the election for them.
The groups and the Democratic Party are not distinct. They are components of the same cultural and political entity. They employ the same people, and exist in the same universe of policy ideas.
Try to run for office as a Democrat and be against abortion. You can’t… pro-abortion is a mandatory view. If you showed that you were after being elected, they would primary you out. At this point, Democrats have so many mandatory views that their candidates are all predatory extremists. From where they are now, they are much closer to being banned as a party than they are to carrying the White House.
Most Americans do not want abortion banned. Most are comfortable with same sex marriage and a general tolerance for gays. Do not overstate the social conservatism of the American people. They'll resist certain extremist proposals, notably on the trans issue, but they have no interest in going back to the 50s (1950s or 1850s for that matter). Trump actually understands this and along with the fact that he's anything but a social conservative at heart, he has tailored his policy and pronouncements on classic "moral issues" to come down where most people do.
Most Americans are in favor of abortion for matters beyond convenience. Most are against abortion as an enabler of complete license. Democrats are downright depraved on that subject.
Most Americans, even in red states as direct votes on the issue have shown, want abortion to be legal in three instances: medical need, rape, and their own family's situation whatever it may be.
I have plenty of words for lefty activists, but professional Democrats should never be allowed to live down the shame of allowing Biden to run again and straight-up lying to people for two years about his fitness to do so.
Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover. Harris was equally stupid.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
We are all sure missing old “Billy Boy” Clinton and his much derided “triangulation”
Candidly, the only politician of the last 50 years who was a “political genius”. Obama is brilliant and more like the fictional Bartlett and Reagan was the great communicator but it was Clinton who was a raw politician of rare capability
You might be able to run with this sort of thing if everybody who goes to college (or close enough to most everybody) ends up with a good career that is capable of paying off their college loans.
In a world where people are screaming for college debt forgiveness, the belief system that gets adopted by college goers is much less attractive.
Why are you so sure of your belief system? You cry out that you can't afford it!
This feels like a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" situation. You don't seem to disagree with Klein et al. that a fundamental problem for the Democrats is being way out over their skis on a host of social/cultural issues, and you furthermore seem to both agree that this is caused by Dem leadership catering to the social/cultural issues that "the Groups" happen to be pushing at any given moment.
Whether the Dems are doing so because they feel "boxed in" or just naturally sympathize with the Groups for social/intellectual reasons, the prescription remains the same--the Dem leadership class needs to stop catering to "the Groups," and search for more authentic voices representing the more mainstream views of the electorate.
I think the obvious issue here is that the party leaders are already way too left wing than the Andaman electorate. And no one forced them to bow down to hippies, the leaders chose to bow down to them. It was Biden who was obsessed with unity, and went far left on culture. That's on him, party leaders need to have the good sense to say no when necessary.
I've noticed a lot of these articles lately, but they all come at the problem (why the Democrat elite and the candidates themselves are not in sync with the majority of voters) at different ways, and that's good.
I think the answer is much more mercenary than most people who have any regard for the party want to admit. The Democrat Party for years was the party of the working class and the downtrodden (and that synced quite well with civil rights issues because the issues the minorities faced--like voicelessness and disenfranchisement--were the same issues the working class and downtrodden faced in general). But civil rights issues were addressed for the most part, and somewhere along the way the Democrat Party got a taste of what it is to serve corporate and big money masters, and they liked it. And for years they got away with it. They could virtue signal and shame by turns and keep their base in line, and let's be honest, the Republicans had not much to offer (they were preachy, constantly interested in going to war, and totally corporate captured), so they carried on. But then Donald Trump came along and rode a wave of populist dissatisfaction with things as they are . . . and the Democrats can't figure out how to handle it. They can't figure out how to have their cake and eat it too, as the old cliche goes.
What happened when Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton commented that male to female transgender athletes should not compete in women's sports is a perfect example of this dynamic.
How did he vote?
The cultural alliance of "progressives" and billionaires is thousands of years old. "Progressive" values are another name for aristocratic values. Since Old Testament times, kings and aristocrats have been flexible about marriage and sex, while peasants have been strict about those matters. The "left" always loses the support of peasants when it satisfies its status needs and caters to the aristocrats.
What these clueless boomers blaming 'the groups' fail to understand is that the concepts of 'left' and 'right', as they were understood in previous generations, fail to really mean anything to younger voters. Trump for example is regarded by many people as a right wing maniac-- for good reason given his general dislike of immigrants, obsession with executive power, and war against the liberal intelligentsia-- but a big part of his appeal also comes from just ideologically neutral populism. This includes gesturing at least superficially towards what were previously understood as left coded positions: criticizing forever wars abroad, opposing free trade agreements on the grounds that they hurt blue collar workers, etc. If you remember the 90s/early 2000s, the only people skeptical of free trade were people like Ralph Nader, and the only presidential candidate speaking out against the Iraq War was Dennis Kucinich. So these were left-coded views, but they look very prescient in 2024. The sincerity of Trump's views on these topics is a separate question--so far he's stocking his cabinet with neocons, Silicon Valley venture capitalists, and assorted cranks and conspiracy theorists--but many people voted for him because of these stated views that would have been understood in the 90s as left leaning positions. The point is they are popular views, and thus Trump aligned himself with them without regard to where they would land on some superficial left-right spectrum.
To win, Democrats need to get out of this dated framework of thinking about how far 'left' or 'right' they should go and just adopt popular positions. For example, going all in on something like transwomen competing in sports is an unpopular left-coded view, and they should moderate on that, or at least not make it a central part of their message; more broadly, they need to stop speaking in a language that is only intelligible to people who have masters degrees in gender studies or something. But when it comes to something like pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza, this is a left-coded view that was actually very popular, even among some conservative leaning voters; Trump's vague suggestions of un-involving the United States from foreign conflicts seemed to resonate with voters (even though so far he's given no indication of following through on this idea). On the flip side, becoming the party of lawyers and bankers and abandoning priorities like affordable health care may have been understood as 'moderation' in years past, but it's a deeply unpopular framing; the Clinton era 'coalition of the ascendant' is now a coalition of all the people who are broadly blamed for the fact that normal people can't afford to buy a house.
The Adam Jentlesens of the Democrats are going to try to browbeat the party into distancing themselves from anything that seems 'left' and adopting a 'moderate' Clinton era triangulation platform that might have been appealing in the 90s, but they need to stop thinking in those terms at all and just prioritize things that voters like. And they need to throw these Adam Jentlesen types overboard and find some candidates who are more exciting and can speak directly to the communities they have been alienating.
Excellent comment. Sums up the appeal of Trump outside of traditional Republican constituencies and the sclerotic nature of the Democrats really well, and without the dumb buzzwords that people with a vested stake in either like to use.
In the end, a bunch of positions prioritized by what party operatives think is popular is not going to form a coherent party that can get elected and, more importantly, govern. For that, you have to decide which people (voters) you're going to back, and then back them with ongoing policy that is in their interest. The Democrats used to have the loyalty of many working class voters even if those voters didn't agree with every policy, but the Democrats stopped backing those people, and they belong to Trump now. Democrats can't just tweak the messaging next time and expect to get that loyalty back. The Republicans have to screw up first, before those voters are in play again. This could be several cycles.
I'm with you, but unfortunately our 2 party system disincentivizes coalition building to actually get popular solutions across the goal line.
I’m curious about what your thoughts on Ro Khanna. Is his approach the future for the Dems?
I really liked this, but I’ve heard an interesting response to this point: “The ACLU is influential in liberal-left circles but it has no actual power over someone like Harris, who was running for president when she filled out the questionnaire.”
The response is that the ACLU and similar groups are funded by the same wealthy people and foundations that donate to candidates. So if a candidate tries to stiff-arm one of the groups, the group will run to Mommy (the donors) and complain. You can maybe get around that if your funding base is really grassroots and broad (like Bernie) but most Dem politicians don’t have that.
The impact of donors on LGBT policy is something I think could be further explored. But I don't think the ACLU was able to do that on a range of issues where Harris didn't agree with them, and there were quite a few, so it might not fit in this case.
The Harris 2024 campaign is probably not the best example of the phenomenon I outlined because she raised a ton of money from a wide range of sources so “running to Mommy” wouldn’t have worked with her. But I think it may be in play for lower level politicians like less well known members of congress.
And '24 was a general election with the looming threat of Trump, so many donors could convinced to bite their tongue and shut up and not make a fuss. Primaries are a different game, altogether.
If I got this right, the party blames fringe groups for extreme positions they themselves take?
It's a distinction without a difference, however these noxious ideas became the Dems' platform and policies. But the argument belies one of the primary undercurrents in contemporary US politics. On one hand, I don't like the strongman approach of the GOP, as it tends towards autocracy and dictatorship characteristics. On the other hand, this squishy, unaccountable, waterballoon of a Democratic Party is exceedingly frustrating, slipping and sliding around with some faceless ill-defined "system" blamed for every failure.
The dems left the voters, and especially the working class voters behind—wayyyy behind. RFK jr himself is a good example. Tulsi was a democrat and even ran for POTUS as a democrat. The dems chose to listen to the Groups and to their donors, but not to the working class voters. They of course said all the words they always say about unions and wages and boosting the middle class, but their actions belied their words. People could see through the green energy scam, the open border (bringing in cheap labor), the crime increase, the ineffectual urban schools, the price inflation for eggs and houses, and the large and growing debt.
The amazing thing to me is that the dems would even bad-mouth the voters. They were “garbage” and “deplorables”. And they would lecture the voters about what they needed to do and how they should appreciate the great economy of 2021-24. Not sure how they thought that would win the election for them.
The groups and the Democratic Party are not distinct. They are components of the same cultural and political entity. They employ the same people, and exist in the same universe of policy ideas.
Try to run for office as a Democrat and be against abortion. You can’t… pro-abortion is a mandatory view. If you showed that you were after being elected, they would primary you out. At this point, Democrats have so many mandatory views that their candidates are all predatory extremists. From where they are now, they are much closer to being banned as a party than they are to carrying the White House.
Most Americans do not want abortion banned. Most are comfortable with same sex marriage and a general tolerance for gays. Do not overstate the social conservatism of the American people. They'll resist certain extremist proposals, notably on the trans issue, but they have no interest in going back to the 50s (1950s or 1850s for that matter). Trump actually understands this and along with the fact that he's anything but a social conservative at heart, he has tailored his policy and pronouncements on classic "moral issues" to come down where most people do.
Most Americans are in favor of abortion for matters beyond convenience. Most are against abortion as an enabler of complete license. Democrats are downright depraved on that subject.
Most Americans, even in red states as direct votes on the issue have shown, want abortion to be legal in three instances: medical need, rape, and their own family's situation whatever it may be.
I have plenty of words for lefty activists, but professional Democrats should never be allowed to live down the shame of allowing Biden to run again and straight-up lying to people for two years about his fitness to do so.
Biden was not smart enough or competent enough to resist caving to the whims of the far left wing of his party. He left the Democratic Party in shambles from which it may never recover. Harris was equally stupid.
If the remaining party leaders (whoever they might be) were smart (which they are not) they would look closely at at Trump’s many executive orders (EO’s) and maybe find a few popular ones that they could agree with and then use those along with the more popular positions that they currently endorse as the basis for a resurgence in 2026 and 2028.
So what’s currently in their bag that people don’t hate and what can be done with them to make them more salable to a majority.
First, a woman’s right to an abortion is popular but many believe there should be some time limit put on its availability as development proceeds from a single cell ( . ) to a 👶. So consider limiting it to the first trimester except to protect the health of the mother or when the fetus is not viable.
Second, most people are worried about climate change but the intermittent renewable energy sources located far from load centers Democrats are currently pushing will never provide reliable energy. The best long term solution is nuclear power plants located at existing coal fired plant locations that already have cooling and distribution infrastructure and are located near where electricity is needed. In the meantime we should be leading an international effort to develop geoengineering solutions to the problem because we will never reduce carbon emissions in time to stave off disaster.
Third, most people support vaccinations when their development is transparent and their use is voluntary. Use that approach to offset the current anti-vaccine rhetoric of the Republicans.
Back to Trump’s executive orders. There are three worth considering supporting.
The first of these EO’s recognizes that open borders are politically unacceptable and that the age of mass migration is over. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here destroys the wages of working class Americans and drives up housing costs when we can't house our own citizens. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their own country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay home and work there to improve their living conditions.
His second important EO addresses the insanity of gender identity which denies the reality of human sexuality and results in men invading women’s sports, restrooms, locker rooms and prisons. Women need and are entitled to privacy from men. Even more diabolical is the mutilation of innocent children (many who would grow up gay) in pursuit of the impossible because you can’t change your birth sex.
Finally his EO that corrects the craziness of DEI which discriminates against whites, Asians and men in attempting to cure past discrimination against others is absolutely the correct approach. Who could believe that creating a new privileged class and a new discriminated against class would provide a solution to the problem? Not to mention that it’s clearly unconstitutional.
Would these actions help the Democrats recover? Who knows, but absent change there is no hope for them.
We are all sure missing old “Billy Boy” Clinton and his much derided “triangulation”
Candidly, the only politician of the last 50 years who was a “political genius”. Obama is brilliant and more like the fictional Bartlett and Reagan was the great communicator but it was Clinton who was a raw politician of rare capability
Maybe LBJ if you go far enough back …
And we need those …
You might be able to run with this sort of thing if everybody who goes to college (or close enough to most everybody) ends up with a good career that is capable of paying off their college loans.
In a world where people are screaming for college debt forgiveness, the belief system that gets adopted by college goers is much less attractive.
Why are you so sure of your belief system? You cry out that you can't afford it!
This feels like a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" situation. You don't seem to disagree with Klein et al. that a fundamental problem for the Democrats is being way out over their skis on a host of social/cultural issues, and you furthermore seem to both agree that this is caused by Dem leadership catering to the social/cultural issues that "the Groups" happen to be pushing at any given moment.
Whether the Dems are doing so because they feel "boxed in" or just naturally sympathize with the Groups for social/intellectual reasons, the prescription remains the same--the Dem leadership class needs to stop catering to "the Groups," and search for more authentic voices representing the more mainstream views of the electorate.
I think the obvious issue here is that the party leaders are already way too left wing than the Andaman electorate. And no one forced them to bow down to hippies, the leaders chose to bow down to them. It was Biden who was obsessed with unity, and went far left on culture. That's on him, party leaders need to have the good sense to say no when necessary.