On this, we agree.

What stage of centrist coping is, “Nazi Apologist Takes?”

Yeah, but was it, though? Or was it full of people making legitimate criticisms of the Democratic Party only to get accused of being bots or told they thought, “both sides,” were the same? Because I know which of these two things I’ve seen more of in the last year.

“Well, what have you to say now, strawman I’ve been ranting about for the entire election cycle? Isn’t it odd that person I made up in my head to he mad at suddenly has nothing to say?”

No one is blaming minorities for the rise of Trump, they’re pointing out that since Trump expanded his margins across all demographics, Kamala Harris’ failure can’t be easily explained away by racism or misogyny, and there must be a deeper frustration among many of the groups that make up the Democrats’ coalition like black and Latino Americans. Also, I rarely hear Democrats make this point; they seem to mainly blame wokeness.

Edit: OK, when I say “Democrats,” I mean actual Democrats — people who are in leadership positions in the party. I am not talking about unhinged liberals that are reveling in Trump’s anti-Gaza cabinet picks because they blame Muslims for their loss. Actual Democratic party members are much quieter about the collapse of the demographics that make up the Obama Coalition.

Here’s what I wrote to my delegate’s office:

I am writing to you because I am worried about the upcoming DNC chair elections, and I’m attempting to reach my local delegate. A recent piece in Politico seemed to suggest that many in the party believe that the takeaway from the 2024 election is that the party moved too far to the left, and that it became too involved in identity politics. As Joseph Paolino Jr., the DNC committeeman for Rhode Island, put it, “The progressive wing of the party has to recognize — we all have to recognize — the country’s not progressive, and not to the far left or the far right. They’re in the middle."

Of course, the idea that the Democratic Party has gone too far left is absurd. This is the party that passed NAFTA. This is the party that ended Glass-Steagall. This is the party that added work requirements to Welfare. This is the party that prioritizesd banks over homeowners during the subprime mortgage crisis. This is the party that adopted and passed the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan. On paper, this is a center-right party.

However, I believe it is true that this party has focused too much on identity politics, and we need to place that blame where it squarely belongs: on the center. It was centrist Democrats who, in the absence of any coherent economic message, increasingly adopted the language of identity politics. It was the center who used identity politics as a cudgel, not only against their right-wing opponents, but also those on the left who questioned the party’s priorities. It was Hillary Clinton (who no serious person would describe as, “far-left”) who said:

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow…would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

If the party were to decide that it was going to spend less time on identity politics and more time on a serious progressive platform, that would make sense. Polling indicates that many progressive policies, even those considered, “far-left,” like higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, Medicare for All, and even Universal Basic Income, all command widespread support from across the electorate. They are certainly more popular than the crypto-based, “economic opportunity,” platform pitched by Mark Cuban this year.

However, based on what I have read from Politico, it does not seem like the party is interested in a progressive economic message. It seems that many in the party are simply concerned with abandoning the aspects of identity politics that they believe are unpopular. One Florida member made some offensive and thinly veiled attacks on the trans community, saying that he didn’t want to be a member of the, “freak show party.” It appears that, instead of reflecting on how the Democrats’ centrist economic policies have failed the working class, many members would like to abandon vulnerable members of the party that they believe are no longer politically useful.

The Democrats don’t need to start jettisoning demographic groups, they need a progressive platform that can bring the party together. They need to move to the left economically, not to the right socially. However, if the party does decide to stop protecting the most vulnerable Americans in the interest of being more, “centerist,” there is an upside; voters will finally be able to abandon the Democratic Party without harming marginalized groups.

He’s an old-school Regan conservative who writes a column for the New York Times. He also does a weekly PBS news segment; it used to be with this even older liberal named David Brooks (Mark Shields, what a dumb typo), but he retired, and now it’s with a young liberal who’s so moderate they barely even disagree.

Funny enough, I actually don’t think he’s being contrarian. He was on PBS Newshour for their election night coverage, and he seemed shook. The next day, he commented on Twitter something to the effect of, “maybe the answer is that the Democrats need to pick someone that makes people like me unconformable.” I think he’s watched his economic outlook completely win American politics over the last 40 years, only to find the prize at the end was fascism.

Watching David Brooks, of all people, develop more introspection and self-awareness than the entire Democratic party leadership has been a real trip.

They had the super majority at the start of that term. They couldn’t have pushed something as complicated as the ACA through, but they could have moved on something small like affirming Roe. Besides, the Republicans always find a way to ram through legislation without a super majority (and I’d suspect we’re about to see them abolish it entirely), but the Democrats never do.

For example, when the Senate parliamentarian tells the Democrats that they can’t pass a $15 minimum wage through a simple majority, the Democrats give up. When the parliamentarian tells the Republicans they can’t do something, they ignore them, and one time, they just flat our fired the guy.

You can argue about whether the Republicans are being unethical or underhanded, but at the end of the day, they achieve things, and the Democrats don’t. The Democrats will tell you that they need 60 votes to do anything and that the parliamentarian won’t allow them to pass non-budgetary items without one, but Senate filibuster rules can be changed, and the Parliamentarian has no real authority. Playing by the rules while your opponent cheats isn’t noble, it’s stupid.

As they begin to dissect their collapse in the presidential election, some Democratic National Committee members are concluding that the party is too “woke,” too focused on identity politics and too out of touch with broad stretches of America.

From the bottom of my heart, fuck these people. They’ve moved so far towards neoliberal policy positions that they no longer have an economic message to give their working-class base. In the absence of a coherent economic vision for the party, they keep doubling down on, “identity politics,” to keep the the Obama Coalition happy; they have nothing to unify their base, so their only option is to take up any position that is important to the demographic groups that make up the party. Now that this strategy has been thoroughly and decisively defeated, their reaction isn’t to return to the progressive economic policies that won them these groups in the first place, but instead to figure which minorities are, “unpopular,” so they can abandon them. What a bunch of stupid, shortsighted cowards.

Yeah, sports is a great analogy. Just because you don’t like basketball, doesn’t mean you won’t like soccer, and just cause you don’t like turn-based RPGs, doesn’t mean you won’t like 2D platformers. It’s all about finding what you vibe with.

Lots of good advice here, but I would just add, start with your interests and work out from there. You like puzzle games? Portal is a great physics puzzle game, so you might like that. It’s also a 3D platformer, so you’ll find out if you like games with a lot of running and jumping. It’s also technically a first-person shooter (not in the sense that you shoot enemies, but you do shoot a portal gun at walls), so if you don’t like that aspect of the game, you’ll know that FPSs aren’t for you.

Doesn’t have to be the type of gameplay either. You like designing things? Maybe try the Sims or Animal Crossing. Like horror movies? Maybe start with something simple but creepy, like Limbo. Detective stories? Something like Strange Horticulture might be up your alley.

The most important thing is to look around and see what catches your interest. Read some reviews, watch some gameplay footage, and find something that’s right for you. Don’t just say, “I’m going to do video games now,” and buy a Call of Duty or Dark Souls because, “gamers,” like them.

I mean, yeah, but they’d be in a better position to make that argument if they hadn’t been campaigning with Mark Cuban. (Not that Robert Reich needs to be told that, but it still needs to be said.)

It may have been a factor in Michigan. Their are about 300 Arab and Muslim Americans in Michigan, an estimated 200K of which are registered to vote, and Uncommitted vote had about 100K votes in the primary, which is less than Trump’s margin of victory. There’s going to be a lot of nuance examining how the anti-Genocide voters might have affected the electoral map, and I’m not sure we’ll ever get a straight answer.

It doesn’t matter to people who share these memes, though. They don’t like looking at the numbers. In their head, they have an image of a young, entitled white kid with a Genocide Joe sign who just wouldn’t listen to reason. An analysis would probably show that person is more likely to be Arab or Muslim with close ties to the Palestinian community, and that knowledge would make them uncomfortable.

Those are the three branches of the U.S. government, but in this context, they mean the three institutions required to pass legislation; a bill must go through both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the President to become a law. If Democrats had taken one of those institutions, they could have slowed the Republicans’ agenda…

Weird that whenever you give this spcheil, you always leave out the part where Hillary’s campaign secretly took over the party in 2015 while she was a candidate in the DNC’s supposedly fair and unbiased primary:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party…When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

A) 3 random, disconnected positions are not a lurch to the left, they’re just…3 random policies.

B) She abandoned her Medicare for All position before the end of her 2020 run for something less progressive.

C) None of these happened after 2020, how is any of it evidence that they went too far left in 2024?

Anyway, I’m gonna stop replying now. It’s a waste of my time, and I’m starting to feel like I’m punching down.

You think they went left? Are you drunk? Are you doing a bit? Did you forget the /s? If you legitimately think she went left, you’re probably the only person on the planet that thinks so:

New York Times: Harris to Court Moderates With a Onetime Right-Wing Provocateur

Wall Street Journal: Kamala Harris, with Liz Cheney, Courts Moderates in Pennsylvania

Politico: Harris is courting moderate Republicans.

The AP: Trump targets hardcore partisans, Harris goes after moderates

What, in God’s name, makes you think this campaign was more left-leaning than 2020?

Oh my god, you’re right! I should have said, “They’re not gaining with moderates and, in fact, are losing moderate support in many crucial elections, especially when they weaken their message to try to be more appealing to them!” What an idiot I am for using concise language that anyone with half a brain would understand.

Anyway, since I’m also a pedantic twat, I looked it up, and it turns out a lot of leftists did show up in 2020! Looks like your assertion that, “The left doesn’t show up to vote,” is false as well. Looks like you got some proofreading to do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, no shit, that’s literally in my comment! Maybe try rereading it and getting back to me.