Democratic Party Rebuild

[Loose]

Lose multiple times to trump and right wing republicans and blame leftist brehs

 

[Outlaw]

Everything you're saying here rests on the playing field being neutral and that the only thing standing between a movement and power is will or grit. You're describing an abstract version of democracy that ignores how the system is structured to protect people already in power.

You said candidates "need to generate a movement that can overcome capital," but you're ignoring the point that capital doesn't just sit idly by. It actively shapes outcomes by deciding who gets media coverage, endorsements, institutional support, and visibility. This is all part of the mechanism the capital class has built to protect their power from challenges.

Left candidates are demanding a fair process. That's not the same as begging for approval or wanting establishment backing. This is about demanding that the process not be slanted towards the inside candidate. Do you believe simple things like equal access to debates, ballot placement, and exposure is ideological hypocrisy? I don't. I think it's basic fairness.

That's why your point about building from neglected areas, while good in theory, falls apart in practice, because the very unfairness I'm describing makes it almost impossible to do that at scale. Grassroots campaigns in working-class or rural districts require organizing infrastructure, funding, time and resources. You can't tell people to "prove" their movement works while simultaneously defending a structure that cuts them off from the resources needed to prove it.

We're never going to get anywhere as long as people are willing to justify entrenched power protecting itself through money and access. That is detrimental to all of us, not just "progressives."

Do you feel the rules of engagement should be fair enough that power can *actually* be contested?

And politics being a "blood sport" doesn't mean we should celebrate it being corrupt or exclusionary, especially in primary contests. That's where we should show our true values and beliefs in democracy are not just performative.

Again, I just think primaries should be fair. I want to see more working people being able to compete without being crushed by the weight of the system itself.

I agree the system shouldn’t be rigged against candidates, especially when it comes to ballot access and being able to debate.

I don’t know how you police media access though other than passing some type of legislation, which I would be for.

Infrastructure from the DNC should also be unbiased IMO.


When I was answering your question “Do you really believe the Democratic primary process is a fair one that encourages outside challenges?”

I was more so thinking about donors favoring pro capitalist candidates which I don’t think will ever change unless some type of anti money in politics legislation is passed (which I’m completely for).

If there’s a type of rigging from the DNC that favors ballot access, infrastructure or access to debates then that needs to be fixed on a party level and is a justified gripe from primary challenges.

I also think the DNC should strategically fund populist candidates in areas that don’t like technocratic liberals, areas that the democrats gave up, it would be a compromise and wouldn’t threaten the capital class.

 

[wire28]

Everything you're saying here rests on the playing field being neutral and that the only thing standing between a movement and power is will or grit. You're describing an abstract version of democracy that ignores how the system is structured to protect people already in power.

You said candidates "need to generate a movement that can overcome capital," but you're ignoring the point that capital doesn't just sit idly by. It actively shapes outcomes by deciding who gets media coverage, endorsements, institutional support, and visibility. This is all part of the mechanism the capital class has built to protect their power from challenges.

Left candidates are demanding a fair process. That's not the same as begging for approval or wanting establishment backing. This is about demanding that the process not be slanted towards the inside candidate. Do you believe simple things like equal access to debates, ballot placement, and exposure is ideological hypocrisy? I don't. I think it's basic fairness.

That's why your point about building from neglected areas, while good in theory, falls apart in practice, because the very unfairness I'm describing makes it almost impossible to do that at scale. Grassroots campaigns in working-class or rural districts require organizing infrastructure, funding, time and resources. You can't tell people to "prove" their movement works while simultaneously defending a structure that cuts them off from the resources needed to prove it.

We're never going to get anywhere as long as people are willing to justify entrenched power protecting itself through money and access. That is detrimental to all of us, not just "progressives."

Do you feel the rules of engagement should be fair enough that power can *actually* be contested?

And politics being a "blood sport" doesn't mean we should celebrate it being corrupt or exclusionary, especially in primary contests. That's where we should show our true values and beliefs in democracy are not just performative.

Again, I just think primaries should be fair. I want to see more working people being able to compete without being crushed by the weight of the system itself.

All that is correct. And brings us back to the point either we are going to wait for them to play fair or win despite them not. Nobody with power ever willingly gives it up. People aren’t giving themselves term limits or neutering the power of their position. Zohran and platner are showing it can be done. Run some people in bumblefukk Arkansas and see what happens, the establishment dems aren’t.

 

[the cac mamba]

Lose multiple times to trump and right wing republicans and blame leftist brehs

if Genocide Josh is the 2028 nominee, will you vote for him, to stop Vance from becoming president?

 

[Loose]

if Genocide Josh is the 2028 nominee, will you vote for him, to stop Vance from becoming president?

Don't worry about what im going to do worry about the precedent the dncc is setting for voters. Currently they've shown multiple times it is not vote blue no matter who. It's almost november and Hakeem jefferies still haven't endorsed the most powerful mayoral candidate in the country

 

[the cac mamba]

if Genocide Josh is the 2028 nominee, will you vote for him, to stop Vance from becoming president?

Don't worry about what im going to do

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

If a candidate hasn't built a coalition within the party, they don't have a chance to compete. No amount of fundraising, media coverage and debates can get a candidate over the finish line if there doesn't exist a support coalition within the party. We've seen this first hand with Sanders.

The party requires radical change and that's going to require an internal takeover. That takeover/coupe doesn't happen if there isn't a coalition of like-minded members who are willing to stand with the new leader.

And that's the rub. If the party is hostile to outsiders, how are they supposed to build a coalition from the inside? The DNC, state parties, and donor networks often favor establishment candidates from the start, which makes it extremely difficult for new voices to gain visibility, earn endorsements, or organize support.

That's why fair primaries matter. If the goal is genuine internal renewal, the party has to create conditions where grassroots candidates can realistically compete and build coalitions.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I agree the system shouldn’t be rigged against candidates, especially when it comes to ballot access and being able to debate.

I don’t know how you police media access though other than passing some type of legislation, which I would be for.

Infrastructure from the DNC should also be unbiased IMO.


When I was answering your question “Do you really believe the Democratic primary process is a fair one that encourages outside challenges?”

I was more so thinking about donors favoring pro capitalist candidates which I don’t think will ever change unless some type of anti money in politics legislation is passed (which I’m completely for).

If there’s a type of rigging from the DNC that favors ballot access, infrastructure or access to debates then that needs to be fixed on a party level and is a justified gripe from primary challenges.

I also think the DNC should strategically fund populist candidates in areas that don’t like technocratic liberals, areas that the democrats gave up, it would be a compromise and wouldn’t threaten the capital class.

I'm glad we can agree about the structural issues.

The bold is where the DNC, DCCC, DSCC, and state parties could implement rules to make this happen in primary contests.

 

[Loose]

And that's the rub. If the party is hostile to outsiders, how are they supposed to build a coalition from the inside? The DNC, state parties, and donor networks often favor establishment candidates from the start, which makes it extremely difficult for new voices to gain visibility, earn endorsements, or organize support.

That's why fair primaries matter. If the goal is genuine internal renewal, the party has to create conditions where grassroots candidates can realistically compete and build coalitions.

The DSCC endorsed the weakest candidate for the Michigan Senate race—they're trying to put their thumbs on the scale to stay in power. This kind of interference has no place in an open and fair process. The party shouldn't be deciding who emerges from the primaries; they should endorse candidates only after the fact. Of course people are going to question the process when it's tilted toward the candidates the establishment is pushing and fundraising for. I'm not even a big fan of McMorrow, but she's clearly a better candidate than Marge Simpson. Same thing in Maine, putting DSCC money behind mills before she even went through a primary process is nuts.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Y'all let @the cac mamba back? Ugh.

 

[Loose]

 

[Hood Critic]

And that's the rub. If the party is hostile to outsiders, how are they supposed to build a coalition from the inside? The DNC, state parties, and donor networks often favor establishment candidates from the start, which makes it extremely difficult for new voices to gain visibility, earn endorsements, or organize support.

That's why fair primaries matter. If the goal is genuine internal renewal, the party has to create conditions where grassroots candidates can realistically compete and build coalitions.

Not to defend the practice but it seems pretty logical to not open the door up to "outsiders" who could ideologically change the face of the party. If we look at how the Dem party operates, there is a natural pipeline for candidate selection. That pipeline includes governors and rising congressional leaders. Your new voices are going to have to come through that pipeline until the right people hold key positions of power within the party. Once those people hold those positions, the opportunity to build new coalitions will exist. This point is true even for the other side of the aisle...there wouldn't have been a Tea Party had there been no Paul Ryan.

Which brings me to the fact that it isn't a coincidence you're seeing AOC next to Bernie a lot more now. She isn't running for president and I don't believe she's gunning for Senate leader either - I think she wants Speaker of the House. If she can secure a leadership position, you'll see a lot more within the party break to the coalition she builds with the support of those like Sanders and Warren.

 

[the cac mamba]

Which brings me to the fact that it isn't a coincidence you're seeing AOC next to Bernie a lot more now. She isn't running for president and I don't believe she's gunning for Senate leader either - I think she wants Speaker of the House. If she can secure a leadership position

nobody is ever gonna vote for Progressives to lead the party. they're too weird

i know that a lot of you are ideologically opposed to being seen as serious people, and that's fine. but it comes with consequences

 

[the cac mamba]

Pelosi is lucking out. this is the one man that will get the entire country to root for Pelosi in the primary

 

[Left.A1]

Lose multiple times to trump and right wing republicans and blame leftist brehs

Lousy Liberalism 101