Democratic Party Rebuild

[MAKAVELI25]

Trumps argument ( I don't agree with it) was that tarrifs would bring back jobs from overseas and eliminate income taxes.

That's fair, but then why would any ordinary working- or middle-class voter with even a minimal level of political literacy believe it’s in their interest to eliminate the income tax—an imperfect system, yes, but nominally progressive? Why wouldn’t it immediately occur to them that whatever replaces a progressive income tax will almost certainly be regressive? That eliminating a tax structure where higher earners pay more necessarily shifts the burden downward?

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Trump didn't campaign on tariffs increasing prices though, he campaigned on them reducing prices. Most voters didn't know a tariff from a turnip, so they weren't prepared to have erudite economic discussions about the historical effects of tariffs. They just knew it was a hammer that Trump said he was going to use to smash prices down. That's what effective messaging looks like. Democratic operatives are scared to pick up hammers because they don't want to be responsible for the power. Cucked party.

You can say it's a failure on the political understanding or education amongst the voters, but this is the world we have. And the Democratic Party isn't trying to make voters smarter, they're just as happy to play the dumb voter game because a smart electorate isn't going to tolerate the Democratic Party's bullshyt either.

I mean, if you don’t know what a tariff is, then maybe look it up before voting. Again, I agree with you on policy and I agree with many of your criticisms of the Democratic Party, but I think the left tends to direct all its criticism at politicians while excusing the voters themselves.

Not understanding how tariffs work and then voting for a candidate whose signature policy is more tariffs is no less irrational than Brexit voters who cast their ballots and then googled how Brexit actually works. We should be honest enough to call obviously uninformed behavior what it is.

Your broader point is that, regardless of how we feel about voter competence, this is the electorate we have and we have to navigate political reality accordingly. I agree. I just think there are far too many excuses made for voters, as if they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.

 

[King Kreole]

That's fair, but then why would any ordinary working- or middle-class voter with even a minimal level of political literacy believe it’s in their interest to eliminate the income tax—an imperfect system, yes, but nominally progressive? Why wouldn’t it immediately occur to them that whatever replaces a progressive income tax will almost certainly be regressive? That eliminating a tax structure where higher earners pay more necessarily shifts the burden downward?

Brother, what percentage of voters do you think could on the spot tell you the difference between a regressive and progressive tax? I think you have to reassess your standards for "minimal level of political literacy"

This doesn't mean the people are stupid, they're just malnourished when it comes to political ideology because there has been no political party in this country feeding them. Both parties have benefitted from a politically hungry, desperate people.

Your last sentence actually cuts closer to the bone and gets closer to the language people naturally understand; that of haves and have nots. Frame it simply like that - the more rich people have, the less you have - is how to cut through the bullshyt, illogical arguments Trump makes. But the Democrats are verboten from speaking that language because they're representing the rich people too.

 

[King Kreole]

I mean, if you don’t know what a tariff is, then maybe look it up before voting. Again, I agree with you on policy and I agree with many of your criticisms of the Democratic Party, but I think the left tends to direct all its criticism at politicians while excusing the voters themselves.

Right, but I think it's because changing the political leadership is an easier task than immediately doing mass re-education of the entire population while running into the headwinds of both political parties. The political class is the more effective button to push.

Not understanding how tariffs work and then voting for a candidate whose signature policy is more tariffs is no less irrational than Brexit voters who cast their ballots and then googled how Brexit actually works. We should be honest enough to call obviously uninformed behavior what it is.

Brexit is actually a great comparison, and yes we should definitely call out the uninformed beliefs and behaviors that motivated people to rally for it. But to what end? For historical record? Sure, absolutely. But as a tactic in this current moment of political battle? I don't think it does much to blame the public. They're the ultimate judge in our (pseudo) democracy. Zohran actually nails this approach. It's masturbatory and self-destructive to belittle or blame the public who voted for the opposition, just offer them a better path.

Your broader point is that, regardless of how we feel about voter competence, this is the electorate we have and we have to navigate political reality accordingly. I agree. I just think there are far too many excuses made for voters, as if they bear no responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.

Personally, it hurts my brain to witness the rank irrationality on display in our political landscape (and by some in HL), so I'm definitely with you on not doling out actual excuses. But in our current society/democracy, the public is like a child with a gun. Does no good to antagonize them for the sake of truthfulness. Just smile and nod and guide them away.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Brother, what percentage of voters do you think could on the spot tell you the difference between a regressive and progressive tax? I think you have to reassess your standards for "minimal level of political literacy"

This doesn't mean the people are stupid, they're just malnourished when it comes to political ideology because there has been no political party in this country feeding them. Both parties have benefitted from a politically hungry, desperate people.

Your last sentence actually cuts closer to the bone and gets closer to the language people naturally understand; that of haves and have nots. Frame it simply like that - the more rich people have, the less you have - is how to cut through the bullshyt, illogical arguments Trump makes. But the Democrats are verboten from speaking that language because they're representing the rich people too.

Brother, we’re talking about the same population that was convinced a wealth tax or inheritance tax—policies that apply only to millionaires—was somehow against their interests, despite a national median income of $30–40k. A huge portion of the electorate genuinely believes the old cliché that they’re “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” They identify with the haves because they imagine they’ll be one of them someday, even though statistically they won’t.

So yes, I’m fully with you on the reforms the Democratic Party needs. I’m with you on the structural changes. But none of that requires us to pretend the electorate bears no responsibility. The voters aren’t passive victims of messaging—they actively choose narratives that harm them because those narratives flatter their imagined future selves.

We can critique Democratic strategy all day long, but it should not come at the expense of acknowledging that a significant portion of voters make decisions that contradict their own material interests—and they do so proudly. They deserve their share of accountability.

 

[mastermind]

That’s a fair response, but it still doesn’t address the core question: why would voters choose a candidate whose central economic promise was to implement policies that would raise their prices? It’s not enough to critique Democratic messaging—at some point we also have to hold the electorate accountable. If people vote for a candidate who openly guarantees policies that increase costs, and then complain about those increased costs, the problem isn’t just with the politicians. It reflects a deeper failure of political understanding among the voters themselves.

That’s where Americans are stupid, tbf

Many didn’t understand tariffs but tbf to Trump, that was an economic policy that was counter to the norm.

 

[wire28]

It’s over @the cac mamba

But Newsom might get carried to the nomination by the base much to the thinly veiled racist dismay of some

 

[MAKAVELI25]

It’s over @the cac mamba

But Newsom might get carried to the nomination by the base much to the thinly veiled racist dismay of some

Buttigieg has had problems with young and black voters since at least 2020. Putting aside the fact that I don't like or trust him, which is relevant because I have a bias, it would be political malpractice to nominate him.

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[the cac mamba]

It’s over @the cac mamba

But Newsom might get carried to the nomination by the base much to the thinly veiled racist dismay of some

i'm fairly certain that Newsom is gonna be the '28 nominee

he's a fukkin powerhouse in a Dem primary, and once the big money lines up behind him, it's over

i guess we'll have to come to terms with the only issue that matters; where Newsom stands on Palestine

 

[MAKAVELI25]

i'm fairly certain that Newsom is gonna be the '28 nominee

he's a fukkin powerhouse in a Dem primary, and once the big money lines up behind him, it's over

i guess we'll have to come to terms with the only issue that matters; where Newsom stands on Palestine

We're almost three years away from the nomination. If I'm remembering correctly, at this point in time relative to 2008, people thought it would be Rudy Giuliani vs. Hilary Clinton.

There's a fair chance that:

(1.) Newsom is peaking way too early
(2) The eventual 2028 nominee isn't a household name yet.

 

[the cac mamba]

We're almost three years away from the nomination. If I'm remembering correctly, at this point in time relative to 2008, people thought it would be Rudy Giuliani vs. Hilary Clinton.

There's a fair chance that:

(1.) Newsom is peaking way too early

i sure hope so here's exhibit A from today. his weaknesses are just glaring

 

[wire28]

Buttigieg has had problems with young and black voters since at least 2020. Putting aside the fact that I don't like or trust him, which is relevant because I have a bias, it would be political malpractice to nominate him.

Sounds like Kamala was right when she said America would never vote for a gay man

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Sounds like Kamala was right when she said America would never vote for a gay man

I think his problem is less about being gay and more about a lack of authenticity. He is clearly brilliant, but like Kamala, he sounds way too rehearsed.

Look how badly he fumbled his response on Israel when speaking on "Pod Save America" a couple of months back. Frankly, I have more respect for despicable scumbags like Randy Fine who come out and spew their disgusting views (at least honest) than people who try to placate all sides of the fence.

 

[wire28]

We're almost three years away from the nomination. If I'm remembering correctly, at this point in time relative to 2008, people thought it would be Rudy Giuliani vs. Hilary Clinton.

There's a fair chance that:

(1.) Newsom is peaking way too early
(2) The eventual 2028 nominee isn't a household name yet.

My boy JB moneybags sitting in the cut. Taking his GLP1 waiting for the right time to strike.