Make it clear to the Democratic Party establishment that progressive candidates will be on the ballot in every congressional district in Nov 2026, and they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be. Either way, we are done with their shit. There will never be a better time.
Write your senators about this folks, if you really care about Bernie and AOC, write your Senator and let them know you support Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Urge them to stand with them, or to at least listen to what these two folks have to say.
It probably wont do anything, but if we keep writing them (I write weekly) dropping their names, maybe they will take the fuckin hint
The way to prevent a new party from being a spoiler, is having the neoliberal DNC not running a candidate.
Since they clearly aren’t interested in winning or stopping Trump, nothing would change.
Look into star voting when you have a chance. The democrats can be whatever they want if the voters get the freedom to transfer their vote how they wish.
Oh I love star voting, I try to use it when I can in groups/communites. I used it when a decently large discord server had its only active admin just leave randomly, and there was a handful of people interested in running. STAR enabled a good result for the top two to become co-admin. Worked well until a schism happened and 90% of the active users left, myself included.
they will be a spoiler candidate if they have to be
I’d rather phrase it as “and they better not run a neolib spoiler candidate”. It’s not the progressives with popular support who are spoilers, but the neoliberals who are only propped up by corpo lobbies.
deleted by creator
You’re not really disagreeing. AOC is perceived as the face of the democratic party and it’s true. She’s at least offering consistent resistance while the feckless leadership of the party does nothing but line their pockets and ensure 100 percent unconditional support of Israel to the determient of all else.
I don’t even disagree with your conclusions necessary, if it’s impossible to dislodge Pelosi and Schumer. But building a party from scratch is really fucking hard. Hijacking one might be easier.
No, we don’t have time for that. We just have to do a tea party on the Democratic party… Which is what she’s been doing
They do have to go, but we’re keeping the house and the dog
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
edit: just saw your other comments, I hope your DNC-tea party plan works with some effect. It’s harder for those who have voted for decades for a party that just isn’t responsive to the citizens so we’ll see I suppose.
It would take many decades for a new party to get the recognition.
Most voters probably think Obama is still president.
Would it though? I’m not convinced of that. We already know what the party should look and act like based on actual progressive parties and policies around the world (even some past actions in the states itself), we really just need a name to know it by for everyone to get behind.
It’s the whole problem-solution thing, doesn’t matter what the name of the website or company is, we just need something to step in and fill that gap.
Sadly many of them didn’t know Kamela was even running until they couldn’t find Biden’s name on the polls come Election Night.
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
The Tea Party of the Left is what we needed back in the Obama days, better late than never.
They’re going to stay there making bank off of insider trading until they’re so ancient someone accidentally walks through and disperses the dust cloud known as Pelosi, and they finally decide they have enough money to reach supply-side Jesus.
Just insider trading? Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point. Greed itself is our new overlord, business ethics are dead and rotting.
Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point
they always have been. people have been pointing out how dems and republicans are two arms of the business party for a hundred years
“MAKE A NEW PARTY!11111!!1”
That’s not how America works. Only Democrats and Republicans can actually get elected at the level AOC plays at, because the electoral college only recognizes Democrats and Republicans.
Surely 3rd party will work this time!
That’s funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it’s not even close
Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.
AOC and Bernie should break off, start a new party and call it the Social Democrats … if for no other reason than that is what they espouse – a socially-conscious mandate that the government is to be there for the people, not the other way around.
If they do that the corporate Dems would buy up all of DC’s champagne. There is nothing they want more than to evict the left wing elements of the party and force them into electoral irrelevance, why would AOC et al do that for them?
Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We’re in need of new faces for that same initiative.
Because the DNC leadership doesn’t represent anyone except for the donors who own them.
The voters keep voting for the same corporate fellatio enthusiasts, so I guess they are representing their voters. The core Dem voters are as bad as, and walk hand-in-hand with, the DNC.
For everyone except the ones in charge 🤷
That’s one of the easier fixes IIRC.
While DNC chairs have consolidated a great deal of power, have many ways to self-deal and dig-in using the bylaws (such as determining caucus partitions/schedules and being superdelegates for life) their position is subject to internal approval of DNC membership itself. That is, you can just fire them. You don’t have to wait for them to resign to call for their replacement.
Regardless the committee is more like an HOA than a government body. They make suggestions and endorsements, host the convention, support candidacies strategically and financially, and threaten to take that away if you break rank. But they have no authority to say who runs, or even who runs as a Democrat.
But most importantly, AOC has always been a grass roots candidate. It would be great to have DNC support, their backing and resources, but she’s never needed it before. I can’t imagine she wants it now.
In fact, I think it’s far more likely that the DNC will one day ask her to endorse them.
She’s one of only half a handful of Dems that sound ready to lead people into battle. The difference between how she uses knowledge and intelligence to speak to people is in stark comparison to Trump sounding exactly like he has dementia. She listens and responds. Trump just keeps interrupting any question he doesn’t like. Fuck you Maga. Fuck you entirely. You god damn idiots.
She’s one of like 3 US politicians that I don’t just kind of low-key actively hate.
I would prefer a new party, but I’m glad that she and Bernie are still out there.
Well afaik she’s the only one doing a nationwide campaign at the moment
Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.
LOL, Chuck Schumer didn’t even place. That gives me a little hope.
If Chuck Schumer placed I would know that the end is nigh.
Agreed, but let’s take a moment to recognize that he is the highest ranked Democrat in the country, and the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.
Schumer said his job is keeping the democrats in lockstep support of the state of Israel.
the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.
I fucking hope so.
Other than just generally being far to the right of the people he’s supposed to faithfully represent, he’s so far in the pocket of fossil fuel interests that he needs a custom snorkel to breathe and he literally claimed that his “job is to keep the left Pro Israel” 🤮🤬
You might have to send a stern letter then!
I keep forgetting he’s a Democrat
Sorry to say but it would be a bow wrapped gift to the GOP. It’s very easy to brand her a socialist and on top of that she’s a woman.
It’s time for Democrats to own socialism. It’s milquetoast appeals to centrism that make the party boring and come across as dishonest.
That doesn’t mean being unreasonably uncompromising or unpragmatic when it comes to getting things done across the isle in government, but at least be true to your ideals and aspirations.
Bernie would have easily beaten Trump if voters had the option. AOC will likewise wipe the floor. A real alternative not more of the same.
Actually what would happen is dem support would crash even more because the GOP playbook works. AOC will be branded a socialist, a communist, ready to sell out, to take people’s property etc. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, the electorate will believe it. If the dems want to win they need to lose the haughtiness and a projecting an air of superiority that they know what’s right for people and appeal to blue collar workers again. i.e. messaging needs to change. That might make people more receptive to left wing / progressive views. They also need to read the GOP playbook and create some divisive issues for the right to deal with. But expecting people to accept/embrace/own socialism is a joke. It won’t happen. Think smart.
People don’t know what socialism is…Most people’s understanding of socialism includes the government doing basically anything
What people want is free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich. We just need to double down on that populist messaging - and when they cry out “that’s socialism” we have to stop trying to run from it
Tax the rich. How are we going to pay back our deficit? Tax the rich. Why does everything suck? Because we haven’t taxed the rich. What are we going to do in office? Tax the rich. Isn’t that socialism? Who cares, tax the rich.
There are about five socialists elected at the federal level. What basis do you have to believe that hundreds of millions would vote for a socialist leader when most of them haven’t ever voted for a socialist anything?
Harris was a full communist to the GOP.
I dont think it matters much.
Harris lost. That’s the point. If the dems want to win they need to learn from their mistakes, not give even more wedges to the right to scare away voters.
Harris lost by a razor thin margin, and there’s legitimate concerns that they cheated (more directly than usual). They lost because they tried to ease up her messaging to avoid alienating the people who were always going to vote for Trump
We need to rally around what everyone wants - free healthcare, affordable housing, tax the rich to do it. Just chant that over and over. Anyone who does that is going to win
deleted by creator
If she jettisons neoliberalism and takes a stand against genocide and imperialism she could begin to make a difference.
Weird. The party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge. We’re ready for someone who is actually for the people!
Controlled opposition
Buzzword catchphrase
Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don’t be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven’t been conservative since before the turn of the century.
It’s DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.
Sadly I don’t think it’s possible to have a party “for the people” with only two parties. There’s too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.
Yes it is. If the part “for the people” turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.
“Championing the status quo” is not how I would describe what Republicans are doing right now.
Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge
See David Hogg
See Bernie Sanders.
they’d rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.
They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.
I’m a European born American. Obama would be right wing politician in my country of birth.
The dinosaurs know they’re marching right, that’s where all the money is (for them).
With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It’s the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it’s hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn’t mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.
Kamala was never progressive.
Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn’t really care then it wouldn’t have taken much to change them.
Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren’t so MAGA. She’s on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.
I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris
bribesdonations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.Forgot hard on incarcerated trans women…
Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.
plus his voting record pre-presidency was very conservative. they fabricated his progressive persona
In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.
I’d say she’s a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.
Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.
They’re definitely for the billionaire people.
Aren’t there primaries for the Dems?
Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.
Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we’re the same, but proving we have “democracy” by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.
Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to ‘establishment’ candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.
The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.
You’re blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.
Not really. I’m saying that the system discourages change. If there’s blame for the DNC, it’s that their message has constantly been something along the lines of “be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change” which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been “More guns! More babies! No brown people!” which tends to attract passionate radicals.
The DNC in a nutshell. Absolute garbage.Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.
That’s not really up for debate. It’s literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don’t decide that.
Is that not the second sentence in my original comment?
DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.
From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN
It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”
I’m confused. Are you arguing that AOC is or isn’t for the people?
She absolutely is. Her nomination is the DNC’s nightmare.
deleted by creator
“Currently, there is no consensus on the face of the Democrat Party, as a majority of voters either give the title to AOC (26%) or simply say there is none (26%),” Co/efficient concluded.
Never heard of Co/efficient, but “Democrat Party” is a bit of a red flag. From mediabiasfactcheck:
FiveThirtyEight, an expert on measuring and rating pollster performance, has evaluated 20 polls by co/efficient, earning 0.7 stars for accuracy, indicating they are Mixed Factual by MBFC’s criteria. They also conclude that their polling moderately favors the Right with a score of -2.7, which equates to a Right-Center polling bias. In general, co/efficient is considered moderately accurate and demonstrates a right-leaning bias in polling.
MBFC gives The Guardian and Breitbart equivalent ratings for factuality, which is patently ridiculous
It’s not a reliable gauge of anything, and it’s harmful to trust its rankings
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
9point6.
Wikipedia. Which says MBFC is unreliable and has a pro Israel bias.
42
All of those sites are right-wing propaganda operations. Every single one of them.
Factual news is almost always going to be liberal biased. Sites like these encourage journalists to bias their news stories to the right for no good reason.
I’m surprised so many people are falling for this.
deleted by creator
Isn’t 538 mostly just an aggregator of other polls?
deleted by creator
However, co/efficient also states that it provides research for mostly Republicans, such as Gregory Steube (R-FL)
Democrat Party
This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.
I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.
The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.
This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.
I get it man. I’m over 50 too and my team is the White Sox. I support the White Sox no matter that. Whats important in sports is that you support the team of your home town. Sure they were the worst team in 2024 and not entertaining to watch. Doesnt matter.
Anyone who writes scathing articles of the sox pathetic performance in the newspaper is wrong and disloyal, and is missing the whole point of sports. Its not about celebrating human athleticism and competition in striving to to be the best a human can be, its about adherence and loyalty to the corporation who owns your local team.
The billionaire owner of the white sox himself, Jerry Reinsdorf told me this.
I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.
The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.
The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.
