Leo, do you think that Democrats should support right-wing economic policies?

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

They then need to drop all the LGBTQ stuff, feminism, identity politics. All the try hard ideologies they push. Stick to centrist identity ideology that is just very neutral and welcomes anyone but isn’t pushing some whiny narrative about 80 different genders or trying to to pretend a fat person isn’t fat or a grown man in a dress should complete in women’s sports. But of course they make the culture wars the front and center stuff they talk about. 

Stop playing defense and take a principled stance.

Kamala took your advice, and she lost. She very deliberately stayed away from identity politics of any kind, and they still accused her of all of this despite her being your average run-of-the-mill Neoliberal.

The right wing will accuse any Democrat... or really anyone left of the far far right... as being some radical blue-haired SJW out of touch leftist because they know it strengthens the dominance of their paradigmatic frame. 

It allows them to define what "normal" is... and Democrats keep believing them and submitting to their frame instead of taking a principled stance and defining the frame of what is normal and put these right wing politicians on the defense.

So, if they're going to accuse you of it anyway, you might as well own it and stand on principle and say, "That's right! We're the party of normal people and non-assholes who mind our own business and accept people's differences! And they're weird and neurotic for being so obsessed with trans people. Identity politics is all they ever think about."

That's how you take power and dominance over the frame of things instead of trying to concede to their framing... and being like "Sure, we're economically left... but don't worry... we hate the transes and gays too!" 

So, please stop submitting to right wing framing and trying to divide the working classes by trying to chuck certain groups out of the movement.

[Jacob Morres]

 

4 hours ago, Lyubov said:

but isn’t pushing some whiny narrative about 80 different genders or trying to to pretend a fat person isn’t fat or a grown man in a dress should complete in women’s sports

i always hear stuff about the competing in women's sports thing and 80 genders and stuff but idk how central to the movement that is? it's a very small aspect from my vantage point, like <1% of lgtbq issues in general?

like i only ever hear it from right-wing people making fun of lgtbq issues. it's such a small thing. i think there were only a handful of athletes or something? i forget the number, like in the NCAA for example, there are 500,000 athletes and 10 of them were trans lmao. that's .002% of athletes lmao, close to 0 

i don't know the issue here actually, it seems like propoganda used to create division and problems for political power 

Edited May 6 by Jacob Morres

[DocWatts]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hell no.

Dems need an economic populism agenda. The whole Dem agenda should be about fixing income inequality, ending corporate domination, busting monopolies, and ending corporate lobbying.

But Dems should not raise taxes on the bottom 80%.

Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico's president who ran on a platform of Left-wing economic populism, is an excellent case study on how to do this well. 

There's a reason that Bernie and AOC are regularly drawing crowds of tens of thousands of people in a year with no election. It's that Left-wing economic populism ala the New Deal is genuinely popular.

Dems trying to rebrand themselves as Republicans-lite is a losing strategy, as is Rainbow Capitalism idealism which spouts vapid  pseudo-profundities about the 'promise of America'.

The Dems need to be dragged kicking and screaming in a bold new direction, or risk becoming irrelevant.

I've been to the Bernie rallies, been to the regularly occuring  protests which drew out 9 million people in the month of April. The energy and excitement is there - it just needs to be properly cultivated.

David Hogg, the new young vice chair of the DNC, has the right idea - fight back against Trump's fascist takeover of our country, or get primaried by someone who will.

Edited May 6 by DocWatts

[nerdspeak]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hell no.

Dems need an economic populism agenda. The whole Dem agenda should be about fixing income inequality, ending corporate domination, busting monopolies, and ending corporate lobbying.

But Dems should not raise taxes on the bottom 80%.

You think the Dems can be pushed to the left on this though? 

The centrist Democrats like Schumer seem to prefer Trump to Sanders. Which makes sense, since Schumer’s donors are the banks. 

[Mannyb]

Absolutely agree.
 

The Democratic Party’s survival depends on embracing real economic populism—not just culture war deflections.
 

Fixing income inequality, busting monopolies, and breaking corporate capture should be non-negotiables.
 

But taxing the bottom 80% is political suicide and morally backward.
 

The wealth is at the top.
 

That’s where the pressure belongs.

 

Can Dems be pushed left?
 

Not without grassroots fire and public clarity.
 

The establishment, like Schumer, has long been tethered to Wall Street.
 

They fear Sanders-style populism because it threatens their donor class.
 

But that’s exactly the battle line—people power vs corporate power.
 

And it’s one worth drawing clearly.

 

[Mannyb]

That’s why the next move isn’t just hoping the Dems shift—it’s building parallel pressure from the ground up.
 

We need to make economic populism unavoidable: town halls, worker coalitions, independent media, and candidates who refuse corporate money.
 

The message has to be clear:

If you side with Wall Street, you’re not a Democrat. You’re a placeholder.

 

Real power comes when the working class, Gen Z, and disillusioned independents unite—not under a brand, but under a vision:

Dignified work, real wages, public power.

 

We don’t need permission from Schumer. We need momentum.

 

[Mannyb]

Here’s the agenda—simple, bold, non-negotiable:

 

Universal healthcare — no more bankruptcies over sickness.

Living wage — not minimum wage, dignity wage.

Break up monopolies — from Big Tech to Big Ag to Big Pharma.

Tax the ultra-rich — not working people.

Ban corporate lobbying — make democracy for people, not donors.

Public infrastructure renaissance — clean energy, fast transit, good jobs.

Debt-free education + housing as a right — not a luxury.

 

 

This isn’t “radical”—it’s common sense when the system’s been rigged for decades.

The moment is ripe. What’s missing isn’t policy—it’s courage.

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

You think the Dems can be pushed to the left on this though?

I think it requires a new bold Democrat leader. Someone new like Obama was back in 2008. I'm not saying Obama was an economic populist, I'm saying he was a fresh face. Dems need someone new who's like Bernie but younger and not a self-described socialist.

This is about leadership. The party itself will not change. Someone like an Obama or a Trump has to come along and force it to change. Bernie and AOC are not going to do it. AOC is too unappealing to much of the country. It needs to be someone more mature and seasoned. And not a woman of color. It needs to be a white dude because people are too racist, sexist, and xenophobic to vote for an AOC.

Edited May 6 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It needs to be someone more mature and seasoned. And not a woman of color. It needs to be a white dude because people are too racist, sexist, and xenophobic to vote for an AOC.

There is no solid evidence of this. Studies of other elections didn’t find politicians having a noticeable disadvantage due to gender or race in elections. Kamala Harris lost primary for other reasons than her race or sex.

[Hardkill]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think it requires a new bold Democrat leader. Someone new like Obama was back in 2008. I'm not saying Obama was an economic populist, I'm saying he was a fresh face. Dems need someone new who's like Bernie but younger and not a self-described socialist.

This is about leadership. The party itself will not change. Someone like an Obama or a Trump has to come along and force it to change. Bernie and AOC are not going to do it. AOC is too unappealing to much of the country. It needs to be someone more mature and seasoned. And not a woman of color. It needs to be a white dude because people are too racist, sexist, and xenophobic to vote for an AOC.

Also, a white man as POTUS will be deemed more socially acceptable to the public if he is a fiery populist in office then either a man of color, a woman, or a woman of color. 

I believe that's partially why Obama was too conciliatory when he was president because if he pushed too aggressively, he risked being labeled “an angry Black man” — a racist stereotype deeply ingrained in American political psychology. Obama knew that millions of white voters were looking for any excuse to view him as illegitimate, divisive, or threatening.

If a woman president came off as "too aggressive," she would likely face a double standard that male leaders are rarely held to — one rooted in longstanding gender norms about how women should behave in public life. Voters, media, and opponents might say she’s: “Cold,” “harsh,” or “shrill” “Overly ambitious” or “trying too hard to prove herself.” The harsh reality is that assertiveness in women is often interpreted as hostility, while the same behavior in men is seen as strength or leadership.

If a woman of color became president and was perceived as “too aggressive,” the backlash would likely be even more intense and layered than it would be for a white woman — due to the intersection of racial and gender stereotypes.

Biden on the other hand had tremendously More Political Experience and was a man with a White Irish-Catholic background, which made it more credible and "safe" for him to be more aggressive than Obama, which is partly why Biden's rhetoric became increasingly more populist and confrontational in office like Harry Truman.

Edited May 6 by Hardkill

[Terell Kirby]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It needs to be a white dude because people are too racist, sexist, and xenophobic to vote for an AOC.

crazy .. but true

[DocWatts]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think it requires a new bold Democrat leader. Someone new like Obama was back in 2008. I'm not saying Obama was an economic populist, I'm saying he was a fresh face. Dems need someone new who's like Bernie but younger and not a self-described socialist.

If Republicans are going to paint anyone to the Left of Ronald Reagan as a 'socialist' anyways, far better just to own it.

'Socialism' brought us the 40 hour work week, the weekend, Medicare, Social Security - popular programs and reforms that are as American as apple pie.

(I use quotes here since this is really just Social Democracy stuff, but with how uneducated a typical voter is it's not worth splitting hairs over).

Edited May 6 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

When you combine serious progressive economic policies with diversity candidates, you lose the culture war. The stench of "wokeness" becomes too pungent.

[Hardkill]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When you combine serious progressive economic policies with diversity candidates, you lose the culture war. The stench of "wokeness" becomes too pungent.

That's why I say that Democrats and progressives should try to eliminate the distraction of culture war by going on right-wing shows like Fox News and Ben Shapiro and agree with them on traditional social stances but disagree with them on economic ideas.

However, they would also need to make it clear to the public that they will not talk to truly extreme right-wingers like Charlie Kirk, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Steve Bannon unless they are debating them hard.

Edited May 6 by Hardkill

[Jacob Morres]

35 minutes ago, Raze said:

There is no solid evidence of this. Studies of other elections didn’t find politicians having a noticeable disadvantage due to gender or race in elections. Kamala Harris lost primary for other reasons than her race or sex.

fr? which study are you referring to 

id imagine race/sex plays a significant factor as an initial assumption 

Edited May 6 by Jacob Morres

[Hardkill]

17 hours ago, Emerald said:

Stop playing defense and take a principled stance.

Kamala took your advice, and she lost. She very deliberately stayed away from identity politics of any kind, and they still accused her of all of this despite her being your average run-of-the-mill Neoliberal.

The right wing will accuse any Democrat... or really anyone left of the far far right... as being some radical blue-haired SJW out of touch leftist because they know it strengthens the dominance of their paradigmatic frame. 

It allows them to define what "normal" is... and Democrats keep believing them and submitting to their frame instead of taking a principled stance and defining the frame of what is normal and put these right wing politicians on the defense.

So, if they're going to accuse you of it anyway, you might as well own it and stand on principle and say, "That's right! We're the party of normal people and non-assholes who mind our own business and accept people's differences! And they're weird and neurotic for being so obsessed with trans people. Identity politics is all they ever think about."

That's how you take power and dominance over the frame of things instead of trying to concede to their framing... and being like "Sure, we're economically left... but don't worry... we hate the transes and gays too!" 

So, please stop submitting to right wing framing and trying to divide the working classes by trying to chuck certain groups out of the movement.

You know, I used to believe in always taking a principled stance and challenging the Republican Party’s framing of what’s considered "normal" on every issue. And yes, Harris did a good job of avoiding identity politics altogether. However, Bill Clinton and other Democrats including moderate and progressive-leaning ones argued that Harris made a mistake by not responding to that trans ad with a clearer stance—specifically by stating that she does not support allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports, and that transgender rights are not a priority right now.

It’s also clear to me now that Democrats and progressives can’t win every issue—especially given how much smaller and less influential the Democratic-aligned media ecosystem is compared to the Republican-aligned one. We have to pick our battles. Plus, it’s obvious that most Americans today don’t really care about social justice issues. Right now, people care more about having their material needs met, because millions of Americans are currently struggling to provide for themselves and their families due to rampant corporate greed, historic levels of economic inequality, and the lingering effects of inflation—which still haven’t fully subsided.

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

You know, I used to believe in always taking a principled stance and challenging the Republican Party’s framing of what’s considered "normal" on every issue. And yes, Harris did a good job of avoiding identity politics altogether. However, Bill Clinton and other Democrats including moderate and progressive-leaning ones argued that Harris made a mistake by not responding to that trans ad with a clearer stance—specifically by stating that she does not support allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports, and that transgender rights are not a priority right now.

It’s also clear to me now that Democrats and progressives can’t win every issue—especially given how much smaller and less influential the Democratic-aligned media ecosystem is compared to the Republican-aligned one. We have to pick our battles. Plus, it’s obvious that most Americans today don’t really care about social justice issues. Right now, people care more about having their material needs met, because millions of Americans are currently struggling to provide for themselves and their families due to rampant corporate greed, historic levels of economic inequality, and the lingering effects of inflation—which still haven’t fully subsided.

None of that would have helped her cause.

Taking time to state "Don't worry. We're anti-trans too." isn't going to be a winning strategy as you'll just push away more progressive members of the base without energizing anyone else to vote for the Democrat.

The only thing that will work is a statement of unity and an acceptance of differences... and then putting forward a Social Democrat Populist vision for our economy.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

None of that would have helped her cause.

Taking time to state "Don't worry. We're anti-trans too." isn't going to be a winning strategy as you'll just push away more progressive members of the base without energizing anyone else to vote for the Democrat.

The only thing that will work is a statement of unity and an acceptance of differences... and then putting forward a Social Democrat Populist vision for our economy.

Obama and the Democrats consistently promoted unity and acceptance of differences during his presidency—but it didn’t work. By the end of his time in office, they had lost over 1,000 legislative seats at the state and national levels, numerous governorships, and many other key state and local offices across the country. Not to mention, his presidency and the party’s direction played a major role in creating the conditions that led to Trump’s election.

Biden also tried to unify the country by running—and governing—as a good old white American “moderate” in 2020. Sadly, he failed at that too.

Besides, how do you explain the dominance of FDR and the New Deal coalition, which was economically left but socially moderate, and managed to shape American politics for decades?

When LBJ and the Democrats passed a series of landmark civil rights and voting rights laws for Black and Brown Americans in the 1960s, it cost them much of the South, large parts of rural America, and the majority of white voters for at least a generation. Then, when the Democratic Party embraced women’s rights in the mid-1970s, they lost even more support—especially among male voters and Protestant voters (who still make up the largest share of Christian voters in the U.S. today). In fact, the Democratic Party hasn’t won the majority of Christian voters since around 1976. They continued to lose ground in the South and rural areas for yet another generation. By 2024, they had even lost the majority of Catholic voters across the country.

We haven’t won the majority of white voters or male voters since around 1964. We’ve lost too many Christian voters and have essentially ceded rural America. The vast majority of the South has been solidly Republican since the 2010s. In 2024, Democrats also lost a solid majority of young male voters nationwide.

Too many people in this country feel like they’re losing their traditional way of life—while living paycheck to paycheck, stuck in miserable jobs, and watching their communities decay. And too many Americans still see the Democratic Party as a group of “woke,” overly educated coastal elites who talk down to everyday Americans—lecturing them about racism, xenophobia, misogyny, guns, and even climate science. Honestly, I’m not even sure anymore whether the majority of Catholic voters will ever again believe that the Democrats are on their side—especially considering that Christian voters still make up more than two-thirds of the electorate nationwide and Democrats have always needed to win the majority of Catholic voters since the 1990s or the Aughts to win the presidency.

The Democrats have no choice but to seriously devote their time and resources over the next 10 years to winning back white voters, Southern voters, rural voters, Christian voters, working-class voters, and men—especially young men. If they don’t, they may never regain control of the U.S. Senate or the presidency for the foreseeable future.

 

Edited May 7 by Hardkill

[The Crocodile]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

AOC is too unappealing to much of the country. It needs to be someone more mature and seasoned. And not a woman of color. It needs to be a white dude because people are too racist, sexist, and xenophobic to vote for an AOC.

But leo what if AOC transitions into a white man.

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

When you combine serious progressive economic policies with diversity candidates, you lose the culture war. The stench of "wokeness" becomes too pungent.

That's a misread of the situation based in the belief that everyone's paradigms are fairly set in stone and must be conformed to and never influenced.

And that misread will keep Democrats losing the power game, over and over.

Regardless of who the candidate is, you need a strong economic populist vision and the right power-based tactics.... and you need to be able to assert a dominant paradigmatic frame and assert that that paradigmatic frame is just normal and that disagreeing with that frame is fringe and wacky.

The right wing does this all the time... and that's why they have an outsized influence of people's paradigms.

I've seen lifelong hippies who were anti-racist in the 60s go Facsist! That's how powerful it is to assert a dominant paradigmatic frame onto reality.

So far, every single Democrat candidate has been weak-sauce... including Bernie Sanders because there is a tendency to avoid imposing their paradigmatic frame onto reality.

Instead, they try to play defense and fit their economic vision (or lack thereof) like a puzzle piece into people's current paradigms without trying to influence the paradigmatic center of the Overton Window.

And there is no way to win if we're aren't challenging and influencing the Overton Window.... and brand-jamming every single shred of anti-woke propaganda as neurotic and embarrassing.