158
Dems Hemorrhaged Support from All Demographics in 2024 — Including New Voters
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
158 points (94.9% liked)
politics
25004 readers
1124 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And yet progressives say their policies are so supported and yet they can barely get Anyone elected.
Begs to wonder how that makes sense too or else they would've tea partied the dems by now.
I wish it were true but either progressives are too few or too lazy. Either way, same result.
The DNC is spending a lot of money and effort to keep Progressives down. See Bernie 2016, see lack of proper primaries in 2024, see having some old ghoul with cancer snap a seat from AOC to then retire a few month later because of his cancer.
See the part about the Democratic Party actively working against progressives, to the point of funding propaganda against them. The Dems saw the Tea Party and care more about avoiding that with progressives than they do about running candidates that can either beat the Republicans or serve the people.
And from what you just said: you'd better have never once blamed progressives for losing the Democrats an election if you're taking the "progressives are too weak" position.
If progressives were numerous enough that wouldn't matter.
Somehow the magats got their psychos in power over a number of years. Progressives don't.
People aren't going to like what you're saying, but there's an element of uncomfortable truth. Money and establishment power didn't let the neocons beat back the tea party movement. I desperately want solid progressives, but the ones who appear on my local ballot are either obviously unfit or don't garner enough votes from a "moderate" electorate. And I live in a rabidly "blue" area.
There is a hearts and minds campaign that progressives have continuously failed at, and blaming democratic elites solely for this failure is no more accurate than Democrats blaming progressives for their losses. Politics in a democracy is coalition-building, and we're apparently all failing together.
Gonna continue to call bullshit here. The grassroots movement failing to gather momentum in the face of propaganda at the cost of the nation's future is not the same as the Democrats blaming a minority for their own failures. Not even a little bit, can you please reflect a little on how absurd that claim is?
You're also not comparing apples to apples here. First: the Tea Party was an unknown element, there hadn't been a growing fringe movement like that within a major party for a century. The Democrats had the benefit of seeing that happen on the right. Second, the Republicans were willing to embrace the crazy of the Tea Party for the sake of their continuing victory. Very much in contrast, the Democrats are very clearly willing to sacrifice national victory in order to keep progressives down. Three elections in a row they've insisted on running the most centrist candidate possible, resulting two very predictable losses and one surprising victory.
Democrats insist on siding with money and corporations every time, their failures are their own fault, and very much also the fault of their supporters.
You're talking about national elections, and I'm talking about presence in state and local elections. Candidates with a sustainable/viable chance nationally must first have an established local presence. That base builds credibility and sustainability for a movement, as others in the movement can also point towards local or state wins to justify their own candidacies.
I also happen to be familiar with my state Democratic party chairs. The idea that they could be systemically suppressing progressives in state or local elections would require a level of competence and political acumen I've never seen them demonstrate. They barely have control over their party, as is. I'm connected to the political world in my state both personally and professionally, and the concept of Democrats being able to exert this kind of control is actually laughable.
The bottom line is that you're mad that Democrats don't support your candidates, and Democrats are mad you don't support theirs. Both attitudes are unproductive. In the end, if either progressives or Democrats wants to pick up votes, they're going to need to actually persuade voters to show up and vote consistently, and not just in federal elections. This will include voters you don't necessarily like or fully agree with. You know who ran candidates in and voted for every single school board race? The damn Tea Party.
You forgot too whipped or too in denial.