The Democrat Party Dilemma

[RLLD 4,143]

13 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

The problem is that you don't see how these same things were said a decade ago in the opposite direction. The problem is that you framed it as "The Democrats have spent years indoctrinating their base into the notion that those who do not share their beliefs are evil. " and were told both parties do this anymore. You decided to blow all of that off. The problem is you don't see how this is kind of standard at the beginning of presidencies stuff.

Simply put- you are delusional and intentionally being intellectually dishonest. 

No, that is not the problem.  The problem is evidenced by the election and now the polling.  The strategy of vilification of those who think differently is failing, at every turn.  Its failing because the strategy has a flaw.....simply oppose, without thought....because others are evil.   This has resulted in Democrats owning the 20% side of every issue, and because they hav taught their core base to ONLY hate.....any adjustment to be normal is met with internal revolt.

[RLLD 4,143]

12 minutes ago, squistion said:

Dude, I have never thought those who don't share my beliefs are evil. Never. And shame on you for suggesting that. 

YOU....do not really need to.   YOUR party on the other hand, does....and it does it so effectively that now any attempt to adjust their approach is met with internal strife.  So now they dare not deviate, for to do so results in drawing the ire of the radical.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No, that is not the problem.  The problem is evidenced by the election and now the polling.  The strategy of vilification of those who think differently is failing, at every turn.  Its failing because the strategy has a flaw.....simply oppose, without thought....because others are evil.   This has resulted in Democrats owning the 20% side of every issue, and because they hav taught their core base to ONLY hate.....any adjustment to be normal is met with internal revolt.

A lot of words to ignore the crux of everything I said...seriously- when you want to come back to reality let me know

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

A lot of words to ignore the crux of everything I said...seriously- when you want to come back to reality let me know

I just explained the problem to you. If you need more evidence than the recent election and polling, I may not be able to help you much.   I think it best to allow the radicals to walk, form their own 3rd party.   Then the remaining Democrats, the historically normal folks can start to lure centrists back, and the Democrat party can likely get back to some strength.

 

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I just explained the problem to you. If you need more evidence than the recent election and polling, I may not be able to help you much.   I think it best to allow the radicals to walk, form their own 3rd party.   Then the remaining Democrats, the historically normal folks can start to lure centrists back, and the Democrat party can likely get back to some strength.

 

I will repeat:

 

2015-2016 there were a ton of things written about how "The Republicans might struggle to win another election again because of shifting demographics amid a post Obama Presidency. Obviously those articles were idiotically premature.

Right now there are a bunch of articles the other way because the Republicans just cleaned up in November and the Democrats don't seemingly have a unified plan going forward yet. Of course they will figure out some plan, they will rally behind that, and rally behind whoever leads the party. The other issue right now is that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are the most notable faces in the party and they are both old, out of touch, dopes who need to be sent to the political glue factory. 

But of course RLLD has to start a thread saying "Democrats assert whoever doesn't share their beliefs are evil." When presented with the idea that it isn't solely a one sided issue on insisting the other side is evil he bloviates nonsensically. When pointed out to him the President does the exact thing he is saying he tries to deflect. When he is asked to use the search function here that is too hard for him. Dude is tonally unaware. 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

I will repeat:

 

2015-2016 there were a ton of things written about how "The Republicans might struggle to win another election again because of shifting demographics amid a post Obama Presidency. Obviously those articles were idiotically premature.

Right now there are a bunch of articles the other way because the Republicans just cleaned up in November and the Democrats don't seemingly have a unified plan going forward yet. Of course they will figure out some plan, they will rally behind that, and rally behind whoever leads the party. The other issue right now is that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are the most notable faces in the party and they are both old, out of touch, dopes who need to be sent to the political glue factory. 

But of course RLLD has to start a thread saying "Democrats assert whoever doesn't share their beliefs are evil." When presented with the idea that it isn't solely a one sided issue on insisting the other side is evil he bloviates nonsensically. When pointed out to him the President does the exact thing he is saying he tries to deflect. When he is asked to use the search function here that is too hard for him. Dude is tonally unaware. 

I love history, it can be useful.  I think the real magic of history here would be for Democrats to stop being opposition for the sake of simply opposing, and instead start to stand for something people care about, even if that something happens to be something the Republicans also care about.   You are cutting of your noses to spite your face. Its not working.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

Just now, RLLD said:

I love history, it can be useful.  I think the real magic of history here would be for Democrats to stop being opposition for the sake of simply opposing, and instead start to stand for something people care about, even if that something happens to be something the Republicans also care about.   You are cutting of your noses to spite your face. Its not working.

I'm not doing anything. Democrats wouldn't like what I have to say anyway. Republicans wouldn't either.

The real magic though would be for once you seeing both sides of an issue without writing more than 200 words about how you have tunnel vision. 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not doing anything. Democrats wouldn't like what I have to say anyway. Republicans wouldn't either.

The real magic though would be for once you seeing both sides of an issue without writing more than 200 words about how you have tunnel vision. 

No, the real magic here would be Democrats moving forward in a way that is not self-destructive.   I think a healthy Democrat party is needed and necessary,  We no longer have that.

Restoring the party to what it once was, means better results for the American people.  Shedding the radical ideas and elements, allowing them to have their own separate party, is good for the nation.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No, the real magic here would be Democrats moving forward in a way that is not self-destructive.   I think a healthy Democrat party is needed and necessary,  We no longer have that.

Restoring the party to what it once was, means better results for the American people.  Shedding the radical ideas and elements, allowing them to have their own separate party, is good for the nation.

Well- that was less than 200 words....it didn't clear up the tunnel vision thing though. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Well- that was less than 200 words....it didn't clear up the tunnel vision thing though. 

I think it could be true that an honest evaluation, notably where it might be critical, is just something that some of our friends who lean left are not welcoming of......

I think in part its due to this notion that only the liberals are correct, so to honestly assess them is to challenge this notion.  It rarely turns out well.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I think it could be true that an honest evaluation, notably where it might be critical, is just something that some of our friends who lean left are not welcoming of......

I think in part its due to this notion that only the liberals are correct, so to honestly assess them is to challenge this notion.  It rarely turns out well.

https://imgflip.com/i/9ns9kw

[MDC 7,075]

Keep going @Sean Mooney, you’ve almost got him there.  

[The Real timschochet 6,328]

The main reason that the Democrats are doing so poorly in polling right now is that liberals are disgusted and outraged that they don’t fight back harder against Trump, 

But I keep pointing out that it doesn’t matter. Democrats could be at 0% popularity and they still will have an excellent chance to win handily at the next election because (a) it will be a referendum on Donald Trump and (b) the only way to disapprove of Trump is to vote Democrat. 

So that’s it. The Dems could veer left and allow socialists to take control. Or they could veer right. They could regard conservatives as evil (I think @RLLD is partly right about this but he refuses to accept that it’s an element of both parties) or they could change that aspect. They can continue to support woke issues or  turn away from that. None of it matters. In the end if people approve of Trump Democrats lose. If they don’t like Trump Democrats win. 
 

Long term, beyond Trump, it’s the same formula. The public will choose Democrats whenever they want a change from Republicans and Republicans when they want a change from Democrats. You guys think there is a way out of this cycle. There isn’t one. You guys think a third party might arise eventually. It won’t. The two parties are too entrenched. Sometimes outsiders might win but the only way to do so is within one of the two parties: which is why Donald Trump could get elected but Ross Perot could not. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The main reason that the Democrats are doing so poorly in polling right now is that liberals are disgusted and outraged that they don’t fight back harder against Trump, 

But I keep pointing out that it doesn’t matter. Democrats could be at 0% popularity and they still will have an excellent chance to win handily at the next election because (a) it will be a referendum on Donald Trump and (b) the only way to disapprove of Trump is to vote Democrat. 

So that’s it. The Dems could veer left and allow socialists to take control. Or they could veer right. They could regard conservatives as evil (I think @RLLD is partly right about this but he refuses to accept that it’s an element of both parties) or they could change that aspect. They can continue to support woke issues or  turn away from that. None of it matters. In the end if people approve of Trump Democrats lose. If they don’t like Trump Democrats win. 
 

Long term, beyond Trump, it’s the same formula. The public will choose Democrats whenever they want a change from Republicans and Republicans when they want a change from Democrats. You guys think there is a way out of this cycle. There isn’t one. You guys think a third party might arise eventually. It won’t. The two parties are too entrenched. Sometimes outsiders might win but the only way to do so is within one of the two parties: which is why Donald Trump could get elected but Ross Perot could not. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for this thoughtful response.

I think Democrats should start positioning for a post-Trump political environment.  Consider that if they are not simply opposing Trump.....what do they have?  I think they need to discover that is and start working toward it.   Even if that work happens to result in them having some small or temporary agreement with Trump.   JMHO

[The Real timschochet 6,328]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Thank you for this thoughtful response.

I think Democrats should start positioning for a post-Trump political environment.  Consider that if they are not simply opposing Trump.....what do they have?  I think they need to discover that is and start working toward it.   Even if that work happens to result in them having some small or temporary agreement with Trump.   JMHO

Lots of people agree with you. I don’t. IMO Democrats need to stick to their principles . Sure they can work with Trump when there is a common goal (but Trump makes this very difficult.) But most of the time oppose him. Don’t worry about the polls. 

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

I guess if Democrats haven't figured out a post Trump strategy **checks notes** 2 months in to Trump's term they are doomed forever I guess. 

[jerryskids 6,522]

It's certainly true that Trump is creating an environment where people on the Right think people on the Left are evil/bad, and that's unfortunate.  But that has been true on the Left for decades, going back to Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" to Hillary's "deplorables."  

Until recently I believe the adage was true:  Righties think Leftie ideas are bad; Lefties think Righties are bad.

And before someone says "not me$#@!", of course this isn't 100%.

I mentioned here recently my anecdotal experience that numerous Lefties on my social media feeds have proudly announced that they unfriended/deleted any connection to people who voted for Trump.  I suspect that others have seen similar.  Yet I have never seen the opposite.

I'm disappointed that my side is losing it's position as the "adult in the room" on this topic.   

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Lots of people agree with you. I don’t. IMO Democrats need to stick to their principles . Sure they can work with Trump when there is a common goal (but Trump makes this very difficult.) But most of the time oppose him. Don’t worry about the polls. 

I get what you are saying here.  Maybe consider this, there is such a small segment of support available for the party when the party latches on to specialized positions that it inhibits their ability to secure spots in congress and the white house.  You simply cannot allow Trump to have uncontested ownership of every 80% issue.

[The Real timschochet 6,328]

23 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I get what you are saying here.  Maybe consider this, there is such a small segment of support available for the party when the party latches on to specialized positions that it inhibits their ability to secure spots in congress and the white house.  You simply cannot allow Trump to have uncontested ownership of every 80% issue.

Sure you can as long as they’re not the economic ones. 

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sure you can as long as they’re not the economic ones. 

I might tend to disagree.  Holding firm and fast to positions that the people do not want is not a winning strategy.  Notably when Democrats actually do agree, but only oppose now because Trump took it away.

[Mike Honcho 5,051]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

No, that is not the problem.  The problem is evidenced by the election and now the polling.  The strategy of vilification of those who think differently is failing, at every turn.  Its failing because the strategy has a flaw.....simply oppose, without thought....because others are evil.   This has resulted in Democrats owning the 20% side of every issue, and because they hav taught their core base to ONLY hate.....any adjustment to be normal is met with internal revolt.

You only need three periods for an ellipse...HTH 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

You only need three periods for an ellipse...HTH 

I always give more, its my thing  

[The Real timschochet 6,328]

Just now, RLLD said:

I might tend to disagree.  Holding firm and fast to positions that the people do not want is not a winning strategy.  Notably when Democrats actually do agree, but only oppose now because Trump took it away.

It’s not a winning strategy. It’s not a losing one either. These aren’t issues that cause a majority of people to vote. 

Look- I believe that the new tariffs are going to be catastrophic for our economy. I know you disagree. But suppose I am right about that: now along comes the next election in 2026, and the Democrats are for removing the tariffs and Trump is for keeping them. Do you really think any of these woke issues will matter one way or the other? They won’t. It will be about inflation, jobs, the tariffs. 

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s not a winning strategy. It’s not a losing one either. These aren’t issues that cause a majority of people to vote. 

Look- I believe that the new tariffs are going to be catastrophic for our economy. I know you disagree. But suppose I am right about that: now along comes the next election in 2026, and the Democrats are for removing the tariffs and Trump is for keeping them. Do you really think any of these woke issues will matter one way or the other? They won’t. It will be about inflation, jobs, the tariffs. 

I see no issue in opposing tariffs, I think that one is likely OK strategically....it overlooks how beneficial it will be for use domestically, buy I cannot fault the move to oppose.

I think Democrats care about the border though.  I think they might not like the way Trump is doing it, anymore than Republicans like the way Democrats did it.  But I think everyone can get behind a secure border. Imagine if instead o simply opposing they asked to meet and sort out some options.  NOW...  people see Democrats on board with a big issue for which they can steal back some support.

And honestly, ending boys playing in girls sports is such an easy win, c'mon.....

[MDC 7,075]

Id be stunned if Trump is on the 80% side of any issue other than maybe trans in sports.

A big part of the problem in politics today is that neither party offers much on the issues that matter to the overwhelming majority of Americans: jobs, healthcare, housing, education, etc. So they barely even try. 

Thats why the parties spend so much time bickering about trannies, furries, DEI, etc. It costs nothing and it’s way easier to work their side into a lather than to tackle any real issues.

HTH 

[weepaws 3,141]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Id be stunned if Trump is on the 80% side of any issue other than maybe trans in sports.

A big part of the problem in politics today is that neither party offers much on the issues that matter to the overwhelming majority of Americans: jobs, healthcare, housing, education, etc. So they barely even try. 

Thats why the parties spend so much time bickering about trannies, furries, DEI, etc. It costs nothing and it’s way easier to work their side into a larger than to tackle any real issues.

HTH 

Agreed.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,864]

3 minutes ago, weepaws said:

Agreed.  

[iam90sbaby 2,451]

3 hours ago, MDC said:

No one is arguing that the Democratic Party doesn’t have a problem. I’m saying your claim that they call the other side “evil” is equally true of the GOP. That might be why the public holds politics in general in low regard, but it’s not a uniquely Democrat problem.

I’d post you some links of GC righties calling Dems/liberals evil, including your own numerous posts comparing them to brownshirts. But I see you ignored @Mike Honcho’s quotes from the Republicans POTUS doing exactly what you accuse Dems of doing. 

So, I assume more facts would be wasted on you.

Main difference being Dems are actually evil, sick people. 

[MDC 7,075]

22 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Main difference being Dems are actually evil, sick people. 

Didn’t take long for the forearm MAGAs to prove @RLLD wrong.  

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Didn’t take long for the forearm MAGAs to prove @RLLD wrong.  

 

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Didn’t take long for the forearm MAGAs to prove @RLLD wrong.  

So.....iam90sbaby is your "proof" then, well, then I guess you have it all figured out chief, and very soon people will start supporting Democrats again.

[iam90sbaby 2,451]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

Didn’t take long for the forearm MAGAs to prove @RLLD wrong.  

RLLD isn’t MAGA, he’s a Kmart philosopher who only cares about appearing morally superior 

[MDC 7,075]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 

So.....iam90sbaby is your "proof" then, well, then I guess you have it all figured out chief, and very soon people will start supporting Democrats again.

What proof do you need that righties also call liberals evil? Would a few dozen examples of you comparing them to Nazis and brownshirts do it?  

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

What proof do you need that righties also call liberals evil? Would a few dozen examples of you comparing them to Nazis and brownshirts do it?  

Who is winning? Think about it.

[Fnord 2,036]

Hmm. @RLLD seems to have finally gone full MAGA. Sad.

Rush Limbaugh rose to wild levels of success, wealth, and fame calling liberals nasty names. In the 80s. This has been entrenched into GOP dogma ever since. The tables didn't REALLY start to turn until enough people actually thought Donald Trump was worthy of being POTUS. At that point, it was too late.

I just spent a long weekend in a red state hanging out with hardcore Republicans and had a great time. This is only a problem for people that are crazy or have motivation to divide. Normal people don't act like that.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Who is winning? Think about it.

So if the left was in the same position it would be okay for them to be calling the right "evil" and everything because they are winning. 

[MDC 7,075]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Who is winning? Think about it.

What does that have to do with the fact that you compare liberals to Nazis, then claim that liberals calling righties evil is why they lost the 2024 election? 

Nothing. 

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Hmm. @RLLD seems to have finally gone full MAGA. Sad.

Rush Limbaugh rose to wild levels of success, wealth, and fame calling liberals nasty names. In the 80s. This has been entrenched into GOP dogma ever since. The tables didn't REALLY start to turn until enough people actually thought Donald Trump was worthy of being POTUS. At that point, it was too late.

I just spent a long weekend in a red state hanging out with hardcore Republicans and had a great time. This is only a problem for people that are crazy or have motivation to divide. Normal people don't act like that.

I understand that liberals find it difficult to accept constructive criticism, and I sorta expected the response provided.

You should want the Democrat position to improve. I suggest it will not happen if the party sustains the approach which has resulted in the current state.  Its really not that complex.

[RLLD 4,143]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

So if the left was in the same position it would be okay for them to be calling the right "evil" and everything because they are winning. 

There is what is politically useful, and then there is what is right. The two rarely coincide.

So, if you are executing a political strategy, and it causes you harm...  you might want to change that strategy. 

[RLLD 4,143]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

What does that have to do with the fact that you compare liberals to Nazis, then claim that liberals calling righties evil is why they lost the 2024 election? 

Nothing. 

The point, made over and over here....  is that the strategy being used by the Democrats to vilify their opponents did not work.  They lost, alot.

So here they are, having lost, and forced to sustain that strategy because failure to do so results in an internal clap back from the radicals.   If they do not sustain the strategy that was integral to them losing, their support base....what is left of it.....revolts

Now feel free to do the "BUT REPUUUUUUBLICAAANNNNSSS".....all you want, what they are doing is clearly working.

[Sean Mooney 1,923]

10 minutes ago, RLLD said:

There is what is politically useful, and then there is what is right. The two rarely coincide.

So, if you are executing a political strategy, and it causes you harm...  you might want to change that strategy. 

Dude- it's a simple "yes/no" question.

So if the left was in the same position it would be okay for them to be calling the right "evil" and everything because they are winning.

This question followed you saying "Who is winning. Think about it."