He promised a move left, while Harris promised a move right. They were not running the same campaign.

Nope. The Harris platform was more to the left than Biden. She was going to impose additional taxes on corporations and billionaires that went beyond Biden.

She played the same plays as Hilary: I’m not Trump. I’ll save democracy. Israel is cool.

Even though Hilary always had a bunch of Muslim women in the background of all her crowds and identity politics helped sink her campaign.

Trump and the GOP raised taxes on most middle class income groups in 2017, according to the official congressional JCT analysis.

Let it burn and be replaced by a workers party that represents us.

That went horribly wrong in Russia. It turned out Lenin and Stalin didn’t represent anybody besides themselves. And their main targets weren’t people on the right, it was the other 2 socialist parties, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks.

Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking “shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC”.

Every time the Democrats lose, since Reagan won, they move right because they think they lost because they weren’t conservative enough.

That was true thru Obama but it stopped with Biden. Biden was the most progressive president since LBJ, even though Dem voters could have chosen even more progressive candidates.

Gee, it’s almost as if all that bribe money ehhem I mean campaign finance donations have corrupted and shackled the Dems into consistently losing strategies.

They would be getting 3x more money if they had consistently winning strategies.

Unloading garbage nonsense that has the occasional inflammatory rhetoric is exciting.

Oh I agree that the #1 problem is that Harris needed to use way more aggressive rhetoric against Traitorapist Trump.

Harris initially said she was going to “prosecute” the case against Traitorapist Trump but then never did anything like that. All she had to do to win was use way more aggressive rhetoric. She never used the phrase “Convicted Criminal Trump” or “Treason Trump” She never used the phrase “legally certified rapist Trump”. She never pointed out that Trump hates the Free World and freedom and democracy. She never reminded voters that Trump had a 29% approval rating at the end of his term. She never pointed out that Trump is very disloyal to our longstanding core values. She never reminded people that Ted Cruz said that Trump “lies practically ever word that comes out of his mouth”.

Dems NEED much more aggressive candidates. No more of that business as usual shit.

The DNC needs a socially conservative but economically progressive candidate

Well they are 100% dependent on the voters for that.

I disagree a lot that Dems need a “socially conservative” candidate. What they do need is a candidate who does NOT focus on identity politics and does focus on wealth inequality and all directly and indirectly related issues.

If they were concerned with improving people’s lives they’d have implemented progressive economic policy

The DNC has no power to implement any policies. The House Democratic Caucus (HDC) and Senate Democratic Caucus (SDC) are the organizations with that power. The HDC/SDC are way more powerful than the DNC.

It’s the leftist-progressive economic policy exemplified by FDR’s New Deal.

Exactly. It’s not like we don’t already have a road map and historical examples of how to get it right.

the established academic and technocratic paradigm is fucking stupid.

Its insane to be against science and intelligence and knowledge.

[You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science]

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/

One of the characteristics of populism is being anti-establishment, even against the established academic and technocratic paradigm.

Hell no. FDR was a populist. You do NOT need to be against expertise and intelligence to oppose the billionaire elites. Rather the opposite. We need smart and competent people to beat the billionaires.

What they did was court Republican voters instead of Democrat voters

She “courted Republicans” with the most liberal platform since LBJ? Taking a picture with Liz Cheney, WITHOUT CHANGING ANY POLICIES, was a good thing not a bad thing. Because far right republicans supporting Democrats is objective confirmation of the threat of Fascism. It proves that Dems weren’t making exaggerating the threat to democracy.

This is pretty much all true. Except for…

One problem the DNC has is that they keep throwing boring ass lawyers into a game that isn’t about law

The DNC wasn’t making the decisions. The Harris campaign was.

Kerry? Never stood a chance. Hilary? No chance. Kamala? As much as we needed her to win, she was unappealing to stupid people.

Somewhat true. But Hillary could have won if she had simply mixed in a few bearded Biker types in the background crowd as prominently as all the Muslim women. But these candidates were the mistakes of the voters, not the DNC.

To win an election, you have to excite people. Trump, despite his rhetoric clearly being terrifying, was, unfortunately, exciting.

I change the channel whenever Traitorapist Trump talks so that he never gets a full sentence out. Still do. I don’t want to hear one more lie.

It’s a matter of self sufficiency and that, at some point,

You are thinking in terms of pre-nuclear weapons geopolitics. Nuclear weapons completely changes everything. The 80 year old US nuclear umbrella is the only reason we do not yet have dozens of countries with nuclear weapons. Now because of Trump’s New World Disorder, we can expect a mad scramble of dozens of countries getting nukes.

It has ALREADY started. Poland says it is going to get its own nukes now. It’s a very wise move for Poland but the beginning of a terrible disaster for planet Earth.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-tusk-plan-train-poland-men-military-service-russia/

each place should be baseline strong enough

The world could very easily have 23 new countries becoming “baseline strong” very cheaply in a matter of years simply by building nukes. There are 32 countries that have nuclear power stations now. That is the core technology. And the rest of the world can easily acquire the technology from those 32.

Does any sane person think that humanity will become MORE SAFE having 32+ nuclear weapons countries instead of 9? Country A would only need 20 nuclear weapons to wipe out Country B’s 20 biggest cities in one day. Even if Country B is the top military power in the world and Country A is a small relatively poor country. And all the suicide bombers and terrorist attacks in the last quarter century prove that Mutual Assured Destruction has major limitations. There is no way that Americans will benefit from this. Trump’s New World Disorder WILL gravely weaken our national security and world security.