Oh my fucking God WHY THE EVER LOVING FUCK IS THERE ANOTHER FUCKING INTERVIEW WITH AL FUCKING FROM?!?!?! For fuck's sake, the last time I heard from this fucking dinosaur was after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, and they were dragging his old ass out of retirement to explain why actually, despite losing to Donald Trump, moderate centrism was a good strategy. Almost ten years later, and they're dragging his even-older ass out here to do the same fucking thing? This dipshit's centrist strategy won one election 32 years ago, and now we've got to listen to him prattle on about how Democrats need to be more moderate forever? I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, its bad enough we have to listen to a Democratic fuckwad explain why this, "win suburban moderates," strategy is good (even though it has lost to Donald Trump twice now). But for fuck's sake, is it too much to ask that that they at least find a fuckwad who hasn't been politically irrelevant for 20 years? Is their really no one else beside this fucking 80 year-old ghoul that can champion this stupid, obviously ineffective strategy? I mean, fucking hell, what the fuck are we even doing here?
Dems picked a throat cancer ridden geriatric instead of a young woman.
They have a fetish for old farts
To be fair, it was Jerry Connolly's turn. There's nothing more important than that.
I read the article and it doesn't really seem that bad. What he says is this:
“Basically what the party needs is some sort of a force – whoever it is – of people who are perceived as future leaders going out and saying: this is what we want this party to stand for. I did it in the 80s and 90s. They can decide what’s appropriate for the 20s and 30s.”
He's not telling us how he wants the party changed, he's just calling for a big visible change in the party that will help us win elections again.
Except you're glossing over the parts where he insists that being centrist and courting moderates, AKA the strategy Democrats have been losing with since 2000, was the path forward:
From remains an unabashed centrist who believes that economic growth, not the economic populism of Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the answer. “It’s important the critical mass in the Democratic party show that it’s the party of opportunity, responsibility and community but not the party of the left,” he insists.
“The Democratic base alone is not enough to win elections, he warns. The party needs to reach moderate voters in the suburbs who “love the compassion” of the Democrats but question whether they have the “toughness to govern” as well.
Every pundit is saying the same stuff he's saying about working on the party’s communication, finding fresh faces for leadership, winning back the working class, etc., but he's being dragged back out to push centrism and remind everyone of the one time this strategy payed off in the 90s. I mean, he's literally saying they should, "not [be] the party of the left," after Harris got her ass handed to her with a centrist campaign. It's absurd.
It's already considered the party of the left by everyone except the left. They might as well lean in, because the centrists aren't going to vote for them anyway, apparently.
Exactly. They've called literally every Democratic candidate in the last 20 years a radical socialist. They might as well run on some socialist positions, since some of them (for example, HEALTHCARE) seem real popular right now.
I get what you're saying there. I should have read the article closer. Yes, you're right about that.
This is the exact kind of fucker that just helped get Trump elected.
Yes, and now they are proudly declaring they aren't going to put down the shovel. They want to keep digging this hole we're in.
There is no bottom by the way, they will just keep digging until enough people learn the lessons. If we wait to see how bad it can get it will only get worse.
In an era where people, right and left, are loudly cheering on a guy that allegedly murdered a CEO, this idiot advisor thinks the direction we need to go is defunding Medicare and further privatization of government functions.
This jackass wants Democrats to be a conservative party to respond to the existing conservative party. He literally wants to do the southern strategy again.
We need progressives, not neoliberals
And socialists too! =)
We need STAR voting, not First Past The Post voting.
The democratic party is always going to shun leftism because they get a buttload of money every year to turn a blind eye to good reform policies. Money and leftism dont mix, so the money makes sure leftism doesnt stick.
Why doesn't the party start with being embarrassed for losing to MAGA? Until they can come out and say they are a bunch of failures and admit to the role they've played in sending this country down the shitter, the DNC is a sunk cost.
Ffs. Get rid of the dinosaurs and start over. If the Dems can't do it, maybe it's time for a new party.
Yeah. I'm done with the dems. After seeing pelosi win from her hospital bed I knew there was no future for this party. Their only identity now is the "not trump" party, which doesnt work when half the country views him favourably.
The issue with that is the US's first-past-the-post system which results in our two party system. We need to change the system or else a new party will only act as a spoiler.
CGP Grey rocks
It can probably still be done if it’s truly grass roots. From the bottom up and not straight up aiming for seats in the senate and for the Oval Office. A third party should start winning seats in small elections in small towns where Democrats rule. Like even a school board election matters. Basically every small election where Democrats win uncontested. They need to push incumbent Democrats out first before trying to flip a red seat.
Once the third party has pushed enough Democrats out of their seats the Democrats have no choice than to form an alliance with the new third party. Which would push the Democratic Party to the left.
That’s basically how the Tea Party and later Maga co-opted the GOP.
Yes, I am unfortunately aware of this.
These are people who would see Franklin D Roosevelt as an extremist.
Instead he was the most consequential and effective president the US has ever had and the right have been unpicking his legacy over the decades since. The Democrats have been complicit in that.
AOC should be the next head of the party. If not they will fail. No one else in the party now is good enough except Bernie but he's too old now. Nancy needs to go
AOC voted to keep the rail corporation safe from a union strike. We deserve better representation.
Okay. Do you have a better name in mind? I don't agree with everything AOC has done, but she has been a needed change to the party.
the DNC needs to be completely overhauled or thrown out. Bernie would’ve definitely beat Trump but they actively conspired against him, and then when sued for fraud, claimed they never said they’re actually democratic, in spite of the name… and won in court.
the GOP tried to stop Trump as well, and in spite of being complete pieces of shit, they actually are democratic and couldn’t stop him.
but, as they say, the entire system is stupid and designed to fuck us over.
i see this continuing until the collapse of the usa, and probably the entire planet’s ecosystem
Nancy “the barrow-wight” Pelosi?
Hilarious. Why do a less committed version of the same shitty politics as the other party? Who the fuck is this going to win over? Did you miss what happened in November?
I would ask if they were high but that would encourage creativity and awaken any remaining embers of idealism so it can't be the case.
Just leaving this here for no particular reason https://youtu.be/3cdqQ2BdgOA?si=eDv9_1tiy_bvlFCJ
This is exactly what they HAVE been doing for DECADES! What a crock of shit!
Yes but now there's a fresh dose of "but not like Bernie" to placate the blue donors.
His name being "From" makes this difficult to parse.
We're all here to hear it all from Al From here.
I imagine the confusion has been lifelong and started in kindergarten.
SHIVERS [Medium: Success]
Democrat strategist boardroom, 2AM. Three men are pacing around a conference table, their polished leather shoes staining the papers scattered across the dimly lit room. They look stumped, sweat dripping from their reddened foreheads. One of the men stammers half words and stops himself, discarding another idea. The man to his left lights a cigarette.
After an uncomfortable silence, glimmer returns to his eyes, he snaps his fingers and promptly says: "What if we sucked even worse?"
Literally "you know who was a great president? Ronald Reagan".
Also, a great out of context quote that somehow works better out of context at showing how bad these ideas are.
“You’d think the Democrats would do better. I look at it from that perspective and so are we in as deep trouble as we were in 1984, 1988? Probably not. But there are trends like what’s happening among working-class voters of all colours and ethnic groups that are concerning. If they aren’t arrested, they could lead us into the wilderness again.”
Cheryl, it sounds like grandpa is off his meds again. Can you get him into the living room and in front of the TV so he doesn't scare the kids?
The Democratic strategists predictably have both learned nothing from this losing this election and are planning on shifting the party to the right. Accelerationism is useless. There was no leverage over the Democrats, instead they are going to chase after moderates and conservatives who voted. If we are lucky enough to have another election, please vote and encourage other people to vote.
the lack of votes is because the democrats suck; telling them to vote wo addressing the reasons why they don't vote is a waste of time.
Vote for who? The democrats were unelectable this election and will remain unelectable until they ditch their corporate status quo nonsense. This isn't to say Trump is a better option, but the GOP and DNC were never competing on the same level and thinking they are will only lead to more Trump or Trump wannabes because no matter how much you (or anyone else) tell people to vote people won't vote for the current DNC.
"wE don't NeEd aN extRemiSt."
politics
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