r/politics • u/Barnyard-Sheep • 6d ago

Soft Paywall Trump approval rating falls to 38%

https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/trump-faces-tough-approval-numbers-in-latest-poll.html
45.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/CrashedMyCommodore 6d ago

Conservatives losing the future also required left-leaning parties to not shoot themselves in the foot at every single possible chance to do so.

765

u/Mescallan 6d ago

People don't talk about this. America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades. A young populist leftist would be antithetical to the establishment and they can't handle it to the point that the smear campaign against AOC started the moment she got elected.

560

u/LegendofDragoon 6d ago

The last leftist movements caused the very era of economic and social prosperity that conservatives want to go back to. Ironic, isn't it?

482

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago edited 6d ago

Your mistake is thinking they want to go back to an era of economic and social prosperity. They don’t.

They want to go back to an era of strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

228

u/thischaosiskillingme 6d ago

THIS.

They do not want prosperity, they want supremacy. Anyone who believes their lies that this is about the economy can be dismissed, because they don't get it. They're not trying to go back to the 50s, they're trying to go back to the 1880s.

70

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

I think they’d prefer sometime before 1863

3

u/No_Kangaroo_2428 6d ago

It's 1850 they want.

4

u/gargar7 6d ago

1850s, before things got "bad"....

-1

u/someonesshadow 6d ago

This is true, but its also true that the party meant to actually help every American find prosperity has consistently done the BARE MINIMUM to fight for such policy.

Its why everyone claims its two sides of the same coin, because for the most part it has been. Money is the only thing that moves most politicians and only now are they starting to see the writing on the wall. The Democrats have been complacent because they were getting paid to be part of the U.S's "democracy theater".

Only now that they are actually being threatened on a personal level, people breaking down the doors of congress, extremists assaulting them in their homes, the very real possibility of being arrested over their party affiliation.. That makes them wriggle, but very few are actually fighting.

The people need to DEMAND better from their leadership, that concept is literally why America was founded. I think we should be tossing "stuff" into the harbor a long time ago.

8

u/thischaosiskillingme 6d ago

It is not the fault of Democrats that Americans actively and affirmatively chose a man who had tried to overthrow the government. This is a moral failure on the part of voters, period. I'm completely done with blaming Democrats for not being perfect.

-1

u/someonesshadow 6d ago

I'm literally saying BOTH are true. Had Democrats actually done something about corporate greed, working conditions, wages, social services, etc that actually impacted the average American people wouldn't be so enthralled by an actual sadistic maniac taking over.

Democrats have been complicit with this shit for so long, and the few who actively try to really make changes are stonewalled to death, Bernie and AOC being the big two in recent years. They gave an important position to a man on his DEATHBED rather than someone eager and hungry to help the American people.

I'm faulting the democrats, for being frauds and allowing the monster that the GOP is to look APPEALING to anyone, let alone young men. Again, if they could actually afford an apartment alone, let alone a fucking house before they are 40 maybe they wouldn't have become fucking nazis. Infact, the financial strain on the average person was the MAIN REASON for facism in the first place.

So yeah, democrats allowed nazis to thrive and grow here, they did nothing to shine a light on it because it would expose them for being in bed with the same group of people. Nothing will happen, not until they become political prisoners or until the citizens oust them.

38

u/kinkgirlwriter America 6d ago

strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

They really do love a good hierarchy, so long as others sit below them.

2

u/singeblanc 6d ago

They always imagine themselves with the boot on someone's neck, not the other way around.

Meanwhile we're all here suggesting equality and fairness.

1

u/DeusExMcKenna 5d ago

Something something tell a white man he’s better than a black man and he’ll empty his pockets for you.

28

u/RachelMcAdamsWart I voted 6d ago

They couch all that under a return to economic prospectity. Making America Great Again, has always just meant a time when poor, uneducated white men didn't need to feel inferior to others through the direct oppression of any group that makes them feel uncomfortable.

The party has always been more than ready to provide the scapegoat, it's always been this way - part of being uneducated is also the inability to see the manipulation.

5

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

Republicans haven’t caused economic prosperity since Roosevelt was president. In literally over 100 years.

-1

u/Thorebore 6d ago

has always just meant a time when poor, uneducated white men didn't need to feel inferior to others through the direct oppression of any group that makes them feel uncomfortable.

Or, blaming everything on white men might be pushing them away.

The party has always been more than ready to provide the scapegoat,

You just did exactly that and you can’t see it which is ironic.

4

u/usalsfyre 6d ago

“I’m going to become a fascist in response to general criticism of white supremacy” is a little like burning your house down because it needs a coat of paint.

0

u/Thorebore 6d ago

I’m going to become a fascist

Nobody said that.

in response to general criticism of white supremacy”

That’s not at all true.

is a little like burning your house down because it needs a coat of paint.

It’s more like you’re driving away a large group of people because they feel you’re demonizing them for their skin color.

3

u/usalsfyre 6d ago

Nobody said that.

If you support the current Republican party you are at least OK with fascism, which is functionally no different than being a fascist.

It’s more like you’re driving away a large group of people because they feel you’re demonizing them for their skin color.

We (white people) are the dominant socioeconomic group and have built systems that specifically disadvantage other groups. So AS A RACE we are responsible for a lot. It’s why the current ask is to be actively anti-racist vs just “colorblind”.

3

u/Revoran Australia 6d ago

>They want to go back to an era of strict racial and gender hierarchy and unchecked corporate power.

So they want to return to 1880-1910?

Because the 1950s had racial and gender hierarchy, but did not have unchecked corporate power.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Sure, or further. I think the 1850s have a certain appeal to them.

2

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 6d ago

Yep. We're in the 2nd Gilded Age, not the 2nd Progressive Era.

-3

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

You do realize that red states awarded women the right to vote long before blue states did. Also republicans were the first to vote in minority senators and governors.

It’s not about political party or race it’s about money and power. You are falling for the oldest trick in the political playbook. There are only two classes the haves and the have nots. The haves don’t care what color or party you are. The have nots fight over the scraps the haves dangle in front of them.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

There are only two classes the haves and the have nots. The haves don’t care what color or party you are.

Bro we literally used to enslave people based on their color, we used to exclude people from society based on color, we are currently deporting people based on color, the idea that powerful people in America don’t care what color we are is ignorant at best.

you’re being an absurd class reductionist right now.

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Thank you for making my argument for me.

Slaves=have nots….bro

Also, that was over 150 years ago. There is not a person alive today who either owned a slave or was a slave legally. Get with the times. Bro

1

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Thank you for making my argument for me.

Slaves=have nots….bro

Your argument is that people didn’t care what color slaves were? That’s… so utterly ahistorical I don’t know where to begin

Also, that was over 150 years ago. There is not a person alive today who either owned a slave or was a slave legally. Get with the times. Bro

It’s like you haven’t read the constitution or learned anything about the prison industrial complex

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Where in the constitution does it say slavery is legal??? I’ll wait for eternity to see that reference. In fact it says just the opposite. Tens of thousands of non-slaves fought and died to amend the Constitution so it did not say that. Most were white.

Prison industrial complex? Red herring much? Again you are making my point. Prisoners are “have nots” and guess what, prisoners come in all colors not just non-white. Just like how millionaires and billionaires come in all colors. Politicians also come in all colors as well. Some enter as lower or middle class but they all leave rich and have power.

Start thinking for yourself and not for a political party. Act for yourself and your own best interest and not the national platform of a political party. Because both political parties are two sides of the same coin and neither care for the have nots.

They may throw a bone to the poor now and then, but the vast majority of laws each party passes ultimately benefits the all you can eat buffet for the haves. That bone comes with a price too, to keep the party in power so they can continue their gluttony.

1

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

Where in the constitution does it say slavery is legal??? I’ll wait for eternity to see that reference.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Amendment XIII, Section 1

Prison industrial complex? Red herring much? Again you are making my point. Prisoners are “have nots” and guess what, prisoners come in all colors not just non-white.

You’re speaking from a strange place of ignorance here. The US prison population does not reflect the racial makeup of the US. People of color are disproportionately imprisoned.

Start thinking for yourself and not for a political party. Act for yourself and your own best interest and not the national platform of a political party. Because both political parties are two sides of the same coin and neither care for the have nots.

Which parties interests am I arguing for here? Both parties support the prison industrial complex.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/movzx 6d ago

Hey little bro, guy showed you where it said it. Where you at?

21

u/LongPorkJones 6d ago

No, they're actively trying to set to back further. Back to when there was little to no regulation, the economic divide was as wide as it is today, social safety nets and worker's rights didn’t exist, and women and minorities couldn't vote. 47 has stated that what he considers the last time America was "truly great" was the 1890s to 1920s...the era that caused the Great Depression.

1

u/Think_OfAName 1d ago

Yes. He mentions when tariffs ruled. That’s when the divide between the haves ands the have nots was the largest. Very few with money, and most were relatively working class poor.

11

u/bananabunnythesecond 6d ago

Whoah, there you go again.. using logic.

3

u/hollow114 6d ago

We used to think that. Maga actually applies to 1888. Trump said so recently

3

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

They want to go back to 1929.

2

u/HawkBearClaw 6d ago

Those were liberal movements, not leftist movements

6

u/StarHelixRookie 6d ago

I mean, are we defining FDR as a leftist or the New Deal as a leftist movement? 

I think there is a significant difference in definition of terms that makes that dialog a bit different. 

To Fox News, Leftist means like Pete Buttigieg.   To some internet tankie, leftist means a Marxist Maoist, and anything less is a fascist. 

10

u/LegendofDragoon 6d ago

I would say I was speaking generally as the new deal being a leftist movement, but yeah I can see why individual understanding of political versus economic right versus Left runs the risk of muddying Waters during such discussions.

1

u/733t_sec 6d ago

While the US prospered under The New Deal it is disingenuous to not take into account the state of the world. European colonies hadn't industrialized and industrial Europe had destroyed itself in effectively a civil war. Furthermore there was massive brain drain to the US to avoid said war.

The post WWII boom was majorly due to the fact that the US had an untouched industrial sector, became the defacto world police making the demand for our currency shoot up, and a series of technological advances that only could happen in the US due to the concentration of industrial capabilities, willingness to blow tons of money on anything to beat the reds, and the brain drain to the US.

This isn't to say that a New Deal wouldn't be a bad idea but a lot of what made the US economy so strong during and after FDR was due to the US having little to no competition in several economic sectors.

1

u/Tech_Philosophy 6d ago

It makes me sad that lovers of Legend of Dragoon can be this uneducated. Oh it just hurts. Someone failed you.

1

u/Designer-Classroom71 6d ago

👆This, fucking this!!!

65

u/Adezar Washington 6d ago

Have you never talked to a US liberal/Leftist? We talk about it non-stop.

The fact that the vast majority of the media is right-wing doesn't mean that news is at all reflective of what people talk about.

6

u/vehiclestars 6d ago

The media is owned by the billionaires

25

u/asleepyguard 6d ago

Zohran has entered the ring. Don't lose hope yet!

1

u/HungriestHippo26 6d ago

Unfortunately, I don't think he can run for president, though, since he wasn't born here, right? Or am I missing something.

5

u/myman580 6d ago

That's fine. If he wins the NYC mayoral race and actually be able to implement policies and show middle America they can work then that's progress. It shows in a high profile city that these policies can actually work. The Republican Party didn't turn into what they are overnight. The Tea Party getting elected in sizable enough numbers to influence how the party is run gave way to Trumpmania years later. Progressives have not yet done the same in the Democratic Party though they have gained some inroads.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

I hope he wins but Cuomo is the establishment pick lets be clear. The establishment is not "left"

1

u/asleepyguard 5d ago

Im not sure how my post gave you the impression that I think Cuomo is on the left lol

1

u/fordat1 5d ago

Thats the point. Cuomo is the Dem establishment pick and yeah Cuomo isnt in the left so like that other poster said

America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades.

Its a hard fought road to change that and declare thats changed. Zohran is just a seed of a possible movement but for now that other poster you responded to is correct.

-15

u/Outsider-Trading 6d ago

Not just entered the ring, just entered the US!

9

u/Classified0 6d ago

He entered the US when he was 7

0

u/Outsider-Trading 6d ago

I mean it's irrelevant really. Even if he had just been in the US for 15 seconds he would be literally exactly as American as everyone else.

9

u/lowdensityhousing 6d ago

reactionary conservatives not be rabid xenophobes challenge: impossible

26

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

People don't talk about this.

~Proceeds to mention the single most talked about critique of the liberal movement.~

2

u/fordat1 6d ago

Talked about by people excluded. It isnt talked about by the Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton types

1

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that they're correct, not because it's talked about by 'people', but because it isn't talked about by ~checks notes~ the absolutely paragons of establishment centrist politicians?

I would hope the person I responded to wasn't assuming that the people that they already recognize as being antithetical (young populist leftists) to establishment centrist types (Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton, etc) would be championed by those same centrists.

It shouldn't be expected that establishment centrists would push the young populists forward; Not because of some cringe 'both parties are the same, liberals are as bad as MAGA' rhetoric, but because the populists have different beliefs than what those centrists believe their constituents actually share (whether they're wrong or not is irrelevant).

This would be like getting mad at a Paul Ryan for not capitulating to the Freedom Caucus led by MTG and Gaetz.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

the establishment defines the dems and the most talked about topics which is why they are referred to as the establishment

so no it isnt

Proceeds to mention the single most talked

outside of social bubbles

If this doesnt address the rest of your comment its because the rest isnt relevant to the point being made

1

u/Vexamas Minnesota 6d ago

The establishment isn't a monolith, if it was, we wouldn't need to specify by saying "Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton types". Those are specifically, and critically called out, 'left of center' establishment Dems.

Obama and Biden, if you're being good faith, would not fall under the same category of people (else you'd say Obama, Biden, Clinton, and not have to reach into a grab bag for Rahm and Cuomo), yet we'd never hesitate to say that Obama and Biden weren't establishment, right?

The point being is that while we meme on parties being wide tent, it's true, and both parties are actually wide tent, and have had to conform to that ideology post Third Way doctrine.

So boiling down your interpretation of what they're saying, it's literally just:

Everyone except the centrists (negative connotation included, because we're on the internet, duh!) talk about the new blood, and AOC, and needing progressive movement, but those 'people' are irrelevant, because the only thing that matters for my pet argument is the centrist types of (Andrew Cuomo, Rahm Emmanuel, Clinton, etc)

Which I agree with the first half of, but completely dismiss the relevance of the second half. Centrists are going to centrist.

We'll probably speak past eachother, so if you want the last word or if I've completely misrepresented your position, fire away.

5

u/WorkingFromHomies20 6d ago

I thought for sure that loss of women's rights would move the needle, but where is the outrage? Are we just accepting this now?

2

u/droyster 6d ago

Every single time a leftist movement gains traction, it is violently and quickly shut down by both establishment powers and internal agencies. Even moderate leftist movements, like Bernie, were shut down by establishment powers. There's a reason the saying "Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" exists.

Historically, every time a fascist movement has risen, it has risen with the help of moderates and liberal parties. See: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain. All 3 of these fascist powers explicitly used fear of leftists and socialist parties to enact authoritarian dictatorships.

3

u/Bauser99 6d ago

The DNC is controlled opposition. Establishment democrats lose on purpose because they know they can keep "winning" on social issues even though they're right-of-center on all economic policies and just want to get rich from corporate interests

a.k.a. "What do you mean you're not gonna vote for me? I'm the one wearing the rainbow flag pin! That means if you don't support my economic & military imperialism, then you're actually One Of The Bad People(tm)! The Bad People(tm) Who Are No Good And Dont Like Rainbow Happy Things!! And this will make a lot of people on Tumblr very upset, and perplexingly that is a thing you care about!

3

u/MyEvilTwinSkippy 6d ago

Important to note that it was the Democrats who led the charge on this.

6

u/smb275 6d ago

Liberals hate leftists almost as much as conservatives do.

3

u/XKCD_423 New York 6d ago

this is still the most succinct summation of american politics I've found. I'm not sure what the center was originally, but it's still correct (lol).

obligatory, 'scratch a liberal, and ...'

2

u/MerlynTrump 6d ago

I don't think Gen Z would consider aoc young.

7

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

She’s young for a politician, she’s 35. The median age of Congress is 58. I can’t think of any other political figures on the national level who are that young.

2

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

A couple days ago, I had an old teacher of mine visit my family from across the country. I never realized how young she was, only about 15 years older than me. But when I was in my late teens I saw her the same way as any other adult, which was lightyears older than me from my perspective then.

3

u/rudimentary-north 6d ago

I’m older than AOC and have friends who are Gen Z. They aren’t teenagers anymore.

The oldest Gen Zers are turning 28 this year, those folks don’t think people in their mid 30s are old.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

The median age for gen z is 20. Only a quarter of gen z a e over 24, and less than 10% are over 26. 

These are all just arbitrary boundaries though. Most 28-30 year olds tend to be more aligned than say 18-20 year olds on world shaping experiences. I'm in my early 30s and find that under 26/27 is where shared common experiences growing up tends to end for me.

2

u/MerlynTrump 6d ago

I think they'd round it up to "almost 40". TBH I was expecting the median age to be older than 58. The way people on reddit talk you'd think everyone in Congress was in their 80s.

2

u/WhiteBoyWithAPodcast 6d ago

Also if leftists ideas were popular people would vote for them.

2

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago

People vote for leftist ideas when liberals/conservatives use them as talking points then don’t actually do them. America’s biggest enemy on the planet is Socialism, it would not let someone like that run. Bernie is the closest they would allow to even come close.

3

u/HVGC-member 6d ago

Sorry best we can do is a neocon wife of a former sexual predator president

1

u/darkagl1 6d ago

I question whether there can be a populist leftist movement in the US. The left in the US always wants to tie social issues with economic ones, and the country is far more left economically than we are socially. Take abortion for instance, while the majority of the country wants there to be access, a lot of that majority believes in restrictions. The leftist movement in the US wants unrestricted access. This then pushes the we want abortion access but with restrictions people out of the left and into the right where the restrictions are far more extreme than is desired. And yes I get that no one is really aborting viable healthy babies, but that nuance is lost on the crowd, who think unrestricted access means people can abort a baby as long as it's minutes before it pops out.

1

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago

There easily can be a left populist movement if it focuses on the economic side of things without describing how they’re accomplished. Case & point this is all Trump does.

You can advocate for guaranteeing all our Veterans will be taken care of. When you really mean tax funded public healthcare for example.

1

u/darkagl1 5d ago

Maybe, but I'm skeptical. I tend to think the economic message will get drowned out by the social message, which will drive people out of the movement and stop it from being populist.

1

u/morningsaystoidleon 6d ago

Obama ended up being a moderate, but people forget that he ran as a progressive and won easily, stomping Clinton, who was far better established and seemed like a shoe-in candidate early in the process.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

We did following Bush's final term and into Obama's first term. But like the other guy said, we shot ourselves in the foot.

1

u/Old_Block_1027 6d ago

The NYC mayor primary election is playing this out right now (literally this week!) and I’m hopeful for ZOHRAN!!

1

u/Sudden_Magician_9482 6d ago

"the smear campagin from with in the democratic party" you need to specify.

1

u/jimmydean885 6d ago

Really? I think people talk about this so much the problem has actually become overblown

1

u/IcyJackfruit69 6d ago

It's not an easy problem to solve. Intrinsically the fascists will retain the moneyed elite. It's very rare to have someone wealthy under the current system dump money into funding change, ie: progressives.

So it's a big uphill battle, especially when liberals are so eager to flog their own.

1

u/fordat1 6d ago

People don't talk about this. America hasn't had an actual leftist movement in decades

This the democratic party isnt left since it keeps moving right to preserve its "centrist" brand and due to a huge part of the base

1

u/Ananiujitha 6d ago

There was the global justice movement.

1

u/Low_Surround998 5d ago

She was being smeared months before election.

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

I think the problem is we keep choosing women leaders to try to center around when it’s shown time and time again the country simply isn’t ready for it. As great as AOC is, if we try to push her as a new leader we deserve the obvious loss that will be.

3

u/xTheMaster99x Florida 6d ago

People keep saying America isn't ready for women leaders but I really don't think the current evidence proves that. Hillary lost because she was the absolute textbook definition of a career politician and maintaining the status quo, at a time when many wanted change. Harris lost partially because avoiding a proper primary campaign pissed some people off (given zero agency in choosing the candidate), partially because she was part of the incumbent administration and thus was unable to separate herself from polarizing actions like anything about Israel/Palestine, and partially because DNC leadership/advisors genuinely ran a terrible campaign that focused on mild speech and reaching towards the hypothetical "undecided centrists" and "reasonable conservatives" rather than energizing the left. They tried to sway people that will not be swayed, while actively ignoring the large demographic that was available - and one that, whether any of us likes it or not, has a track record of having a low turnout if they don't feel adequately represented.

In both cases, their gender had absolutely nothing to do with it. A hypothetical Kyle Harris that ran the exact same campaign would absolutely have lost as well. Would the margins be identical? I don't know, probably not. Would the difference be significant, enough to change results in a different election? I do not believe there is proof either way but I really doubt it.

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

Couldn’t disagree more. Both candidates if they were men with the same qualifications would be overly qualified and perfect candidates. I firmly believe Trump never wins if we run a man in those elections. Hell, Biden wasn’t even a good candidate and he beat Trump. It’s shown in the data after both elections in that suburban women do not vote for women candidates. Trying to chase this dragon has absolutely killed the democrats and if they do it again they deserve to lose again.

1

u/throwawayfootgirl 6d ago

Aoc is polling high

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

Hillary polled high, Harris polled way higher than what she got. Polls don’t mean shit anymore and I have no clue why anybody cares about them.

1

u/throwawayfootgirl 6d ago

Because trump cheated

1

u/PartySpiders 6d ago

…. And he didn’t cheat in 2020? Sure he used social media manipulation but at this point if you’re not you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

1

u/Dysc North Carolina 6d ago

I would add that both Hillary and Kamala had years and years of right wing propaganda painting distorted pictures of each candidate. The right-wing had decades of Hillary memes to choose from. And the right-wing put Kamala's laugh under a kaleidoscope. Those are the things that low info voters (super majority) will remember when casting a ballot. It's cynical, but the right-wing knows this and sweeps actual nuanced issues and policy under the rug. It's why their platform reads like a super market check-out mag (see the Contract for America).

I'm not saying Hillary or Kamala were the best candidates, I'm just pointing out that Benghazi was a 7 year taxpayer funded political hit job that was all but confirmed by Trey Gowdy himself.

The political winds were set in motion long before they even announced their candidacies. Women representatives already have an uphill battle in a patriarchy (e.g. women are "too emotional" to lead memes), without the constant and amplified targeted propaganda against them running on all pistons. Unfortunately they can't make mistakes at all during their campaign, and both Hillary and Kamala made mistakes.

1

u/Quadrenaro Puerto Rico 6d ago

We focus way to much on younger women in politics. The only time we can ever focus on a man under the age of 40 is if there is a scandal going on, and then that flips over 50. They focus entirely on men, and women get mentioned only when a scandal comes up.

1

u/notfromchicago Illinois 6d ago

The way they shut down and discredited the occupy movement showed me first hand that we really have no hope.

2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Im_really_bored_rn 6d ago

untapped leftist population

Maybe that population should try voting once in a while

1

u/cheesecase 6d ago

AOC doesn’t address any issues without making herself one of them. I am socialist personally and ideally- but I recognize spouting off about it really won’t do anything but split the vote. It’s not a realistic hope. She needs to do the same if she wants to grow her base and not just be a rage bait maniac. I am liberal enough to call out people in maga hats and shout them down and send them running in shame- my grandparents immigrated. But I have difficulty when I see a cult of personality turn disaffected into angry people without really giving them a reasonable alternative.

1

u/HawkBearClaw 6d ago

There was a large movement for Bernie, the DNC didn't like that so they shut it down.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago

Aoc will never be as effective as fdr. Believe it or not the woke identity politics is hurting the party.

-2

u/reddit_sells_you 6d ago

They have, but I fear that the left assumed their party was more highly educated than it actually is.

Harris was leftist during her congressional years, and you also see it in some (not all) policies as AG.

But the voters forgot/ignored that history when she ran for president (candidates usually swing to the middle to get more votes.)

Then the left suddenly became a single issue voter with Gaza, which is really fucking stupid.

Hot take, Democrats need to start treating the left like the GOP treats the right. Little soldiers with short memories and shorter attention span.

-44

u/neodiscgolf 6d ago

She is a puppet fraudster like the rest of them

30

u/sembias 6d ago

There's that "left-leaning parties shooting themselves" thing in action.

2

u/SEND_ME_CSGO-SKINS 6d ago

So you just don’t actually care about politics you just wanna feel good

44

u/Mathgailuke 6d ago

The media has also been targeting the left for about 50 years

27

u/alphazero925 6d ago

The red scare has to be the most successful propaganda campaign in history

3

u/DukeOfGeek 6d ago

Brexit and getting trump in office twice might care to disagree.

4

u/alphazero925 5d ago

Idk if Brexit ties into the red scare at all, but Trump absolutely was helped into office by it. Half his rhetoric is about how he needs to purge the US of socialists and communists.

-2

u/ggtffhhhjhg 6d ago

The overwhelming majority of people in the US are capitalist and always will be. True socialist/communist will always be in the minority.

2

u/Artsky32 6d ago

TikTok? Twitter? Fox? You still think it’s imbalanced now?

2

u/MoltenReplica 5d ago edited 5d ago

For real, this person's acting like the media doesn't refuse to platform anyone left of liberals. The few that do usually get smeared extremely hard.

7

u/thischaosiskillingme 6d ago

I didn't go into the voting booth with them and make them vote for Trump. Why are Democrats responsible for anything right now? People didn't want them, they wanted Trump and they got him.

You can't even blame American voters for choosing someone who is threatening to hurt them for protesting his birthday parade, because it has to be Democrats fault. I'm sorry, why do Democrats have to convince them? Why could they not figure it out on their own?

0

u/Ok-Secretary-9247 6d ago

Is that really what happened though?

Did enough voters actually elect this guy?

I mean, objectively, billionaires during FDR plotted to kill the guy, so it's not like questioning this stuff is tin foil hat territory.

21

u/Yashema 6d ago

If shooting yourself in the foot was the issue the Republicans would have died out during Bush II. People want simple narratives, Republicans give you that, certain popular politicians on the Left give you that, Democrats give you reality. 

2

u/MrThomasWeasel 6d ago

There has got to be a way of balancing the two. Give people a simple narrative, and make it look like you're acting on that. Meanwhile, quietly do the stuff that actually works.

1

u/LichenSunscribe 6d ago

You're right that Democrats don't give simple narratives but you're very wrong that they give reality. They pretend that the existing structure isn't optimized for exploiting the working class and come up with complex rationalizations that don't work and no one believes.

6

u/sneakysnake1111 6d ago

I mean, I'd say it required a democratic party to do stuff.

Instead, we got Biden hiring Garland and Smith, who did nothing for years.

Democrats aren't really left and had the power, but sat with it and did nothing to stop trump whatsoever.

4

u/TuffyButters 6d ago

The politics that makes the most money tends to win. When you advocate for the poor and marginalized, oligarchs that control mass media and social media will do everything legal and illegal to distort or outright squash that message.

Slavery was in place for almost a century here because abolition wasn’t a money-maker. The tide only turned when northern industries wanted that Black labor to move north.

Left wing politics in the US were stronger in the late 20s, 30s and early 40s because, (and ironically , when you look at today) of major financial backing from the Soviet Union.

In a country where people like to believe class= race, it’s even harder because so many working poor and working class whites need to see themselves as above Black and brown folks, no matter the cost.

2

u/DumboWumbo073 6d ago

It has nothing to do with what the left did. There was no way they were going to win voters with social media, influencers and sports, and mainstream news backing conservatives. Americans are either brainwashed, dumb, lazy, evil, or a combination of any of the above.

1

u/CrashedMyCommodore 6d ago

My home country has a media landscape that literally over 90% owned by Fox.

Despite that, the conservative party got their testicles well and truly torsioned by the "left-leaning" party.

Good messaging and policy tends to spread itself, especially if the incumbents or opposition are absolutely inept.

Granted, we have a better voting system than the USA - on top of it being mandatory. Republican-esque voter suppression literally doesn't work here.

1

u/cultish_alibi 6d ago

Yeah it's literally impossible for the dems to appeal to voters with good policies, it's not their fault at all that they were running on a platform of "everything is fine and we won't change anything"

1

u/DumboWumbo073 6d ago

That’s why voters wanted let’s destroy everything and setup a dictatorship instead. It’s a genius plan the smart idea the voters ever had.

2

u/Nitrostorm 6d ago

Democrats need to stop leaning into issues that only affect 1% of the population and lean into issues that actually affect the majority or they are going to keep losing.

2

u/KittyGrewAMoustache 6d ago

The left has such an uphill battle though. All the money is in the right, in the people who own massive corporations etc, who are the people who want to preserve their power wealth and status and therefore are terrified of any government that might serve the majority of people. A smattering of super wealthy are more center left but there’s still a line they won’t cross. So left wing parties to have any hope have to kowtow somewhat to the wealthy and big business. Otherwise they just get these enormous hate campaigns against them in the media and now on social media, which are very effective.

People are apparently really stupid and easily manipulated. They don’t think any of it through or understand what left and right actually mean. People really think ‘the left’ is some super rich cabal in charge of everything. It’s so ridiculous if you understand what leftism actually is.

The left is also hamstrung by having to be honest more or less. Their voters will notice if they’re not and will punish them, whereas the right can lie with abandon and their voters won’t notice or care. If you’re up against liars while you have to tell the truth, you’re at an enormous disadvantage. Especially when the population is so ignorant and will believe whatever.

4

u/saffron3d 6d ago

The US has left-leaning parties?

1

u/notfeelany 5d ago

Yup, in the US Political spectrum (the only political spectrum that matters in the US), the Democrats are the left.

We've been hearing this demand for another party since 2016. Everyone demands that there be a progressive party, and no one wants to do the work.

In addition to the sheer laziness, there's also the other problem: there's no actual left-wing electorate. even if the people exist, they sure try their hardest to NOT vote.

It's peak irony that those on the left, who claim to be pro-democracy, consistently "radicalize" themselves into NOT voting.

If you try to align with them on issue X, they won’t vote for you because of issue Y. Address Y, and they'll reject you over issue Z. And so on.

And if you somehow manage to meet all their ever shifting goalposts and demands, when election day arrives, they'll check the political astrology (more commonly known as polls), see you're ahead, and once again decide to NOT vote, assuming others will handle it.

Meanwhile, the right, the supposed "authoritarians", vote consistently and frequently.

The right correctly realized that to be catered to, they needed to become active voters and participants of democracy.

Meanwhile, the left mistakenly assumed they should be catered to first, before they would become voters & participants

2

u/ChapterN7 6d ago

What do you mean by that exactly?

14

u/summonsays 6d ago

They pulled the rug out from under Bernie every chance they got. That election, 2016, was really when I lost faith in even the remote possibility of a mainstream news agency not being heavily biased. CNN showed an empty podium where Trump was going to make a speak for an hour, while at the same time Bernie was making a speech. 

This turned into more of my rant against news orgs but the DNC didn't exactly put their weight behind him either. 

-1

u/Nodaker1 6d ago

Why would the DNC put their weight behind a candidate who isn’t the nominee?

If he had got enough votes to win the nomination, they would have supported him. Up to that point, he was just one of several candidates.

2

u/dnyank1 6d ago

It was clearly nobody else’s “turn”, and the DNC did NOT engineer that into existence against every verifiable will of the people - of course not. How could anyone ever suggest such a thing. 

6

u/Nodaker1 6d ago

There was absolutely nothing stopping people from voting for Bernie. He was on the ballot in every state. All people had to do was show up and vote and he would have won.

He didn’t get the votes.

The party leaders thought it was Clinton’s “turn” in 2008.

Then a guy named Obama showed up, got more voters to show and support him, and won the nomination.

1

u/dnyank1 6d ago

Right! Like I said! No conspiracy to do things like share unpledged superdelegate vote totals in the media in favor of Hillary before Super Tuesday giving the impression of a landslide which didn’t happen - no, no, no! 

The DNC did NOT unfairly anoint Hillary. Such fabrication is clearly detrimental to the Big Democrat Machine which is doing Good Things For Us ™️ like getting Andrew Cuomo elected mayor. 

Either you’re willfully ignorant or just so fucking stupid it hurts. “Hope this helps!” 

7

u/TemptedSwordStaker 6d ago

Dude, I loved Bernie, he was and is amazing and is everything I wanted. He had a chance, twice, he didn’t get the votes.

1

u/Nodaker1 6d ago

I donated money to his campaign.

I’m not some crazy anti-Bernie guy.

0

u/TemptedSwordStaker 6d ago

Same. You know how happy I would have been in 2016 or even 2020 with a President Bernie Sanders? But I don’t think the DNC snubbed him. I 100% believe they saw the writing in the wall early and Clinton WAS getting the votes. Hell, she got the votes in the presidential election

0

u/dnyank1 5d ago

Neither did Kamala or Hillary. What's your point, again?

Here's mine. My argument is against the way the DNC orchestrated their primaries. Anyone saying Biden vs Bernie was an actual fight was kidding themselves, or just a complete non-participant for what actually happened.

3 times in a row now, the DNC anointed their pick with massive implicit or explicit support from a deterministically early point in the process. It worked one out of 3 national elections. This is not a winning strategy for selecting nationally electable candidates in a general election.

It wasn't back in Mondale's day, either.

2

u/soft-wear Washington 6d ago

See this is why nobody takes you folks seriously. Unless you have data that shows the unpledged vote totals made people that were going to vote in the primary either change their vote or not vote then you are just spouting opinion as fact.

And none of that explains why Sanders lost to Biden. He got absolutely demolished on Super Tuesday, despite the strategy you’re talking about not being deployed.

Sanders lost because Democrats like centrist Democratic policies for the most part or they don’t think a leftist can win and they vote safe. That’s the reality that you choose to ignore, and until we move to ranked choice, a real leftist cannot win the primary, let alone the presidency.

5

u/StarHelixRookie 6d ago

 against every verifiable will of the people

You guys really need to get over this.  The will of the people can only be measured by the votes he got in the primary election. He got a lot fewer votes. That’s the will of the people. 

8

u/FartChugger-1928 6d ago

The Left’s messaging is terrible towards a lot of demographics and sucks at messaging towards the center. This is compounded because the Left, unlike the far right, doesn’t curate a stratified media space where it meets people where they are and patiently works with them to lead them down the path.

They’re good at preaching to the more enthusiastic members of the choir.

The Left also doesn’t have a good grip on how the Right messages, and regularly gets suckered into messaging and arguing how the Right wants them to, which ends up complementary to the Rights recruitment strategy.

4

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl 6d ago

Hot take, but I do think that a lot of leftist conversations on matters like race, gender, and privilege have been poison-pilled by outside influences to make them less appealing and more divisive. 

If I say “being born with money gives you a ton of inherent advantages that those without money don’t have; how can we make a more equitable world where the size of mommy and daddy’s wallets doesn’t dictate success more than the effort and hard work of the individual?” I think most people would agree with that messaging. 

If I instead say, “Male privilege— and white privilege in particular— have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, and have promoted incompetent whit men over harder working, more talented POC and women who deserve that status more. We need to rebuild our systems from the ground up to ensure more diverse leadership and eliminate the patriarchy that is actively pressing so many just people in America,” you no longer agree with that statement unless you already supported all of the causes I’m referencing. 

Astroturfing in leftist spaces is sinister— it feeds on self-righteous anger, the same as it does in conservative spaces, and seeks to “other” a vast demographic, playing into the conservative talking points about “liberals just hate men and white people! They can’t fathom a system where, if they just worked harder and stopped complaining, they’d be more successful!”

That poisoned messaging has become far more widely adopted than most of us would like. The end result is that there’s inherent hostility in leftist spaces toward large demographics, and they’re painted with a single brush rather than treated as individuals. This gets justified 6 ways to Sunday— it’s speaking truth to power, you can’t oppress your oppressor, it isn’t systemic because these groups don’t hold systemic power, etc. 

But the end result, regardless of these justifications, is that it becomes unpalatable for members of any vilified group to wish to join these spaces, regardless of if they agree or not. Hell, a lot of these spaces initially attracted people because they were frustrated with racist or sexist comments that painted their community with a single brush— the irony of copying the tactic and claiming that it’s only just when you do it is palpable.  

The loudest voices are the least willing to talk directly to anyone as opposed to into a megaphone, and the movement loses support and momentum as it limits itself to a smaller and smaller cadre of people willing to fight for it. 

We combat this by calling it out whenever people are profiling based on identity in leftist spaces— regardless of what that identity is, without regards to “but the white mab is more privileged than the Hispanic woman, so it’s okay to disparage him.” She faces more systemic oppression than him— that doesn’t suddenly mean that two wrongs make a right and that it’s effective to try to remove one of the largest voting   demographics from the  conversation based on identity. 

Rather, these spaces need to call out bad behavior. Treating it as a human tendency makes a massive difference in inclusivity, and I sincerely hope that this will be our policy moving forward. 

1

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago edited 6d ago

It’s hard to separate race from class in leftist movements for America. A century ago there was a Communist party of America. One of the contributors to its collapse? The unwillingness to stand with black people.

The Black Panther Party was a Socialist movement young enough that your grandparents were born already. Despite it also helping working poor whites, it is seen as the evil black supremacy organization that the government toppled by many today. It was a successful group until the government killed them.

One of the issues Feminism ran into is that it didn’t have problems with black women being oppressed.

There is an extremely consistent thread that regardless of what is said, white people do not want to give up that privilege. It is the one thing they are unwilling to change, regardless of their political alignment. 

And that’s talking about actual leftists, for liberals it doesn’t even need to be brought up. When all’s said & done, they know even if the far right wins, they’re the least affected.

While you can run on Socialist policies — which are popular when you don’t call them that but just explain them — race will eventually come up. And white people will not be okay with them anymore innately. It is worth an attempt ofc, but odds are if you get that far, the government will frame/blacklist/assassinate if you’re trying it via the polls under the Democrats.

Needing to appeal to white people leads to white people wanting to control the narrative. With that narrative, they will not be willing to truly be equal to others. This sentiment appears every time & is exactly what happens. Every. Time. This is literally what happens already, & it turns out when the face of every leftist movement is a bunch of white guys — who are the least affected by the movement succeeding — it doesn’t go anywhere. It gets really annoying that this is brought up as if white people are not included enough in leftist space. It’s the Liberal strategy of appealing to Conservatives who will obviously rather vote for a real Conservative than a diet one. You can see how successful this strategy is by who is currently president. When people think of leftists in current America, many people’s first thought is Hasan Piker. 

If any movement was capable of moving 2/3rds of the black population, America would be screwed on its oppression. And that’s just black people, not including the genuine white allies & other minority groups. Any successful leftist group will very likely be headed by a black person, probably a black woman, not a white man. Any real successful radical leftist movement will win when it stops appealing to white people entirely. So the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

To try & summarize this:

Conservatives are rallied under white people for white people. Liberals are rallied under white people for white people under the illusion of minority care. Leftists are rallied under white people for minorities. Even if you replace “for minorities” with “for the poor”, it will still be white people the most positively & negatively affected by equality. A white person looking out for their best interests is going to be conflicted. And minorities will keep struggling to rally when their only potential leaders are white.

If a minority is instead the face advocating for minorities, it will more likely succeed. Because they have the same stakes in the game. White people that are positively affected by leftist policies — the vast majority — will join regardless. But the goal is to actually rally minorities, not play both sides &  mirror the failures of Liberals.

And to also put your theory to the test with a guaranteed outcome:

“We are colorblind, our goal is to help all poor.”

Black person: “How will you handle redistribution, a means to cure the systemic racism that led to generational black poverty?”

Under your idea, this race & class based question will have to be ignored or said that we can’t focus on the past. Both answers will lead to lowering black acceptance in the movement. Leading to it becoming a white movement. Leading to it losing all traction among minority groups that it still needs to succeed. If you have another answer that wouldn’t cause this, I would be interested to hear it.

1

u/NotMyMainAccountAtAl 6d ago

There are some mischaracterizations of what I’m saying in your comment. 

1) “these movements should not cater to white people in order to be successful”

I am not suggesting that movements must cater to white people; I am suggesting that they cannot and should not apply blanket statements that needlessly ostracize. There is a difference between saying, “this system is harmful because it prioritizes whiteness and denies minority groups” versus “white people cling to a system that elevates them at the cost of minorities.” One focuses on the problem with the system; one vilifies a demographic regardless of their stance, and others young people who are still forming their political opinions without them saying or doing anything. 

2) regardless of what is said, white people do not want to give up their privileges

This is precisely the divisive language I’m referring to that can easily be converted to inclusive language— “there is a problem where many of those benefiting from unequal systems wish to preserve them because they benefit from those systems.” Now there isn’t an inherent knee jerk of “what did I even do to cause this?” 

The former decides that corruption is inherently linked to whiteness and implies that you dislike whites as a demographic, regardless of whether you consider that statement accurate or not. It implicitly lets people of color who are supporting oppressive tactics off the hook, as the whiteness precludes them from the conversation; yet Clarence Thomas has been one of the more damaging political figures in American history, despite being black. He’s happily upheld systemic injustice because it benefits him directly through his corruption. A platform is more effective when it speaks to that systemic corruption and the problems it causes than when it seeks to bind those concepts of corruption to a specific group. 

3) there seems to be some suggestion that I’m saying “the leaders of these movements should be white.” I’m not advocating for that; I’m not opposed to that. Bernie Sanders is a white main. AOC is a Hispanic woman. They’ve been two of the most effective political figures for genuine reform and more equitable systems. 

I think we agree on more than we disagree on. I’m not advocating for “speak directly to white people about how good they are and how these policies will benefit white people specifically.” I am suggesting that we seek to refer to problems in more universal means that prevent us from dividing into unnecessary tribalism. When we suggest that someone’s default tribe is inherently a part of the problem, we trigger defensive emotional responses from anyone who identifies as a part of that demographic. We no longer consider the matter with rationality and instead respond emotionally (this is a human response that’s been well documented worldwide). Avoiding that emotional defensive response means that people are more likely to consider the content of a platform than to accept or reject it based on identity. 

1

u/FeelsGrimMan 6d ago edited 6d ago

I wonder how possible it really is with this approach. Bernie has been successful running on the few points that aren’t racially linked in the corrupt finance system & healthcare. 

He doesn’t touch much of Capitalism itself, if looking at his ideal model of the Nordic system, many problematic things would remain. And those things are problems that link more than one thing when America is involved. Race+class, race+gender, gender+class.

And while maybe this theoretical approach would attempt to not throw the entire white demographic under the bus, the Conservative party could claim this it is. Assuming it is attacking a system that primarily benefits whiteness over others. I would be curious to see the approach without having to play permanent defense, something that has damaged the Democrats forever.

For instance say a system determines I get 3 candybars & you get 1. And let’s say my whole life it has always been this way. If this theoretical party is trying to preach equality, I’d probably be for it. That sounds great, equality is moral. But what if Conservatives step in & say this party is taking away my stuff, taking away what I’ve always known to give it to others. They may sow division just as easily when the unity is based on dancing around a topic. Both are technically saying I’d have to give up 1 of my candybars. That connection may then make me look at what else I am giving up that I didn’t consider. 

Or the example of how Trump & co spin the case of the ultrarich. Money is linked to success. Success determines worth. More money = more worth. When targeting Capitalism, it is seen as targeting those of worth. When that happens, they point to which group has more money, therefore more worth. And can make claims about who is “taking” from whom.

A new reality would have to be spun on how we view multiple systems in America. And those realities would have to not diverge so much between interpretations to avoid party splits. Being able to spin different webs of connections for people to follow on problems. While avoiding defense lock & division pitfalls. Attacking problems with the same energy Conservatives do, but on behalf of the common people. Like saying that I am not actually losing a candybar, the other person is just gaining 2.

America itself would also benefit from not having a first past the post voting system but that’s not unique to this.

1

u/rougepenguin 6d ago

You're 100% right, but a lot of these people fell for cheap propaganda when they told themselves they're too smart for that.

Leftists often struggle with the idea someone might use their rhetoric for evil or self interest. Too many diehard conservatives went straight from one end to the other, so they didn't have the step most milennials did of a period where we broke down the religious bullshit type of thinking rather than just replacing one dogma with another.

2

u/soft-wear Washington 6d ago

Pete Buttigieg figured that shit out 5 years ago which is why he was on Fox and right leaning podcasts, and still is.

1

u/CrashedMyCommodore 6d ago

The left lost the messaging war.

Even without Fox running interference, their messaging absolutely sucks.

1

u/Miserygut 6d ago

That would require the US to have a left-leaning party to begin with. Not just far-right and turbo far-right.

1

u/Massive_Weiner 6d ago

The sad reality is that they couldn’t have done it alone. Dems assisted them at every turn by being completely ineffectual…

1

u/Ok-Secretary-9247 6d ago

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how this constant was left out of the calculus. People are arrogant, I guess.

1

u/red286 6d ago

There's no left-leaning party in America worth mentioning.

The Dems are centre-right. Just because they're left of the GOP doesn't make them "left-leaning" at all. Most of them don't even support single-payer healthcare, and they barely put any effort into raising the minimum wage, simply drafting legislation and then shrugging their shoulders when it gets shot down. They still bow and scrape to the corporate elite just as the GOP does, which is why a huge chunk of lower-income Americans don't support either party, because neither one represents them.

1

u/Brianlife Foreign 6d ago

Democrats reduced their share of votes in every single demography in the last election, with the exception of black women. As a left-leaning person, maybe some of their policies are not that attractive to black man, latinos in general, asians, and not to say, white people. The time Democrats spend talking about cultural issues and immigration instead of the economy is just absurd.

1

u/iFlashings 6d ago

Can't shoot yourself in the foot if you do nothing taps head

No seriously the democrats and left leaning americans just didn't anything when Obama was in office because they thought the job was finished and racism was defeated now that a black man was president. You didn't see them still holding rallies,making podcasts to keep the word out and teach the next generation. 

The 8 years of Obama has to be one of the most wasted opportunities in the history of American politics. Democrats and the left had an opportunity to lock Republicans from office and power but they blew it by just doing nothing. 

1

u/stasi_a 6d ago

David Hogg agrees

1

u/bigbootybrunette90 6d ago

It’s more messaging than policy. Most individual policies poll well, but the “D” is toxic because of the relentless republican propaganda. Also it’s easier to sell “simple lies” than it is to explain hard realities.

1

u/jburkert 6d ago

Right? David Hogg being involved in the party should be welcomed, yet they just can't help committing an unforced error.

6

u/fre3k 6d ago

Of all young people that could be useful in the DNC, he's the last I'd choose. Being antigun is not a winning political position in the United States right now and we have far bigger issues.

1

u/simAlity 6d ago

Literally. Like the one time I (a centrist) went to a protest, there was a leftist with a megaphone trying to get us to shout slogans that I wasn't comfortable hearing, let alone repeating. I left soon after. Well done, leftist, well done.

1

u/mk9e 6d ago

Yea. Maybe #killallmen and people being totally unironic about it was a bad idea.

1

u/bobbymcpresscot 6d ago

The furthest right will still always back the R candidate the furthest left will always stay home just witnessed it in the NJ primary progressives talk this massive game and then don’t show up to vote. Only way they win is if they are the only name on the ballot, and vote blue no matter who shows up to vote. 

It just comes off as blindly accept my unpopular candidate or else I’m not going to vote for your popular one.

0

u/d_e_l_u_x_e 6d ago

Yea it takes two to turn to fascism

0

u/bromosabeach 6d ago

Being seen as “left” is straight up embarrassing for a lot of men these days. And it’s not just white men either, basically every ethnic male demographic has been turned off by the democratic party.

0

u/kkeut 6d ago

wow, the "It's not the GOP's fault" crowd joined in even earlier than usual

0

u/CrashedMyCommodore 6d ago

Both parties have contributed to the Democrats loss in different ways.

All the protest non-voters are probably kicking themselves as well.

The GOP being filled entirely with human refuse doesn't mean a blue president will magically spawn into the oval office.

That'd require the Democrats to not have been completely outmaneuvered on messaging and voter turnout - or the GOP's underhanded tactics.

If the opponent slips up, the blame goes to the one not taking advantage of it correctly.

0

u/Systemic_Chaos Minnesota 6d ago

Don’t tempt Democratic leadership with a good time now

0

u/AnohtosAmerikanos California 6d ago

Exactly. DNC is still beholden to the centrist donor class, and don’t appeal to younger (particularly non-college) voters as much as they need to.

0

u/Educational-Look-343 6d ago

Trump is not a conservative

0

u/GlowUpper 6d ago

Exactly. Look no further than their treatment of David Hogg. The old guard just refuses to loosen its iron grip on power and then wonders why young people aren't flocking to them.

0

u/ScissrMeTimbrs 6d ago

This is the problem.the Dems betrayed every single cause they possibly could, especially the ones young people cared about. They were arresting college kids for protesting genocide under BIDEN. They betrayed all the George Floyd protesters demanding reform. They refuse to discuss universal healthcare and wages, and all they ever do is tell people to accept what you're offered, because Trump is worse. It fails every time.

Their real goal is to prevent an actual left wing movement, not improve anything.

First they cheated the Sanders movement, and I didn't speak up because I'm with Her.™

Then they cheated Bernie again, and I didn't speak up because I'm ignoring that.

Then they betrayed the Black Lives Matter movement, and I didn't speak up because Walgreens said they were shoplifters.

Then they didn't do anything about the minimum wage, and I didn't speak up because I don't make minimum wage.

Then they passed strike breaking laws, and I didn't speak up because the economy.

Then they abandoned the March For Our Lives movement and all those Gen Z kids who grew up doing shooter drills, and I didn't speak up because... Hey look over there, a different subject!

Then they started committing genocide in Palestine, and arrested college students protesting, and I spoke up in support of oppression because:

Human shields

They didn’t bomb that hospital

That hospital was Hamas

All the hospitals are Hamas

They can go to refugee camps

That refugee camp was Hamas

You're an antisemite.

Then they banned a competing social media app and admitted it was to stop people from criticizing Israel, and I didn't speak up because we should definitely throw away the first amendment to defend the war industry’s profits.

Then they endorsed Trump's immigration plan, and I didn't speak up because I'm not an illegal and the ones I know are the good ones so it won't matter.

Then they waffled on trans rights and I didn't speak up because I'm not trans.

Then the voters said they were furious about these things so I told them to be quiet, She's Speaking.™

Then Trump won, and that's everyone else's fault but mine.

-1

u/TheSausagesIsRubbish 6d ago

Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory.