high everywhere.

I agree. You're right. The country won't vote for a Democratic Socialist. But they'll sure vote for enhanced healthcare, taxing billionaires, support for worker rights, food and housing security, trust busting, publicly held utilities and transportation systems, protected social security and medicare and medicaid, free and high-quality education for everyone.

We pretty much all agree on those things.

If a candidate is smart, he or she will run on those things under the "Democratic" party affiliation.

All politics is local. Mamdani was elected because he advocates for things people in NYC want, and they didn't care whether he called himself a Democrat or a Democratic Socialist. But the DSA label would be the kiss of death in many parts of the country, and James Talarico (for example) is doing quite well as an ordinary Democrat in Texas with a lot of the same ideas. Of course the GOP are trying to depict him as a socialist because in Texas socialism ranks with bestiality and devil worship, and he's smart to reject that label.

Really, all of us should be able to discern where a Democrat stands on the issues by listening to them speak.

Progressive, Social Democrat, whatever is fine. But you insert the word socialist and these fascists will/are pouncing on it. Its THE main reason you are hearing so many communist references in the media. I know where I live, and many liberals think we don't need the voters where I live (they are dead wrong), this socialist communist label is an absolute death blow as you said. As soon as the media started touting those wins in NYC I began to cringe. I completely disagree with the DSA platform as I believe many Democrats do. Many Democrats don't even know the DSA is a thing. We need to pivot with smart messaging quickly and loudly before the reich wing media set these words firmly into our platform. They are only words, they are not true Democratic Party ideals as a whole IMO.

The word "socialist" is just too toxic in this country to even remotely identify with. The policies people will mostly all agree with. Just drop that word.

They should rename themselves 'Social Democrats" like some of the Scandinavian countries do, so the word socialist is not used.

Yes you are correct.

But this country will not survive another Bernie bro movement. Or democrats who aren’t like me are as evil as the GOP bullshit. They were SO WRONG! I will NEVER FORGET it!

Constantly creating divisions where we don't need them. Republicans kind of do it, but man, Democrats excell at it. We could be so much further ahead.

Are, very literally, purity test.

They are meant solely to shut down Progressives and discussion of the progressive agenda.

It's been my experience when I hear people say something about purity tests, what they are really doing is shutting down any discussion that doesn't agree with their personal agenda.

Most voting democrats have many of the same principles and ideas. Where we lose is when a democratic candidate gets criticized because they are not this or that enough. If happens every single election. We cannot win where we need to without democrats that aren’t exactly how we want them to be.

Damn it’s like no on e has lived the last 20 years.

have Trump and MAGA running our country and what do many Democrats do? Blame other Democrats. It's BS know-it-allism.

Its the refusal to support Democrats, and in many cases even work to make them lose.

Ring that bell loud and clear, so loud that everyone hears it, especially the youth.

Transactional yes, if one chooses to look at it that way.

This needs to be done and will likely bring eyes to other important issues.

IMO

Have to be able to bundle all this in a catchy phrase. Yes, like Contract with America or America Great Again.

Have never been in marketing but I hope that we have talents to do this.

And don’t trash capitalism. Most people don’t hate the rich; they want to be rich. Even the poor suckers that lost a lot while he made his millions “recognize” that this is the nature of investments.

That's a different conversation. But one we also need to have.

The problem is capitalism without regulation, capitalism without anti-monopoly laws being enforced, capitalism with oligarchies benefiting from Extreme Court rulings. The problem is end-stage capitalism, even if folks don't know what that is.

They definitely would be running as a Democrat. Big tent for the win.

As usual, your post is in line with my thinking. I think it's going to be ALL about the messaging, and even more so, how the Democrats counter the label that Trump, et al are working hard to assign.

Dems are going to need to, more than ever before, fight the name calling and present programs and changes and benefits that contrast what Republicans will be spouting.

We don't need to be labeled "socialists" in any way, shape, form or fashion. We need to be labeled as responsible progressives who above all else want individuals to have freedoms. Democrats need to SHOW voters what their tax dollars can do when those tax dollars are NOT used to coddle billionaires. It's going to need to get personal.

For example, as a senior, I benefitted from the extra $6k that Trump's "big ugly bill" provided for taxes. Dems need to offer specific ideas and programs that show that THEY can do those types of things better than Republicans. How can they help the individual, working class American.

Then, when and if we are ever in power again, Democrats need to be ruthless in fixing the system so that something like Trump can never, ever happen again.

Dems are always behind the 8 ball in fundraising, especially on the local levels. That is where I see the most damage being done by repuglicans. The national campaigns are all well and good but they are getting totally railed on broadcast media and youtube where they are targeting people - mostly with lies and exaggerations.

Dems would do well to address this. As I said, I think the messaging is going to need to be personal to ordinary Americans, and to do that, it's going to have to be placed where ordinary Americans hear it and see it.

I'm an old fart, and even *I* don't get my news from cable tv any more. Social media and independent podcasters are going to be very relevant as we go forward.

After that, it's just destructive.

I remember hearing in 2008, "This country will never elect a black man."

In 2016, "This country will never elect [Redacted]." And he was running against the most qualified candidate you could ever hope to find.

So pronouncements about who this country will or will not elect are largely useless. The country will elect whomever it wants at the time they vote.

I am fucking sick of it.

That seems somehow unAmerican to me. People vote (or not) for their own reasons. I think that they are entitled to do that.

I also think that anyone who thinks differently about that entitlement has lost the plot.

Fact.

You don't think the ditching Biden played any part at all? Curious.

But even if you are correct, so what? It's their vote to bestow or withhold wherever they choose based on whatever criteria they deem important. They don't owe a vote simply because someone belongs to a particular political party.

Maybe that's the problem.

That probably had something to do with it. Too many Americans couldn’t bring themselves to vote for someone with a vagina. Sad but true.

Lost jobs, empty factories, deserted communities..

Her "triangulating" was because the expectation was a freaking 400+ vote electoral victory.

Bernie Sanders has never won a national contest.

The more likely VP progressive would've been Elizabeth Warren.

But misspelling their first name and calling them by it is just... rude.

As well as Sen. Sanders.


Clinton does get a little complicated what with her husband being the President.

Are you saying Bernie offered lost jobs, empty factories, deserted communities like Trump? Am I reading this correctly?

"He said he was going to take on the establishment and he was going to provide health care to everybody. You know what, it's pretty much what I said."

I believe their gender and other excuses were smoke and mirrors to distract from the "results" that didn't make sense.

The excuses will always be found unless the candidate has a mandate. I speak of this often. We need to focus on an excuse free mandate for our candidate in 2028. Our personal ideologies may need to sit it out so it is not as easy to "rig" the results. Once a Democrat gets back in the oval we need to create make it harder to cheat and steal.

But meanwhile - we need to focus on the midterms. We need to have our eyes on the elections - there is a plan in place to control those results as well.

HRC won the nomination in 2016 by getting the most delegates. Why? Because she won most of the primaries. That is hardly a coronation.

I believe he would have won the election.

I also believe that Hillary Clinton did win the election. I think it was easier to convince people that Hillary lost than it would have been in the case of Bernie. Bernie had a mandate. Hillary Clinton had some "baggage" in the eyes of some, that was easily used as an "excuse".

I don't believe either Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris lost. I believe that the same misdirection that I mentioned in my previous comment created smoke and mirrors to distract from the real reason the "results" didn't make any sense.

I believe the DNC should not "rig" elections any more than any other entity should.

to everyone, and we need to unite in spite of differences, but on things we can agree with.

but some people's egos seem to get in the way, and that is what happened in 2016. "You either do it my way or I will take my marbles and go home."

The Supreme Court was at stake in 2016, where we lost every critical swing state by less than 1%.

In those critical swing states Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those critical swing states Jill Stein received 1% of the vote. It didn't take much.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana in his 1905 work The Life of Reason

There is no evidence that Democrats are responsible for the election of the grifter.

I believe there has been a misdirection - creating an excuse for the "results" to distract for what may have really happened.

I believe propaganda and other evil deeds from outside bad actors (Pootin being one) created the "results". I DO NOT believe Hillary Clinton lost.

I have said it before. We are a Democracy. That means voting is like picking which bus to get on. None of them will take you directly from your home to your destination. That will NEVER happen. So you pick the one that gets you closest.

I am sick of people not voting unless the bus makes a stop at their front door. And I'm sick of the people who encourage them to think the bus SHOULD stop right at their front door.

That is never, ever going to change. Nor should it. That's the price we pay for freedom. Some people are going to disagree with us for reasons of their own -reasons we might think are woefully wrong. But it is their right to be woefully wrong.

How would youfix this thing you think is a problem?

And it seems like my point is the same as yours. We ALL have to tolerate areas of disagreement. But we need to educate our electorate that disagreement doesn't mean don't vote.

Minor policy disagreements probably aren't a big problem, though they may dampen enthusiasm. The real trouble is that priorities are -have been and should be- determined by the individual. And some of those priorities have no easy compromise.

Take MI in 2024. Many Dem voters stayed home due to Israeli actions in Gaza. They determined that those actions constituted genocide. Genocide is not something we can condone or compromise on. So, if we wanted those voters we were left with either abandoning Israel or convincing those people that that wasn't genocide. Neither of those look practical and there is no middle ground. We cannot tell those people that voting for Harris is more important than genocide. It won't work.

Nor can we say that those people are wrong. Their "pony" was ending the murder of innocent civilians. It is not an unreasonable request -particularly if one has ties to Gaza. Telling them that they'd get no better from [Redacted] didn't work -and never would. From that perspective, they saw no difference between the two candidates. Long term strategy wasn't a consideration. If nobody was going to try to stop the genocide, nobody would get their vote.

The job of the Party isn't to convince voters that the Party is right. The job is to let the voters know that the Party is working for them, or at the least seriously listening. Berating people about their own sensibilities is a losing proposition. It flies in the face of the very realism that the Party first people claim to have.

In every Presidential election, there are two viable candidates. One of them will win. So that's the choice.

Say somehow a right-wing Dem wins the nomination against the right-wing Republican candidate. Both candidates are in favor of exterminating group "X". The Republican, of course, wants to torture them first, but the Democrat just wants a quick execution.

Would you vote for either of them? Or would you withhold giving legitimacy to both?

You appear to be conceding the point that that hypothetical would lead to. I understand.

I'm merely having a discussion based on reason and logic. My ego is off yonder looking at something beautiful and wondering what the hell color it is.

Joe Biden did all he could to get Netanyahu to back off in Gaza and Netanyahu refused to listen. Those who wanted more suggested cutting off aid to Israel but they have a very powerful lobby and the GOP would never have voted for it. Those who refused to vote let Fascism take hold over something that the Democrats had not control over.

What is it, in 2026, that you're "sick" of? Or are you concerned about previous Democratic presidential primaries?

There's always a "take my ball and go home" contingent, (i.e. non-voter, Green Party "dissent voter," etc) that has a significant impact on our numbers.

The "cannibalizing" I see seems exemplified by the OP. You agreed with it - ie it's about the present, not a possible future.

There's a DU rule "Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary". Are you saying this OP is OK, because you're refighting 2016 and 2020? What about 2008, when the "my ball" contingent was Hillary-or-no-one supporters?

Have a nice day.

That is obviously refighting previous presidential elections.

How do you read the OP - specifically "this shit" that's it's about? We're 2 years after the last presidential election, and 2 years before the next. How can "this shit" be about presidential elections?

say they've done "this fucking shit" (which, I cannot emphasize enough, you still haven't deigned to explain), and accuse "them" of "tearing the Democratic Party down", you're refighting, not just "recalling" or "remembering".

That is fucking obvious.

Re-read.

Re-write.

I can, if you wish, attribute to you some things that you appear to feel, but which you don't dare say explicitly because they are incredibly divisive and bad for the Democratic party. "This shit" and "New York City" appear to mean that you object to registered New York City Democrats choosing the Congressional candidates they did recently, and you wish to pretend that's about a presidential election, although it's clearly not.

Now, if only the Democratic party would take it to heart and quit trying to act like alternate viewpoints didn’t threaten the old guard more than a Repuke takeover…

HRC and VP Harris. They were the most qualified, the most experienced and had the best policies that would have helped this country.

The "conscience" voters chose to support a Putin puppet (Stein), said trump was the peace candidate, and disparaged "Killer Kamala." They also insisted SCOTUS wasn't important and mocked us for saying so.

So yeah, I agree with BB.

Just as I respect the views of those with whom I disagree.

What I won't do (and I'm NOT implying that you do) is berate people for having different views. I may try to convince them to come around to my POV, but I won't belittle them or their views.

Complaining about others' sensibilities and priorities will never build consensus and cooperation.

because their conscience tells them Medicare for all is better? How can they ignore the fact that Trump is working on stealing every election for the next hundred years?

I don't believe them when they say that it conscience. I don't know what their motivation is but I know that the world is full of terrible things that can't be stopped but if enough us work together we can make it a little better or at least fend off the worst.

And they are free to do anything they want. And I am free to give my opinion on their choices.

However, their opinion is expressed in votes. Your opinion on those votes avails us nothing. All we can do is try to do better next time.

But I keep hoping.

20 years of smears.

I don't recall an active anti-Obama movement on the left during the runup to Obama's election?

Yet many I knew personally, who called themselves "left" (and some still call themselves that, others I lost contact with so I don't know), attacked Clinton on social media for long after the primary, up to maybe less than a month from the election for those who grudgingly voted for her ... and others refused to vote for her entirely, or at least proclaimed that to anyone who would listen.

Trump NEVER should have been elected. He was elected in 2016 only because of the ankle weights Clinton had attached to her.

The only ankle weight Obama had was that he was black - that he soared above it anyway is credit to him, but not an equation we'll replicate easily with just any candidate. And the black motivation and turnout was incredible. Obviously the reich-wing has taken steps to reduce that in the future. And the left-wing arguably coddling up to abolish the police rhetoric? Won't go over well in places like Philly. Believe it or not, many city people actually like having police around to keep the drug dealers, robbers, and other miscreants somewhat tamped down (as long as it is done without abuse of law-abiding citizens, who btw are the ones who actually bother to vote).

edit to add: I supported Bernie in the primary. I generally prefer his policies over more centrist policies. But I didn't appreciate the failure to come together fully behind the nominee after the primary. (can you tell?)

..."A black candidate can't win the 2008 Presidential Election" not many would have taken issue with that. Remember the "Bradley Effect?" Hell, I remember (I think it was) Chris Rock using "when a black man is President" as a joke sometime within a few years of 2006. It was unthinkable to most. (Yes, Obama is an extraordinary man, but we have to admit that the Great Recession gave him a big assist.)

Whatever caused HRC to lose, it must be remembered that she lost to the biggest ass-clown in American history. I laughed when he came down the escalator to announce his candidacy. And I wasn't alone. He was unelectable: "Grab 'em by the...". Yet, he won.

Electability is a matter of the times and whims of any given electorate. Under the right circumstances, you or I could be elected President. Yes, it would have to be pretty damned unusual circumstances (at least in my case), but no one can say it's impossible -just highly, highly unlikely.

2007 That was the rise of the PUMAs (People United Means Action) which was a very large group of disaffected Clinton supporters that did not want Obama as the nominee because they didn't think he could get elected.

It was very dark times here on this website during that time.

Sort of like now if I'm being honest.

I wasn't a member of DU in 2007. I am relatively new to DU (2024).

I also heard there was a bifurcation of the DU community in 2015/2016 regarding the Hillary v. Bernie allegiances.

I have a thought. Do you think some of the resentment and disagreement is orchestrated by outside influences to try and divide us?

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2026, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

We absolutely forget here that our party has a range of beliefs. The last I ever looked, 40% ofdemocrats were moderate or conservative democrats. When we forget democrats in more rural or conservative areas and only consider a city viewpoint, we lose those voters. Beto in Texas was a great example as he made the decision to make gun control a key point in a state that didn’t accept that.

It seems the propaganda machine has brainwashed more than republicans.

You have bought into the right-wing scare tactics.

Where I fall within the party beliefs has moved around since the 80’s. I’m not scared nor have I been scared by anyone especially republican branding. There is a range of beliefs within in our party. You can label it however you want, but a belief system based on your experience is not an on and off switch. It’s why the vote swings at elections and isn’t as easy as A. Or B.

which seems defeatist, to me. Is there no room for progressives in your vision of the party? Isn't looking for a better world a good thing?

I edited and added 40%.
I absolutely agree that progressive's have a place. All the power to them. Where all of their ideas result in a better world could probably be debated or more importantly, if all of those ideas are mainstream enough to get the votes to implement them. Bernie Sanders ideas that are never put into laws are just that, ideas.

While it is exciting to see the growing influence of democratic socialists in the congressional caucus and in local politics, I’ve seen nothing to suggest the 2028 presidential nominee will come from among their ranks.

Because of this, I am baffled by your unhinged rant.

It isn’t that one will be but that one won’t be. And that because of that the internal strife within the party splits us apart when we must be united.

It sure looks like the progressives are gaining traction in the party, so it may be the centrists’ turn to do some compromising.

I guarantee you that, in 2028, whoever the nominee is, they won’t blindly support Israel’s genocide, nor will they use vague, meaningless language to address the atrocities.

AIPAC candidates are consistently losing primaries this cycle, and shrewd strategists are noticing.

Only 8% of those who identify as moderates actually want moderate policies- the vast majority prefer progressive policies.

Here’s a link to the data backing that up:

https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-04-07-only-8-percent-moderates-actually-want-moderation

The challenge isn’t stopping progressives from dividing the party, it’s effectively communicating progressive policies that most Americans across all parties want in a way that Republicans and centrist Dems can’t sabotage (see Ossoff and Talarico’s campaigns for good examples)

I vote for Democrats. Joe Biden was the best President in my 67 years, narrowly beating out warmonger LBJ. Obama is in third place. I almost never pick the eventual nominee in the primaries, but I always vote for Democrats. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised, like Biden, Clinton and Carter.

I lean towards Buttigieg or Ossoff in 2028. They can debate their way out of a paper bag, which is a plus over many Democrats. Would I vote for a self-described Democratic Socialist? In a heartbeat. Why? Because they would be running as a Democrat. How do I know that? Because the DSA is not a political party.

There doesn't seem to be anything in the news about it. But anyway, I'd suggest choosing someone else in the primaries. If you think democratic socialists are that bad, then treat this person like you treated Tulsi Gabbard.