No, the Democrats did not lose by going too far left.

[icanhelp1]

One of the main culprits (imho) for the Democratic Party’s struggles this election cycle are the niche groups that the Democratic Party requires for its coalition.

These niche groups forced Democratic candidates to go on record supporting the most extreme wishes of these niche groups in order to get those niche groups endorsement:

Transgender surgery for all inmates??? Sure.

Trans women in women’s sports??? Sure.

Open Borders??? Sure.

Voting rights in local elections for non-citizens??? Sure.

Defund the police??? Sure.

Support Hamas run Gaza??? Sure.

Support extreme Israelis??? Sure.

End all fossil fuel use instantly??? Sure.

Etc, etc, etc.

(And , of course, the demand that the Democratic Party clean up the republicans’ mess without any pain for themselves personally when it comes to their finances.)



And once the candidates are on record saying they support the most extreme wishes of these niche groups, they open themselves up to being bludgeoned by them in the future. Kamala was a victim of her past statements AND a double standard, because she was held accountable for her statements. President Biden was held to a double standard as well, though in a very different way.



Side note:

The betrayal by the groups that held President Biden and Kamala to an impossible standard due to their own feelings of betrayal have been noted. They will get less assurances on their more extreme wishes from Democratic candidates moving forward.



I still have hope for the future, as DonOld has now positioned himself for epic FAILURE as the populist messiah of the low education working class folks AND the ultimate benefactor of the mega rich - as well as the magical peacemaker of the world:

DonOld has made promises on domestic affairs (mass deportations, etc) and the economy that are laughable.

DonOld has made promises on foreign affairs (war diplomacy) and trade that are farcical.



DonOld is going to FAIL spectacularly…again, but his legal issues look like they’re behind him, (for now), and he will profit bigly off the presidency (just like last time) so he probably gives zero fucks. The "republican" party, on the other hand, is going to give manny fucks when they are held accountable for DonOld’s false / empty promises and they have to face an electorate of betrayed MAGAts and normal voters.

In two or four years, the Democratic Party will be expected to clean up the mess…again, but this time there will be NO promises to ANY group in the electorate on their extreme / unrealistic wishes, and they will be reminded that history keeps repeating itself due to their gullibility when it comes to "republican" promises on basic domestic and foreign affairs.

JMTCW.

Why don’t you step back and wish him success for success helps all Americans. You’re continuing the smear campaign once again. The very type of smear campaign that lost you this last election cycle. You’re just as dumb as your so-called extreme leftist niches.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Trying to pigeonhole Trump into one of your political groups is futile.
He is larger than politics, a pure opportunist, I think maybe a lot like Musk too,
who saw an opportunity to seize the country like he would a business and make it better, more efficient.

I think his "principled" opposition went too far and simply alienated the inherent American sense of fair play...

As all of the elected officials ran on getting Trump, went after Trump and are vowing to continue to go after Trump, even people who inherently do not like the guy saw/see the unfairness of how the fair and balanced occupation of journalist, turned professional advocate for one political party and one-party rule, where leaders can actually get shit done, and then they, at the very same time, in the very same breath, whine about an offhand quip of how he would be a dictator on day one, because he would be dictating a ton of (perfectly legal) executive orders.

Those elected officials should be prosecuted. We cannot have this behavior in public office. They tried to manipulate the outcome of an election. Disbarment and jail is too good, execution will nip that shit in the bud.

March on General. March on. To the victor goes the spoils, and like so many of you, I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM again.

 

[icanhelp1]

What? Sanders calls himself a socialist, but he's not, he's really a social democrat. Wants a vigorous welfare state and a redistributive tax system, but nationalizing the means of production is not on the agenda.

And social democracy is better than . . . whatever you call Trump's politics. Social democracy works better than anything else that has yet been tried -- better than authoritarian Communism, better that the the American version of plutocracy-ruled capitalism -- you can tell from the track records of the actually existing social democracies, where things in general go better than they go here. So, there really is nothing better than Sanders in American politics.

Social democrats have no limits on spending. They don’t believe in budgets and certainly don’t spend within our means. The answer for social democratic policy is wealth redistribution and taxation. I believe their thirst to spend is more about perpetual campaigning for vote rather than legitimate altruism.

 

[AceDesSpades]

He's hung up on the word: it's magic and it cures all political ills.

It has worked all over Europe as demonstrated in such places as The Netherlands...

 

[AceDesSpades]

There was once a dream that was R[epublic]. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter.

Marcus Aurelius, Gladiator

 

[UltraChad]

You are the sort who will not only tell me the sky is green, but, if I take you outside at noon on a cloudless day, you will say, "See?! I told you! It's green!"

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge liberalism and libertarianism aren't the same thing...... and that the Democrats aren't lefties because they aren't left enough for your personal liking. Despite all the references of any credibility saying the opposite.

Tell us more how the sky is green there Projection Master.

 

[Rebel5soul]

To reiterate, they lost because they're bat shit crazy.

Footnote: All their lying was just frosting on the cake.

 

[AceDesSpades]

They became real-life LitLoonLeft and got everything they say the other side is...

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Democrat who turned out to be right.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855616531142500704

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855617614120206459

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘… so many socialist nations…’

There has never been a socialist nation. Never. Not in Germany [as you imply, not in China, not in the USSR. Red October created a true workers state; but the transition to a socialist society never occurred. Never. Nowhere.

‘Marxist sure as shit don't…”

Socialism IS Marxism. And Trotskyists are the Marxists of the 21st century. This Trotskyist demands an equitable distribution of resources through democratic control by the workers, families, communities, leaders and experts where those resources are.

Transition from private business to public utility doesn’t strip you of any rights that others have; it ensures that the means of production serve the collective good, not private profit. It eliminates exploitation and creates a system where wealth generated benefits the entire community.

Individuals may have a role in managing businesses. Yet the ultimate accountability and decision-making power would lie with the community, which will also restore our faltering democratic participation.

In a socialist society, ownership would be collective. This tendency empowers workers rather than enslaving them to owner whims and reducing them to hostages to market forces. This liberates wage slaves.

 

[Politruk]

Social democrats have no limits on spending. They don’t believe in budgets and certainly don’t spend within our means. The answer for social democratic policy is wealth redistribution and taxation. I believe their thirst to spend is more about perpetual campaigning for vote rather than legitimate altruism.

So what? It still works better than anything else.

 

[Politruk]

Mr P This weekend marks the thirty fifth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The slogan, the only slogan that rang around Checkpoint Charlie at Friedrichstrasse/Zimmerstrasse, was ‘Die Mauer muss weg’ The Wall must fall. WEG!

This was the time and the place for you to be active. The citizens of Berlin, both East and West, had no idea what was going to happen but there were plenty of alternatives on offer among the crowds who took action to physically pull down the wall. Political Nirvana for you.

But I do not think that your arguments today would have received much support from those citizens as every one had a living example of what happens under your preference. What do you think?

What the Germans were tired of was Stalinism. Social democracy is a very different thing, and that's what America needs.

 

[Politruk]

Socialism IS Marxism.

The socialist movement existed before Marx joined it -- and would have been better off without the pseudoscientific, historical-determinist intellectual substructure Marx gave it.

 

[Politruk]

As all of the elected officials ran on getting Trump, went after Trump and are vowing to continue to go after Trump, even people who inherently do not like the guy saw/see the unfairness of how the fair and balanced occupation of journalist, turned professional advocate for one political party and one-party rule, where leaders can actually get shit done, and then they, at the very same time, in the very same breath, whine about an offhand quip of how he would be a dictator on day one, because he would be dictating a ton of (perfectly legal) executive orders.

Those elected officials should be prosecuted. We cannot have this behavior in public office. They tried to manipulate the outcome of an election. Disbarment and jail is too good, execution will nip that shit in the bud.

It was perfectly legitimate to campaign on getting Trump. In NYC in the 19th Century, it would have been perfectly legitimate to campaign on getting Boss Tweed -- and just as legitimate to keep that promise upon election.

 

[Politruk]

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge liberalism and libertarianism aren't the same thing......

No, it is you who refuse to acknowledge that neoliberalism and economic libertarianism are the same thing. The word "neoliberalism" doesn't mean anything else.

 

[Lazaran]

The Democrat who turned out to be right.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855616531142500704

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855617614120206459

BabyBoobs is having a seizure???



BabyBoobs



Also:

Democrats were poised to lose this election no matter who the candidate was. They got saddled with ALL the blame for inflation, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and the border - even though DonOld and the MAGAt republicans bear a significant amount of the blame for all of those things.

An open primary would only have hurt the party more.

Side note:

Democrats also accomplished a fuckton of good over the past four years that DonOld will take credit for (if the Democrats and the low information public let him), but DonOld and the MAGAt republicans will still have to govern and keep their farcically empty progressive promises to the populist workers and the masses, or betray them by cutting President Biden’s programs that help workers and FAILING to deliver anything but more tax cuts for the rich.

These next 2-4 years will be interesting to watch as DonOlf and the MAGAt republicans attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs is having a seizure???



BabyBoobs



Also:

Democrats were poised to lose this election no matter who the candidate was. They got saddled with ALL the blame for inflation, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and the border - even though DonOld and the MAGAt republicans bear a significant amount of the blame for all of those things.

An open primary would only have hurt the party more.

Dumb take, even for a loser like you. If the old man had announced a decision to not seek a second term before primary season started, the party could have had a serious contest to select its nominee. Instead, they ended up with one of the least appealing washouts from the 2020 primaries.

 

[Lazaran]

Dumb take, even for a loser like you. If the old man had announced a decision to not seek a second term before primary season started, the party could have had a serious contest to select its nominee. Instead, they ended up with one of the least appealing washouts from the 2020 primaries.

BabyBoobs "thinks" an open Democratic primary wouldn’t have resulted in a fractious spectacle that saw the Democratic Party’s coalition further divided over niche issues, and the potential rejection / weakening of Vice President Harris (which obviously would have caused deeper divisions)???



BabyBoobs



Side note:

Things went about as well as could have been hoped for with the transition from President Biden to Vice President Harris under the circumstances.

Bottom line: “It’s the economy (and misogyny and racism and low information voter) stupid” (BabyBoobs).

Hope that ^ helps.



BabyBoobs

 

[Holy_Seduction]

The socialist movement existed before Marx joined it -- and would have been better off without the pseudoscientific, historical-determinist intellectual substructure Marx gave it

While the socialist tendency existed prior to Marx, it was Marx’ analysis that provided the critical framework for understanding the dynamics of capitalism and class struggle.

Marx’ theories of historical, dialectical materialism allowed development of a scientific understanding of social change, to equip the socialist movement with the tools to analyze, interpret and challenge capitalist exploitation effectively. Because of this, socialists can now develop a coherent strategy, articulate essential goals, and rally the global proletariat to collective, revolutionary action.

 

[Politruk]

While the socialist tendency existed prior to Marx, it was Marx’ analysis that provided the critical framework for understanding the dynamics of capitalism and class struggle.

Marx’ theories of historical, dialectical materialism allowed development of a scientific understanding of social change, to equip the socialist movement with the tools to analyze, interpret and challenge capitalist exploitation effectively. Because of this, socialists can now develop a coherent strategy, articulate essential goals, and rally the global proletariat to collective, revolutionary action.

But it was all entirely wrong. In Bertrand Russell's words, "unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to believe it."

Marx had no more notion than Freud had of how to test a hypothesis.

We cannot say with scientific confidence that "class struggle" even exists.

And history certainly has not unfolded as Marx predicted. In his system, fully developed industrial capitalism should naturally produce revolution like clouds reaching a saturation point produces rain. But in fact Communist revolutions have only succeeded in underdeveloped agrarian countries like Russia and China, that had no industrial proletariat to speak of.

And there is no "global proletariat." There are only national proletariats. Sometimes not even that -- in the U.S., whites who live by manual labor and blacks who live by manual labor are not a single proletariat, they are two separate and distinct social classes -- different slices of the same layer of the cake. They live in different neighborhoods, go to different churches, drink in different bars, and almost never intermarry. They have different class-based world-views.

 

[UltraChad]

Socialism IS Marxism

No, Marxism is one of several kinds of socialism.

Socialism is any ideology which advocates the collective ownership of the means of production and it's philosophical start is largely accredited to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Marx just further refined it and took credit for most of Rousseaus work, just like a leftist.

Over the last 180~ish years, many others have had different ideas about what collective owned what means of production. The national socialist for example....not Marxist, very much socialist.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs "thinks" an open Democratic primary wouldn’t have resulted in a fractious spectacle that saw the Democratic Party’s coalition further divided over niche issues, and the potential rejection / weakening of Vice President Harris (which obviously would have caused deeper divisions)???



BabyBoobs



Side note:

Things went about as well as could have been hoped for with the transition from President Biden to Vice President Harris under the circumstances.

Bottom line: “It’s the economy (and misogyny and racism and low information voter) stupid” (BabyBoobs).

Hope that ^ helps.



BabyBoobs

What a sad commentary on the sorry state of the “fractious spectacle” that characterizes the state of the Democratic Party. lol.

 

[south7eventh]

What the Germans were tired of was Stalinism. Social democracy is a very different thing, and that's what America needs.

So what,where,when has your version of social democracy ever existed? I would be interested in learning because as always I am at a loss to understand. Much obliged.

 

[Politruk]

No, Marxism is one of several kinds of socialism.

Socialism is any ideology which advocates the collective ownership of the means of production and it's philosophical start is largely accredited to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Marx just further refined it and took credit for most of Rousseaus work, just like a leftist.

N.B.: Marx and Rousseau belong to different, and opposing, intellectual traditions.

See Romanticism versus Enlightenment.