Summary
Following Kamala Harris’s unexpected defeat, Democratic leaders are scrutinizing their party’s failures, particularly with working-class voters.
Figures like Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Ro Khanna argue the party lacks a strong economic message, especially for those frustrated with stagnant mobility and neoliberal policies.
Sanders emphasized Democrats’ disconnect from working-class concerns, while Murphy criticized the party’s unwillingness to challenge wealthy interests.
DNC Chair Jaime Harrison announced he won’t seek re-election, leaving the party’s leadership in flux as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries prepare to assume top roles amid a Republican resurgence.
He doesn’t say anything else on climate, and this is not “abandoning action on climate change.” The people already in the tent don’t agree on everything, and they have not “abandoned action” because of it.
The people who don’t agree with climate change don’t believe it exists.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-victory-sweeping-climate-consequences
This is not “uncritically supporting men’s rights.”
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don’t decide for them.
We are listening to them. This is what they are saying.
This time around, one of the attack lines is “your body, my choice.”
https://www.vox.com/politics/384792/your-body-my-choice-maga-gender-election
Sure, if that’s how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won’t be.
That’s how we’re framing it. If that’s not appealing to some people, there’s a mainstream fascist political party they can join. We don’t need two mainstream fascist parties.
By the way, the worldview is that all people are equal. And that inequality harms us all, but some people are harmed more than others. People on the left have no interest in a worldview where women are second class citizens.
The people who don’t agree with climate change don’t believe it exists.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
That’s how we’re framing it.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don’t believe in climate change. It would be a waste of time since they want to kill us and want to pollute as much as possible.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
My argument didn’t tell the MAGA movement to be fascists. A progressive and socialist populist movement could rally most people without needing for anyone to hate minority groups or disregard scientific consensus.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
Good, so you agree then? We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution. edit: typo
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don’t believe in climate change.
Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist. Murphy was talking about accepting people who don’t want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.
I agree that we need to watch out for cryptofascists, but your meter is too sensitive.
Similarly, men’s concerns about loneliness etc. are worth hearing out. I wouldn’t say that has much at all to do with “rights,” though.
Good, so you agree then?
As far as I can tell, yes. I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms, but I strongly agree with no second class of citizens.
We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution.
I don’t object. I’m an ex-Republican long since committed to riding the Democratic wagon wherever it goes. I would take FDR 2.0 if that’s what can defeat MAGA, but I don’t have confidence that it’s a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.
