That’s because D presidencies (and Congresses) have failed to meaningfully deliver for decades, so people pick the other guy by instinct. When the Dems delivered they had national politics by the balls for thirty years.
It depends on your definition of meaningful delivery. W started a hugely expensive war that Obama had to manage. He pushed trough healthcare reforms (that I am not qualified to judge) and in general kept things stable. Biden had Covid to manage and made substantial investments in green technology, again keeping things stable and bringing the Afghanistan war to it’s inevitably bad conclusion. Ds typically also are able to balance the budget, whereas Rs always overspend and give tax breaks to the rich.
Ds have also been the party of civil rights and minorities, but they always face relentless and shameless propaganda from Rs, aimed only at riling up the voters in anger. So I would argue it’s more a matter of how things are perceived rather than how they actually play out.
The problem with the perception of Ds is that R voters see them as a strange caricature, and independents and D voters don’t give them enough credit for what they achieve (and for just not being R in a two-party system).
I accidentally deleted my long-ish reply so I’m gonna be brief here, but basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do. Democrats have scored some wins, but given the timescale and the sheer magnitude of crisis facing ordinary Americans most of it is too little, too late (the Affordable Care Act, originally Romneycare, being a good case in point). Virtually every stat tracking how people actually live (as opposed to how much money they have) has been declining over the past two to four decades and people are feeling it in their wallets, and Democrats have near-universally failed to address that. There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade. Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do.
Can you point out where I am assuming this? I understand things are bad, and in case you haven’t noticed they have gotten significantly worse under R presidency once again.
There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, the progressives come from within democrats. This is great development and I hope it continues, but it needs people to participate and think of Ds as their party that they take control over. Otherwise there will be just corporate democrats who struggle to win against R. But even they are better than Rs, by a wide margin.
Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
Interestingly, FDR got the presidency after the great depression had started. That sentiment and economic hardship allowed him to carry radical changes.
That’s because D presidencies (and Congresses) have failed to meaningfully deliver for decades, so people pick the other guy by instinct. When the Dems delivered they had national politics by the balls for thirty years.
It depends on your definition of meaningful delivery. W started a hugely expensive war that Obama had to manage. He pushed trough healthcare reforms (that I am not qualified to judge) and in general kept things stable. Biden had Covid to manage and made substantial investments in green technology, again keeping things stable and bringing the Afghanistan war to it’s inevitably bad conclusion. Ds typically also are able to balance the budget, whereas Rs always overspend and give tax breaks to the rich.
Ds have also been the party of civil rights and minorities, but they always face relentless and shameless propaganda from Rs, aimed only at riling up the voters in anger. So I would argue it’s more a matter of how things are perceived rather than how they actually play out.
The problem with the perception of Ds is that R voters see them as a strange caricature, and independents and D voters don’t give them enough credit for what they achieve (and for just not being R in a two-party system).
I accidentally deleted my long-ish reply so I’m gonna be brief here, but basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do. Democrats have scored some wins, but given the timescale and the sheer magnitude of crisis facing ordinary Americans most of it is too little, too late (the Affordable Care Act, originally Romneycare, being a good case in point). Virtually every stat tracking how people actually live (as opposed to how much money they have) has been declining over the past two to four decades and people are feeling it in their wallets, and Democrats have near-universally failed to address that. There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade. Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
Can you point out where I am assuming this? I understand things are bad, and in case you haven’t noticed they have gotten significantly worse under R presidency once again.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, the progressives come from within democrats. This is great development and I hope it continues, but it needs people to participate and think of Ds as their party that they take control over. Otherwise there will be just corporate democrats who struggle to win against R. But even they are better than Rs, by a wide margin.
Interestingly, FDR got the presidency after the great depression had started. That sentiment and economic hardship allowed him to carry radical changes.