Am on mobile, and at work so this won’t be very well formatted and I don’t have time to read your whole link.
I’m aware of what the DNC has historically done, particularly with Hillary and Biden, I even just stated as such in another comment.artin is talking about having nominees in races all up and down the ballot in the general election.
The investments we are making are designed to do both: win big this November and build a stronger party for the elections that follow.
Remember Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy? To have a nominee on every ballot, challenging the Republicans for every seat instead of giving up on some.
Your previous comment says DNC is spending all their cash and are bankrupt but your link says they’ve had they’re best fund raising year, without holding the Whitehouse, in party history. Also with small donor contributions up 77% (compared to large donor contributions only being up 30%). So at least from what I have gotten through, I don’t see how your link justifies your position (acknowledging that I haven’t read the whole thing yet).
I don’t care that Abdul almost lost the primary, because he didn’t lose it. That means the voters are now overcoming the big-money campaigns backed by groups like AIPAC to get better nominees on the ballot.
I didn’t say just go vote. I said talking without voting is a losing strategy. We can talk IRL with people all we want, but if we don’t back it up with votes then the establishment learns to pay lip service without action. We have to fire the status quo by voting them out. And yes, we have to talk amongst ourselves and our peers to get each other to vote.
I think it is important that Abdul almost lost because of stories like Francesca Hong who almost won. Money plays an outsized role in these elections and the money the DNC is spending is most definitely being focused on raising Establishment Democrat candidates. Sure they are raising money and contributions are up, but they are spending money faster than they are raising it to the point where they are in debt.
Spending money is important to increase influence. I think it’s a good thing to spend money to try and unseat Republicans. But when we hear stories of Establishment Dems getting endorsed by other Establishment Dems, like Gov Tony Evers endorsing David Crowley in Wisconsin or Gov Gretchen Whitmer endorsing Haley Stevens in Michigan, this comes with fundraising and financial contributions from the establishment. This comes with buying ads for the establishment pick. It is a signal from the DNC to the voter base to unify behind a preferred “electible” candidate.
Abdul’s victory is a good thing because it means that people can beat out money. It is also a cautionary tale of how far the Establishment Democrats will go to fight their progressive wing. They already know what the people want which is why Ken Martin released that anemic 2024 autopsy report that was clearly edited to omit key progressive issues.
I am disputing your original claim that it doesn’t matter what the DNC wants. It absolutely matters what they want when they are the ones running the races and influencing elections to get their preferred candidates theough the primaries. They are actively trying to direct the voters instead of listening to the what the voters want. The DNC is absolutely the biggest problem that leads to depressing voter turnout. My problem with your original claim is the idea that we can tell people to vote for who they like without talking about what the DNC is doing. The reason people don’t vote Democrat is directly a result of the DNC spending all their time and energy putting up terrible candidates.
To put it more simply, the Establishment Dems are attacking us. We ought to be defending ourselves.
Your original claim was to ignore what the DNC is doing and to stop talking about them because what they are doing does not matter. I am saying that people should focus on the DNC and continue to talk about what they are doing because they are the biggest obstacle to getting Democrats elected.
Our major disagreement is on analysis. I agree with the idea that we should be talking to voters and trying to convince them to vote Democrat, but your analysis leads you to ignore or avoid talking about the DNC because you don’t think they are the main concern. I think we should be protesting the Establishment Dems outside their public offices and disrupting public events they are at to be more in their faces about how they are screwing up the moment. Candidates and people in positions of power should be speaking out against the Establishment the way David Hogg did. He took the scandal of being ejected from the DNC to propel the progressive movement forward with his Leaders We Deserve organization that helps get progressive candidates like Mamdani in NY or Alawieh in Michigan through the primaries.
But what I think should happen or am advocating for is not the core of the issue in our discussion. You think it is safe to ignore the DNC and Establishment Democrats because they do not represent a majority. I think it is unsafe to ignore the DNC and Establishment Democrats because they still have sizeable influence and power despite not representing the majority. You seem to think that the Establishment Democrats will learn their lesson if enough voters tell them what they want. I have seen Establishment Democrats run the same neoliberal playbook for almost 20 years and I know the current leadership will never learn. The Democratic party is hemorrhaging voters faster than you or I can stop the bleeding specifically because the leadership loves shooting themselves in the foot. You think we should focus on the voters and the leadership will come around. I think we should focus on the leadership and the voters will come around.
Am on mobile, and at work so this won’t be very well formatted and I don’t have time to read your whole link.
I’m aware of what the DNC has historically done, particularly with Hillary and Biden, I even just stated as such in another comment.artin is talking about having nominees in races all up and down the ballot in the general election.
Remember Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy? To have a nominee on every ballot, challenging the Republicans for every seat instead of giving up on some.
Your previous comment says DNC is spending all their cash and are bankrupt but your link says they’ve had they’re best fund raising year, without holding the Whitehouse, in party history. Also with small donor contributions up 77% (compared to large donor contributions only being up 30%). So at least from what I have gotten through, I don’t see how your link justifies your position (acknowledging that I haven’t read the whole thing yet).
I don’t care that Abdul almost lost the primary, because he didn’t lose it. That means the voters are now overcoming the big-money campaigns backed by groups like AIPAC to get better nominees on the ballot.
I didn’t say just go vote. I said talking without voting is a losing strategy. We can talk IRL with people all we want, but if we don’t back it up with votes then the establishment learns to pay lip service without action. We have to fire the status quo by voting them out. And yes, we have to talk amongst ourselves and our peers to get each other to vote.
I think it is important that Abdul almost lost because of stories like Francesca Hong who almost won. Money plays an outsized role in these elections and the money the DNC is spending is most definitely being focused on raising Establishment Democrat candidates. Sure they are raising money and contributions are up, but they are spending money faster than they are raising it to the point where they are in debt.
Spending money is important to increase influence. I think it’s a good thing to spend money to try and unseat Republicans. But when we hear stories of Establishment Dems getting endorsed by other Establishment Dems, like Gov Tony Evers endorsing David Crowley in Wisconsin or Gov Gretchen Whitmer endorsing Haley Stevens in Michigan, this comes with fundraising and financial contributions from the establishment. This comes with buying ads for the establishment pick. It is a signal from the DNC to the voter base to unify behind a preferred “electible” candidate.
Abdul’s victory is a good thing because it means that people can beat out money. It is also a cautionary tale of how far the Establishment Democrats will go to fight their progressive wing. They already know what the people want which is why Ken Martin released that anemic 2024 autopsy report that was clearly edited to omit key progressive issues.
I am disputing your original claim that it doesn’t matter what the DNC wants. It absolutely matters what they want when they are the ones running the races and influencing elections to get their preferred candidates theough the primaries. They are actively trying to direct the voters instead of listening to the what the voters want. The DNC is absolutely the biggest problem that leads to depressing voter turnout. My problem with your original claim is the idea that we can tell people to vote for who they like without talking about what the DNC is doing. The reason people don’t vote Democrat is directly a result of the DNC spending all their time and energy putting up terrible candidates.
To put it more simply, the Establishment Dems are attacking us. We ought to be defending ourselves.
How is firing them in the primaries by electing a different nominee not defending ourselves? What other actions are you suggesting?
Your original claim was to ignore what the DNC is doing and to stop talking about them because what they are doing does not matter. I am saying that people should focus on the DNC and continue to talk about what they are doing because they are the biggest obstacle to getting Democrats elected.
ok, are you advocating for anything besides talking? Taking without voting doesn’t get results. I did clarify that I meant don’t just talk about them.
Our major disagreement is on analysis. I agree with the idea that we should be talking to voters and trying to convince them to vote Democrat, but your analysis leads you to ignore or avoid talking about the DNC because you don’t think they are the main concern. I think we should be protesting the Establishment Dems outside their public offices and disrupting public events they are at to be more in their faces about how they are screwing up the moment. Candidates and people in positions of power should be speaking out against the Establishment the way David Hogg did. He took the scandal of being ejected from the DNC to propel the progressive movement forward with his Leaders We Deserve organization that helps get progressive candidates like Mamdani in NY or Alawieh in Michigan through the primaries.
But what I think should happen or am advocating for is not the core of the issue in our discussion. You think it is safe to ignore the DNC and Establishment Democrats because they do not represent a majority. I think it is unsafe to ignore the DNC and Establishment Democrats because they still have sizeable influence and power despite not representing the majority. You seem to think that the Establishment Democrats will learn their lesson if enough voters tell them what they want. I have seen Establishment Democrats run the same neoliberal playbook for almost 20 years and I know the current leadership will never learn. The Democratic party is hemorrhaging voters faster than you or I can stop the bleeding specifically because the leadership loves shooting themselves in the foot. You think we should focus on the voters and the leadership will come around. I think we should focus on the leadership and the voters will come around.