Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
GH: The idea is that I'd like people to try out behaving as a socialist in my blog so I might as well demonstrate I can and am doing that with behaving like a progressive. LibHorizons doesn't advocate the abolition of capitalism, votes for Democrats, believes in electoralism supplemented by direct action, and so on. Sort of 21st century Bull Moose Progressive.
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
ThirdHorizons: I'm not much of a fan of GreenHorizons Or LibHorizons. Think I'll be taking the lead for a bit.
Takeaways on Why Democrats Have a Cultural Disconnect with the Working Class
1. Overemphasis on Identity Politics Many working-class voters feel Democrats prioritize niche identity-based groups with overbroad, unifying messages, making them feel excluded rather than included.
2. The “Faculty Lounge” Problem Democrats are often viewed as judgmental, out-of-touch, and dismissive of those without elite education or progressive views. This makes the party seem disconnected from everyday people.
3. Failure to Prioritize Economic Concerns While voters struggle with jobs, wages, and inflation, Democrats are seen as more focused on cultural and social issues than on economic progress and opportunity.
4. Weak Messaging & Communication The party’s language is often vague, politically correct, or overly intellectual, making it hard for working class voters to connect with Democratic policies.
5. Fear of Dissent Within the Party Democrats are perceived as intolerant of internal debate, where questioning progressive orthodoxy results in backlash rather than open discussion. Candidates and operatives need to feel more comfortable just saying NO to activist groups and unpalatable far-left ideas.
6. Attachment to Unpopular Institutions Democrats are seen as defending elite institutions (academia, media, government bureaucracy) while being critical of institutions working-class people value (churches, small businesses, police).
7. Allowing the Far Left to Define the Party Activist groups and progressive staffers push unpopular cultural positions, making it seem like Democrats are more extreme than they actually are. Operatives and campaigns must remember that activist groups exist to promote their single issue and raise money around it, not to make Democrats electable.
8. Reactionary Rather Than Proactive Democrats often let Republicans set the terms of cultural debates (e.g., crime, immigration) instead of clearly defining their own positions in a way that resonates with voters.
9. Overreliance on Buzzwords & Political Correctness Terms like "pregnant people" and "Latinx" alienate working-class voters who see them as out of touch with real-world terms and vocabulary.
10. Lack of a Positive National Identity Message Democrats focus too much on America’s flaws (racism, sexism, inequality) without acknowledging the country’s progress and potential, making them seem pessimistic and unpatriotic.
The third way Democrats are insane with their views, in my opinion. Their points are more about optics than anything else. It's hard to see how they would actually want to change things. They seem to want only to copy Republican theatrics. It is insane that these people can be in the same party with AOC and Sanders. However, if there were elections in 2028, I would not be surprised if one of the third-way Democrats were the official candidate. Honestly, they do not deserve to win just by being the other option for Republicans. People need to realise that the lesser evil is still evil and that they need to work to get out of situations where they must constantly choose the lesser evil. Otherwise, you will be stuck in the situation for decades, and then you can't blame GH and the company for advocating a risky revolution.
ThirdHorizons: This "optics" idea applies much more to the "progressive" wing of the party than it does the base. Third Way Democrats are the Democrats getting everything done. Every piece of legislation Democrats pass is passed by Third Way Democrats, signed by a Third Way president, and all of them are elected by Third Way voters like myself.
Meanwhile, Bernie is doing another vanity tour.
He can draw a crowd sure, but that crowd needs to show up to support/vote for the Third Way Democrats if they want to oppose Trump, win elections, and pass legislation.
I disagree. God bless Bernie for keeping the torch alive despite getting up there in years. He is one of the few democrats who can actually speak to the moderates and win over their support. He's on the sidelines actually making sure people are still paying attention and trying to build another momentum. At least Sanders isnt faceplanting like Jeffries or Schumer during these important early months
Still, Graugnard said he does not regret voting for Trump.
I feel this is somewhat indicative of a wider problem, Trump did what he said he would do, his policies fucked me personally. I still support him. What do there?
Incidentally not sure if you saw it before up the page, when I was responding to GH the Third.
I thought you did a good job doing nuts and bolts breakdowns on policy here in the election cycle. Did you attempt that in other environments and how did you find the reception?
Thanks! TL is pretty much the only online forum that I use for real political conversations - I've found that other areas like Reddit and social media generally don't have engaged and good-faith interlocuters who are willing to have a multi-post dialogue. I had had plenty of in-person conversations too, but they were mostly either with reasonable people who already knew they'd vote for Harris (some happily, some begrudgingly), or with people who were completely convinced that Trump and Vance and Musk are God's gifts to the world, yet those MAGA voters couldn't articulate how those three men would improve our country. There were also a few neutral / on-the-fence voters that I spoke to (though I don't know how that was still possible in late 2024), and I think I convinced somewhere between 10 and 20 swing state voters to go from "staying home on Election Day" to "voting for Harris". For whatever that was worth.
And I don't think there's anything left to be done for Trump supporters who actively try to get their faces ripped off by the leopards that they voted for. This election has left me extremely disillusioned and depressed - there are no more excuses available for half of the voters. In my eyes, they've gone from being uninformed victims to being malicious saboteurs. I applied Hanlon's Razor for the 2016 election, and even for the 2020 election, but enough is enough. I'm so emotionally and mentally drained from listening and understanding and empathizing and communicating and approaching them Socratically and humbly and sincerely.
I also appreciate your responses to some of GH's/TH's "Takeaways on Why Democrats Have a Cultural Disconnect with the Working Class" points, because that list was just stupid.
Cheers for the response.
Same for me, I’m just burned out with it. Also why I basically only discuss such things here, same kinda reason as you gave.
Perhaps not always 100% here, but in general I try to engage in productive ways. Even way before this particular epoch, I was, for example never someone who’d sneer, or bash religion or whatever. Never been much of an elitist either, however I became much more conscious on avoiding that; or the appearance of it.
Alright, I’m hearing you out. I’m not doing all the things you complain about people not doing so you can play the perpetual victim with no agency, beset at all sides. I’m listening to your concern and earnestly responding. Let’s find some commonality, and let’s chat our differences, let’s maybe learn something.
What do I get? Fuckkkkkkk all of that like!
I’m not a big Family Guy fan, but there’s one skit involving a stubborn mule who insists that Kevin Bacon wasn’t in Footlose. It is fucking that, every time.
GH’s list IS stupid, because it’s describing a stupid phenomenon. It’s not really wrong in a descriptive sense (although IMO, it is in a prescriptive one).
It’s basically A - People don’t like us because of years of divisive demagoguery (and OK there are other problems that don’t fall under this, don’t get me wrong) B - Let’s combat this by basically saying the demagogues are right and moderate our message accordingly, even if it involves sacrificing some of our own principles and throwing some of our base under the bus.
If you want to go into a war of demagoguery, you better not be playing the same cards, against the same people who’ve been doing it for decades. Good fucking luck with that.
There is a path to do it, it may even work but 100%, absolutely not within the confines of Democratic respectability. Zero, and I mean zero chance of having those two co-existing in the same movement.
It’s ’free Luigi’, it’s ’eat the rich’, it’s good old-fashioned class warfare. If you want to fight fire with fire, that is your option. IMO, really the only option. Not, I might add the only political option available, but merely the only one if your thinking is ‘hey x y and z worked for them, why can’t we do that?’
On March 10 2025 03:59 Husyelt wrote: I disagree. God bless Bernie for keeping the torch alive despite getting up there in years. He is one of the few democrats who can actually speak to the moderates and win over their support. He's on the sidelines actually making sure people are still paying attention and trying to build another momentum. At least Sanders isnt faceplanting like Jeffries or Schumer during these important early months
I mean he’s not Jesus, last time I checked but it’s pretty remarkable that Sanders consistently shows that he can energise progressives, while simultaneously many moderates quite like him too, or at least dislike his politics while still admiring the man.
And this keeps happening and the Dems decide not to harness what he can bring to the table better?
GH: The idea is that I'd like people to try out behaving as a socialist in my blog so I might as well demonstrate I can and am doing that with behaving like a progressive. LibHorizons doesn't advocate the abolition of capitalism, votes for Democrats, believes in electoralism supplemented by direct action, and so on. Sort of 21st century Bull Moose Progressive.
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
ThirdHorizons: I'm not much of a fan of GreenHorizons Or LibHorizons. Think I'll be taking the lead for a bit.
Takeaways on Why Democrats Have a Cultural Disconnect with the Working Class
1. Overemphasis on Identity Politics Many working-class voters feel Democrats prioritize niche identity-based groups with overbroad, unifying messages, making them feel excluded rather than included.
2. The “Faculty Lounge” Problem Democrats are often viewed as judgmental, out-of-touch, and dismissive of those without elite education or progressive views. This makes the party seem disconnected from everyday people.
3. Failure to Prioritize Economic Concerns While voters struggle with jobs, wages, and inflation, Democrats are seen as more focused on cultural and social issues than on economic progress and opportunity.
4. Weak Messaging & Communication The party’s language is often vague, politically correct, or overly intellectual, making it hard for working class voters to connect with Democratic policies.
5. Fear of Dissent Within the Party Democrats are perceived as intolerant of internal debate, where questioning progressive orthodoxy results in backlash rather than open discussion. Candidates and operatives need to feel more comfortable just saying NO to activist groups and unpalatable far-left ideas.
6. Attachment to Unpopular Institutions Democrats are seen as defending elite institutions (academia, media, government bureaucracy) while being critical of institutions working-class people value (churches, small businesses, police).
7. Allowing the Far Left to Define the Party Activist groups and progressive staffers push unpopular cultural positions, making it seem like Democrats are more extreme than they actually are. Operatives and campaigns must remember that activist groups exist to promote their single issue and raise money around it, not to make Democrats electable.
8. Reactionary Rather Than Proactive Democrats often let Republicans set the terms of cultural debates (e.g., crime, immigration) instead of clearly defining their own positions in a way that resonates with voters.
9. Overreliance on Buzzwords & Political Correctness Terms like "pregnant people" and "Latinx" alienate working-class voters who see them as out of touch with real-world terms and vocabulary.
10. Lack of a Positive National Identity Message Democrats focus too much on America’s flaws (racism, sexism, inequality) without acknowledging the country’s progress and potential, making them seem pessimistic and unpatriotic.
The third way Democrats are insane with their views, in my opinion. Their points are more about optics than anything else. It's hard to see how they would actually want to change things. They seem to want only to copy Republican theatrics. It is insane that these people can be in the same party with AOC and Sanders. However, if there were elections in 2028, I would not be surprised if one of the third-way Democrats were the official candidate. Honestly, they do not deserve to win just by being the other option for Republicans. People need to realise that the lesser evil is still evil and that they need to work to get out of situations where they must constantly choose the lesser evil. Otherwise, you will be stuck in the situation for decades, and then you can't blame GH and the company for advocating a risky revolution.
ThirdHorizons: This "optics" idea applies much more to the "progressive" wing of the party than it does the base. Third Way Democrats are the Democrats getting everything done. Every piece of legislation Democrats pass is passed by Third Way Democrats, signed by a Third Way president, and all of them are elected by Third Way voters like myself.
He can draw a crowd sure, but that crowd needs to show up to support/vote for the Third Way Democrats if they want to oppose Trump, win elections, and pass legislation.
I disagree. God bless Bernie for keeping the torch alive despite getting up there in years. He is one of the few democrats who can actually speak to the moderates and win over their support. He's on the sidelines actually making sure people are still paying attention and trying to build another momentum. At least Sanders isnt faceplanting like Jeffries or Schumer during these important early months
ThirdHorizons: Disagree with what exactly?
Are Bernie's vanity rallies going to get anyone elected? Are they going pass any legislation? No. It's exactly the kind of "optics" focused tactic Legan was accusing us Third Way Democrats of. Jeffries and Schumer have been the ones getting everything done. Democrats haven't done anything for years without the indispensable contributions of Jeffries and more so Schumer.
Bernie and his supporters have been like the annoying younger sibling you hand the unplugged controller to so you two can hang out together and not get in trouble. But they had to pick a fight about which game we were playing (Palestine+). Now we're both in trouble, the game got thrown out the window, and neither of us will get to play anything again unless our petulant progressive/green/socialist/etc siblings stop crying, suck it up, and fall in line behind the only real strategy for winning in 2026 and 2028.
I think Democrats just need to focus on issues and work on the brand. Be the people who believe in a functional government. Have broad based messages and dont be affraid to call people liars.
Bernie gets this. Class is more important than identity politics. Not saying the identity politics doesnt have mostly truth in it but its not popular. In addition, its easy to see for regular people that money in the US is king. If you have money it doesnt matter your race,ethnicity,gender, etc. Railing on the patriarchy or white priveledge doesnt get you far when there are a shit ton of poor white people (not saying percentage wise compared to other ethnicities, im just talking sheer numbers).
Dont get into specifics, just state you believe in equal rights for all, leave it at that and implement policy protections for everyone. Anything other than that makes you seem out of touch.
I think we're steadily approaching a terminal velocity in the class war, as wealth disparity has become so obscene and flautingly so that some people might just not take it any more.
How do you deal with your guys who remain hyperfocused on identity politics though? The far right gets better and better at forcing their loonies to keep low profile before elections so they don't scare the moderate voters away. I'm not seeing the same kind of self-awareness on the far left.
Fundamentally, America is a conservative country. When a far right loony says something, well a bit loony, people kind of go 'someone just had to say what we were all thinking'. When a far left radical says something eminently sensible, people go 'nope, communism'.
On March 10 2025 05:56 Uldridge wrote: I think we're steadily approaching a terminal velocity in the class war, as wealth disparity has become so obscene and flautingly so that some people might just not take it any more.
Every time I have to give something away for money I feel bad for this reason. Money has become so mind boggingly meaningless in places. It‘s just held alive by having a functional state backing it and manipulating certain prices to hide how broken the system is.
I‘d hold onto anything that isn‘t money but valuable if I could.
I think I‘d exchange it instantly for something else these days if I got a batch. Holding onto big sums in a bank seems risky to me.
It‘s a bit offtopic so I spoilered it.
It fits within the picture that the law has become more of a promise than a fact in places.
Try getting a job as a convict. Unless it‘s POTUS. Go right ahead.
It‘s a job that involves killing people anyway. Directly or indirectly, so one would feel right at home.
On March 10 2025 05:58 Sent. wrote: How do you deal with your guys who remain hyperfocused on identity politics though? The far right gets better and better at forcing their loonies to keep low profile before elections so they don't scare the moderate voters away. I'm not seeing the same kind of self-awareness on the far left.
There’s really not that many, but you’ve a whole outrage cycle that actively seeks to dig it out, wherever it might be found. Academics and cultural critics writing about facets of identity and how it intersects in things isn’t anything new. I find it valuable and informative oft times.
Gamergate has a ton to answer for, it really set that blueprint. Take some obscure incidents, blow them up massively and frame it as a huge crisis. Someone like Anita Sarkesian would have languished in relative obscurity doing her thing, but got amplified out the wazoo by the very people complaining that feminism was ruining their vidya! Oh and along with that publicity, all that fun enjoyable hate mail.
I guess where I come around with ‘there’s too much identity politics’ is, what, to you (not you specifically, in general) is identity politics? And what is the threshold of acceptability?
A fair chunk of it just disappears if one doesn’t actively seek it out, obviously not all of it, but a considerable amount.
But yeah other areas, I think especially diversity programs, quotas etc can feel pretty shit if you’re in a struggling demographic and can’t get such help. I know in my locale it’s young, working class Prod men (white, although almost all are here) who are languishing in all sorts of metrics in recent trends and don’t get targeted assistance. So yeah, I understand in areas like that, or in other cultural discourse.
Are you talking at a party level that the far right do a better job here? I’d argue that maybe holds in Europe, I wasn’t seeing a huge amount of politicians, or your powerful orbiting figures like an Elon Musk keeping a low profile in the last US Presidential election cycle.
The thing with the US is, people don’t give a shit, including some moderates, that’s your reality there.
I guess the key difference is in the US, as increasingly in the UK, the main left-leaning party doesn’t really have a huge amount of far-left influence at all. And indeed, fair chunks of that cohort don’t even support said party. You can’t really rein in those who aren’t in your tent to begin with.
On March 10 2025 05:58 Sent. wrote: How do you deal with your guys who remain hyperfocused on identity politics though? The far right gets better and better at forcing their loonies to keep low profile before elections so they don't scare the moderate voters away. I'm not seeing the same kind of self-awareness on the far left.
I think that question might need to be reworded or reframed, because no one in this country is as obsessed about pushing identity politics as Donald Trump. Demonizing trans people, people of color, DEI, and so on... he made a huge amount of his campaign about identity politics, especially compared to Kamala Harris's speeches. Broadly speaking, I think that Republicans and conservative news outlets probably spend more time hyperfocusing on identity politics than Democrats and liberal news outlets do.
It's just that conservative identity politics are acceptable to them because racism and sexism and discrimination are core tenets of their beliefs. It's probably even unifying, which is scary. On the other hand, not everyone on the left really resonates with the left's version of identity politics, because the Democrats are a more diverse, big tent party. 10 out of 10 Republicans are going to vote against trans rights, but perhaps only 7 out of 10 Democrats are going to push for trans rights.
On March 10 2025 11:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It's just that conservative identity politics are acceptable to them because racism and sexism and discrimination are core tenets of their beliefs.
nah, i do not think conservatives core belief system includes racism. i think both democrats and republicans have "own-group bias". So the Democrats "own-group bias" leads them to assert some Republican action is racist when, in reality, it is "own group bias".
any one can be racist or discriminate in any direction. it can also just be "own-group bias". It takes longer for an Iranian-Canadians to trust a Jew than another Jew. Often it is "own-group bias". Now when those Iranian-Canadians burn aCanadian flag while screaming "Death To Canada, Death to Israel, Kill All Jews". Well , that crosses the line and I'd say that is anti-semitism.
Democrats overestimate the negatives of Republicans and vice-versa. It is "own-group bias" in action.
"Own Group Bias" is an important component of any functioning society/culture/group. The problem is that the baby is getting thrown out with the bath water when every voice inflection is analyzed for signs of racism. Jerry Seinfeld explored this theme quite nicely in an episode where his neighbour claimed he was a "rabid anti-dentite"
I am positive there are some racists in both the Democrat and Republican parties; I am fairly certain each overestimates the quantity of racists in their opponent's group. That is "own-group bias" in action.
On March 10 2025 05:58 Sent. wrote: How do you deal with your guys who remain hyperfocused on identity politics though? The far right gets better and better at forcing their loonies to keep low profile before elections so they don't scare the moderate voters away. I'm not seeing the same kind of self-awareness on the far left.
Communists like gh don't care so much about actually winning. They're more than happy to lose every election as long as they keep their ideological purity and can look down on anyone trying to get anything done. They're the people who would prefer to be right more than being able to make the world a better place. They care more about the means then the end to the point where never getting to the end means nothing because at some point they think they will get there and be rewarded for their faith. Agnowedging that they were wrong to hold true to their faith in the struggle is worse than the suffering caused by the struggle.
Fascists on the other hand care much more about the ends then the means. They're more than happy to tie themselves into any knot available if it means they achieve power. Cruelty is the point because at every point of human evolution they see cruelty being rewarded by nature. It doesn't matter how they get to power as they feel they can justify whatever they did to get there by using the power as justification. If it wasn't just for them to win why did they win? The cruelty that gets inflicted on the other is justified because that's what nature dictates gets inflicted on the lower. Every point of ideology then gets filtered into the blender of what works to get them in power or gets thrown our as being a failure.
People don't care about losing they only care about having lost. The worst people you know are similar that that they are incapable of agnowedging the consequences of their actions and learning from their mistakes.
On March 10 2025 05:40 Sadist wrote: I think Democrats just need to focus on issues and work on the brand. Be the people who believe in a functional government. Have broad based messages and dont be affraid to call people liars.
Bernie gets this. Class is more important than identity politics. Not saying the identity politics doesnt have mostly truth in it but its not popular. In addition, its easy to see for regular people that money in the US is king. If you have money it doesnt matter your race,ethnicity,gender, etc. Railing on the patriarchy or white priveledge doesnt get you far when there are a shit ton of poor white people (not saying percentage wise compared to other ethnicities, im just talking sheer numbers).
Dont get into specifics, just state you believe in equal rights for all, leave it at that and implement policy protections for everyone. Anything other than that makes you seem out of touch.
I'd recommend to you Gavin Newsom's new podcast "This is Gavin Newsom." It's basically his launching pad to paint himself as a moderate as he gears up for his 2028 run (My opinion). His first guest is right-winger Charlie Kirk and he says stuff like men playing women's sports is deeply unfair, brags about his state government's cooperation with ICE, and acknowledges the stupidity of Kamala supporting taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgery for incarcerated illegal aliens and that Trump's most devastating ad the last election was "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them." He also mocked the time his office had a staff meeting and they went around the room stating their pronouns by saying they have better things to be doing than sharing their pronouns.
As someone said recently, the Democrat strategy appears to be taking the 20% side of every 80-20 issue in America. Gavin Newsom seems to agree, even calling the sex change operations for illegal immigrants a 90-10 issue. Who knows what he really believes, he's a slick politician. But he at least seems intent on not buying into the wokeism that has left the Democrat party wallowing in self-pity as Trump does was he wants.
GH: The idea is that I'd like people to try out behaving as a socialist in my blog so I might as well demonstrate I can and am doing that with behaving like a progressive. LibHorizons doesn't advocate the abolition of capitalism, votes for Democrats, believes in electoralism supplemented by direct action, and so on. Sort of 21st century Bull Moose Progressive.
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
ThirdHorizons: I'm not much of a fan of GreenHorizons Or LibHorizons. Think I'll be taking the lead for a bit.
Takeaways on Why Democrats Have a Cultural Disconnect with the Working Class
1. Overemphasis on Identity Politics Many working-class voters feel Democrats prioritize niche identity-based groups with overbroad, unifying messages, making them feel excluded rather than included.
2. The “Faculty Lounge” Problem Democrats are often viewed as judgmental, out-of-touch, and dismissive of those without elite education or progressive views. This makes the party seem disconnected from everyday people.
3. Failure to Prioritize Economic Concerns While voters struggle with jobs, wages, and inflation, Democrats are seen as more focused on cultural and social issues than on economic progress and opportunity.
4. Weak Messaging & Communication The party’s language is often vague, politically correct, or overly intellectual, making it hard for working class voters to connect with Democratic policies.
5. Fear of Dissent Within the Party Democrats are perceived as intolerant of internal debate, where questioning progressive orthodoxy results in backlash rather than open discussion. Candidates and operatives need to feel more comfortable just saying NO to activist groups and unpalatable far-left ideas.
6. Attachment to Unpopular Institutions Democrats are seen as defending elite institutions (academia, media, government bureaucracy) while being critical of institutions working-class people value (churches, small businesses, police).
7. Allowing the Far Left to Define the Party Activist groups and progressive staffers push unpopular cultural positions, making it seem like Democrats are more extreme than they actually are. Operatives and campaigns must remember that activist groups exist to promote their single issue and raise money around it, not to make Democrats electable.
8. Reactionary Rather Than Proactive Democrats often let Republicans set the terms of cultural debates (e.g., crime, immigration) instead of clearly defining their own positions in a way that resonates with voters.
9. Overreliance on Buzzwords & Political Correctness Terms like "pregnant people" and "Latinx" alienate working-class voters who see them as out of touch with real-world terms and vocabulary.
10. Lack of a Positive National Identity Message Democrats focus too much on America’s flaws (racism, sexism, inequality) without acknowledging the country’s progress and potential, making them seem pessimistic and unpatriotic.
The third way Democrats are insane with their views, in my opinion. Their points are more about optics than anything else. It's hard to see how they would actually want to change things. They seem to want only to copy Republican theatrics. It is insane that these people can be in the same party with AOC and Sanders. However, if there were elections in 2028, I would not be surprised if one of the third-way Democrats were the official candidate. Honestly, they do not deserve to win just by being the other option for Republicans. People need to realise that the lesser evil is still evil and that they need to work to get out of situations where they must constantly choose the lesser evil. Otherwise, you will be stuck in the situation for decades, and then you can't blame GH and the company for advocating a risky revolution.
ThirdHorizons: This "optics" idea applies much more to the "progressive" wing of the party than it does the base. Third Way Democrats are the Democrats getting everything done. Every piece of legislation Democrats pass is passed by Third Way Democrats, signed by a Third Way president, and all of them are elected by Third Way voters like myself.
He can draw a crowd sure, but that crowd needs to show up to support/vote for the Third Way Democrats if they want to oppose Trump, win elections, and pass legislation.
Those crowds don't want to vote for Third Way Democrats. They want to vote for Sanders or someone like Sanders.
This is what the moderate wing of the Democratic party doesn't understand. They don't get the voters enthusiastic to come out in numbers the way the Progressives do, and voter turn out is a very significant piece of the puzzle to winning a national election.
Kamala Harris couldn't turn out voters as well as Biden did. Biden couldn't even come close to turning out voters the way Obama did.
There's a merit to being able to compromise to get things done once you actually get elected, but nobody wants to vote for Moderate Democrats to get them into that position to do the compromising in the first place. Conservatives would rather have Republicans and Liberals want to actually feel represented for once.
And btw Bernie's "vanity" tour is all about calling out the current administration as an Oligarchy, which it is if you pay even the slightest bit of attention. Bernie's two main points on this topic are as they have been for decades, a tax on the ultra wealthy and getting dark money out of politics. Two issues that most Americans actually agree with. Democrats won't go near either issue properly though because Democrats are funded by the uber wealthy just the same way the Republicans are.
Gavin Newsom, like many other Democrats, don’t actually have a whole load of actual convictions. It is also why he’s likely going to fail in the same way John Kerry failed. He doesn’t actually provide a vision beyond riding this reactionary cultural wave like a lot of Democrats are foolishly trying to ride. Talking to Charlie Kirk of all people is a prime example of this.
He’s exactly the type of detestable career politician who make up most of the Democrats and Republicans.
If the Democrats were actually woke (whatever that means), they’d actually fight for their woke causes instead of jumping on whatever the current zeitgeist is. Also why I believe a large number just don’t care that much about the current administration doing whatever they want. They are more than happy being controlled opposition.
GH: The idea is that I'd like people to try out behaving as a socialist in my blog so I might as well demonstrate I can and am doing that with behaving like a progressive. LibHorizons doesn't advocate the abolition of capitalism, votes for Democrats, believes in electoralism supplemented by direct action, and so on. Sort of 21st century Bull Moose Progressive.
I'd argue LibHorizons since inception is demonstrably a better Democrat than anyone here despite being on the periphery of the party and an informal demonstration of my capacity to behave like Democrats should.
ThirdHorizons: I'm not much of a fan of GreenHorizons Or LibHorizons. Think I'll be taking the lead for a bit.
Takeaways on Why Democrats Have a Cultural Disconnect with the Working Class
1. Overemphasis on Identity Politics Many working-class voters feel Democrats prioritize niche identity-based groups with overbroad, unifying messages, making them feel excluded rather than included.
2. The “Faculty Lounge” Problem Democrats are often viewed as judgmental, out-of-touch, and dismissive of those without elite education or progressive views. This makes the party seem disconnected from everyday people.
3. Failure to Prioritize Economic Concerns While voters struggle with jobs, wages, and inflation, Democrats are seen as more focused on cultural and social issues than on economic progress and opportunity.
4. Weak Messaging & Communication The party’s language is often vague, politically correct, or overly intellectual, making it hard for working class voters to connect with Democratic policies.
5. Fear of Dissent Within the Party Democrats are perceived as intolerant of internal debate, where questioning progressive orthodoxy results in backlash rather than open discussion. Candidates and operatives need to feel more comfortable just saying NO to activist groups and unpalatable far-left ideas.
6. Attachment to Unpopular Institutions Democrats are seen as defending elite institutions (academia, media, government bureaucracy) while being critical of institutions working-class people value (churches, small businesses, police).
7. Allowing the Far Left to Define the Party Activist groups and progressive staffers push unpopular cultural positions, making it seem like Democrats are more extreme than they actually are. Operatives and campaigns must remember that activist groups exist to promote their single issue and raise money around it, not to make Democrats electable.
8. Reactionary Rather Than Proactive Democrats often let Republicans set the terms of cultural debates (e.g., crime, immigration) instead of clearly defining their own positions in a way that resonates with voters.
9. Overreliance on Buzzwords & Political Correctness Terms like "pregnant people" and "Latinx" alienate working-class voters who see them as out of touch with real-world terms and vocabulary.
10. Lack of a Positive National Identity Message Democrats focus too much on America’s flaws (racism, sexism, inequality) without acknowledging the country’s progress and potential, making them seem pessimistic and unpatriotic.
The third way Democrats are insane with their views, in my opinion. Their points are more about optics than anything else. It's hard to see how they would actually want to change things. They seem to want only to copy Republican theatrics. It is insane that these people can be in the same party with AOC and Sanders. However, if there were elections in 2028, I would not be surprised if one of the third-way Democrats were the official candidate. Honestly, they do not deserve to win just by being the other option for Republicans. People need to realise that the lesser evil is still evil and that they need to work to get out of situations where they must constantly choose the lesser evil. Otherwise, you will be stuck in the situation for decades, and then you can't blame GH and the company for advocating a risky revolution.
ThirdHorizons: This "optics" idea applies much more to the "progressive" wing of the party than it does the base. Third Way Democrats are the Democrats getting everything done. Every piece of legislation Democrats pass is passed by Third Way Democrats, signed by a Third Way president, and all of them are elected by Third Way voters like myself.
He can draw a crowd sure, but that crowd needs to show up to support/vote for the Third Way Democrats if they want to oppose Trump, win elections, and pass legislation.
There's a merit to being able to compromise to get things done once you actually get elected, but nobody wants to vote for Moderate Democrats to get them into that position to do the compromising in the first place. Conservatives would rather have Republicans and Liberals want to actually feel represented for once.
Yep. People don’t exactly mind compromise but if you’re offering a compromise to the point that you’re accepting your theoretical opposition’s stance, how strong were your convictions in the first place?
Not just that, it gets you outmanoeuvred all the time. There are countless instances of Republicans being optically to the left of Democrats just because Democrats wedged themselves into a corner by needlessly compromising their position.
On March 10 2025 05:40 Sadist wrote: I think Democrats just need to focus on issues and work on the brand. Be the people who believe in a functional government. Have broad based messages and dont be affraid to call people liars.
Bernie gets this. Class is more important than identity politics. Not saying the identity politics doesnt have mostly truth in it but its not popular. In addition, its easy to see for regular people that money in the US is king. If you have money it doesnt matter your race,ethnicity,gender, etc. Railing on the patriarchy or white priveledge doesnt get you far when there are a shit ton of poor white people (not saying percentage wise compared to other ethnicities, im just talking sheer numbers).
Dont get into specifics, just state you believe in equal rights for all, leave it at that and implement policy protections for everyone. Anything other than that makes you seem out of touch.
I'd recommend to you Gavin Newsom's new podcast "This is Gavin Newsom." It's basically his launching pad to paint himself as a moderate as he gears up for his 2028 run (My opinion). His first guest is right-winger Charlie Kirk and he says stuff like men playing women's sports is deeply unfair, brags about his state government's cooperation with ICE, and acknowledges the stupidity of Kamala supporting taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgery for incarcerated illegal aliens and that Trump's most devastating ad the last election was "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them." He also mocked the time his office had a staff meeting and they went around the room stating their pronouns by saying they have better things to be doing than sharing their pronouns.
As someone said recently, the Democrat strategy appears to be taking the 20% side of every 80-20 issue in America. Gavin Newsom seems to agree, even calling the sex change operations for illegal immigrants a 90-10 issue. Who knows what he really believes, he's a slick politician. But he at least seems intent on not buying into the wokeism that has left the Democrat party wallowing in self-pity as Trump does was he wants.
My exteme dislike has kept me from listening to his podcast, but also because it would only be useful as a gauge of where an unprincipled hack thinks the wind is blowing. Hopefully the record of California under his leadership will be enough to keep him a million miles from the White House. It's interesting too, because his record as SF mayor, if I recall, relied on appeasing the left with his social policies (like being an early gay marriage supporter) while tacking more towards the center (for SF) on economic policy. It's very clear that he has almost no core convictions, even fewer than Trump. He feels he needs to try something new, he's lost his shine and nobody looks to him or CA for leadership or a good example for anything. If he need to go back to wokism for 2028 he will. I don't see how he thinks dems will support a mediocre at best rich white guy from California without his playing all the right notes, but maybe he's gonna try to be Joe Biden 2020 but younger.
On March 10 2025 05:40 Sadist wrote: I think Democrats just need to focus on issues and work on the brand. Be the people who believe in a functional government. Have broad based messages and dont be affraid to call people liars.
Bernie gets this. Class is more important than identity politics. Not saying the identity politics doesnt have mostly truth in it but its not popular. In addition, its easy to see for regular people that money in the US is king. If you have money it doesnt matter your race,ethnicity,gender, etc. Railing on the patriarchy or white priveledge doesnt get you far when there are a shit ton of poor white people (not saying percentage wise compared to other ethnicities, im just talking sheer numbers).
Dont get into specifics, just state you believe in equal rights for all, leave it at that and implement policy protections for everyone. Anything other than that makes you seem out of touch.
I'd recommend to you Gavin Newsom's new podcast "This is Gavin Newsom." It's basically his launching pad to paint himself as a moderate as he gears up for his 2028 run (My opinion). His first guest is right-winger Charlie Kirk and he says stuff like men playing women's sports is deeply unfair, brags about his state government's cooperation with ICE, and acknowledges the stupidity of Kamala supporting taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgery for incarcerated illegal aliens and that Trump's most devastating ad the last election was "Trump is for you, Kamala is for they/them." He also mocked the time his office had a staff meeting and they went around the room stating their pronouns by saying they have better things to be doing than sharing their pronouns.
As someone said recently, the Democrat strategy appears to be taking the 20% side of every 80-20 issue in America. Gavin Newsom seems to agree, even calling the sex change operations for illegal immigrants a 90-10 issue. Who knows what he really believes, he's a slick politician. But he at least seems intent on not buying into the wokeism that has left the Democrat party wallowing in self-pity as Trump does was he wants.
My exteme dislike has kept me from listening to his podcast, but also because it would only be useful as a gauge of where an unprincipled hack thinks the wind is blowing. Hopefully the record of California under his leadership will be enough to keep him a million miles from the White House. It's interesting too, because his record as SF mayor, if I recall, relied on appeasing the left with his social policies (like being an early gay marriage supporter) while tacking more towards the center (for SF) on economic policy. It's very clear that he has almost no core convictions, even fewer than Trump. He feels he needs to try something new, he's lost his shine and nobody looks to him or CA for leadership or a good example for anything. If he need to go back to wokism for 2028 he will. I don't see how he thinks dems will support a mediocre at best rich white guy from California without his playing all the right notes, but maybe he's gonna try to be Joe Biden 2020 but younger.
I agree he's just a sleazy politician that will go whichever way the wind is blowing. Knowing which way the wind is blowing and making your case is also the way to win elections. There's a delusion here that the reason the Dems lost 2024 is because they should have leaned even harder left. As if getting better turnout from the 20% on the 80-20 issues is a better strategy than going after the 80%.
On March 10 2025 14:06 Vindicare605 wrote: This is what the moderate wing of the Democratic party doesn't understand. They don't get the voters enthusiastic to come out in numbers the way the Progressives do, and voter turn out is a very significant piece of the puzzle to winning a national election.
Kamala Harris couldn't turn out voters as well as Biden did. Biden couldn't even come close to turning out voters the way Obama did.
Dunno what you're basing this on. Biden had historic levels of voter turnout. More than Obama. Widespread mail-in balloting can deserve a lot of the credit for that but you still can't claim the opposite when the only election he was in had better turnout than Obama.
Also worth noting that 2008 candidate Obama was a progressive but President Obama was easily a centrist. He opposed gay marriage, he set the record for deportations of illegal immigrants, he bombed many countries, etc. Same could be said of Bill Clinton who signed Defense of marriage Act, welfare reform, etc. They were both viewed generally favorably by the Democratic party and they both won 2 elections. Neither of them would pass the purity tests required of a Democratic politician today.
EPT
