It’s dizzying to see how many Democratic politicians and pundits were outraged at Facebook for $26k in Russian-sponsored ads, considering the hundreds of millions that AIPAC has thrown into US elections since Hillary ran for President. The folks with the Ukraine and Israel emojis in their Twitter/Bluesky names are always posting something delusional.
You can’t build a strong base of support if your first alliance is to a rogue state. Americans don’t like their politicians bought by any foreign government. Especially when that foreign government is involved in a genocide.
You can’t build a strong base of support if your first alliance is to a rogue state.
The strategic doctrine of Democrats is the same as venture capitol. They do not build movements, they hijack them, coopt, and enshittify such that you have no other options. Their goal isn’t to cultivate a field of the best possible strategies, ideologies, or politics, their goal is to reduce the number of potential option to one between them, and an objectively horrendous option, and the result, is that most people opt out.
I bring this up because what I would consider the “BLM election” (Dems lose 2020 without the BLM movement) brought into power the most pro-Israel American politician to date. You can’t be for racial justice and equality at home when your #1 funding source is also the #1 source of racial injustice and inequality abroad.
DNC politicians are not movement builders, the are movement hijackers. They’ll always fail towards toothlessness.
I think it’s important to remember that the Democrats are not a single unified party, it’s a coalition of two. One that has strong convictions, and well reasoned and popular plans for correcting the course of country, but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign, and a second party that has no coherent values or convictions and importantly, no functional plan to govern, but significant funding from corporate owners and the resources to manage a large, national scale organization. This is how you end up with a party with AOC and Bernie at one end and John Fetterman and Andrew Cuomo at the other end. A tent that big doesn’t have an ideology, a consistent platform, or any positive mandate. But also neither party is viable on its own because of the structure of the US electoral system.
From one angle it is certainly true that the DNC is parasitic on the popular movements of the day. From another angle, it can look like the progressive movements are parasitic on the structural and financial machine of the democratic party. In both cases though if you zoom out far enough, it becomes apparant that both of those are true, and more, but also that it’s ultimately a dysfunctional symbiosis of convenience to survive in a system that is structurally incapable of producing a result that disadvantages the capital owner class. You can’t actually use the US political system as it stands to correct its current failures. It’s designed to fall apart if you try.
Yeah I don’t agree with that characterization what-so-ever and its one that seems completely oblivious to the actually politics and processes which have manifested in the modern Democratic party, outside of, and I agree with, that the party is multiple ideologies in a trenchcoat.
but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign,
I mean this is just not fucking true. Just straight made up wholecloth.
but significant funding from corporate owners and the resources to manage a large, national scale organization.
What you think parties just drop in from the sky?
But also neither party is viable on its own because of the structure of the US electoral system.
Also, objectively not true. Mandami was opposed by both the DNC and the RNC.
but an inability to raise the funds to support a coherent organization or run a campaign,
Just… also not fucking true.
You should stop just shitting words out your ass.
You kiss your mother with that mouth? I said national scale You can do it on a mayoral scale, even a city the size of New York but the closest anyone ever came to pulling it off at a national scale was Bernie and he still couldn’t fund a full war chest at a time with much better financial conditions for small donors.
I bring this up because what I would consider the “BLM election” (Dems lose 2020 without the BLM movement) brought into power the most pro-Israel American politician to date.
Historically speaking, 2016 would have been the BLM election. The upswell of police violence aimed at minority-majority neighborhoods under Obama, combined with the economic drag of the '14 downturn, collapsed support for his successor. And while I wouldn’t call Trump “pro-Israeli”, he’d surrounded himself with so many neocons that it was a moot point.
I’d call 2020 the “COVID election”, as the defining issue of that period was how to respond to the pandemic. Dems would have still won in a landslide without a BLM movement, in the same way Obama won in 2008, and for much the same reasons. The economic downturn pumped up angry anti-incumbent voters and turned out more apathetic centrists for Biden than MAGA shitheads. Israel was barely on the radar.
DNC politicians are not movement builders, the are movement hijackers.
That’s the fucking truth. From Green Energy politics to Anti-Gun parent movements to Civil Rights marches, you always seem to find a corporate Democrat willing to put on the merch and lead the parade, then vanish back into the crowd when it comes time to put anything into practice.
I’d call 2020 the “COVID election”, as the defining issue of that period was how to respond to the pandemic. Dems would have still won in a landslide without a BLM movement, in the same way Obama won in 2008, and for much the same reasons. The economic downturn pumped up angry anti-incumbent voters and turned out more apathetic centrists for Biden than MAGA shitheads. Israel was barely on the radar.
I think you bring up some good points, but it wasn’t COVID putting hundreds of thousands into the streets on a weekly basis. But also, it kind-of was, in that there was at least some financial support people were getting for a brief period of time, and this allowed them to fully express their politics. The amount of 2016 versus 2020 BLM protests; its not even comparable. 2016 BLM was still coming together as a movement; it built its strongest momentum from 2017-19, and 2020 it peaked. Those politics directly translated into what issues were being discussed during the primary, and subsequently the national campaign. It was the 2020 election where BLM’s set of grievances found their way into campaigns as campaign promises/ discussion points on debate stages/ etc.
Without BLM providing outside pressure in the form of movement politics, I don’t think Dem’s win in 2020. I also don’t think Dem’s win in 2020 without Trumps utterly failed COVID response. If they (T*) would have just, not been so fucking stupid/ hamfisted by leaning into the anti-vax shit, inject bleach shit, they could have taken credit for the CDC rapid response; even a barely competent political actor should have been able to manage this.
TLDR, the Dem’s barely won in 2020 and without BOTH COVID and BLM, there is no practical way they could have won. Even with both in play, Trumps own incompetence could arguably have been the most impactful factor.
it wasn’t COVID putting hundreds of thousands into the streets on a weekly basis
It absolutely was. The skyrocketing unemployment - nearly 15% at its peak - left millions of people with nothing to do but protest. Unemployment waves and protest movements are practically joined at the hip.
The right-wing anti-vax movement got similar energy off a bunch of newly-unemployed reactionaries, angry at the “lockdown” (more just one more excuse for police to harass unemployed people out in public), and jelling together through online discussion groups. J6 was the direct result of a bunch of small business owners with too much time on their hands.
2016 BLM was still coming together as a movement; it built its strongest momentum from 2017-19, and 2020 it peaked.
The Ferguson and Baltimore protests were in 2014 and 2015, culminating in a massive police crackdown in both instances. These protests also followed an ugly downturn following the 2013 Government Shutdown and the sudden stoppage of federal money into a still-recovering post-Great Recession economy. If you go back to '07/'08, you’ll find another wave of civil rights protests that largely emerged in the wake of police crack downs on a newly unemployed and unhoused population on the eve of the Great Recession.
But these are symptomatic. The real underlying groundswell of opposition comes from the spike in unemployment, not the protest movement that arises from a bunch of unemployed people with nothing to do.
TLDR, the Dem’s barely won in 2020
The Dems saw a tsunami of turnout that crested in the bluest states. MAGA saw a similar swell in turnout, cresting in redder states. They met each other note-for-note in the battleground states, resulting in some very close calls across the Midwest and Atlantic Coast.
This wasn’t a close election in terms of gross seats won or votes cast. Just the marginal wins in a few swing states. Had Republicans not also seen a spike in turnout from 2016, all those gerrymandered districts would have bit them in the ass (as happened in '08, '18, and what seems likely in '26). I would give BLM far more credit for the first Trump midterm than the Biden win.
I might argue that the anti-Vax movement saved Republicans more than BLM won it for Democrats.
It absolutely was. The skyrocketing unemployment - nearly 15% at its peak - left millions of people with nothing to do but protest. Unemployment waves and protest movements are practically joined at the hip.
Yeah but the point is the movement those people funneled into ended up being BLM (or BLM adjacent), because BLM was at its peak in terms of growth and organizing. Had it been 2009, maybe those same people funnel into Occupy Wallstreet. Call it happenstance of history, and I’m not saying that BLM was borne of a whistle and milk from a thistle at twilight the year of 2019. But it was present when people had the time to take to the streets. And my point that the BLM agenda didn’t find its way into electoralism until ~2018-2020 is the primary point. It took 10 years, but in 2020, it became a central primary issue among Democrats. The points of grievance found their way into the presidential platform in the 2020 election.
I might argue that the anti-Vax movement saved Republicans more than BLM won it for Democrats.
I think to be charitable we’d have to call it a wash. It was practically the same forces funneling people into both movements, and like you said, in-spite of both sides getting more turnout, the resulting victories were marginal. So I come back to the first point, that Trumps government and management of COVID becomes the theme. And if they had just… not been such moron, if they had even been nominally competent, I think Trump wins the 2020 election handily.
DNC may have a good point that the last few elections saw big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump.
With what has happened with Iran and the latest actions of AIPAC I’m thinking that strategy might have mixed results.
Ultimately getting Trump and his goons out of office will probably be top of voters minds on the larger national scale.
Guess we will see next election. Who know maybe gas prices will dip on election day and all the bird brains will praise Trump for it and vote for him again.
big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump
Do you mean the DNC or individual campaigns? Because as a party Democratic campaigns, especially in orimaries, are not monolithic. Some get leadership or dccc or dsc support, but they are mostly independent.
The last major thing that the DNC was responsible for was Harris.
Guess we will see next election.
I mean we’re having elections all the time, and trends are very very clear. Trump is extremely unpopular but so is DNC leadership. Schumer and Jefferies are basically persona non grata when it comes to endorsements. Deep Trump districts are handing back 15+ points but only if there is an authentic candidate to vote for. But the civil war within the DNC is real. Leadership doesn’t want to hand back power and would happily sabotage races to get to pick the loser.
Maybe you just don’t follow politics or elections? But we have elections every couple weeks. It’s an ongoing assessment.
DNC may have a good point that the last few elections saw big wins for them because their only strategy was to be AntiTrump.
You’re ten months behind…
That’s the DNC chair saying “not trump” isn’t enough and we need candidates like Mamdani in both policy and charisma…
Shits a lot better than billionaires tell you it is.
Campaigns can’t coordinate with PACs.
A candidate can not tell a PAC to spend money, or not to spend money.
Similarly, the DNC shouldn’t be coordinating with pacs, and hasn’t been for the last year except to empty the coffers of the VF they inherited back to the state parties the money came from.
But they definitely can’t tell a PAC not to spend money.
The DNC wants to end all PACs, there’s just not a way to do that. Because a PAC could spend on people just to get them “kicked out” of dem.primaries. that 100% would happen, Republicans would immediately jump on that, as would Israel and corporations.
Billionaires are manipulating people into demanding something that is impossible to deliver on, and the idiots falling for it are making it so the things that can be done, don’t have enough time before midterms.
People desperately need to wake the fuck up and realize the reason billionaire owned media suddenly went against the DNC, is because the DNC changed. If the billionaires had changed, they wouldn’t be billionaires anymore.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, but it sounds like your argument is that the DnC has no practical method of decreasing the power of PACs, so they shouldn’t try?
I don’t know here nor there on that, but the news cycle right now was more about AIPAC versus other PACs etc. So it was specifically about making a statement about Israel and AIPAC but then homie tried to make it about all PACs but that’s practically impossible. ok fine.
Then don’t make it about PACs and make it about Israel. Israel is a pariah and has been since 2023 and before. You lose elections if they’re on your side and even the rightwing commentariate understands this (see last week’s news breaking down Carlson, Jones, Owens etc… breaking with Trump over Israel). They get it. Everyone hates Israel so if you are trying to win an election, don’t be aligned with Israel.
The point of the motion within the DNC was less about PACs and more about creating distance with Israel.
