The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance

I think the only one in recent history to have a surplus is the Pedophile Bill Clinton. Trumps was 7 trillion and Biden's close to 5 Trillion

Pretty much any headline involving the Democrat party revolves around them "fearing", "being horrified", "being shocked", "despairing" etc.

This isn't a good tactic for gaining trust anywhere, least of all in the US; a country that culturally loves displays of strength and force, not hysteria.

I see a similar phenomena on this side of the pond with social democratic parties. Their messaging usually comes off as weak and flustered, and as a result they are slowly being eradicated by parties better at being direct.

I also a see a similarity in how social democrats over here and democrats in the US are often based on what I would dub "west end liberalism". It takes a different form on the two continents, but it has a similar political effect. It comes off as a obnoxious ideology based on the middle class having a lot of guilt for being the middle class, and desperately trying to blame it on everything but the reasons that matter. Just take the one lesson from Trump that is worth anything; you don't need to excuse who you are. Move on and speak up.

When the Democrats or their influencers in the US do come off as direct, it's usually in response to someone. This is also a political liability. In the age of social media, the rule of the algorithm is that the response is almost always less engaging than what you respond to. Basically, this eco-system of influencers and politicians who make a career out of responding to the latest "conservative" lunacy are actually propping up what they protest. They are beneficial parasites, not the "resistance" or whatever nonsense term they have chosen this week.

Now, I'm not a political consultant, so I don't know what is needed to change these things or the messaging. It also suspect it is hard work in what is a broad political coalition, unlike the GOP which now is mainly a purity test for Trumpism. Still, four years of "despairing" won't do much politically.

They spent how much money on the Biden and Kamala campaigns? I know they raised 2 billion. I remember they spent almost a million on this giant ad on the giant sphere in Las Vegas. They had most of the media on their side helping them get their message out, comedians and celebrities too. I think they pretty well maxed out the "getting the message out" part.

It was kinda a mixed message tho. They kept saying Trump is like Hitler and that Democracy itself is on the ballot. But then when Trump got shot they were like aww man I hope you get better as soon as possible Mr. President our prayers are with you always love the Dems. People like Gavin Newsome were fear mongering like crazy that there won't be another election if Trump gets in but then he was like nah I will sit this one out I'll have a prime opportunity later. Biden was trying to say mean things about Netanyahoo and wringing his hands over the mass slaughter of innocent people. Then he was like but here bibi take another billion bullets to keep shooting them.

Ultimately the message was that the Dems are empty vessels who stand for nothing, that they are for sale, and that they carry in them a level of cynicism and contempt that regular people can't even peer into without getting dizzy. That message got out there plenty.

Well we both agree that the shitlibs have been as dumb as a one legged man competing in an ass kicking contest for about the last 12 years, but for likely different reasons since I don't think it's because they didn't tard things up enough.

Would you be willing to share your opnions on what the dems should have done to compile enough votes to take down Trump?

It was evident what they should have done because they were kicking ass when they were doing it.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time watching numbers move, the amount of support that Kamala initially got, which overnight changed the election outlook, is like nothing I've ever seen before. In terms of probability, I don't think I've ever seen any athlete outside of the NBA change a team's prospects in such a magnitude with their absence or injury. The enormous boost the Democrats got when they changed horses midstream was very significant and showed that there was a strong demand for an alternative to Trump.

And as Kamala was initially campaigning on populist issues she was maintaining a small lead on Trump in some polls. All they had to do was follow that strategy and either lie about or finesse their intentions for Israel/Palestine and they were in there.

Now I show I am still the same old Deuces. The Dems, for how stupid they look, know enough to keep following a strategy which is working. It was a strategy they devised, after all. But Kamala was directed to change her strategy. She started saying things that exactly nobody outside of fortune 500 board rooms wanted to hear. It was such a beyond stupid thing to do that I have to think it was an intentional tanking of the campaign. I think the Zionists got to her or her people, or were possibly steering the thing the whole time. I think the Zionists wanted Trump because, while either side will help aid and abet Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing, Trump would make it much easier and faster. Trump will not face resistance from his base on Israel and Kamala would have. And the range of possibilities opens up a lot with Trump if you are a genociding Zionist. Trump has shown a willingness to break convention and accept overly simplistic models of geopolitical dynamics. I think the Harris campaign was undermined from the inside. She was doing it right initially and it was working. There was no reason to then intentionally switch to rhetoric that alienated and pissed off everyone. They tanked it. I see no indication Kamala was in on it. But her campaign was vulnerable to something like this because she isn't a strong leader, doesn't protect the ranks, and is kinda dumb. Look at her previous presidential campaign. It was a disaster. She had to give this one over to others and they tanked it.

I think you make some good points.

If you could personally design the optimal candidate...age/sex/race, but more importantly, form the ideas to address the issues and the talking points to present that - and I know that's a complex question, what would you thnk would work best to win the prez?

Demographically I wouldn't stray from the middle aged white dude - the devil we all know. Obama worked, I believe, more because he was racially ambiguous than that he was black. He's not really black. He's half white, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and has no American slaves in his family tree. That smile had no reservations or aggression in it. But he was a good enough mimic to play black at certain times like when he wanted to be folksy or speak on civil rights. You're not going to find another one like him. Plus Obama made the right political choice of marrying a black woman. Most black men who could get a whiff of the presidency have access to a wide variety of women. Recall that only about 13% of the women in the country are black. What percentage of prominent black men have black wives? When it comes to a black man president, black wives matter. A pretty blonde on Obama's arm would piss off a lot of demographics.

Finding a woman with broad appeal (no pun intended) is also problematic. A little known fact is women don't vote for women in the proportions one might expect. I can't really say what it is about some women who are accepted as leaders and some who just aren't. Suffice to say any female candidate is going to be scrutinized from a ton of angles, unfairly so but still.

As far as ideas or the platform it's simple. The electorate is progressive in that they want progressive policies. You do what Obama did if you want to win. You just tell people what they want to hear. You come out with expanding medicare while also finessing the trans issue like Obama would "We understand that sometimes the brain doesn't seem to agree with the body it's in. We've got to accept that. At the same time, we don't need to be making drastic changes upending things we've been doing for a long time that work, like women's sports."

But I'm not saying anything that's not obvious. It's known how to win elections. How to make a uni-party look like a competition is another matter. It's not a coincidence we are winding up with people on the national ballot who are the most hated people in the country.

Newsom must be running for the top job as he now thinks men in women sports is unfair

Cute lozen obsessed with trans, so cute.
Still haven't answered why you talked about trans when mice were mentionned.

Oh you mean the joke I made about what pronouns the scientists call them and than also said yes I googled it . I missed I had to reply as that Trump page has non stop posts

Oh wait I forgot if I make a joke about trans gender mice they will all kill themselves

Its a big issue for me as I have/know women that have been effected by men playing in women's sports

No one is talking about the joke (which was fine I guess).

What everyone has been talking about is the post immediately after:

which is freaking weird as you are the only person who did mention trans at that time.
Still no idea what is the correlation between bolded nad the mice?

Fair Point

We really need someone other than Schumer. The sooner the better.

so moving more towards the center is the WRONG idea?
no wonder the party of the 'Southern Confederacy' is lost and OUT OF TOUCH...

"center" as in racist xenophobic dictatorships?

But the GOPers are a bunch of ****ing *******s (see Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, etc.), so does one really want to be IN TOUCH??