The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance

I’m not the one trying to compare harris’ primary performance to Sanders’. They had very little in common other than they both lost.

I dont know if Bernie would of outperformed Kamala and I dont think any of them could have won. Im just speculating obviously. But i feel pretty strongly that voters align themselves with those who can speak to the needs of the people and I think Bernie did that better than Kamala.

I dont think it would matter much if Bernie was the #1 enemy of the right. But like ive said before, I think Kamala, and the dems in general (and the left obv), tend to talk to an audience that doesnt really exist in the real world in large numbers. Bernie was to the left which may not have helped him, but i think his ideas could have created more turnout.

And my point is Sanders didn’t cause high turnout in either primary so it’s hard to see why he would have in the general without just assuming it. Maybe a similar candidate policy wise that excited people more could have but that’s a hypothetical on a hypothetical.

by Nut Nut m

Is there evidence of distinct party association along these lines. I would have guessed that Democrats might be more amenable to affordable housing ?

Here's Bernie's plan issued in the runup to the 2020 primary. Calls for millions of new affordable housing units.

https://nlihc.org/resource/bernie-sanders-releases-affordable-housing-plan

National Low Income Housing Coalition

Bernie Sanders Releases Affordable Housing Plan

People can call for whatever they like at the national level. You can't force local municipalities to build anything as the federal government.

True.

But in theory if the federal government removed all regulations from federal land and sold it for 1$ per acre to builders... you can create new company municipalities which rubber stamp everything.

Nothing i am inventing btw, that's how a lot of the USA got developed in the 19th century

I agree, but that's not likely to happen under a Sanders presidency.

Also the issue might be more complex than that, because when people say "affordable housing" they mean affordable in the cities that they actually want to live in. I'm sure you can find plenty of affordable housing in Idaho. I know I was looking at places on the East Coast and there was housing just outside of mid-tier cities that was going for 200k or less, which is unheard of in LA or NY.

supposedly, if he has congress appropriating the money (big if i know), a Sanders admin can subsidize mortgages for working class people a lot more than they already are subsidized while over-taxing well off people.

Nothing (unfortunately) prevents congress from say giving 0% loans to people making under 100k per year while removing fannie and freddie for people making 200k+, and nothing prevents congress from reimbursing owner-occupied property taxes to anyone making less than 100k while removing all salt deductions for people making over 200k.

Remember the ACTUAL idea Sanders expouses (and pushed for decades) is to economically and fiscally assassinate the upper middle class (and above) while shoveling infinite cash toward the mid/lower mid class.

Sanders isn't actually marxists as much as he wants to dramatically reduce the gap in real income and available consumption between a nurse and a physician. That's probably the best way to visualize it.

If today, approx, a physician has a take home pay of 4-5x a nurse, in Sanders ideal world that goes under 2x. And ofc the top 1% workers in healthcare go from 10x the physician to 1.5x him as well.

When you comb through the numbers of what he pushes for that's what comes out of it. Also because what he asks for isn't very different from what we already have a lot in europe.

I STILL dont understand why people thik sanders blows trump out of the water, like. sure biden started off slow until SC hail maryd him...

but biden legit trounced sanders after that and then some. how hte **** does sanders compete with trump then

We have a big disagreement over the meaning of the term "left" if you are attaching it to establishment Democrats.

In my opinion, the Democratic establishment is a right-wing economic entity. They believe in free markets. Even someone like Liz Warren who is given a left-leaning label proudly states that she is a capitalist.

There are very few economic leftists in the Dem Party. Perhaps AOC and the squad. Maybe Jaime Raskin, Pramila Jayapal and Senator Jeff Merkley. Andrew Yang had a left leaning policy of UBI (universal basic income) ..... but how many people in the party are for universal not for profit health care that doesn't make people go bankrupt when they get sick ?

In 2012, Obama came out and acknowledged that his policies were equivalent to an 80's moderate Republican while lamenting the lack of cooperation from the GOP while in office;

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/13715...

Because anyone with a pulse who isnt completely hell bent on burning down the world is going to favor some level of free markets.

AOC and Bernie and pretty much all the rest, defend having a free a market society, they just want more govt oversight and control. It isnt one way or the other. Again, a mixed economy.

Being completely against any type of market based society isnt left. Its just ignorance.

That's interesting .... the people who seem to be actually burning down the world are the ones who believe in completely free markets without limits on pollution.

Actually the people who seem to be "burning down the world" are the Chinese and Indians, both countries with extreme levels of state intervention in the economy, regulations and so on. Not only either country isn't very pro free market, one is an actually communist country that has statues of Mao all around, the other is a disfunctional old style hypertrophic hyperbureaucratic democracy that reminds us of Italy or France in the 1950s .

I know you would love nothing more than to take arms against the "free marketers" but if you want to blame someone for growing worldwide emissions these days, you need to talk with people who walk about with Mao little red book and with indian bureaucrats.

CO2 emissions per capita / per year

US 13.8 Tons
China 9.2
India 2.1

And consider that a great deal of Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing good for US consumption. America consumes and China gets charged with the emissions from US consumption.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country

World Population Review

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2025

China is dominating the world's renewable energy installation and EV markets.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-energy-dominance-three-charts/

MIT Technology Review

China’s energy dominance in three charts

The US under Trump is becoming a global pariah as they reject renewables. A foreign policy disaster.

by Nut Nut m

CO2 emissions per capita / per year

US 13.8 Tons
China 9.2
India 2.1

And consider that a great deal of Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing good for US consumption. America consumes and China gets charged with the emissions from US consumption.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/co2-emissions-by-country

World Population Review

CO₂ Emissions by Country 2025

Oh so per capita becomes relevant even when the only thing that affects global warming are TOTAL EMISSIONS?

Notice how i said: someone for growing worldwide emissions these days

All the growth is outside the first world.

Btw no , not a great deal of Chinese emissions resulting from manufacturing for exportation, less than 5% are (you probably had in mind the early 2000s when it was 20% or more). And a portion of that 5% is emissions linked to exports of ... clear energy tech (solar panels mostly), which i don't think you would want to stop.

China (and India and so on) is emitting increasing amounts while we aren't, that's the truth you don't want to wrap your mind around. We are already sacrificing our quality of lives every day massively because of this, we are already paying the highest energy prices and so on. We are already torturing ourselves much much more than we should and you are asking to do that a lot more to us? because "free markets"? lol

Try laughter.

Tell them that Trump is very old and Vance has the charisma of a female horsefly.

Also, they should stop reading news which exclusively write about the actions and words of idiots, because that will only lead to more news stories about the actions and words of idiots.

I mean there are elections scheduled in a bit more than a year from now, so we can test their prediction. And yes they work even if they aren't presidential elections: because if Trump loses the house he can't pass any bill any more and the house will impeach him again and disrupt his political attempts (with commitees , subpoena and so on) for 2 years straigth.

And republicans are gerrymandering midcycle to try to reduce the odds of losing the house, which isn't something you do if you don't plan to have elections.

These people aren't making actual predictions. They are trying to rationalize absurd claims they made in the past ("end of democracy!!!") because they can't accept a person with policy preferences they abhor can legitimately be their president.

They are the actual threat to democracy if you think about it.

I mean, their predictions are neither unreasonable nor irrational. Trumpism embraces fascism while dressing itself in a false veneer of patriotism. Should it be allowed to go forth unchecked, I have no doubt it means an end to the American republic in all but name.

The only awkward thing they are doing is doomscrolling news about idiots, because that just leads to a cycle of more news about idiots. That is just how media works in 2025, the algorithm is almighty. If it gets read, you get more of the same.

Also, there isn't much point to go around being afraid either. Firstly, it just looks pathetic. Secondly, if people really need an emotion to hang on to, then I suggest being angry. Then they might actually get something done.

I think they are when they say elections won't happen anymore.

If you disagree i am willing to take bets with an escrow we agree upon for the 2026 (i lay you 5:1 odds) and 2028 (at 3:1 odds) .

I disagree about the "doomscrolling news about idiots" if you mean Vance and Trump there. What they say and do is actually relevant so monitoring what they say and do isn't "doomscrolling", is being updated with relevant political news.

Ofc you should check good nonemotional sources about that, and again i suggest politico, it can become doomscrolling if you read leftist media sources grotesque takes on what Vance and Trump say and do sure.

I do read the guardian takes on climate change to be updated on the doomerist left takes on the topic for example, and i keep getting fed more of them but i am ok with that, i do that on purpose, i want the pulse of how insane my enemies are on that topic. Someone actually agreeing with them would go crazy really fast reading that apocalyptic stuff though.

This is the coping of an ignorant person who doesn't understand math and science. You must have been a bitter child when it came to the smart kids in school who rang rings around you.

The Guardian is able to report the way it does because it doesn't depend on advertising revenue from corporate sponsors. It survives on citizen donations and is only accountable to the citizens. Not to any profit motive.

The truth of climate change and ecological destruction is darker than what the Guardian reports.

Nut nut: it doesn't depend on advertising revenue from corporate sponsors

The guardian: here is how to advertise with us

https://www.theguardian.com/advertising/...

also the guardian

“Reflecting our strategy to become more digital, digital revenues – from readers, advertisers, and other sources – now make up over 70% of total revenues. This is an impressive figure which follows from the transformation of our business over the last decade.

...

“We have also seen increased growth in our advertising business, after a couple of challenging years, thanks to a strong performance from our teams globally in a very competitive market. The focus on direct client relationships, both big and small, is paying off.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_busines...

Lol Nut Nut

I guess that shows the Guardian isn't leftist.