The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure it's entirely true. Economically I think it is. The democrats that aren't bernie take a lot of their marching orders from the elites and corporations. But socially, the republican party definitely serves the people. Unfortunately "the people" are a racist, misogynistic bootlicking bunch.

lol

anyone know what the supposed "lessons" are?

Agree.

'Socially,' what people do you believe the Democrat Party serves?

Reality is both parties fail to serve the people . You can just take the 80/20 issues and either party will not support it

• Abortion
  
• Voter ID
  
• Universal Healthcare
  
• Strong Police
  
• Strong Borders
  
• No new wars
  
• No men in women's sports
  

The list could go on . Take a country like El Salvador that had the highest murder rate in the world they locked up all the gang members no due process the world bodies condemned it yet the country is now one of the safest and the leader has 80% approval rate

The ones that have been systematically discriminated against by the right.

Such as?

And how are these folks faring in the big cities (1M+) that have been completely controlled by the Democrat party for the past 50 years?

Thanks.

I don't know, probably not much better than they fare in republican big cities, or anywhere else.

I know here in Canada all the big cities vote left wing progressives and would guess the USA is the same

As we speak, the largest city with a Republican mayor is Oklahoma City (Pop. <700,000) ,99th).*

*per quick AI search

Newsom was a terrible governor. The State of California lost at least one major lawsuit because of government overreach during Covid. He had to survive a recall bid.

I think Dallas and Fort Worth are larger than OkC and have republican mayors.

just found the one Democrat

She sounds ******ed and evil, right up your alley

So the DNC released the autopsy and sorry Victor it had nothing to do with Gaza, economy, Joe Biden or the appointed candidate Queen Kamala

A queen is annointed, not appointed.

Maybe it's not too late for Victor to become a Texas citizen and vote for his most favorite Democrat ever. Somehow I'm not surprised that Victor likes the idea of concentration camps for Joos.*

This isn't exactly correct. The so-called autopsy simply didn't address the impact of certain things that almost certainly influenced the election one or the other--most notably, the war in Gaza.

You are correct that the autopsy doesn't affirmative conclude that Biden's position or Kamala's position on the Gaza War was a big factor in her loss. Contrary reporting about the autopsy appears to have been disinformation propagated by pro-Palestian groups, which victor repeated here several times.

On the whole, the autopsy seems like a half-finished waste of time.

The way the Democrats handled the "release" of the autopsy was ridiculous and vaguely reminiscent of the Trump administration's vacillation regarding the release of the Epstein files.

pro-Palestinian groups like Axios?

anyway, I would guess that they suppressed it or edited it out.

Would I be correct in saying that is a whataboutism ?

No…he never tried to deflect criticism of the way democrats handled the election autopsy by bringing up the Epstein files. It’s actually closer to the exact opposite; drawing an analogy between a very minor report and blunder to a much bigger political scandal.

Would you be surprised if I told you that things that end up in the mainstream media don't always start in the mainstream media?

It seems that the IMEU Policy Project told Democratic officials that the party's position on Gaza cost Kamala the election. They claim that a Democratic official confirmed that internal data showed that Gaza was a net negative. Then the IMEU started promoting the idea that the party had concluded internally that its position on Gaza cost Kamala the election. Then it got picked up by the mainstream media.

I would much sooner believe (and frankly don't have that much trouble believing) that it was identified as a no-fly zone before the report was commissioned. That seems more plausible than it being edited out after the fact. The former of course would be inconsistent with trying to do an honest post-mortem.

Of course not. Maybe this is the problem. You don't know it when you see it.

Obviously this.