Dems never had the super majority to abolish the electoral college, gerrymandering or the other things you mentioned.

But i wonder how accepting dem voters would be with a more aggressive candidate.

We've been living through passive, fearful, reactive, business-led, "nothing will fundamentally change" dem leadership for decades. Theres no need to fear change at this point because we literally cant lose any harder than we are now. We have been teetering on the edge of dissolution for so long that people are starting to fear risking changing what shitty circumstanbes we have now. We couldnt be more pathetic as a party.

The optimist in me wants to believe that the only reason they see "loudest responses" is because they announce that 2+2=4 and Empathy=Good, and everyone with common sense agrees, but doesn't bother saying anything. Meanwhile we've gotten thousands of screaming matches from sorely misled (and at worst brainwashed) voters who have been told by Trump that 2+2=8 and Empathy=Bad.

It doesn't absolve them for "tactically" shifting stances. But I've tried to do my part by calling my reps when they take a hard action that I agree with.

The crazy part of it is that jewish people are only ~2% of the US population, spread across both parties. And about 80% of American jews are zionists. So this country destroyed itself to promote the special interests of an infintesimal minority of voters pursuing a far right pet cause that included war crimes. Its absolutely insanity, so of course we lost.

Small correction: The DNC isn't employing technocrats and experts; they're employing neoliberals concerned first and foremost with extracting money from the poor and putting it in the hands of the rich. If they were concerned with improving people's lives they'd have implemented progressive economic policy like everyone with two braincells to rub together has been telling them to.

Depends on what he does between now and election day. Its not currently a good sign that he's running with the fascist lite crowd instead of progressives.

The Democrats seem to think misogyny played a part, yes, but I'm not convinced that this was the case. It's an easy excuse. But it glosses over a problem that Democrats have not been willing to face for almost 20+ years.

They are convinced that if they become the center, they'll win the majority.

The Harris campaign ran the same play as the Clinton campaign: I'm not Trump.

The only case of misogyny that I can see is that Biden ran the same campaign. But the problem with this argument is that we were in a Trump presidency. The effects of it were clear to voters. If you carry over this logic to Biden, Harris lost not because she was a woman but the effects of the Biden presidency was clear to voters.

Harris had the opportunity to come out as progressive. To go further than Biden. To guarantee colleges loan forgiveness for everyone. To come out against healthcare companies. To come out against the alt right.

But she didn't.

She played the same plays as Hilary: I'm not Trump. I'll save democracy. Israel is cool.

The sad thing is she could be leading the charge right now to help organize people against fascism. If she really learned any lessons from her campaign, she'd be with Bernie and doing tours to help people protest.

The DNC would rather eat crumbs that fall off the table than risk biting the hands that feed it (corporations). They have lost legitimacy in my book and will only support them as opposition to the fascists because there isn't another option. If a true progressive party gains momentum, you can bet that the DNC and GOP will work together to push progressives out.

it's everything. the democratic party since Obama was elected has been unwilling to grapple with that our populace is split between people who think racism is an ongoing aspect of the fight for liberation, people who think racism ended some time in the past like in 1864, 1920, 1950, 1970, or 1989, and people who outright engage with racist ideologies. democrats try to engage with an idyllic populace who generally means well when the actual populace is a bunch of colonizers.

our best bet for a president who can address all the problems of this political environment is basically the wokest white dude we can find. and the way tim walz is acting and behaving, he might be operating with the understanding that given bernie sanders' age, it might have to be him.

i ask everyone to do the following: pay attention to what tim walz does, but don't treat him as your savior. every liberation movement has required three figures: the violent revolutionary (think Malcolm X), the pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with (think dr martin luther king jr), and the emotional/spiritual leader that soothes people who are hurting's souls (this leader usually goes unnamed because they are not looking for a position of power). you need to choose your role in our liberation movement as soon as possible and start agitating. and understand tim walz will never exit his lane of pacifist the respectability politics people are willing to engage with.

tim walz, also, for how much we love him, has blind spots and will say some ignorant shit in tho years to come. have grace and patience with him for as long as he will listen. america has a long legacy of politicians who entrench themselves in something dumb because when you have as many critics as someone in office has, the legitimate criticism tends to get buried under a mountain of unreasonable criticism.