3 ms·

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that "both sides" are equal in American politics, but I do think you have to be a least a little understanding that the de

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that "both sides" are equal in American politics, but I do think you have to be a least a little understanding that the democrats aren't an attractive alternative to most Americans. I'm afraid a pretty large minority of Americans have landed in the lose-lose position of "if i can't make it better, i might as well make it worse faster".

rayiner 1mo ago
My Bangladeshi immigrant mom and her sister are complaining on Facebook that they were "good Democrats" until "Obama, AOC, and Bernie" brought their "radicalism." Democrats wave away this stuff as "performative," but people feel it viscerally and it subdivides and splits the coalition. Most people don't vote based on policies and data. They are naturally skeptical about whether your five-point plans are actually going to have the intended effect. Instead, they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.
- ethbr1 1mo ago
  Anyone who says Obama, of all people, was radical clearly listens to too much Fox News and conservative talk radio (which is an entirely different problem). The only way Obama was objectively radical as a politician and president was the color of his skin.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    My mom watches CNN and liked Obama as President. But my parsing of her comment—I haven’t talked to her about it, just saw it pop up when my aunt responded “me too, sister”—is that she views Obama as the patriarch so the buck stops with him to police the party messaging. This is maybe an odd view for an American but it makes sense within a Bangladeshi social context. And democrats are the ones who chose to cultivate an electoral map based on immigrants like my mom in states like Virginia and Michigan.
    - runako 1mo ago
      > Obama as the patriarch so the buck stops with him to police the party messaging. Sanders is not a member of the party. AOC didn't run for office until Obama had been retired a few years.
      - MisterTea 1mo ago
        I get that you are trying to state facts but to the average person they are all Democrats so it don't matter.
        runako 1mo ago
        Yes, this is part of why it was so stupid for Sanders to not actually join and support the party. Had he done that, it's entirely possible he could have won the support of the actual voters he needed to win the presidency. Also, it's still insane to expect Obama to police e.g. AOC's language 10 years post-Presidency. That's just an insane expectation. Reality is many voters are crazy.
        rayiner 1mo ago
        He’s the elder statesmen of the party. In my mom’s part of the world he’d still be de jure in charge of the party. Then if he wasn’t replaced by another man of similar stature, control of the party might pass to Michelle (like happened at least four times in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan). Its not like it’s totally alien in America. After Biden’s disastrous debate in 2024, Obama was the one who swooped in to lead the party through the chaos. And if Michelle ran for the nomination, she’d probably win. If she had stepped in in 2024 she would’ve won the nomination and the election.
        runako 1mo ago
        > He’s the elder statesmen of the party. In US politics, that mantle holds until someone else takes the nomination. That role is Biden's. It seems really odd that a former leader other than the most recent would be in charge of the party anywhere. (Remembering here that Biden is still alive and generally capable if suffering age-related decline. Also contextualizing with the fact that the sitting president is also obviously suffering age-related decline.) > control of the party might pass to Michelle (like happened at least four times in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan). Yeah, I can see how someone from one of those countries might project onto US politics things that are not commonly done here. Relevant here is Obama beating Hillary for the nomination in 2008. > After Biden’s disastrous debate in 2024, Obama was the one who swooped in to lead the party through the chaos I am a political sicko, and I do not remember this happening. Are you perhaps elevating the importance of a single speech Obama gave?
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    He also signed Obamacare, a bill written by Republicans, approved by Democrats and then watered down by Republicans who held a majority. All Obama did was sign it as he was legally required to.
    - rayiner 1mo ago
      Democrats had almost an 80 House seat majority and 57 Senate seats when Obamacare was enacted.
      - ethbr1 1mo ago
        That's the prime example of why casting Obama as a radical is ridiculous. Having the power to ram something more partisan-palatable through and choosing to negotiate with the opposition to find a more mutually-tolerable consensus is the antithesis of radicalism.
        rayiner 1mo ago
        I don’t think Obama is a radical. But he had radical people in his orbit from his “community organizer” days.
        ethbr1 1mo ago
        I can't see much of their agenda that made it through into radical policy. Are there specific examples I'm missing?
        rayiner 1mo ago
        It made it into the street level advocacy, which was my point above.
- delusional 1mo ago
  > they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are. You can't really simplify it to such a degree. I believe humans are creatures of action. We like it when things happen. Sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, our morals are downstream of that desire to "be effective". We will align ourselves, no matter the violence we have to do to our own senses, with what is useful. Specifically, their willingness to skeptically engage with your five-point plan demands that you're actually able to execute it. If you categorically can't make anything happen, then people will cling to an explanation and a morality that can. American democracy has been at a standstill for upwards of 30 years, If the American people have to believe that all their politicians are pedophiles to get some sort of movement again. Then that's what they are going to believe.
- grubbydiff 1mo ago
  Kind of funny that most Republicans wouldn't even consider you or your parents to be Americans while your family is concerned about "radical Democrats."
edgyquant 1mo ago
According to polls democrats are the worse side, they are the most unpopular party maybe in history and are at an extreme low in terms of their approval rating. Trump is almost 20% more popular than the Democratic Party and they are polling below AI and ICE, they are right around the same approval rating with the American people as Iran. And still they refuse to back down on a number of policies that have been proven to be extremely unpopular.
- andrewflnr 1mo ago
  Part of that is because progressives also hate the Democrats for being hypocritical and/or ineffective. Doesn't mean they're going to vote for an R, though.
- sleepyguy 1mo ago
  Your comment is spot on. Don't know why you're being junked. -Independent..
- goatlover 1mo ago
  Not based on the special election results the past year, and primary turnout along with gains in polling numbers of Democrats compared to their Republican counterparts. Just look at Texas, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, even Kansas. Bunch of red seats in play.
- phatskat 1mo ago
  This is definitely a problem the dems seem unable to rectify, and for good reason. I'm very left, and i think the democrats are awful at their jobs - or good, if it benefits them right? And that's the rub, most leftists don't like the democrats because they tend to align with business interests and their own enrichment. It very much feels like "well of course we do that, everyone (with a D or R) does it!" and that's pretty deflating for people who want _better politicians_. I want to vote for someone who sticks to their plan, who is as honest as possible, who actually cares about Americans instead of saying some catchy phrases and looking good on camera while shaking hands with lobbyists and harmful industries - it's ludicrous! I agree with the sibling comment that the dems rank lower because their base is made of people who begrudgingly vote for them when the time comes and spend the rest of the time being frustrated that it's our best option.
specialist 1mo ago
Biggest myth is left vs right, when it's upper vs lower.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Also known as right (upper) vs left (lower). The biggest myth is that out of the two parties, the one which is left of the other must also be left on the absolute scale. It isn't - they're both right. Actual left is people like Bernie, AOC and Mamdani, who are an extreme minority of politicians.
  - specialist 1mo ago
    True.

rayiner 1mo ago

My Bangladeshi immigrant mom and her sister are complaining on Facebook that they were "good Democrats" until "Obama, AOC, and Bernie" brought their "radicalism." Democrats wave away this stuff as "performative," but people feel it viscerally and it subdivides and splits the coalition. Most people don't vote based on policies and data. They are naturally skeptical about whether your five-point plans are actually going to have the intended effect. Instead, they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are.

ethbr1 1mo ago
Anyone who says Obama, of all people, was radical clearly listens to too much Fox News and conservative talk radio (which is an entirely different problem). The only way Obama was objectively radical as a politician and president was the color of his skin.
- rayiner 1mo ago
  My mom watches CNN and liked Obama as President. But my parsing of her comment—I haven’t talked to her about it, just saw it pop up when my aunt responded “me too, sister”—is that she views Obama as the patriarch so the buck stops with him to police the party messaging. This is maybe an odd view for an American but it makes sense within a Bangladeshi social context. And democrats are the ones who chose to cultivate an electoral map based on immigrants like my mom in states like Virginia and Michigan.
  - runako 1mo ago
    > Obama as the patriarch so the buck stops with him to police the party messaging. Sanders is not a member of the party. AOC didn't run for office until Obama had been retired a few years.
    - MisterTea 1mo ago
      I get that you are trying to state facts but to the average person they are all Democrats so it don't matter.
      - runako 1mo ago
        Yes, this is part of why it was so stupid for Sanders to not actually join and support the party. Had he done that, it's entirely possible he could have won the support of the actual voters he needed to win the presidency. Also, it's still insane to expect Obama to police e.g. AOC's language 10 years post-Presidency. That's just an insane expectation. Reality is many voters are crazy.
        rayiner 1mo ago
        He’s the elder statesmen of the party. In my mom’s part of the world he’d still be de jure in charge of the party. Then if he wasn’t replaced by another man of similar stature, control of the party might pass to Michelle (like happened at least four times in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan). Its not like it’s totally alien in America. After Biden’s disastrous debate in 2024, Obama was the one who swooped in to lead the party through the chaos. And if Michelle ran for the nomination, she’d probably win. If she had stepped in in 2024 she would’ve won the nomination and the election.
        runako 1mo ago
        > He’s the elder statesmen of the party. In US politics, that mantle holds until someone else takes the nomination. That role is Biden's. It seems really odd that a former leader other than the most recent would be in charge of the party anywhere. (Remembering here that Biden is still alive and generally capable if suffering age-related decline. Also contextualizing with the fact that the sitting president is also obviously suffering age-related decline.) > control of the party might pass to Michelle (like happened at least four times in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan). Yeah, I can see how someone from one of those countries might project onto US politics things that are not commonly done here. Relevant here is Obama beating Hillary for the nomination in 2008. > After Biden’s disastrous debate in 2024, Obama was the one who swooped in to lead the party through the chaos I am a political sicko, and I do not remember this happening. Are you perhaps elevating the importance of a single speech Obama gave?
- inigyou 1mo ago
  He also signed Obamacare, a bill written by Republicans, approved by Democrats and then watered down by Republicans who held a majority. All Obama did was sign it as he was legally required to.
  - rayiner 1mo ago
    Democrats had almost an 80 House seat majority and 57 Senate seats when Obamacare was enacted.
    - ethbr1 1mo ago
      That's the prime example of why casting Obama as a radical is ridiculous. Having the power to ram something more partisan-palatable through and choosing to negotiate with the opposition to find a more mutually-tolerable consensus is the antithesis of radicalism.
      - rayiner 1mo ago
        I don’t think Obama is a radical. But he had radical people in his orbit from his “community organizer” days.
        ethbr1 1mo ago
        I can't see much of their agenda that made it through into radical policy. Are there specific examples I'm missing?
        rayiner 1mo ago
        It made it into the street level advocacy, which was my point above.
delusional 1mo ago
> they vote based on their assessment of your judgment and whether you broadly share their ideas about what "good" and "bad" are. You can't really simplify it to such a degree. I believe humans are creatures of action. We like it when things happen. Sometimes, not all the time but sometimes, our morals are downstream of that desire to "be effective". We will align ourselves, no matter the violence we have to do to our own senses, with what is useful. Specifically, their willingness to skeptically engage with your five-point plan demands that you're actually able to execute it. If you categorically can't make anything happen, then people will cling to an explanation and a morality that can. American democracy has been at a standstill for upwards of 30 years, If the American people have to believe that all their politicians are pedophiles to get some sort of movement again. Then that's what they are going to believe.
grubbydiff 1mo ago
Kind of funny that most Republicans wouldn't even consider you or your parents to be Americans while your family is concerned about "radical Democrats."

edgyquant 1mo ago

According to polls democrats are the worse side, they are the most unpopular party maybe in history and are at an extreme low in terms of their approval rating. Trump is almost 20% more popular than the Democratic Party and they are polling below AI and ICE, they are right around the same approval rating with the American people as Iran. And still they refuse to back down on a number of policies that have been proven to be extremely unpopular.

andrewflnr 1mo ago
Part of that is because progressives also hate the Democrats for being hypocritical and/or ineffective. Doesn't mean they're going to vote for an R, though.
sleepyguy 1mo ago
Your comment is spot on. Don't know why you're being junked. -Independent..
goatlover 1mo ago
Not based on the special election results the past year, and primary turnout along with gains in polling numbers of Democrats compared to their Republican counterparts. Just look at Texas, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, even Kansas. Bunch of red seats in play.
phatskat 1mo ago
This is definitely a problem the dems seem unable to rectify, and for good reason. I'm very left, and i think the democrats are awful at their jobs - or good, if it benefits them right? And that's the rub, most leftists don't like the democrats because they tend to align with business interests and their own enrichment. It very much feels like "well of course we do that, everyone (with a D or R) does it!" and that's pretty deflating for people who want _better politicians_. I want to vote for someone who sticks to their plan, who is as honest as possible, who actually cares about Americans instead of saying some catchy phrases and looking good on camera while shaking hands with lobbyists and harmful industries - it's ludicrous! I agree with the sibling comment that the dems rank lower because their base is made of people who begrudgingly vote for them when the time comes and spend the rest of the time being frustrated that it's our best option.

specialist 1mo ago

Biggest myth is left vs right, when it's upper vs lower.

inigyou 1mo ago
Also known as right (upper) vs left (lower). The biggest myth is that out of the two parties, the one which is left of the other must also be left on the absolute scale. It isn't - they're both right. Actual left is people like Bernie, AOC and Mamdani, who are an extreme minority of politicians.
- specialist 1mo ago
  True.