How is the Democratic party supposed to find their future "savior"?

[Hardkill]

People on here are coming off like they know sure how the Democratic Party to run a strong, charismatic leader:

On 11/6/2024 at 2:12 PM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

There’s also the Vaush explanation, that men were largely pulled to the right because of alternative media such as; Joe Rogan, Theo Von, and various podcasts which have overtaken mainstream media in popularity.

Vaush’s explanation basically boiled down to the fact that there is nothing stopping a fourteen year old boy from going on YouTube and finding videos of Jordan Peterson ranting against Transgendered Marxists.

Meanwhile the Harris campaign was mediocre and lacked the angry populist messaging that was featured in the Trump campaign.

At the root of the issue, according to Vaush, this was a fundamental and National rejection of centrist Liberal ideology peddled by mainstream Democrats, and a hunger for populist anger.

 

On 11/6/2024 at 4:26 AM, mojsterr said:

She didn't show any strength, everything just screams bleak from her

 

I meant it in a way the one who shows strength. You need a strong candidate, which she wasn't. And when you have a strong and charismatic person, you have the chances to win. And  then it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman.

People keep justyfing the loss because she's a woman of colour, completely disregarding the real issue.

On 11/6/2024 at 5:52 PM, Leo Gura said:

Run truly charismatic and likeable candidates, not hollow vanilla party loyalists.

 

Yet, I haven't found anybody on here having given a viable, logical strategy for how this would work for the Democratic party ever in the future.

Should it be something similar to how judicial nominees for the Republican party and the right-wing are vetted by leaders of the conservative movement and judicial nominees for the Democratic Party and the left-wing can be vetted by leaders of the progressive movement?

I know that many Dems and even some progressives out there have been saying stuff like "Democrats have a whole bench of young and very talented potential candidates for president" including as the prime-aged liberal Democratic stars from the more establishment wing of the party like Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer, Pritzker, Moore, Walz, Buttigieg or Beshear. 

Even James Carville already said things several times before over the past year such as "Josh Shapiro is such a skilled politician, it's like ridiculous! In fact, he is as talented and as charismatic of a politician as anyone can get!.....The same thing with Whitmer. Andy Beshear is so frickin' skilled! Wes Moore! Warnock! Gina Raimondo! Newsom!.......Don't worry, there's plenty of people to pick up the ball.....Warnock is unbelievably skilled!"

Yeah, we've all heard that before from Democratic party leaders for many decades now. Since the 1960s, none of the Democratic candidates they put up ever lived up to their promise, except Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. The divided and weakened Democratic party in 1968 caused the election of Nixon, who by 1974, became the most criminal president in US History, until of course Trump in 2016.

Actually, Clinton failed to secure 50% of the popular vote in his presidential victories and ultimately damaged his party's reputation." His stupid fucking shenanigans with women probably caused the election of W. Bush, the second-worst president since the 1980s. Even Obama himself turned out to be arguably the worst party builder compared to any other president since the end of Herbert Hoover's presidency in 1932, which greatly contributed to the election of and the rise of Trump. Now, Biden will forever be blamed for the re-election of Trump.

So, what exactly should the Democratic party do to feasibly carry out a successful vetting process for finding that FDR or Obama-like "savior" who can save the party and save the country?

Edited Wednesday at 12:10 AM by Hardkill

[sholomar]

Your last couple of paragraphs summed it up... human nature prevents their success. As long as you have really wealthy people buying political favors, human nature will likely prevail, our more hedonistic desires such as wealth, status, access to women. Changing a couple of million years of evolution in a couple of generations isn't easy without genetic engineering. 

Perhaps the problem isn't stage green itself, but rather the other stages that infiltrate and corrupt the greens to their own ends.  Actually that's not entirely true because just the fact greens are tier 1 consciousness means they will try to push their belief systems on others, just like the stages below them.  Bottom line, there's no easy answer in the fight to win over public opinion with an ideology.  I'd say start with honesty, something politicians seem incapable of.   Don't insult people's intelligence. Present them the facts and let them choose, rather then trying to tell them what to think or calling them all stupid because they won't join your "side." The left's overbearing Karen like nagginess and moralizing turned a lot of people off. Again human nature... humans don't like being told what to do by moral nannies. They didn't like it when the religious right did it, they don't like when the woke left does it. Human nature will tend to assert itself unless stopped forcefully, which leads into the argument for autocrats, dictators, and other undesirable outcomes to appease a specific spiral dynamic stage or ideology (who always think they have all the answers) instead of allowing all of them to grow at their own pace.  Our shared diversity of opinions is our strength. 

There's too much "I'm smarter than the sheep" among both the super rich, conspiracy theorists, and the personal development crowd, this idea that the masses are all just zombies and we are so much more enlightened because we have discovered "the truth."  Nonsense. To me many of them have more wisdom than those in charge. Don't insult their intelligence... they have more common sense than given credit for. 

Edited Wednesday at 01:40 AM by sholomar

[Buck Edwards]

It's not about a strong candidate. It's how people's opinions tilt in favor of a candidate. Remember how Biden got elected and he wasn't considered a strong democratic candidate at all, he was like the underdog that suddenly took over Trump. All it takes is republicans to perform really poor. Trump was voted out. So it's quite easy actually. Trump has only one more term. Unless all hell breaks loose imperialist style. Either Trump does well in the second term and people might look for another republican as a substitute or Trump performs very poorly and people vote for a democrat as a replacement. It's business as usual a Yo Yo game between republicans and democrats and we're stuck. 

[Hardkill]

2 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

It's not about a strong candidate. It's how people's opinions tilt in favor of a candidate. Remember how Biden got elected and he wasn't considered a strong democratic candidate at all, he was like the underdog that suddenly took over Trump. All it takes is republicans to perform really poor. Trump was voted out. So it's quite easy actually. Trump has only one more term. Unless all hell breaks loose imperialist style. Either Trump does well in the second term and people might look for another republican as a substitute or Trump performs very poorly and people vote for a democrat as a replacement. It's business as usual a Yo Yo game between republicans and democrats and we're stuck. 

The part I am truly terrified by is ".....Unless all hell breaks loose imperialist style." 

[Buck Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

The part I am truly terrified by is ".....Unless all hell breaks loose imperialist style." 

Oh yeah. I'm terrified too. 

[voxun]

They had them but they pushed them out.

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, voxun said:

They had them but they pushed them out.

Nobody knows who really are strong appealing candidates until they've been tested in the white heat of the primaries.

Many Republican leaders thought that Ron DeSantis would be a very promising strong candidate for president, but in the end he failed miserably. Plenty of other examples of this having happened if you look at US History.

Edited Wednesday at 06:19 AM by Hardkill

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Nobody knows who really are strong appealing candidates.

How would you describe a strong appealing charismatic candidate? 

[Hardkill]

1 minute ago, Buck Edwards said:

How would you describe a strong appealing charismatic candidate? 

You know that's very difficult to describe. Here's professor Lichtman explanation of it:

"Observers have long tried to link various attributes of personality to electoral success: warmth, likability, appearance, trustworthiness, optimism, eloquence, vigor, and even height are said to give one candidate the advantage over another. To some extent, this hodgepodge of personal traits may influence voters. The historical pattern indicates that personality is a significant factor only at an unusually high threshold, and even then, personal appeal never has overcome the separate verdict of the political and performance keys."

The Republican and Democratic parties have jointly produced only seven exceptionally charismatic presidential candidates since 1860:

• James G. Blaine (1884)
• William Jennings Bryan (1896 and 1900)
• Theodore Roosevelt (1904)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932 to 1944) 
• John F. Kennedy (1960)
• Ronald Reagan (1980 and 1984)
• Barack Obama in 2008.

Additionally, there have been only two clearly exceptionally heroic nominees, both of whom attained this stature through vital leadership in war: 

• Ulysses S. Grant (1868 and 1872)
• Dwight David Eisenhower (1952 and 1956)       

These nine nominees truly transcended party lines with their broad appeal. Each of them successfully converted an unusually large percentage of individuals from opposing parties/ideologies into supporters for their respective eras. Additionally, they won over a remarkably high percentage of moderate, Independent, and undecided voters for their respective eras.

Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) was certainly charismatic during his time and Donald Trump (2016, 2020, and 2024) is too, but their appeal never reached beyond their own party bases.

[Emerald]

I don't get the sense that there's a need for a "savior" or strong figure-head that will truly move the needle. Of course, it's helpful to have good political leaders. And we want to avoid the situation we're currently in, if possible.

But even the best leader will be largely feeding energy into the maintenance of the status quo... and the status quo will always lead to the destructive outcome we're in right now.

So, I have the sense that having a great left-wing leader, like Bernie Sanders, will tweak things around the edges and largely preserve the status quo by making it slightly more livable.

And a few years ago, I had this insight that arose that Bernie's candidacy was just a means of re-directing people's revolutionary energy back into the system that preserves the status quo.

I have the sense that only communal grassroots movements will move the world in a better direction. 

It will never be a lefty Goliath versus righty Goliath situation... only David and Goliath.

[Ramu]

One can be fully awake and still appreciate the need for security at the u.s. southern border.  Harris wouldn't have provided for that.

[Hardkill]

59 minutes ago, Ramu said:

One can be fully awake and still appreciate the need for security at the u.s. southern border.  Harris wouldn't have provided for that.

Well, I wouldn't count of Trump doing a fantastic job on it. I don't even think he's going to be to get a border security bill passed through Congress. 

He got the least amount of significant legislation passed through Congress compared to any other president since the late 1800s.

[Emerald]

59 minutes ago, Ramu said:

One can be fully awake and still appreciate the need for security at the u.s. southern border.  Harris wouldn't have provided for that.

She and Biden were responsible for putting out a bi-partisan border bill that would have given Republicans EVERYTHING they wanted for the border... in exchange for more aid to Ukraine.

But Trump called up members of congress and asked them to vote no on the Republican wet-dream of a border bill so that he is able to run on the idea that "I'll fix the border" and that Democrats are for "open borders."

And of course, that isn't true. Obama was called the "deporter in chief". And Biden deported more undocumented immigrants than Trump as a percentage and as a raw number.

And Harris's campaign did a lot of appeal to moderate Republicans and ran on being tough on the border. That proved to be a losing strategy. 

But you can't say that the Democrats are for open borders if you look at the facts. But Republicans will always say that Democrats are for open borders... even if Democrats closed the border to anyone and everyone for the rest of time.

[Hardkill]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I don't get the sense that there's a need for a "savior" or strong figure-head that will truly move the needle. Of course, it's helpful to have good political leaders. And we want to avoid the situation we're currently in, if possible.

But even the best leader will be largely feeding energy into the maintenance of the status quo... and the status quo will always lead to the destructive outcome we're in right now.

So, I have the sense that having a great left-wing leader, like Bernie Sanders, will tweak things around the edges and largely preserve the status quo by making it slightly more livable.

And a few years ago, I had this insight that arose that Bernie's candidacy was just a means of re-directing people's revolutionary energy back into the system that preserves the status quo.

I have the sense that only communal grassroots movements will move the world in a better direction. 

It will never be a lefty Goliath versus righty Goliath situation... only David and Goliath.

Yeah, we desperately need a massive cultural movement for economic justice and civil rights like the one led by the Populist Party in the 1890s to 1900s decade or the civil rights movement led by MLK and Malcolm X again. I don't understand why that hasn't arisen yet.

Edited Wednesday at 06:21 PM by Hardkill

[Hardkill]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

She and Biden were responsible for putting out a bi-partisan border bill that would have given Republicans EVERYTHING they wanted for the border... in exchange for more aid to Ukraine.

But Trump called up members of congress and asked them to vote no on the Republican wet-dream of a border bill so that he is able to run on the idea that "I'll fix the border" and that Democrats are for "open borders."

And of course, that isn't true. Obama was called the "deporter in chief". And Biden deported more undocumented immigrants than Trump as a percentage and as a raw number.

And Harris's campaign did a lot of appeal to moderate Republicans and ran on being tough on the border. That proved to be a losing strategy. 

But you can't say that the Democrats are for open borders if you look at the facts. But Republicans will always say that Democrats are for open borders... even if Democrats closed the border to anyone and everyone for the rest of time.

A majority of Americans never fully knew or really realized this because of this abominable media environment we are in.

Most people in the country were infected by the worst amount of fake news, right-wing propaganda, and false equivalence to a degree that's never occurred before in US History. 

What's even worst is that most people no longer believe in the mainstream media news or real news reports anymore.

That's why Democrats can no longer do right in the eyes of a majority of Americans anymore. This is exactly what George Orwell feared what could happen to our country. Democracy in our country is dying. This is a truly far beyond a sorry sight for America.

Edited Wednesday at 06:37 PM by Hardkill

[Husseinisdoingfine]

This is the type of populist anger that we need.

 

 

Simple and straight to the point, this is exactly how the next Democratic nominee needs to give their speeches.  

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Yeah, we desperately need a massive cultural movement for economic justice and civil rights like the one led by the Populist Party in the 1890s to 1900s decade or the civil rights movement led by MLK and Malcolm X again. I don't understand why that hasn't arisen yet.

Definitely

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

A majority of Americans never fully knew or really realized this because of this abominable media environment we are in.

Most people in the country were infected by the worst amount of fake news, right-wing propaganda, and false equivalence to a degree that's never occurred before in US History. 

What's even worst is that most people no longer believe in the mainstream media news or real news reports anymore.

That's why Democrats can no longer do right in the eyes of a majority of Americans anymore. This is exactly what George Orwell feared what could happen to our country. Democracy in our country is dying. This is a truly far beyond a sorry sight for America.

Yes, it's just that the right wing propaganda machine is constantly churning out really memorable but false talking points. And people don't question them.

And so TONS of people believe that Democrats really are for "open borders" because the right wing machine confidently lies on repeat.

[Hardkill]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Definitely

Yes, it's just that the right wing propaganda machine is constantly churning out really memorable but false talking points. And people don't question them.

And so TONS of people believe that Democrats really are for "open borders" because the right wing machine confidently lies on repeat.

The only thing Democrats can do to hopefully improve their chances of ever winning back the presidency, Congress, and more power is:

• Figure out a message or messages that connect with the American people
• Play hardball much more
• Stop playing "not to lose" and try ballsier strategies

Even so, I still am not optimistic that doing all of the above will be enough to save our country as long as the right-wing propaganda machine and right-wing billionaires, racism, sexism, hatred, fear, etc. all continue to dominate the country permanently.

[Emerald]

55 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

The only thing Democrats can do to hopefully improve their chances of ever winning back the presidency, Congress, and more power is:

• Figure out a message or messages that connect with the American people
• Play hardball much more
• Stop playing "not to lose" and try ballsier strategies

Even so, I still am not optimistic that doing all of the above will be enough to save our country as long as the right-wing propaganda machine and right-wing billionaires, racism, sexism, hatred, fear, etc. all continue to dominate the country permanently.

I think those are all good note. I don't suppose that that will work for Democrats, as they really are just a center-right party.

As long as there's no viable left-wing alternative, people will continue to move more and more towards populist Fascism.

I sense that it will really have to come as a bottom-up grassroots movement.

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Simple and straight to the point, this is exactly how the next Democratic nominee needs to give their speeches.  

That might actually be a really good idea. Jon Stewart maybe. Although he'll be attacked because he's 5'7.