Post-match: So what is next for the Democratic Party? (Post 2024)

Sorry, yes, as directed at Kamala.

I was reading it out of context apparently and referring to the campaign in general.

 

I'm seeing oodles and boodles of posts on FB about various kinds of resistance and posts mocking the people who are ultimately going to be behind whatever befalls any of us. I can't decide whether all these people were this engaged before the election took place. I'm thinking, "How many of y'all stayed home or went third party or had some kind of "red v. blue" shindig at your home on Election Night, because bothsides, and now you realize your casually dismissive attitude has cost millions of people who don't look like you their educational freedoms and potentially more, and thrown half of your own race's population into a life of avoiding a future-wrecking pregnancy? Where were y'all when the Dems could maybe start to claw back some of our rights?"

 

Since they're American citizens, yes.

 

And they have an outsized electoral vote compared to urban citizens.

 

Back to the topic at hands....What's next for the Democratic Party?
Perhaps buy a pair of cojones to start with.
What about having a clear strategy and messages on how to oppose an incoming authoritarian regime along the way?

 

Apparently what will be next is Leroy Jenkins'ing the *(#$# out of "everyone who doesn't agree with us is a racist/fascist/misogynist" and I am here for it.
The Democrat party as currently constructed is a threat to this country and needs to be beaten so badly it has no choice but to reform itself. This country needs actual liberals and not just the power hungry principle-less authoritarians who post here. Until the democratic party stops trying to destroy institutions purely because they dont control them (supreme court), stops trying to shatter norms that always come back to bite themselves in the ass anyway (getting rid of the filibuster, packing the supreme court, adding states) they should not be allowed to vote. Its up to the responsible citizenry aka the conservatives and independents to run things for now.
So sorry. You lost. Badly. Regarding your post-mortem's its apparent not one of you owns a mirror.

 

Don't oppose. Don't do a thing. You see Toaster's post and whatever Neitzches dad said. We have lost the mesuab

 

Care to explain how exactly the Democrat Party is a threat to this country and what specific actions they have taken in order to be regarded as such?
I see you provided some sort of list and none of them stands up to scrutiny. Let's analyze them one by one, starting with the most egregious.

1. "Adding states" - you are obviously referring here to Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Since when did "adding states" come to be regarded as "shattering norms"? How the ******** do you think the United States came to have 50 states in the first place? "Adding states" is an absolutely legal constitutional process, which has been carried out 37 times after the creation of the country, the most recent one being in 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii had been added to the Union. Before that, Arizona and New Mexico were added in 1912.
You basically want to deny the people of Puerto Rico and Washington DC equal representation because you think it would undermine Republican control of Congress.
You are basically denying the major principle over which the Founding Fathers went to war with Britain (equal representation in Parliament) for partisan political gains. "Shattering norms", my ass.

2. "Getting rid of the filibuster" - This is a purely procedural regulation which the Senate can adjust as it sees fit. What is so shattering about it? The filibuster is not viable in a political climate where one party would oppose everything a president wants to do, no matter how good for the country, simply out of spite. The filibuster can work where compromise is at least an option. Winning elections is meaningless if the losing party can and is willing to sabotage everything.

3. "Packing the supreme court" and "destroy it purely because the Democrats don't control it". First of all, care to clarify why only "packing the Supreme Court", specifically, equals with its destruction? The size of the Supreme Court fluctuated over time - changing it is perfectly constitutional. You can argue that it is dirty politics, at worst. But I would remind you that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is not set in the Constitution: it is a power the Supreme Court appropriated for itself in the Marbury vs Madison and it was accepted by the other branches and the public opinion because the concept of the Supreme Court as an impartial arbiter between political factions had a lot of appeal.
However, is the Supreme Court such an impartial arbiter currently? The huge majority of Democrats and left-leaning people would say "no". If half the country does not consider the Supreme Court an impartial institution anymore, then it might well be on its way to destruction, because the power of a Court derives from its legitimacy and prestige. And it was brought there by the machinations of Mitch McConnell, who blocked Scalia's seat for nearly a year in 2016, then bum-rushed Coney Barrett just weeks before the 2020 elections.
The problem with packing the Court is that it leads to altering its make-up to favor the party carrying out this operation, which in turn leads to perceptions of partisanship. Agreed. A packed court is no longer an unbiased court. However, we already are at that point: whether this outcome was achieved by "packing the Court" or by manipulating the existing processes and the existing seats, the practical effect is the same: a Court which is basically the judicial wing of one political party (now the Republicans).

But none of these are a threat to the country itself, unless you think that the country is somehow equivalent with the Republican party. Unfortunately, a lot of Republicans seem to think that way and that only Republicans (of the Trumpist sort) are real Americans.

However, there is one further worm in your rhetorical apple: all these remained at the level of talks, mostly amongst fringe elements of the party, and there has not been a serious attempt to implement such ideas by the Democratic party.

If merely talking about "getting rid of the filibuster, packing the supreme court, adding states" makes the Democrat party "a threat to this country and needs to be beaten so badly it has no choice but to reform itself", then can you explain why the ******** the ramblings of Donald Trump and his MAGA cohorts about military tribunals, dictatorship on day one, purging Trump's "enemies" or using the army against protesters, do not make them a threat to the country, as well?

But do you know what actually is a threat to the country and has not remained at the level of talks, but was actually attempted? Denying the legitimacy of the elections and trying to stop the certification of the results by force.
I am going to be blunt: elections, in republics, are the alternative to civil war or coups. Destroying the public’s faith in the integrity of elections is the path to civil war.
Trump’s “stop the steal” campaign had a corrosive effect on the political life of the United States: he may have failed to make himself president by claiming fraud, but he massively undermined the trust in the integrity of American elections and the oversight ability of the judiciary. The practical effect of Trump’s campaign to “stop the steal” is to make election rigging easier if someone is brazen enough to attempt it, because any complaints will be received with a lot of mistrust.

 

I just read one post by each of them and all I can say is they appear to be the same person, someone who is totally detached from reality.

 

Project much?

 

Man, this guy claims that "The Democrat party as currently constructed is a threat to this country " and just 4 lines below he also claims "they should not be allowed to vote".
Say all you want about arrogant liberals who called Republicans "idiots" or "fascists", but at no point they have suggested that the Republicans' right to vote should be taken away.

He also seem to think that only "conservatives and independents" are responsible citizens, which implies that liberals are somehow "irresponsible" and seems to regard governance as some kind of innate right of those "conservatives and independents".

 

This is why I kinda want 8 years of Trump. I don't want to have to save the economy again or anything else. Let then have full control so they can't blame it on the left and every policy has time to effect the lives of his supporters so they can try and blame dems for things but without Dems having power it won't work.

 

4 more years, equaling 8 over 12 years, right?

You don't mean 8 MORE years.

 

We all were saying the same thing about W. 20+ years ago.

It isn’t worth it.

 

If only we had some data that showed how the economy does under each president! For example, there is no clear pattern in the unemployment rates based on Democratic or Republican presidents:

 

Well, after W, Obama won in an actual landslide and Democrats had supermajorities in Congress. Problem is, they did not actually realize the Republicans were starting on the pathway to authoritarianism or what kind of fight they had to wage. It did not dawn on them until 2021, when it became clear that Republicans were not going to impeach Trump no matter what he did, that the old norms were no longer working. And some Democrats are clinging to the illusion of normalcy even now.

I don't wish, like Deadtigers, an economic crash because everyone would pay the price (literally). But I would really wish to see Trump trying to implement his promises of revenge. When a whole bunch of Democrats will find themselves in the defendant's box in front of Trump's "Star Chamber", trying to dodge charges of persecuting the "dear Leader", maybe that will convince democrats, independents and even moderate conservatives that it is no longer business as usual.

 

And yet there's a poster in another thread claiming that calling voters uneducated is elitist

 

Fascists always have someone to blame. It's part of the ideology. If not Dems, it'll be trans. Or immigrants. Or Muslims. Or gays. Or Jews. Or...or....or...