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

Maybe they are playing the long game: accelerate the destruction of democracy so we can usher in a new Golden Age of Progressivism after the population is decimated by polio and other preventable diseases.

I posted this before seeing @Knave 's post above. he's clearly on that track.

 

If so, it's the dumbest plan ever. Accelerationism ain't going to solve anything.

 

Asking for discussion, not objection... and @Knave as well...

Where's the line between them wrecking their shit and wrecking ours, so to speak? Also if we cut ourselves asunder and let them nerf everything, does fixing the Democratic Party become moot?

 

Maybe letting the arsonists burn everything is what you need to do to fix the Democratic Party.

The people made their choice in the election, and elections have consequences. Let there be consequences.

 

Whatever we think of him, he's a fantastic salesman and highly charismatic, even if a complete buffoon.

 

Well there will surely be consequences, looking for an upside thereto beats the hell out of hand-wringing.

Can't help but think of net-recipient red states and net-donor blue states. Be funny as hell if Trump's 70m come crying to Harris's 65m(?) and beg pardon, after their scrawny chickens come home to roost.

 

Do you have something to wreck?

I don't.

 

Well I mean, the system, the parties, the customs and habits we've long had.

Repairing the Dems seems to me in ^^^that space. Keep the process, change the participant(s).

Letting it burn is letting it burn. Rebirth maybe but also goodbye to what we know. Not making a value judgment, just I guess finding the edges if what you guys are espousing. I might be older than you guys and less prone to voting the nuke option. I do have that switch, I just have a longer fuse maybe. Helps to think out loud here, thanks all for letting me jump in.

 

@Knave

 

Whatever works!

 

I start to agree. To ask "what the Democrats should do", when the voters had the chance to look at Trump and said "That's the ticket", is a pointless exercise. When people are THAT stubbornly unreasonable, the only thing you can do is resign yourself, let them have what they want and wait to see whether they enjoy the consequences.

 

It's what will happen anyway - they will insist on getting their way no matter how much we try and stop them from self-harm.

 

As a father it's difficult to resist the urge to help when peril looms. But maybe there's a greater good.

 

"We had to destroy the village to save it."

 

Think of it as of an alcoholic uncle. You can try to help. But you can't stop him from dying of cirrhosis if he is really determined.

 

To take this analogy in a different direction, sometimes people need to hit rock bottom.

 

Trump supporters and most of the Nation think the government absolutely sucks. They have no connection to the good it does, other than maybe the military.

They want to build a house or deck or get mail or go to the DMV and it's long waits and incompetence. They need help from fema or something and nothing happens. They have no idea what the department of housing or education do other than write stupid reports and make their school systems look bad.

And then when we shut down the government, we still send out the social security checks? What? We keep critical stuff open?

Most of these rugged individualists couldn't last a week without gas or coca cola. Maybe they do need to see what rock bottom looks like.

 

He’s not young or youngish either.

 

My guess is the Trump administration's first anti-administrative state priority is to kill off the information-gathering organizations. Bureau of Labor Statistics, DoE dashboards, weather data...anything that a private company can make a quick buck doing worse and more expensively.

 

So, yes, that would be nice because the reality of more polarized parties is very stark. I'm already hearing much different ideas in certain circles and it sound too close to a Latin American strategy that scares me silly. The idea is that the incumbent party will "resist" and make things impossible for the governing party. Rinse and repeat and you have constant cycle of alternating four year terms. I much prefer the stable American pattern of 8 to 12 years of party dominance before a switch happens and relatively moderate parties.

 

FYP...

 

That's probably has gone into the same trash heap as American exceptionalism.