News

They fail, so they just look for how to copy the last successful gop strategy.

What's funny is the guy that created the Heritage Foundation and wrote the first mandate for leadership was inspired to organize by the coalition building and strategizing of the left following the civil rights movement. Heritage's entire success is based on a strategy to drive more wedges between factions on the left, while creating a false narrative of victimhood (us vs them) in order to bring as many factions as possible under a single "Republican," umbrella and form a solid and reliable voting bloc on the right.

It's kind of like the more bold and radical the right became over time, while stirring up narratives about the radical left and culture wars, the more establishment Dems fell for the trap they set. Instead of realizing they were under attack, they tried to reach across the aisle, and present a welcoming and more moderate face in an attempt to counter the narrative being spun by the right. They began ignoring their shared core values, and instead focused on rebranding themselves by using the right's strategy of allowing banks, corporations, and other big donors to heavily influence their decision making. Basically, just throw money and marketing at a problem until it's solved.

Meanwhile, the right used political theater to create the illusion of "grassroots" movements actually funded by billionaires, and injected into every facet of government and politics starting at the most local levels. Now the people who wrote the most recent iteration of Mandate for Leadership (Project 2025), are sitting in the White House.

I actually thought this part of the article was really insightful, and exactly what we need establishment Democrats to wake up and understand:

One of its most compelling conclusions is that the Biden administration seemed reluctant to engage in “picking the fights worth having” and sometimes took refuge in incremental policy gains due to a self-limiting “risk aversion.” One senior official is quoted suggesting the White House didn’t give adequate support to agency leaders who thought they had a policy stance providing an opening to “have a fight and show who you’re for.”

If anything, Dems haven't been copying conservatives enough in terms of the right's very successful coalition building and strategizing (which was originally stolen from their own abandoned playbook back in the 70's).

However, they have been copying them in the shit way they actually do their jobs/govern: unilateral decision making cautiously based on keeping wealthy donors happy, cheap transparent pandering that often doesn't actually change anything for the better, ignoring the advice of experts in favor of sycophants, and most importantly; forgetting why you're in this job, and who you're supposed to be fighting for.

Cheap pandering without providing actually benefits to voters will only work if you use the false fear narrative/shared victimhood (us vs them), and attack scapegoats (them) to make it look like you're doing your job/representing the interests of your base. Dems have been playing right into their hands by distancing themselves from their roots and shared core values, minimizing very real issues for Americans, and allowing truly marginalized groups to be attacked/used as scapegoats by the right, in order to attract more "moderate" voters.

People don't feel like there's anything they can do, outside of the ordinary [eg voting]. There is no real intermediate step between peaceful protest and targeted violence. And people understandably don't want to target their local authorities, who may not even be complicit.

The american public has been told for the last 30 years that voting for democrats would prevent something like this

It's democratic complacency that this report is pointing to that is at fault.

I fear you are correct. As much as I mention I kind of like the counter protestors as it shows how small a group it is relative to people fighting facism I also have verified to my satisfaction that in some cases they are not paid shills and they seem to be able to be blind to everything for the sake of their side winning. I mean we have masked unmarked paramilitary killing, injuring, destroying property, and invading private residences. Its crazy they can ignore that.

When Biden was like "we have too much respect for the country to pack the court" and privately they were saying "the polling doesn't look good for us" I lost hope and realized we were going to lay down right in front of a steamroller. Mad frustrating.

What exactly does "fighting" look like to you in this context? You keep repeating that word without explaining what you mean by it. Because I kind of feel like this is what it looks like: Making plans to regain control of the government and try to stop this sort of situation from ever happening again. It might seem boring and too little too late, but it's exactly how the Republican party got where they are. They spent decades planning and scheming and stacking the deck in their favor. You can't undo that overnight.

I dont think it was bernie that lit the fuse, i think it was having a black man as president. It made so many people unreasonably angry, they just couldnt accept it. Thats when the temperature started rising.

This article lacks material analysis

? It's based on a report that was just released. It examines and critiques real life examples of mistakes within the previous administration. Building a More Effective, Responsive Government: Lessons Learned from the Biden-Harris Administration

One of its most compelling conclusions is that the Biden administration seemed reluctant to engage in “picking the fights worth having” and sometimes took refuge in incremental policy gains due to a self-limiting “risk aversion.” One senior official is quoted suggesting the White House didn’t give adequate support to agency leaders who thought they had a policy stance providing an opening to “have a fight and show who you’re for.”

Not standing up for the values that are supposed to be at the party's roots, and acknowledging that doing the most basic wasn't enough to lead the country where it needed to go, seems like a pretty perfect summary of why most people dislike establishment Democrats.

The second Bernie became popular, a backlash like this was inevitable.

No the second we became ok with normalizing executive overreach, ignoring checks and balances, and unilateral decisions by the president, it was inevitable. It's not a backlash when every president in modern history basically paved the way for it to happen.