209
Dems Hemorrhaged Support from All Demographics in 2024 — Including New Voters
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
209 points (94.8% liked)
politics
23601 readers
2674 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Americans: We're very unhappy with the status quo
Dems: Best I can do is more status quo
I'm watching from the sidelines but my gods, you guys need to take your politicians to account. Bricks for the current lot first, mind. The two "sides" aren't equal - one is awful and the other is redefining how bad human beings can be without directly sending people to gas chambers.
Some of us have been trying. The masses tend to bully and tell us it's all our fault, somehow. According to the Democrats and their base, progressives are simultaneously too weak and unimportant to listen to, and so powerful that we can swing entire elections. I'm still waiting to hear how that one makes sense.
And yet progressives say their policies are so supported and yet they can barely get Anyone elected.
Begs to wonder how that makes sense too or else they would've tea partied the dems by now.
I wish it were true but either progressives are too few or too lazy. Either way, same result.
See the part about the Democratic Party actively working against progressives, to the point of funding propaganda against them. The Dems saw the Tea Party and care more about avoiding that with progressives than they do about running candidates that can either beat the Republicans or serve the people.
And from what you just said: you'd better have never once blamed progressives for losing the Democrats an election if you're taking the "progressives are too weak" position.
If progressives were numerous enough that wouldn't matter.
Somehow the magats got their psychos in power over a number of years. Progressives don't.
People aren't going to like what you're saying, but there's an element of uncomfortable truth. Money and establishment power didn't let the neocons beat back the tea party movement. I desperately want solid progressives, but the ones who appear on my local ballot are either obviously unfit or don't garner enough votes from a "moderate" electorate. And I live in a rabidly "blue" area.
There is a hearts and minds campaign that progressives have continuously failed at, and blaming democratic elites solely for this failure is no more accurate than Democrats blaming progressives for their losses. Politics in a democracy is coalition-building, and we're apparently all failing together.
Gonna continue to call bullshit here. The grassroots movement failing to gather momentum in the face of propaganda at the cost of the nation's future is not the same as the Democrats blaming a minority for their own failures. Not even a little bit, can you please reflect a little on how absurd that claim is?
You're also not comparing apples to apples here. First: the Tea Party was an unknown element, there hadn't been a growing fringe movement like that within a major party for a century. The Democrats had the benefit of seeing that happen on the right. Second, the Republicans were willing to embrace the crazy of the Tea Party for the sake of their continuing victory. Very much in contrast, the Democrats are very clearly willing to sacrifice national victory in order to keep progressives down. Three elections in a row they've insisted on running the most centrist candidate possible, resulting two very predictable losses and one surprising victory.
Democrats insist on siding with money and corporations every time, their failures are their own fault, and very much also the fault of their supporters.
You're talking about national elections, and I'm talking about presence in state and local elections. Candidates with a sustainable/viable chance nationally must first have an established local presence. That base builds credibility and sustainability for a movement, as others in the movement can also point towards local or state wins to justify their own candidacies.
I also happen to be familiar with my state Democratic party chairs. The idea that they could be systemically suppressing progressives in state or local elections would require a level of competence and political acumen I've never seen them demonstrate. They barely have control over their party, as is. I'm connected to the political world in my state both personally and professionally, and the concept of Democrats being able to exert this kind of control is actually laughable.
The bottom line is that you're mad that Democrats don't support your candidates, and Democrats are mad you don't support theirs. Both attitudes are unproductive. In the end, if either progressives or Democrats wants to pick up votes, they're going to need to actually persuade voters to show up and vote consistently, and not just in federal elections. This will include voters you don't necessarily like or fully agree with. You know who ran candidates in and voted for every single school board race? The damn Tea Party.
I quite agree with what you're talking about with local elections.
But you've misinterpreted what I'm mad about. I'm not mad that they don't support progressives. I'm mad that the Democratic Party (the DNC, not your local party chairs) spends more time and effort demonizing and sidelining progressives than learning to work with us. That has effects all the way down to local primary elections where voters who have been fed anti-progressive propaganda are voting against progressive candidates.
What I'm mad about is not the lack of support, I'm mad about the absolutely ridiculous hypocrisy of a party clearly working against progressives at every turn and then blaming us when they don't get their way.
As a side note, I'm also mad that the progressive movement has a lot of real shitty candidates in local elections. Many of them are clearly just absolute weirdos who shouldn't be anywhere near an elected office. But a small movement isn't going to have the reach everywhere. My House rep is progressive, and I get to watch as the person that represents me gets hamstrung by their own party time after time after time. And then the very same Party blames us for Donald Trump. It's absolutely infuriating.
I mean... Have you been on Lemmy long? Progressives LOVE to shit all over Democrats all the time. Like not just here, in real life, etc. Seems the animosity cuts both ways honestly. All to the detriment of both.
Are you with Democrats or not? You act like it's some shadowy cabal. People just go vote in a primary. Progressives don't win. And my main point is- Republicans voted in the primary for their far most right candidate but still voted Republican in the general. They trained the party to move to the right, like a dog.
Progressives either 1) aren't numerous enough to do anything like that or 2) get upset and either never vote in the primary or sit out both the primary and general when their preferred person doesn't make it.
Again, either way theyre irrelevant. This is the uncomfortable truth the op is talking about. Like Bernie and Aoc are popular yes? Holding rallies that get a lot of support? Then where are the rest of progressives?
I am left of the Democrats, and do not feel represented by what they do (regardless of what they say). I vote in Democratic primaries to try to move the party left. I vote D in the general. But you continue to dismiss what I'm saying. You seem to agree that the Republicans trained their party to move to the right but act like it's some crazy idea that the Democrats are doing the same thing? The wrong side is winning within the Democratic Party, and we're all going to lose everything because of it.
I'm not saying they're a shadowy cabal. They're very openly anti-progressive, no shadows necessary. They spend so much of primary time shitting on progressives and then complain when progressives don't want to vote for their neoliberal hacks in the general.
If you're taking the "progressives are irrelevant" position, please make sure to never blame progressives for the losses of the Democrats. Not even nonvoters. If we're not important enough to justify catering to, then we're not important enough to blame. You don't get to eat our cake and shit in it too.
Im only blaming people who either 1) don't exist because they aren't progressive or 2) don't vote.
It's pretty simple. And if youre of the opinion that progressives can't swing the election for the Democrats then youre of the opinion that theyre so insignificant that they couldn't ever tilt the Democratic party anyway.