What happens to the Democratic Party now? (58 Viewers)

[Heathen]

I’m sure much of us are having 2016 flashbacks this morning with a sick feeling to our stomachs..

2 of the last 3 elections Democrats have lost to a far right demagogue

Harris didn’t get close in many states to even Biden’s performance. We could very well lose the Presidency, Senate AND House depending on results the next few days…..

What went wrong?
What could’ve been done better?
What can we change in the future to ensure voters are motivated like they were when Obama was elected?

Democrats have no choice but to admit there’s a huge problem with some aspect of their platform— and to do a deep introspection of what’s going wrong..

 

[CoolBrees]

What I'm curious to know is if a whole buttload of Reps changed sides or did the preexisting majority of Dems actually get up and vote?

With a 31 point swing it’s got to be both

Which is the current administration’s worst nightmare

 

[faceman]

With a 31 point swing it’s got to be both

Which is the current administration’s worst nightmare

Republicans have been rattled since the election in Tenn.'s 7th district. The Republican candidate
won,but it was a 14% drop since the 2024 general election. The Republican candidate is a moderate,and
not a Maga type cultist. It wasn't a candidate problem. Voters just don't like the way the Republican
party operates now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This candidate decided to do the Republican's work for them:

My only critique would be that she should've used a scarier voiceover.

That's Matt Mercer doing the VO. That's a win in my book.

 

[longtime lurker]

Ha, right……

'Lying or Demented': Trump Mocked For Claiming He Was 'Not Involved' With Losing Candidate He Endorsed | Common Dreams

President Trump falsely claims no involvement in Texas special election loss after endorsing losing candidate multiple times. Critics call out his blatant dishonesty.

www.commondreams.org

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Doing some further reading, the Dem won by 14 points no less.

That’s a 31 point swing in a year. That’s worse than the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.

This is why I fear they will not only patrol elections to intimidate but try to stop them altogether.

I don't want violence. I very much hope Republicans make the wise choice of letting us have a valid election, knowing that they will lose, so we can end this peacefully.

But, if they fork with our elections, I'm extremely confident we will fork them up in response and it won't be a close fight at all.

 

[Taurus]

I don't want violence. I very much hope Republicans make the wise choice of letting us have a valid election, knowing that they will lose, so we can end this peacefully.

But, if they fork with our elections, I'm extremely confident we will fork them up in response and it won't be a close fight at all.

But if Dems wait until the election's forked, what'll we do about it? Like, it's a fait accompli at that point.

We're closer to what I thought Putin would do in '16, which is to clearly and obviously rig the election. Because at that point you'll have a large number who like the outcome, fair or not and another big group who're furious. In the meantime, the election gets quickly certified and people we know didn't win are seated and holding the office.

 

[MT15]

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Ha, right……

'Lying or Demented': Trump Mocked For Claiming He Was 'Not Involved' With Losing Candidate He Endorsed | Common Dreams

President Trump falsely claims no involvement in Texas special election loss after endorsing losing candidate multiple times. Critics call out his blatant dishonesty.

www.commondreams.org

I'll go with the "both" option.

 

[Dragon]

This very much. The US is mostly sleepwalking into fascism. Yes there are some who see the dangers but democracies don’t collapse because no one saw it coming — they collapse because too many people assumed the levees will hold on their own.

 

[Booker]

This very much. The US is mostly sleepwalking into fascism. Yes there are some who see the dangers but democracies don’t collapse because no one saw it coming — they collapse because too many people assumed the levees will hold on their own.

"How did your country go fascist? "

"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly."

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

But if Dems wait until the election's forked, what'll we do about it? Like, it's a fait accompli at that point.

We are peacefully resisting and fight back and elections are how to get a peaceful victory. If they take that peaceful victory away from us, we won't stop resisting and fighting. We'll go the violent route instead and they will not beat us in a violent fight. They lose either way. More of them and us will survive the peaceful route, so I hope that's how it goes.

We're closer to what I thought Putin would do in '16, which is to clearly and obviously rig the election. Because at that point you'll have a large number who like the outcome, fair or not and another big group who're furious. In the meantime, the election gets quickly certified and people we know didn't win are seated and holding the office.

The Russian culture has centuries of obedience to one authorization group or another. American was born out of telling authoritarians to fork off and then waging war against them if they don't fork off. The vast majority of Americans will not react to an obviously rigged election the same way the majority of the Russian people did to Putin rigging the election.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

This very much. The US is mostly sleepwalking into fascism.

If that were true, then then there wouldn't be the level of protests across the country that we are seeing. There wouldn't be veterans and active military reminding every soldier their oath is to defend the Constitution and the people.

I don't see how in anyway we are sleepwalking into fascism. The vast majority of Americans seem very awake and very opposed to the fascism that is trying to conquer us.

Yes there are some who see the dangers but democracies don’t collapse because no one saw it coming — they collapse because too many people assumed the levees will hold on their own.

Who is assuming the levees will hold on their own and how are they assuming that? What do you think needs to be done to reinforce the levees that isn't being done?

 

[Dragon]

If that were true, then then there wouldn't be the level of protests across the country that we are seeing. There wouldn't be veterans and active military reminding every soldier their oath is to defend the Constitution and the people.

I don't see how in anyway we are sleepwalking into fascism. The vast majority of Americans seem very awake and very opposed to the fascism that is trying to conquer us.


Who is assuming the levees will hold on their own and how are they assuming that? What do you think needs to be done to reinforce the levees that isn't being done?

What is failing right now is not public resistance—it is leadership.

In every historical case of democratic collapse, the decisive factor was not the absence of protests, but the silence and compliance of those who could have stopped it early. Weimar Germany did not fall because there was no opposition; it fell because political elites continued to behave as if normal rules still applied while extremists openly worked to dismantle them.

That same pattern is visible when legislators vote for measures they know are authoritarian “because the country can’t shut down,” when opposition leaders prioritize procedural norms over democratic survival, and when institutions mistake restraint for responsibility.

Universities abolishing minority programs instead of suing—despite the fact that those who sued won—are repeating a familiar error. So are corporations, law firms, and political actors treating this as temporary turbulence rather than a structural threat.

Authoritarian movements rely on this exact miscalculation: that things will stabilize on their own, that cooperation buys safety, that business can continue as usual. History is unambiguous. It never does.

Democracies don’t collapse when everyone gives up. They collapse when those with power delay action until resistance becomes symbolic and risk-free choices no longer exist.

 

[brandon]

I only wish someone had told us sooner!

*cough*

 

[Optimus Prime]

Recent exercises in taking stock after one year of Trump 2.0 – for many an eternity of terrifying news and political traumas – tended to leave something out: the fact that, a mere 12 months ago, plenty of pundits (and politicians, for that matter) were instructing us to accept that a global “vibe shift” in favor of the right had taken place. And that, in the face of what supposedly “felt” like a landslide, resistance was pointless and “cringe”.

Well, it doesn’t feel like that today. But understanding why observers not generally in the pro-Trump propaganda business rushed to portray the spirit of the age as effectively far-right is important.

A way of thinking occasionally dubbed “reactionary centrism” plays an important role; it could yet again become influential in hindering or at least holding up post-Trump radical reforms which US democracy desperately requires.

Consultant and political communications specialist Aaron Huertas coined the expression “reactionary centrism” in 2018.

The basic idea is that self-declared moderates claim equally to oppose extremes on the right and on the left – but hard-hitting criticism is reserved almost exclusively for the left (partly, perhaps, because the presumed audience is expected to already know how bad things are on the right).

This perceptive observation was inadvertently vindicated in thousands of columns that contributed to a moral panic about “wokeness” and “identity politics”.

It convinced readers that, sure, Trump was horrible, but what was happening “on campus” (translation: anecdotes from one or two elite places, endlessly recycled) was also putting US democracy in peril.

The point is not that what progressives do must never be criticized; the point is that the relentless drive to find fault with both sides equally results in a sense of (false) equivalence among those taking cues from supposedly trustworthy centrists.

This dynamic may well have not made a difference in the election outcome in 2024. But it certainly made it easier to see that election outcome as confirmation of the reactionary centrist diagnosis of everything supposedly wrong with Democrats.

Trump’s victory had to be understood as a legitimate “backlash” against “overreach” by the left – a story about what caused what that observers outside the US keep repeating as it helps push their own anti-left agendas.

Nevermind that Kamala Harris did not take any baits from Trump to emphasize her own “identity”; nevermind that she ran on socioeconomic promises (however tepid) and warnings about what Trump would do to democracy and the rule of law (as we now know, the most dire warning turned out to underestimate the regime).……..

Even worse, this narcissism keeps shoring up the right’s claim that there is a “real America” and that only they speak for it.

As any viewer of Sunday morning shows has noticed, Republicans can malign city dwellers without anyone batting an eyelid; Obama saying something about guns and religion in rural areas triggers a multiyear scandal.

It would not even occur to anyone to demand an apology from GOP members for insulting all urban dwellers.

The asymmetry is taken for granted; liberals just accept it.

This is what victory in a culture war looks like:

Democrats accept the cultural framings enforced by the other side, even though polls would suggest that the liberals’ positions are often more popular (or, dare one say, reflect more about “real America” than the far-right fantasies pushed by Fox and its far-right friends).……

Beware of ‘anti-woke’ liberals: they attacked the left and helped Trump win | Jan-Werner Müller

So-called ‘reactionary centrist’ pundits proclaimed that there was a global ‘vibe shift’ in favor of the right. They were wrong

www.theguardian.com

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

What is failing right now is not public resistance—it is leadership.

I disagree. The leadership may not look like how you expect or want it to look, but there is a lot of leadership.

In every historical case of democratic collapse, the decisive factor was not the absence of protests, but the silence and compliance of those who could have stopped it early.

That's not entirely accurate. The populace is the main driver of whether or not a democracy falls, not leaders. There were many leaders in Germany who spoke out against the Nazi's they were either imprisoned or murdered. In Germany, the majority of the German population either supported or submitted to the Nazi's. The Gestapo and SA were only successful, because too many German's helped them by informing on friends and neighbors.

The reason the German population did that, was because they were severely economically punished for WWI. That gave the German people an "us" against the world mentality that the Nazi's exploited. The sentiment for the majority of Americans right now is it's "us" against the fascist Republicans and Trump. The only similarity between the Germans and US is that our fascists are stupidly copying the outdated Nazi playbook. Other than that, the situation here and the situation that lead to Nazi Germany are very different. One of the biggest differences being modern technology that makes it impossible for the Republicans and Trump to suppress the truth.

Weimar Germany did not fall because there was no opposition; it fell because political elites continued to behave as if normal rules still applied while extremists openly worked to dismantle them.

Germany fell to the Nazi's primarily because the majority of the citizens supported and enabled it. Citizens ratted out their friends and family who were planning protests. That's not happening here.

That same pattern is visible when legislators vote for measures they know are authoritarian “because the country can’t shut down,” when opposition leaders prioritize procedural norms over democratic survival, and when institutions mistake restraint for responsibility.

I think that's and over generalization and simplification of a very complex dynamic. It seems like you are basing failure of leadership on outcomes. It seems you are ignoring of the leaders in Congress who stood their ground, but were out voted. They lead and lost that battle. It happens. Leadership does not guarantee getting the desired outcome.

Universities abolishing minority programs instead of suing—despite the fact that those who sued won—are repeating a familiar error. So are corporations, law firms, and political actors treating this as temporary turbulence rather than a structural threat.

It seems to me that you see it as all or nothing. Many universities have not complied and are suing. Some submitted, but others did not. So again, their is leadership taking place at the university level, just not at every university. No one wins every battle. It just doesn't happen. We are not winning every battle, but we are currently winning the war. It's easy to overlook that because of the literal causalities we are suffering, but you can't win a fight, battle or war without causalities.

Authoritarian movements rely on this exact miscalculation: that things will stabilize on their own, that cooperation buys safety, that business can continue as usual. History is unambiguous. It never does.

Authoritarian movements rely on the majority of the population either helping them or submitting to them. If they don't have that, they can't seize and hold power for very long. The Nazi's are an example of that. They invaded Poland in 1939, by 1943 their defeat was inevitable. They were defeated, because they tried to conquer people who fought them tooth and nail instead of supporting or submitting to them.

Most of the French ruling class submitted, but the French people fought and were instrumental in the defeat of the Nazi's.

Democracies don’t collapse when everyone gives up. They collapse when those with power...

In a democracy, the people have the power. Democracies collapse when the people give their power to leaders. Fascism can not rise in a democratc soceity unless the people collectively give their power and responsibility to a handful of leaders.

...delay action until resistance becomes symbolic and risk-free choices no longer exist.

Right now, we can resist and fight peacefully the best we can withing the rules we are trying to protect or we can ignore the rules and go full violence. Authorian movements try to force people to do react violentnly and outside the law, because it helps them gain power.

This is not the first time America has dealt with a fascist movement. The anti-Vietnam protesters who resorted to violence helped Nixon and his fascist movement. Authoritarians have to have someone the people are scared of more than them in order to control people. The majority of Americans right now are more afraid of Republicans and Trump than their fellow citizens. It very much needs to stay that way.

A shut down leads to a lot of people suffering. If people start fearing not having their basic survival needs met, which was the situation in Germany that the Nazi's used to rise to power, then they start focusing on that instead of resisting the fascist movement of the Republicans and Trump.

 

[SystemShock]

Recent exercises in taking stock after one year of Trump 2.0 – for many an eternity of terrifying news and political traumas – tended to leave something out: the fact that, a mere 12 months ago, plenty of pundits (and politicians, for that matter) were instructing us to accept that a global “vibe shift” in favor of the right had taken place. And that, in the face of what supposedly “felt” like a landslide, resistance was pointless and “cringe”.

Well, it doesn’t feel like that today. But understanding why observers not generally in the pro-Trump propaganda business rushed to portray the spirit of the age as effectively far-right is important.

A way of thinking occasionally dubbed “reactionary centrism” plays an important role; it could yet again become influential in hindering or at least holding up post-Trump radical reforms which US democracy desperately requires.

Consultant and political communications specialist Aaron Huertas coined the expression “reactionary centrism” in 2018.

The basic idea is that self-declared moderates claim equally to oppose extremes on the right and on the left – but hard-hitting criticism is reserved almost exclusively for the left (partly, perhaps, because the presumed audience is expected to already know how bad things are on the right).

This perceptive observation was inadvertently vindicated in thousands of columns that contributed to a moral panic about “wokeness” and “identity politics”.

It convinced readers that, sure, Trump was horrible, but what was happening “on campus” (translation: anecdotes from one or two elite places, endlessly recycled) was also putting US democracy in peril.

The point is not that what progressives do must never be criticized; the point is that the relentless drive to find fault with both sides equally results in a sense of (false) equivalence among those taking cues from supposedly trustworthy centrists.

This dynamic may well have not made a difference in the election outcome in 2024. But it certainly made it easier to see that election outcome as confirmation of the reactionary centrist diagnosis of everything supposedly wrong with Democrats.

Trump’s victory had to be understood as a legitimate “backlash” against “overreach” by the left – a story about what caused what that observers outside the US keep repeating as it helps push their own anti-left agendas.

Nevermind that Kamala Harris did not take any baits from Trump to emphasize her own “identity”; nevermind that she ran on socioeconomic promises (however tepid) and warnings about what Trump would do to democracy and the rule of law (as we now know, the most dire warning turned out to underestimate the regime).……..

Even worse, this narcissism keeps shoring up the right’s claim that there is a “real America” and that only they speak for it.

As any viewer of Sunday morning shows has noticed, Republicans can malign city dwellers without anyone batting an eyelid; Obama saying something about guns and religion in rural areas triggers a multiyear scandal.

It would not even occur to anyone to demand an apology from GOP members for insulting all urban dwellers.

The asymmetry is taken for granted; liberals just accept it.

This is what victory in a culture war looks like:

Democrats accept the cultural framings enforced by the other side, even though polls would suggest that the liberals’ positions are often more popular (or, dare one say, reflect more about “real America” than the far-right fantasies pushed by Fox and its far-right friends).……

Beware of ‘anti-woke’ liberals: they attacked the left and helped Trump win | Jan-Werner Müller

So-called ‘reactionary centrist’ pundits proclaimed that there was a global ‘vibe shift’ in favor of the right. They were wrong

www.theguardian.com

"Anti-woke" liberals... as opposed to the woke liberals who voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote in protest for Gaza and/or whatever other purity tests they had.

 

[Dragon]

I agree that popular participation matters — but modern democracies don’t fail primarily because “the people” suddenly surrender their power. They fail because power in a representative system is delegated, and those entrusted with it choose accommodation over confrontation. You don’t have 200+ million legislators, judges, generals, or university presidents. When elected officials fund or normalize authoritarian policies, when courts hesitate, and when institutions comply preemptively, that is democratic failure in action — not merely a reflection of public opinion.

Weimar Germany didn’t collapse because Hitler won over a majority. He never did. It collapsed because conservative elites, civil servants, judges, and industrial leaders believed they could contain him or wait him out. That miscalculation converted extremism into state power. Mass participation followed institutional capture — not the other way around.

Pointing to protests or isolated acts of resistance doesn’t negate this pattern. Every failed democracy had protests. What it lacked was sustained, unified institutional refusal while lawful resistance still worked. The same applies today. That some universities and law firms sued and won proves compliance was not inevitable — it was a choice. History shows authoritarian movements consolidate fastest where powerful actors submit early to avoid short-term disruption.

This isn’t about advocating violence or ignoring the law. It’s about timing. Democracies don’t collapse in one moment; they erode through a series of “reasonable” decisions made in the name of stability, continuity, or avoiding discomfort.

Democracies don’t fall because everyone gives up.
They fall because those with power keep acting as if the old rules will save them — long after they’ve stopped doing so.