Dem Post Mortem

[Derec]

Absolutely hilarious! We all continue to be amazed that Americans were so utterly stupid as to elect D.J. Trump. These ACTUAL headlines demonstrate how hopeless even newspaper editors are at the simplest arithmetic. Enjoy.

Speaking of mad 'rithmetic skills, I do not think it gets better than this clip.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Absolutely hilarious! We all continue to be amazed that Americans were so utterly stupid as to elect D.J. Trump. These ACTUAL headlines demonstrate how hopeless even newspaper editors are at the simplest arithmetic. Enjoy.

Speaking of mad 'rithmetic skills, I do not think it gets better than this clip.

That video is from 2020, and the SkyNews host is (allegedly) a journalist himself, and no doubt has made maths errors himself. Definitely other SkyNews personnel have. Also what about the White House press secretary with her "Trump has saved 258 million American lives"?
But yes, what was said in that video was incredibly stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many judicial nominees from Democrats have betrayed progressives

This contains a cacaphony of fallacies and misdirections. "Judicial nominees" from Democrats aren't germane to the betrayal of progressive principles by corporate Democrats.

"Assholes like Pelosi" got ACA passed

Sure... And where's your evidence that it wouldn't be passed with more progressives in seats and committees?

Funny, people that consider themselves progressives and didn't vote for Clinton or Harris helped the Fascist Populists.

And didn't help the people continuing to push Clinton or Harris.

Just quit riding "lesser of two evils". Progressives tried asking for support and got a big fat middle finger.

That happens enough times and yeah, the response is "ok, we let it burn."

You decided to fuck around, and you found out.

Pull your head out of your anus, and support concessions to progressives.

Concessions to progressives already has lead to disaster. Progressives gave The Felon too many points of attack. Doesn't matter that most of the time they were actually doing the right thing, what matters is how people feel about it.

 

[Elixir]

Concessions to progressives already has lead to disaster.

I don't see it as concession, I see it as impatience. Unwillingness to honestly assess the terrain of electorate opinion. It is a collective fault of "the left" to be insufficiently conniving and conspiratorial, and instead promote the intensity of emotion expressed by its most extreme components.

Make me President and I'd set right to it, making a lefty version of Project 2025. It would do the exact opposite of destroying the institutions of a democratic republic; I would spend the whole time erecting defenses against the next trumpy shitbag moron that the American moron public elects. I'd work the media landscape like a Komatsu D575A-3 SD dozer, with an army of federal lawyers working 24/7 in perpetuity to keep it level. I'd statutorily isolate the office of the presidency from many of the agencies currently under its umbrella. CIA, NSA, FBI, Coast Guard, US Marshals etc etc do not ALL have to be under direct control of the same guy commanding the military and setting foreign policy.
CBP ICE and the US Military are more than enough for the job IMO.
ME FOR PRESIDENT!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Concessions to progressives already has lead to disaster.

I don't see it as concession, I see it as impatience. Unwillingness to honestly assess the terrain of electorate opinion. It is a collective fault of "the left" to be insufficiently conniving and conspiratorial, and instead promote the intensity of emotion expressed by its most extreme components.

Pretty much the same thing from a different vantage point.

The progressives pushed through enough stuff that triggered backlash from the conservatives.

And the obsession with disparate results being "proof" of discrimination--they keep denying it but then go right back to citing disparate results as proof discrimination. A lot of people are tired of that.

 

[Elixir]

And the obsession with disparate results being "proof" of discrimination

Proof it is not, in isolation. But amid the big picture, disparate results feature prominently among supporting items of evidence of discrimination.
That it is not "proof" per se, does not logically lead to the contrary conclusion that there is no such thing as discrimination.
Big pictures are not easy to present though, especially to a people addicted to the dualistic simplicity of "bad guys cause all pain to us good guys".

 

[Derec]

That video is from 2020,

So? The teen pregnancy headline from the Don McMillan video Swami posted is from 1999.

and the SkyNews host is (allegedly) a journalist himself, and no doubt has made maths errors himself.

Hopefully none nearly this glaring.
And I tried to find a clean MSNBC clip, without commentary, but there isn't one on YouTube. Maybe MSNBC removed any that were posted.

 

[Derec]

Summer Lee et al really learned no lessons from the 2024 debacle.

Rep. Summer Lee, Colleagues, Advocates Reintroduce Reparations Now Resolution

Today, Congresswoman Summer L. Lee (PA-12) led her colleagues in reintroducing the Reparations Now Resolution to call on the federal government to provide reparations to the descendants of enslaved Black families. The resolution seeks to advance federal reparations, support existing reparatory justice efforts such as H.R. 40, and provide further momentum to reparations efforts at the state and local levels.

That would not have much chance of passing even if Dems had a majority in the House. Not to mention that it is difficult to implement, as Gov. Goodhair and California legislature found out.

“Today we say what too many are too afraid to say: Reparations Now. For over 400 years, this country has profited off the stolen labor, stolen land, and stolen lives of Black people, and every day that we fail to repair the harm, we compound it. Until there is repair, there will be no justice, and where there is no justice, we will continue to fight. Many thanks to Congresswoman Summer Lee for her leadership and to this movement. Without you all, this would not move forward,” said former Rep. Bush.

Cori Bush really is like a bad penny.
She also needs a history lesson. It has only been 249 years since the Declaration of Independence, so I have no idea what she is on about with this "400 years" nonsense. 400 years before 1865 (when slavery in the US ended) was 1465, which was decades before Christopher Columbus rediscovered America.
She really is a dim bulb.

The Reparations Now Resolution is co-sponsored by Representatives Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Valerie P. Foushee (NC-04), Al Green (TX-09), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Henry “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Shri Thaneder (MI-13), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), and Nikema Williams (GA-05).

Disappointed to find my own congresscritter on this list. He is also the one with the brilliant "Guam may capsize" observation from years ago.
Notably, OG Squad members are all there, with the glaring exception of their sergeant AOC.
I think that means that she is seriously thinking about running for Chuck Schumer's Senate seat, and thus has to appear halfway normal.

“The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N’COBRA) is honored to stand with you during the historic introduction of this resolution, providing reparations to descendants of enslaved Africans and people of African descent,” said Kenniss Henry, National Co-Chair of N’COBRA.

Cobra?

Interestingly, this COBRA commander wants reparations for "people of African descent" who have not been enslaved in the US.
First of all, we are all of African descent if you go back far enough, but even if it is limited to recent African descent, Obama gets reparations even though he is descendent from slave-owners on his mother's side? Does Elon Musk or North African Berbers living in the US get reparations? Or is it just for black Africans? The whole idea gets stupid and race-essentialist the more one thinks about it.

“If I steal from you every day for 400 years, and one day announce that I will stop stealing (or steal less), my debt is not repaid. That theft of wealth, land, safety, and opportunity persists to this day, and it is time for people of privilege, like me, to meaningfully repay our debt,” said Robin A. Lloyd, Founder of Reparations Pledge.

Again with the "400 years" nonsense. Are they all cribbing from the same flawed source?

Maybe Brian Williams and Mara Gay?

Needless to say, this is not how Dems win in 2026 or in 2028.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the obsession with disparate results being "proof" of discrimination

Proof it is not, in isolation. But amid the big picture, disparate results feature prominently among supporting items of evidence of discrimination.
That it is not "proof" per se, does not logically lead to the contrary conclusion that there is no such thing as discrimination.
Big pictures are not easy to present though, especially to a people addicted to the dualistic simplicity of "bad guys cause all pain to us good guys".

The problem is the huge amount of very low quality evidence that fails to consider whether it's really seeing socioeconomic differences. If the pattern is real why do we keep seeing "evidence" that doesn't attempt to separate race from socioeconomic status? A plethora of low grade evidence is usually the hallmark of something false.

 

[Elixir]

The problem is the huge amount of very low quality evidence that fails to consider whether it's really seeing socioeconomic differences.

There are enough correlations to allow a margin for that.

If the pattern is real why do we keep seeing "evidence" that doesn't attempt to separate race from socioeconomic status?

In other words your question is "does blackness cause poverty that causes discrimination, or "does discrimination cause poverty which causes blackness?
Ridiculous. You might ask though,
"Does discrimination effect all poor people equally, and does money exempt all people equally from discrimination?"
ASK SOME RICH BLACK PEOPLE.
Coincidentally, I just heard Eugene Daniels on NPR this very morning, providing examples of shit that still happens to him and has been happening to him with regular frequency throughout his life.

If the pattern is real why do we keep seeing "evidence" that doesn't attempt to separate race from socioeconomic status?

Because causality arrows flow in six directions between three different factors, and it is not necessary to separate them; mitigating any combination of blackness, poverty and discrimination would tend toward the desired (by 'libs') effects. The BIG PROBLEM is that the Republicans' solution is get rid of "black people" (a stand in for "Poor Others"), while the lifestyle they covet absolutely REQUIRES that somewhere several or several hundred, or several hundred thousand "black people" who are living on subsistence wages or slavery, providing the necessities of the New Global Olympic Sport: Dynastic Kleptocracy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And the obsession with disparate results being "proof" of discrimination

Proof it is not, in isolation. But amid the big picture, disparate results feature prominently among supporting items of evidence of discrimination.
That it is not "proof" per se, does not logically lead to the contrary conclusion that there is no such thing as discrimination.
Big pictures are not easy to present though, especially to a people addicted to the dualistic simplicity of "bad guys cause all pain to us good guys".

The problem is the huge amount of very low quality evidence that fails to consider whether it's really seeing socioeconomic differences. If the pattern is real why do we keep seeing "evidence" that doesn't attempt to separate race from socioeconomic status? A plethora of low grade evidence is usually the hallmark of something false.

FFS Loren. This has been a slow burn issue for over a century now. In the 1940s and 1950s, blacks did not benefit within a magnitude of the GI Bill either. The blacks didn't benefit from the FHA either. So while white families were able to afford homes whose values would increase substantially, blacks weren't allowed to enter these areas until it was too late. Generational wealth was lost, and this was after the wealth that was stolen in the late 19th / early 20th centuries and the retraction of public services that became private once courts didn't allow prohibition of certain public amenities, in the 1920s. And banks dumped a lot of money into the suburbs from the 50s to 80s. Urban areas were allowed to degrade and decay.

It is interesting that you acknowledge that carbon release into the atmosphere between 1900 and 1970 has had an impact on the climate today, but when it comes to economics, you keep trying to find excuses as to why repeated historical attempts to withhold access to opportunity to blacks in America has no impact on the economic standing of blacks today.

 

[Jarhyn]

Say what you will, but look at what JUST happened: the walking corpse that Pelosi seated over AOC just crossed the road to the other side and is now a not-walking corpse.

We've been down this road before.

People wanted change and they voted for the person who promised it.

It was fucking stupid, but the Democrats WON and elected the first black person ever on that platform and saw very little actual change. We saw a Republican plan instituted, which the Republicans all voted against because a Democrat actually brought it to the table.

Literally the biggest thing that the Democrats can put under their belt was an own-goal and they still lost political capital over having done it.

The Democratic leadership put a corpse in a seat rather than the most popular Democrat in the country.

Post mortem that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Say what you will, but look at what JUST happened: the walking corpse that Pelosi seated over AOC just crossed the road to the other side and is now a not-walking corpse.

Dude, Ocasio-Cortez is playing the long game here. She gets the game of politics.

People wanted change and they voted for the person who promised it.

It was fucking stupid, but the Democrats WON and elected the first black person ever on that platform and saw very little actual change.

The change that was voted for in 2008 was Government Competence after the 8 year shit show that was the W Admin. Obama would ultimately be handcuffed by the worst economic disaster on the planet in 80 years (and the GOP). but still managed to get the ACA through... at great cost to the party and ultimately the nation in 2010 and the consequences that followed. You want to complain about ACA, talk to Sen. Nelson and Lieberman (not Obama).

 

[bilby]

Obama would ultimately be handcuffed by the worst economic disaster on the planet in 80 years (and the GOP).

FTFY

 

[Harry Bosch]

Say what you will, but look at what JUST happened: the walking corpse that Pelosi seated over AOC just crossed the road to the other side and is now a not-walking corpse.

We've been down this road before.

People wanted change and they voted for the person who promised it.

It was fucking stupid, but the Democrats WON and elected the first black person ever on that platform and saw very little actual change. We saw a Republican plan instituted, which the Republicans all voted against because a Democrat actually brought it to the table.

Literally the biggest thing that the Democrats can put under their belt was an own-goal and they still lost political capital over having done it.

The Democratic leadership put a corpse in a seat rather than the most popular Democrat in the country.

Post mortem that.

Negative. Bernie didn’t even run in 2008. If he had, he would have lost by a greater margin than by how much he lost to against HRC and Biden. In 2016, Obama Care reduced the uninsured rate by 53 percent. It protected 129 million people from being denied due to pre-existing conditions. Tell me another democratic bill that helped as many people as this one in the past 50 years.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bernie didn’t even run in 2008

Why are you bringing up Bernie? How are you so blind to the behavioral trend there?

"Promise change, get elected; prove stagnancy, lose election".

It's not exactly rocket science.

Hillary was exactly that, stagnancy, pelosi-style, and if you praise that geriatric mummy for "getting funding" you're praising that again for exactly what makes Trump enticing: that he can get money coming their way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Democrat primaries pump out moderate Democrats. They generally have since 1984. Gore beat Bradley, Obama beat... well... it was moderate verses conservative moderate, Clinton beat Sanders, Biden won. The Democrats shifted right to remain competitive overall. The people that don't vote aren't coming out to vote for very liberal candidates. In a first to the post system, this is what happens. Reagan and his very popular anti-tax policies did a number on this country and despite Trump and W leaving the US in terrible economic conditions, the GOP is still trusted on economics.

You don't have to like it, it is what it is.

 

[Jarhyn]

Democrat primaries pump out moderate Democrats. They generally have since 1984

The problem is that Democrat primaries, while they tend to produce "moderates", milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings, they fail to look at the serious numbers of voters who didn't vote for them and think "whelp, I guess I can ignore the clear demand for progress" and actually count on the people who they ignore.

The problem here is that you cannot, MUST not forever ignore progressives. Give them seats at the table and committees and govern in good faith and chances to show their mettle, or lose elections and we all suffer.

At some point, in certain dilemmas, the solution for everyone, the quest that we put forward for the righteous and honorable, is that when there is food, zero sum, and someone chooses violence over lottery, the food is to be spoiled.

Then, have it made clear by one (but not all) of the conspirators to the right thing, that this is what will happen if people do not play nice: the violence will be done and everyone will still die.

"Do not deal in bad faith, excluding wantonly people's ability to participate when you need their support".

When some significant portion of the electorate wants a candidate enough that them running independently guarantees a clear loss for their cause, and then running in the primary means they will lose but maybe not challenge the outcome of the final election, you let them have as big a swing as people might want, and then when they lose, you clap them on the back and say "well, your platform got 30% of the party support, so your platform should underpin 30% of our agenda", and do that.

Not doing that makes you seem like a fucking heel. It made Hillary seem like a fucking heel. So what if Trump is also a heel! The people voting in this, the wrestling fans and the incels and whatnot, those folks, when they see two heels, they root for the bigger bastard.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Democrat primaries pump out moderate Democrats. They generally have since 1984

The problem is that Democrat primaries, while they tend to produce "moderates", milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings, they fail to look at the serious numbers of voters who didn't vote for them and think "whelp, I guess I can ignore the clear demand for progress" and actually count on the people who they ignore.

The problem here is that you cannot, MUST not forever ignore progressives. Give them seats at the table and committees and govern in good faith and chances to show their mettle, or lose elections and we all suffer.

At some point, in certain dilemmas, the solution for everyone, the quest that we put forward for the righteous and honorable, is that when there is food, zero sum, and someone chooses violence over lottery, the food is to be spoiled.

Then, have it made clear by one (but not all) of the conspirators to the right thing, that this is what will happen if people do not play nice: the violence will be done and everyone will still die.

"Do not deal in bad faith, excluding wantonly people's ability to participate when you need their support".

When some significant portion of the electorate wants a candidate enough that them running independently guarantees a clear loss for their cause, and then running in the primary means they will lose but maybe not challenge the outcome of the final election, you let them have as big a swing as people might want, and then when they lose, you clap them on the back and say "well, your platform got 30% of the party support, so your platform should underpin 30% of our agenda", and do that.

Not doing that makes you seem like a fucking heel. It made Hillary seem like a fucking heel. So what if Trump is also a heel! The people voting in this, the wrestling fans and the incels and whatnot, those folks, when they see two heels, they root for the bigger bastard.

What would you like the dems to do specifically? I’m sorry that all progressives don’t vote. How do we address that? Should we award two votes for every person who votes for a progressive? Make every vote for a moderate only count as 1/3 of a vote? I don’t think that republicans would agree to this plan in the general election though.

 

[Jarhyn]

Democrat primaries pump out moderate Democrats. They generally have since 1984

The problem is that Democrat primaries, while they tend to produce "moderates", milquetoast rolling-over do-nothings, they fail to look at the serious numbers of voters who didn't vote for them and think "whelp, I guess I can ignore the clear demand for progress" and actually count on the people who they ignore.

The problem here is that you cannot, MUST not forever ignore progressives. Give them seats at the table and committees and govern in good faith and chances to show their mettle, or lose elections and we all suffer.

At some point, in certain dilemmas, the solution for everyone, the quest that we put forward for the righteous and honorable, is that when there is food, zero sum, and someone chooses violence over lottery, the food is to be spoiled.

Then, have it made clear by one (but not all) of the conspirators to the right thing, that this is what will happen if people do not play nice: the violence will be done and everyone will still die.

"Do not deal in bad faith, excluding wantonly people's ability to participate when you need their support".

When some significant portion of the electorate wants a candidate enough that them running independently guarantees a clear loss for their cause, and then running in the primary means they will lose but maybe not challenge the outcome of the final election, you let them have as big a swing as people might want, and then when they lose, you clap them on the back and say "well, your platform got 30% of the party support, so your platform should underpin 30% of our agenda", and do that.

Not doing that makes you seem like a fucking heel. It made Hillary seem like a fucking heel. So what if Trump is also a heel! The people voting in this, the wrestling fans and the incels and whatnot, those folks, when they see two heels, they root for the bigger bastard.

What would you like the dems to do specifically? I’m sorry that all progressives don’t vote. How do we address that? Should we award two votes for every person who votes for a progressive? Make every vote for a moderate only count as 1/3 of a vote? I don’t think that republicans would agree to this plan in the general election though.

I have already stated it in the post that I made what they should not be doing.

They should not be seating corpses to committees. Seat AOC already.

When progressives get elected, and primary dem officials, see that some of them have a real voice in the room.

You are absolutely fucking gaslighting at this point when I say "offer political capital" not "give up the seat", and you're saying this like I mean to change the rules to make progressives win elections when they wouldn't; that's not the fucking point, although Ranked Choice Voting would help there.

There are a LOT of policies for progressives, including actually clapping back at these mother fuckers with actual truths like that the GOP is killing live women, and that they are destroying and dramatizing women's sports over 100 athletes who, frankly, on average suck.

Dems need to actually promote the fact that progressives have a place in the party, even if it's a minority role, and they have never fucking done even that pittance and you wonder why youngsters actually believe the lie that the parties are the same?!?

It's no wonder with a generation of geriatrics spoonfed on the fucking New York Times.

"Democrat caught doing a bad"

"Congress/man does a good" (Democrat)

"Congress/man does a bad" (Republican)

"Republican/s do/es a good"

...And they do progressives extra special dirty.