A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

Let's talk about something everybody can agree on.

• Let's accept that both parties in the US have a continued interest in a two-party system, not a one-party or totalitarian one. That being so, both sides certainly should want the rival party to survive -- even if they, themselves, would wish to be the winner of every election from now until eternity.

• Let's further accept that the world has an interest in America remaining a democracy of at least two parties, and all voters have an interest in it, if for no better reason, than at least because they want to be able to vote, and voting means choosing among alternatives.

Okay: so everybody agrees that a party other than the current winner must survive. Fair enough?

• Furthermore, let us agree that things are not exactly working well for the Democrat Party right now. The last election, by the reckoning of both sides, was a total disaster for them. Somehow, their strategy was just not right -- assuming their goal was to win, which I think we can assume.

• And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices. Complaining about what the others do or did, whether voters or Republicans, is not going to make the Democrat Party any better or give them any advantage in coming elections. The blame-game will not pay off in terms of the future, but is likely to just repeat the past. Some new thing is needed.

All that is very hard to dispute, I think: no matter which party one might happen to favour, or none at all.

That being said, my question would be this: What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

IC, could you please reiterate the following:

And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices.

Thanks!

"Reiterate?" That means, "say again." But you just printed it here...so you reiterated it for me...

Did you mean something else, like "clarify" or "expand on," or something like that?

What I meant is that it's completely pointless for Dem supporters to crab about the Republicans now, because the Democrats can't do one thing to make them change anything. But they can change themselves. They can have a better platform, field better candidates, change their ideological orientation, get rid of whoever is the problem on the Dem side...

We've already had a few useful suggestions given to us, if you look back. Certainly, it's possible that the Democrats could improve themselves, and so both improve their electoral prospects and revitalize the two-party system by providing a better alternative.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let's talk about something everybody can agree on.

• Let's accept that both parties in the US have a continued interest in a two-party system, not a one-party or totalitarian one. That being so, both sides certainly should want the rival party to survive -- even if they, themselves, would wish to be the winner of every election from now until eternity.

• Let's further accept that the world has an interest in America remaining a democracy of at least two parties, and all voters have an interest in it, if for no better reason, than at least because they want to be able to vote, and voting means choosing among alternatives.

Okay: so everybody agrees that a party other than the current winner must survive. Fair enough?

• Furthermore, let us agree that things are not exactly working well for the Democrat Party right now. The last election, by the reckoning of both sides, was a total disaster for them. Somehow, their strategy was just not right -- assuming their goal was to win, which I think we can assume.

• And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices. Complaining about what the others do or did, whether voters or Republicans, is not going to make the Democrat Party any better or give them any advantage in coming elections. The blame-game will not pay off in terms of the future, but is likely to just repeat the past. Some new thing is needed.

All that is very hard to dispute, I think: no matter which party one might happen to favour, or none at all.

That being said, my question would be this: What learnings do the Democrats need to take from this past election, in order to make their party more viable in the future?

IC, could you please reiterate the following:

And finally, let us recognize that the Democrat Party is control only of their own choices.

Thanks!

"Reiterate?" That means, "say again." But you just printed it here...so you reiterated it for me...
I've always taken reiterate to mean: to say something using different terms, because using the same terms is illogical, as it accomplishes nothing. But then leave it to the creators of the English language to create absurd words that have no use of any real consequence. I mean, 'repeat' does the job quite nicely.


Did you mean something else, like "clarify" or "expand on," or something like that?

What I meant is that it's completely pointless for Dem supporters to crab about the Republicans now, because the Democrats can't do one thing to make them change anything. But they can change themselves. They can have a better platform, field better candidates, change their ideological orientation, get rid of whoever is the problem on the Dem side...

We've already had a few useful suggestions given to us, if you look back. Certainly, it's possible that the Democrats could improve themselves, and so both improve their electoral prospects and revitalize the two-party system by providing a better alternative.
I don't think it's incumbent on the democrats to change anything, except for the word games. Obviously it's the republicans that's gone bat shit crazy. The good thing though is that it's exposed about 50 percent of the voters as criminals just like their president. Which speaks volumes about the current state of affairs. People don't care why their buying power has decreased or how it's increased, just that it is. And if it's done criminally so be it. It's a sad state of affairs when people vote out of pure selfishness/ignorance. It's a state of de-evolving rather than evolving.

And if it continues, it will certainly serve up World War Three, (the end via mutually assured destruction.) The last thing 'all our' safeties need is nationalism, as it's a means to an end, at this stage of our overwhelming technological abilities, surely.

Could you please explain why you used the words you did? Because to be quite frank, together, such that they are, doesn't seem to make any sense. I didn't expect several paragraphs, I thought you might have made a typo.

When we become the thing we fear, we're insane! A lawless freak, certainly is.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it's incumbent on the democrats to change anything, except for the word games.

You think that the only thing they got wrong is that they used word games? Can you explain what you mean?

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest, because none of it had to do with the Democrat Party. Let me reiterate, if I may: the sensible realization, for anybody who finds themselves in a situation he finds undersirable, is to change himself. He cannot change other people. Other people will do whatever it is they want to do. But he can change things about himself...how he proceeds, how he reacts, what he says, and so on.

That's just basic common sense. It's a life lesson we all do well to remember. When you don't like what's happening to you, change the only thing you can -- yourself.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I don't think it's incumbent on the democrats to change anything, except for the word games.

You think that the only thing they got wrong is that they used word games? Can you explain what you mean?
The Democrats are pushing the political correctness agenda and have expanded it to include calling transgender wannabes either they or them, both words are plural and really hard for older people to remember in a fast paced working environment, (Starbucks). Anyway my wife got fired from her job because she referred to a person with breasts as a "her." She/he/it wanted to be referred to as a they or them. It wasn't done maliciously, it was just an older woman doing as she always had. The really bad part about it is that my wife was psychologically abused for a much longer time than the she/he/it was because this 'they/them' was only 19 years old. My wife was 57 at the time and had endured malicious slander since she was blinded in her left eye at 4 years old. They chose one of two people to defend and it wasn't the one with the physical handicap, that had been called cross-eyed, four eyes, pop-eye and was actually fired because her 'coke snorting', boss screwing', supervisor thought she wasn't looking at her, because she was looking at her blind eye, she was probably coked up at the time. So this word crap, is just that, a bunch of crap. In my early days people just blew off such mistakes.

Actually I believe the transgendered males that become 'sort of a female' shouldn't be allowed to play in women's sports either.

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest, because none of it had to do with the Democrat Party. Let me reiterate, if I may: the sensible realization, for anybody who finds themselves in a situation he finds undersirable, is to change himself. He cannot change other people. Other people will do whatever it is they want to do. But he can change things about himself...how he proceeds, how he reacts, what he says, and so on.
I don't believe that people can't be changed, it just gets harder the more they're set in their ways, (older). And I certainly don't believe anyone should abandon their principles if they're those with which all others must be compared because they are a more inclusive set of moral standards. Unfortunately today there's quite a bit of social regression. Which I believe has been caused by worse educational standards and unmoderated social media.

That's just basic common sense. It's a life lesson we all do well to remember. When you don't like what's happening to you, change the only thing you can -- yourself.

What you're saying is that you'd rather be a clone, a parrot of someone else, instead of yourself.
And you're contradicting yourself, by saying you can't change others, but others can change you, which means others can be changed.

[LuckyR]

Alas, the process of successfully getting elected to significantly powerful political positions is so onerous and disheartening that it essentially weeds out the candidates of integrity who would become the best at those offices.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it's incumbent on the democrats to change anything, except for the word games.

You think that the only thing they got wrong is that they used word games? Can you explain what you mean?

The Democrats are pushing the political correctness agenda...

Okay, agreed.

What should they adopt as their agenda instead?

I don't believe that people can't be changed,...

Neither do I, obviously: or I wouldn't be asking you how they could change.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I meant is that it's completely pointless for Dem supporters to crab about the Republicans now, because the Democrats can't do one thing to make them change anything. But they can change themselves. They can have a better platform, field better candidates, change their ideological orientation, get rid of whoever is the problem on the Dem side...

My view is that you -- maybe deliberately? -- are not taking into consideration that the Democrats (to use a general term) have in no sense given up their struggle. We are only into this a few days. What they have at their disposal is a *will to oppose* all that is occurring. Yes they may be disorganized right now but give their opposition time!

As I see things the Trump Victory may well be, at least when examined from some distance, a false victory or one that in any case cannot stand. For those who opposed The Democrats (I am certainly one) there is a delicious gloating over Trump's victory. But the fact is that it was not really the sweep it was said to be. Things tilted enough in his favor to influence a sufficient number to elect him. But then there are the Mid-Terms (as always happens).

Jordan Peterson has a high estimation of this Team of Avengers (Vance, Musk, Gabbard, Kennedy, Ramaswamy) and points out that they are extraordinarily capable people. That is certainly true. Has there ever occurred a similar thing in American politics? But what happens next, and indeed what can happen -- that is another thing altogether. \

You operate under the prejudice that Dems must change themselves. And that changing themselves is the key to some eventual success. But it is possible that they just need to become better at their opposition and need to strengthen that *ideology*.

[Alexiev]

Perhaps the Democrats should give up on the idea of creating a "better Democratic Party", and try to create a worse one.

It worked for the Republicans.

[Immanuel Can]

What I meant is that it's completely pointless for Dem supporters to crab about the Republicans now, because the Democrats can't do one thing to make them change anything. But they can change themselves. They can have a better platform, field better candidates, change their ideological orientation, get rid of whoever is the problem on the Dem side...

My view is that you -- maybe deliberately? -- are not taking into consideration that the Democrats (to use a general term) have in no sense given up their struggle.

Then I'm sorry, your view is wrong. I haven't asked what the Dems WILL do...only the Dems know that. I've asked what they COULD do, if they were strategic, sensible and so on, to fix their situation.

Anything relevant to that to offer?

[Impenitent]

the democrats are so good they couldn't beat Hitler...

running on the policies of government control (no freedom for you, you can't say that, you can't think that, you can't do that- but smoke some dope and kill your baby) while demeaning their opponents isn't working anymore? maybe the left needs to restore the twitter monopoly on internet speech...

the Whigs died too...

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anything relevant to that to offer?

Always, but different from what you seek.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've asked what they COULD do, if they were strategic, sensible and so on, to fix their situation.

When you say *sensible* what do you mean by that?

[henry quirk]

what they COULD do, if they were strategic, sensible and so on, to fix their situation.

Disband.

[Immanuel Can]

Anything relevant to that to offer?

Always, but different from what you seek.

Then...not relevant to the question in hand.

Thanks for trying...sort of.

[Immanuel Can]

what they COULD do, if they were strategic, sensible and so on, to fix their situation.

Disband.

Okay. But then we end up with a one-party autocracy in the US.