ADVERTISEMENT

National Guard to LA

Progressives are the only thing pubs have in their favor. Dems are their own worst enemy

This is why the "Abundance" effort being pushed by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson is politically interesting.

I certainly wouldn't say that it's an abandonment of progressivism. And neither do they. But I would say that it's a partial break from it....which is why some progressives have reacted negatively to it.

I've been cheering for it -- because I think Democrats adopting that framework would be good for the country. But, given the changes that have gone on with the GOP, it might open up some more avenues for defections the other way.

We're clearly in a realignment. Where it will end up when the dust settles is anybody's guess.
 
By the way, here's something you libertarian minded folks might like to listen to:


An excerpt:

-I taught supply and demand for 30 years. It was the heart and soul of the micro- or price theory classes that I taught. But, I felt differently about supply and demand when I was 25 years old coming out of grad school than when I was 55 years old teaching it for the 30th year.

Supply and demand--and this I think explains why I think people don't--I agree with you, I don't think people--it's really hard to absorb it. It's really hard to use it as a tool.

But the reason is--I have a different interpretation--the reason I think it's hard is that it's not true. Supply and demand--so I don't agree with you about the empirical side. I'll make my rant and then you can react to it. It's a waste of time to estimate supply and demand empirically. I think empirical things matter, of course.

But, the reason people don't believe it is because it's not true. There's no price--there's not one price called P-star. We say, 'Oh yeah, but that's only for a particular quality.' Yeah but, every quality is different. Every house has its unique aspects. And therefore this whole thing is like a--literally is--a mental construct, not something that exists in reality and is not the way actual prices are set. Actual prices are set by landlords and developers and people in construction who put a label on it.

And, the deep insight of economics is that you're not free to put whatever price you want. And, the reason is because there's competition.

And, I'm going to get at that--imperfect or perfect, doesn't matter, something, it's really in between--I'm going to get at that with this weird construct called supply and demand. Which doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a supply curve. There's no such thing as a demand curve. That, you can't find them. They are our way of organizing our thinking about the fact that thousands of people are constantly buying and selling. And, how many are trying to move into an area to buy, versus how many new houses get built because there's a improvement in technology that lowers the cost of making houses--those have different effects.

But, you can't really model. You could: You can have multi-agent interactions and some kind of simulation.

But in general, if you want to have a simple way to organize your thinking about the way prices change in the real world, we're going to use this tool that's really not realistic. It's not true. But it's very useful. It's not true, this perfect competition. Ever. It's a silly, abstract idea. But it helps you think about how competition works in the real world. And, it insulates you for making stupid--sorry--foolish--sorry--inaccurate statements about what happens if holding everything else constant, you built more houses. And then prices would fall. It insulates you from mistakes like, 'Gee, if we keep out foreign goods, I bet the prices of American goods are going to go higher.' And those simple tools are very, very useful.
I hope you don't think I'm libertarian.

Of course simple supply and demand don't always work, because of other factors. Anyone who studies economics knows that these theories are presented in a perfect world, which doesn't exist. But there are economic models that take into account external factors.
 
@Morrison all the lgbqtzx and social shit etc is stupid to pander to. Those voters are baked in anyway. They’ll never vote pub. Focus on workers and the economy and Dems should never lose a national election

Progressives are the only thing pubs have in their favor. Dems are their own worst enemy
I think you're right here. In the next 2-3 election cycles I think focusing too much on the underrepresented/underserved minority stuff will hurt Democrats. Much of what was once championed on that front is now illegal in a lot of states. Hard focusing on more socio economic issues is the play and will end up helping those underrepresented/underserved populations anyway.

If the provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill that gut Medicaid and SNAP are part of what gets passed, Trump will have essentially written the winning script for Democrats in the midterms and in '28.
 
This is why the "Abundance" effort being pushed by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson is politically interesting.

I certainly wouldn't say that it's an abandonment of progressivism. And neither do they. But I would say that it's a partial break from it....which is why some progressives have reacted negatively to it.

I've been cheering for it -- because I think Democrats adopting that framework would be good for the country. But, given the changes that have gone on with the GOP, it might open up some more avenues for defections the other way.

We're clearly in a realignment. Where it will end up when the dust settles is anybody's guess.
That book is on my list of things to read. I generally like Ezra Klein, but am not up to speed on his book, save for clips I've seen from interviews/podcasts.
 
No, his point is that Trump’s policies are a cause of burning vehicles and flying bricks. I reject that. Even if your view that Trump makes everything worse is objectively true, you still can’t get there.
AIRBALL AIRBALL AIRBALL
 
It's not.
Ok gotta disagree with you on that one. While there might not be Michelin restaurants there, lots of good restaurants are available. I just know that even my families from Chicago and NYC loved coming to Bloomington and had favorite restaurants.
 
I think you're right here. In the next 2-3 election cycles I think focusing too much on the underrepresented/underserved minority stuff will hurt Democrats. Much of what was once championed on that front is now illegal in a lot of states. Hard focusing on more socio economic issues is the play and will end up helping those underrepresented/underserved populations anyway.

If the provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill that gut Medicaid and SNAP are part of what gets passed, Trump will have essentially written the winning script for Democrats in the midterms and in '28.
If the Dems ever want to get serious about winning again one of the first things they should do is completely sideline the circus freak shows. Many normies who may not completely love Trump see this crap and are freaked the f*** out. All the crazy people are Dems. It's completely killed the party. End pronouns, riots, wokeism, etc. Then focus on secure borders and common sense economic policies. It's really not hard.


 
What a lying sack of shit this Newscum is.

What a gullible sack of shit you are. . Do you EVER question anything you read? Do you EVER think maybe you should follow more credible sources? Time and again you are proven wrong on here and you still continue to post absolutely laughable content from your batshit crazy sources.
 
If the Dems ever want to get serious about winning again one of the first things they should do is completely sideline the circus freak shows. Many normies who may not completely love Trump see this crap and are freaked the f*** out. All the crazy people are Dems. It's completely killed the party. End pronouns, riots, wokeism, etc. Then focus on secure borders and common sense economic policies. It's really not hard.


Dbm. While I agree the Dems are bending over backwards for the crazies on the left, we on the right have many batshit craziest too.

We need moderates in both parties to start running this country and tell the craziest on their right and left to take a seat.
 
I think Trump’s appeal and Reagan’s were wildly different. Trump appealed to people uninterested in politics and distrustful of government largely because he’d say stupid shit and people liked that he frustrated establishment politicians. Trump has never been a serious legislator and lives to ram a stick in his opposition’s eye. That plays well to the “f*&k yeah” crowd who is uninitiated and uninterested in actual governance.

Whether you agreed with him or not, Reagan didn’t run on empty promises and he respected to decorum and responsibility of the Office of the Presidency and U.S. Government. At the end of the day I believe that in his heart Reagan felt that his job was to serve the American people and make it a better place ( again, not whether you agree with what he did or not is immaterial to my point).

OG, in my view Trump, unlike Reagan, is a new kind of President not bound by tradition.

How this turns out over the next few years will certainly be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StollCpaGoat
If the Dems ever want to get serious about winning again one of the first things they should do is completely sideline the circus freak shows. Many normies who may not completely love Trump see this crap and are freaked the f*** out. All the crazy people are Dems. It's completely killed the party. End pronouns, riots, wokeism, etc. Then focus on secure borders and common sense economic policies. It's really not hard.


I don't think people like that have much to do with any election. They're not running for office and they're certainly not getting any votes. And as I mentioned above, they're not really being catered to now.

And for better or worse, 'wokeism' isn't what any politician in 2025 is running on. As I mentioned, a lot of what was put into play 10 or so years ago is now illegal on the state and federal front in most places. Fighting for - or against - woke policy isn't a current thing right now.

And even Kamala Harris was talking about fixing immigration in her campaign. Democrats having a renewed focus on supporting the middle and lower classes will help them win elections in the upcoming midterms and in the presidential election in '28. Trump has already put his MAGA successor in a hole.
 
Do you have a particular interest in Democrats winning more elections?
No but I would like to see them go back to the Bill Clinton days. That way if they are in power again they don't destroy everything. Two common sense parties would be good for this country. I can't see the Dems ever moderating though. The radical left will never allow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and snarlcakes
OG, in my view Trump, unlike Reagan, is a new kind of President not bound by tradition.

How this turns out over the next few years will certainly be interesting.
We certainly agree that Trump isn't bound by tradition. Right now, I believe he's dug whoever his successor is a huge hole they'll have to dig out of in '28. Maybe some magical turnaround will happen, but right now, he's leading a massive shitshow of a three-ring circus that is causing a lot of buyer's remorse. Cutting Medicaid and SNAP will hurt generations of Americans. A lot of those people are deep red state voters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowlmania
No but I would like to see them go back to the Bill Clinton days. That way if they are in power again they don't destroy everything. Two common sense parties would be good for this country. I can't see the Dems ever moderating though. The radical left will never allow it.
You need to pull away from wherever you're getting information that 'the radical left' is driving the bus. They're not.
 
You need to pull away from wherever you're getting information that 'the radical left' is driving the bus. They're not.
Wait. Haven’t you heard? AOC is the face of the party and the certain nominee in 2028. Book it!
 
No but I would like to see them go back to the Bill Clinton days. That way if they are in power again they don't destroy everything. Two common sense parties would be good for this country. I can't see the Dems ever moderating though. The radical left will never allow it.

One might argue that a major deviation from norms rescued the Republican Party from political extinction.

I hesitate to say that it was a massive lurch to the right -- because I don't associate all of Trump's platform and ideas with the principles I've always considered right-of-center. Some of it, yes. But certainly not all of it.

But it was clearly a major pivot -- in more ways than one. And one of those pivots was an open embrace of "crazies".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
Wait. Haven’t you heard? AOC is the face of the party and the certain nominee in 2028. Book it!
Ha...I have heard that. It's pretty much wishful thinking from the MAGA crowd at this point. My guess is that JD Vance is the presumptive favorite for the MAGA crowd at this point, but who knows. As of this moment, he seems like a relatively easy candidate to beat, but there is still a lot of runway between now and November '28.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bowlmania
You need to pull away from wherever you're getting information that 'the radical left' is driving the bus. They're not.
I believe they are. And I think it’s clear. Based on policy the last four years and who is the voice of the party. I don’t know how anyone could remotely believe otherwise
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
No doubt MAGA has control of the Republican Party now, but the MAGA candidates get whooped in most every high profile election other than Trump. So that sets up a scenario in the next presidential election of a MAGA Trump wannabe winning the nomination, but getting smoked in the general.

Trump is a unique character and his appeal wont transfer to other individuals. The electorate will just consider the MAGA candidate as a cruel imposter, without Trump’s personality like they have a history of doing with MAGA Senate candidates.

* Edit to add: If Trump were to arrest Newsom as he threatened to do, he would probably be crowning Gavin as the next President.
I'll take the other side of your premise. Democrats don't have policies that favor the middle class. Last month wages were up 10% (annualized rate) and inflation was 1%. It obviously won't continue at those rates, but if the economy and wages stay strong Vance will be the next President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and dbmhoosier
Ha...I have heard that. It's pretty much wishful thinking from the MAGA crowd at this point. My guess is that JD Vance is the presumptive favorite for the MAGA crowd at this point, but who knows. As of this moment, he seems like a relatively easy candidate to beat, but there is still a lot of runway between now and November '28.
Maga crowd isn’t driving it. That’s wishful thinking from Dems. Dems who were completely clueless last election and refuse to learn.





Dems are doubling down on the same progressive stew
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and jet812
They have learned nothing from the last election. They have their heads in the sand
They're a far left party run by more and more socialists. This board is on average older and they keep thinking it's still the Clinton Democrat party like them. That's not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
They're a far left party run by more and more socialists. This board is on average older and they keep thinking it's still the Clinton Democrat party like them. That's not the case.
Cradle to grave benefits
Climate zealotry
Open borders
Race everything
Lgbqtz
AOC the most recognized face today
Harris Walz the last ticket

And they aren’t a far left party? Good grief.
 
Ha...I have heard that. It's pretty much wishful thinking from the MAGA crowd at this point. My guess is that JD Vance is the presumptive favorite for the MAGA crowd at this point, but who knows. As of this moment, he seems like a relatively easy candidate to beat, but there is still a lot of runway between now and November '28.
Trump was asked about his successor recently and the first name out of his mouth actually wasn’t Vance, it was Rubio, followed almost immediately by Vance. I think Trump trusts Rubio as much as anyone in the administration given Rubio is now managing four jobs at once.


Rubio would be great if it came to pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I believe they are. And I think it’s clear. Based on policy the last four years and who is the voice of the party. I don’t know how anyone could remotely believe otherwise
People can believe otherwise because thinking that far left 'woke' culture is driving the bus isn't based in reality. Look at what's happening nationwide. There is very little pushback to Trump's anti-woke agenda. Companies, organizations, colleges and universities are all adjusting their curricula and inclusive policies (note: this is seperate from immigration issues). A lot of the 'woke' agenda literally can't be platformed now because it's illegal in a lot of places. And even Kamala Harris was changing her tune on immigration. The policies you're talking about have been shrugged off or at least heavily altered.

Far left/right politicians will always have a voice, but I think people are losing the appetite for extreme wings of the parties being their north stars. That said, I don't think MAGA policy is a winning proposition after Trump is gone either.

Polling for potential '28 presidential candidates means very little at this point. In two weeks, Gavin Newsom will shoot up in those polls simply because he's front and center. I'm a firm believer in the front runners for high office are biding their time. There is literally no reason someone like Andy Beshear or Josh Shapiro needs to interject themselves into this shitshow of the current national debate. After midterms, guys like that will seem like a breath of fresh air...mostly because they won't have the stink of Trump taking up all the oxygen in the room on them. Democrats win the the midterms and Democratic voices with wider national appeal start to emerge with a message about healing America and taking a common sense approach toward making the country better for all of us.

If the presidential election were held today or even at the end of 2025 I'd agree that the polling points to someone like AOC being at or near the top. There are Democrats in positions of power now who love her that also acknowledge she'd never win a presidential election. Those 'insiders' aren't beating the drum the loudest, but that's what they're saying.
 
It’s completely bizarre. The people. The policies. WTF. Who does then
Are you serious? Tell me how Pete Buttigieg actually 'leads' the party. What is his role with the DNC? And AOC is a US Representative you see on TV a lot. What leadership role does she have? Polls don't dictate or even lead to leadership roles. If they did, Hillary Clinton would have won in '16. And if we based the election on polls done in 2013 she would have beat Jeb Bush.

The whole point is that people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries - the actual leaders of the Democratic party at this point - aren't really doing much leading. If anything the party is devoid of leadership right now. I don't think Gavin Newsom is the leader of the national Democratic party either, but in two weeks he'll shoot to the top of those polls. The polls you keep citing might as well ask who are the Democrats you see on TV the most - because that's all they're indicating at this point.
 
Are you serious? Tell me how Pete Buttigieg actually 'leads' the party. What is his role with the DNC? And AOC is a US Representative you see on TV a lot. What leadership role does she have? Polls don't dictate or even lead to leadership roles. If they did, Hillary Clinton would have won in '16. And if we based the election on polls done in 2013 she would have beat Jeb Bush.

The whole point is that people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries - the actual leaders of the Democratic party at this point - aren't really doing much leading. If anything the party is devoid of leadership right now. I don't think Gavin Newsom is the leader of the national Democratic party either, but in two weeks he'll shoot to the top of those polls. The polls you keep citing might as well ask who are the Democrats you see on TV the most - because that's all they're indicating at this point.
I am not even sure why we are pretending Pete is a far left crazy anyway. Seems like a fairly middle of the road liberal.

He is gay and took FMLA. oh so scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
Are you serious? Tell me how Pete Buttigieg actually 'leads' the party. What is his role with the DNC? And AOC is a US Representative you see on TV a lot. What leadership role does she have? Polls don't dictate or even lead to leadership roles. If they did, Hillary Clinton would have won in '16. And if we based the election on polls done in 2013 she would have beat Jeb Bush.

The whole point is that people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries - the actual leaders of the Democratic party at this point - aren't really doing much leading. If anything the party is devoid of leadership right now. I don't think Gavin Newsom is the leader of the national Democratic party either, but in two weeks he'll shoot to the top of those polls. The polls you keep citing might as well ask who are the Democrats you see on TV the most - because that's all they're indicating at this point.
All the most well known people in the party are radical leftists. Not sure how you would even try debating that. The Clinton's are history and the Obama's have no juice anymore. It's all progressives. I'd bet you Beshear and Shapiro will have trouble cracking 5% on the 28 primary.
 
Are you serious? Tell me how Pete Buttigieg actually 'leads' the party. What is his role with the DNC? And AOC is a US Representative you see on TV a lot. What leadership role does she have? Polls don't dictate or even lead to leadership roles. If they did, Hillary Clinton would have won in '16. And if we based the election on polls done in 2013 she would have beat Jeb Bush.

The whole point is that people like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries - the actual leaders of the Democratic party at this point - aren't really doing much leading. If anything the party is devoid of leadership right now. I don't think Gavin Newsom is the leader of the national Democratic party either, but in two weeks he'll shoot to the top of those polls. The polls you keep citing might as well ask who are the Democrats you see on TV the most - because that's all they're indicating at this point.
The policies of the last four years were radical left

The ticket for the left was radical left.

The narrative is being set by AOC and Pete etc. that’s leading. They are who boters see as the voice of the party . Voters don’t know Schumer and Jeffries. AOC would crush Schumer. She has bigger aspirations.


It’s a radical left party and its leader is AOC. Clearly.
 
All the most well known people in the party are radical leftists. Not sure how you would even try debating that. The Clinton's are history and the Obama's have no juice anymore. It's all progressives. I'd bet you Beshear and Shapiro will have trouble cracking 5% on the 28 primary.
being left of you doesn't make them radical.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT