Democratic (Party) Direction

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

or hollywood actor

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

Is there a single origin for so many Ds advocating eliminating income tax (for some)?

the 'patriotic millionaires' think tank which is advocating for increasing taxes on the wealthy (good and their ideas here aren't obvious nonsense at least) but then they also advocate putting that revenue entirely towards the idiotic giant middle class tax cuts that some dems are advocating for

Very long post by Rob Flaherty, digital director for the Harris campaign, analyzing what worked and didn't in 2024 and the lessons for the future:

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/heres-what-i-told-the-dnc-autopsy-biden-harris-2024-lessons-democrats-2028

His frustration with Bibi Netanyahu was well covered and spilled out into the public. But Biden just misread the nation’s support for Israel as an endless, fixed object, and missed how much the ongoing visuals were seeping into the public consciousness.

lol he wasn’t ideologically pro-genocide he just thought it was good politics!!!

Those pesky "ongoing visuals."

lol he wasn’t ideologically pro-genocide he just thought it was good politics!!!

― Lady Sovereign (Citizen) (milo z), Thursday, May 14, 2026 6:59 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

i think, from a certain standpoint, these are the same thing, and that's exactly what the problem is

his views on genocide and what the president of the united states might be able to do about it are evolving

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28139536/may-20-2026.pdf

Here's the autopsy, folks.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTMzODYwMDc2MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMDkxNDI2._V1_.jpg

Where does that come from?

Quincy!

Keyword search for "genocide," "palestine," and "Israel" yield no results.

This isn't the autopsy.

or at least it's not the autopsy that matters.

It's the questions you don't ask...

From the Rob Flaherty thing I posted upthread:

News coverage has focused on why the DNC shelved it. My understanding—based on Dem-world hearsay—is that the truth is stupider than the fiction: No autopsy was released because there is no actual autopsy. The members of the “autopsy team” were in over their heads and struggled to put the thing together. What they produced was a loose summary of a bunch of interviews that were largely done without talking to the campaign or big spenders.

CNN's takeaways:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/21/politics/dnc-autopsy-takeaways-vis

how did the rumor get started that the autopsy came to the conclusion that it was Dem’s support of Israel and was repressed because of that?

surprise, this “autopsy”
says Harris should have thrown trans people under the bus

if this is the actual autopsy we were all clamoring for it shows a party structure and consultant class that is completely out of touch with reality, but we all knew that.

xxpost Because polling shows that Dem's support of Israel hurt them in 2024, so it was assumed an autopsy would look into that. Apparently not.

There were reports that said that that was the report had concluded: https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

In reading that, it sounds like it was something DNC people said in conversations, leading people to assume that was reflected in the report — and to allegations that that was why the report was withheld. Who knows.

obviously Harris was doomed by not doing a Sista Souljah speech about a transgender person

and this autopsy talks about how little grooming and support Harris got without mentioning the elephant in the room—Biden’s egotistical attempt to run again.

It seems like this was an attempt (failed) to find reasons for the loss that were not Genocide or Joe.

More from CNN:

Martin entrusted a top priority to a friend, Democratic consultant Paul Rivera, who volunteered to work on it part-time and waited several months to contact key officials with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ campaigns. Many top decision-makers in the campaigns were ultimately never interviewed, and Harris herself has expressed frustration privately that questions about the document have gone on.

...

Martin issued a statement to CNN apologizing for how he handled the autopsy.

“When I was elected DNC chair, I commissioned an after action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent, and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party,” Martin said. “When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced.

More than any ideological motivation, it just seems like this was a half-assed effort all around, starting from Martin's decision to ask a buddy to do it as a favor.

It's almost like they don't care to find discover why they are losing as long as the money keeps coming in.

find

L M A O

Dems Taking a Dive in ‘28

200 pages and not a single mention of Gaza

fuck these loser clowns

I'd be madder if there was an actual completed autopsy that was assembled by an entire team with input from all of the important people associated with the campaign -- and *that* report didn't mention Gaza. As it is, I'm more frustrated by the lack of effort in putting together the autopsy than in anything that's mentioned or not mentioned in an unfinished draft written by a single person.

From the perspective of DC-centrism the entire political landscape shape-shifts week by week around whatever issues are capturing all the conversation in the halls of the Capitol Bldg, in the Senate dining room, and at cocktail parties, so that whatever issues shaped the last election cycle have drifted so far from their origins that understanding them in the context of 2024 is pointless. They believe they are right on top of the public pulse as it exists today!

To some extent this is a correct perspective because the information glut and relentless propaganda, coupled with short memories in voters has an undue influence over election outcomes. But this perspective is completely blind to deeper and more durable shifts in public attitudes that are going on under the hectic surface of the 24-hour news cycle. Gaza is a great example of this, because the weight of public opinion about Israel underwent a slow but steady sea change during the first two years of the genocide, but conventional wisdom in DC didn't shift with it.

I read that this report also made no mention of inflation

As it is, I'm more frustrated by the lack of effort in putting together the autopsy than in anything that's mentioned or not mentioned in an unfinished draft written by a single person.

yeah that was my take too. kind of proof that dems don’t care enough if they win or not.

I only skimmed it because so much of it was pointless and/or obvious stuff, but my impression was not of any real engagement with issues at all. Very much focused on the how of things and not so much the what.

DNC chief gave his buddy a part-time no-show job and then freaked out when people wanted to see the work product is what it sounds like.

As soon as they've focus grouped the issues by consulting a representative sample of 30 likely voters and wordsmithed the message around the issues into an inoffensive pablum, this report will be invaluable for guidance in selecting the proper mix of media buys for maximum impact.

https://newrepublic.com/article/210865/democrats-2024-autopsy-gaza-omission-inflation-biden-age

"The problem with the DNC autopsy isn’t just that it doesn’t mention Gaza. It’s that it ignores policy and, for that matter, politics—how policies are messaged, and what role they play in coalition building—altogether. It is a profoundly weird document that’s almost entirely concerned with fundraising and spending while devoting almost no space to issues, including the two most consequential one: inflation and President Biden’s age and fitness. Those issues, though less morally stark than Gaza, were clearly decisive. And the autopsy ignores them."

oopsy daisy 🙃🤪🥴

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:ejihld4sywvvqwe67cdkn4jq/bafkreig6pgwedgxhenpseomhw3dcxhx7sbp3i4unsapwrh3i3oe3bpvde4

lol good response!

They are staying on-message:

Reporter: Ken Paxton has taken to calling you ‘Talafreako’

@JamesTalarico:
If Ken Paxton is worried about freaks, he should stop giving Epstein-style sweetheart deals to pedophiles. This is the guy who just released Adam Hoffman from jail, an admitted child rapist, after one of Ken Paxton’s wealthy lawyer friends got involved in the case.

Ken Paxton even kept him off the sex offender registry. Adam Hoffman was supposed to serve 25 years to life, but instead he served less than a month. As of this week, he’s now back on our streets because of Ken Paxton’s corruption.

Ken Paxton is the most corrupt politician in America, and it is costing Texans, it’s endangering our children, and it must end. The Epstein class has no place in Texas.

It's the same thing they did to Walz. Basically, if you go ahead and nominate a totally normie Christian white guy, they'll just call him gay. Which of course makes any handwringing about nominating the right "kind" of candidate completely useless, because it doesn't matter.

Yeah, they went hard after Beto too. I think they said he liked Corporate Rock.

lol

I obviously don't share Jeff's ultimate analysis of this race but I do think it would behoove Dems, when choosing candidates, to realize progressive Christian moralism is just as annoying as conservative Christian moralism to people who don't share the politics being moralized. https://t.co/pUOMVqu9iu

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) May 27, 2026

“can’t actually skate street OR vert” xp

xp ppl who make unjust laws vs ppl who just ignore the laws?

jk they both ignore the law when possible

here I was thinking Josh Barro was going to come out with a full-throated endorsement of the Democratic candidate

the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

— wint (@dril) June 2, 2014

what you gotta consider in this race is the things that annoy josh barro

wint needs one about bad and worse things

jk they’re ALL bad and worse things