The Democratic party is too milqetoast.

They have castrated themselves and become effeminate.

A less stupid troll would have spelled milquetoast correctly.

The Troll is from Lip Stick Ally.

She is so stupid she does not get the slur is supposed to be "as white as milk toast" she Googled it and came of with Milquetoast the cartoon and doesn't know the difference. She loves to chime on on any Pete post calling him Milquetoast. Because she is a racist troll and hates white gay men.

Dems fight with each other too much. The far left doesn’t know how to play US politics to win.

R3, you are an idiot. Milquetoast is an old fashioned insult that still works, whether or not you know how to spell it. It means "weak"

milcowtoast

Yes, it means weak, but the way the Lip Stick Troll uses it, is incorrect. She's confused the two. As I said, she is primarily fixated on Pete and he is anything but weak. Most of his attackers are fixated on the color of his skin. He's a "white privileged" gay guy, a "Cracker". He served in the military which is more than most Repugs and all of the pussy Trump grafter clan ever did. They also call him MAYO as in white like mayonnaise. Nothing to do with Milquetoast the character.

Al Franken is due for a comeback. Amy Klobacher and Pete B are good at owning the GOP

I would love to see Al Franken come back. He should start his campaign with I may like looking at their tits, but at least I wont grab them by the pussy!

The Democratic Party is unworthy.

The funny thing is the Democrats DO have aggressive, ambitious politicians but the media (and many people here) label them extremists. How many times has AOC been dragged through the mud because she supported increased social services or housing reform? Bernie Sanders gets dismissed as a nut when he suggests raising taxes on the obscenely wealthy. Comfortable journalists and middle class whiners are the reason the democrats have so few effective operators. Many supposedly progressive people want everything to stay exactly the same.

Milqetoast? I haven't tried that. Sounds yummy. Is it French?

I don't think they need to go far-left, but they do need laser-focused, younger, meaner and more cunning leaders/members.

"You've got to think ruthless. It makes you strong. I mean, what the hell's the point of being a decent person when no one else is?"

-Judge Reinhold, Ruthless People (1986)

What else do you serve with milk toast?

We need them to be less Wally Cox, and more Brando!

I just want them to support Medicare-4-All, but that's not happening anytime soon.

The Democratic Party has a big tent, but most Dems in Washington won't even fight tooth and nail for things that are popular. I know they don't have the votes most of the time, but they don't go hard on anything. We're probably going to be a right-wing autocracy by 2025. Dems will let it happen, because they they want to "rise above partisanship."

[quote] The Democratic party is too milqetoast.

The Democratic party has turned itself into Franklin Pangborn.

The democrats are lazy and weak

They could have ratified the right to abortion TWICE, but they couldn't be bothered

The could still ratify the right to birth control, but they can't be bothered

They should be out right now capitalizing on the fact that Roe will probably be abolished within 4 years. But they can't be bothered

The democrats are like a gift from God to the republicans.

Just. Win. Elections.

We are going to end up a party of teachers, social workers, hairdressers, etc; the lucky few will inherit real estate they can't afford the taxes on without selling...

While they have all the lawyers, business owners, immigrant doctors AND the working class.

Represent the people in your district. Win the election. Focus on the ground.

NOT PWNING REPUBLICANS. NOT BEING BROOKLYN HIPSTERS. NOT BEING FAMOUS.

The democrats are controlled by women.

Is it possible to be progressive and ruthless at the same time?

yes, r23

If the Democrats were a woman, half of you would be blaming her for being in an abusive relationship instead of trying to do something about the abuser.

Every party has it's flaws but lets be honest, the Republicans are the ones to blame for all these fires you guys are compiling about. Stop blaming the firefighters and put the blame on where it belongs, the arsonists.

Republicans = 🔥

Democrats = 🚒

The Democratic party has a big, complex tent. It's next to impossible to have a unifying message. 90% of the time, the GOP stays on message because they're much more black-and-white in their thinking. There's also countless billionaires throwing money indiscriminately at the right-wing cause.

Wall Street and Silly Con Valley has supported Dems.

Rich people always back both sides in our phony "two" party system.

The endless in-fighting and purity tests are a problem, but having more charismatic and proactive leaders in the party would help smooth it over. I don't even think they have to be hardcore progressive nor super successful in policy implementation.

I can't believe someone is actually holding up Newt Gingrich as someone anyone should emulate.

We don't win by becoming as bad as they are.

r4 the far left are those holding onto the dream of experiencing the rapture (revolution, whatever) and being whisked away to utopia in a holy war by any means necessary.

the left doesn't know to wrestle the reins away from that crowd, they're believe they're absurd but they're desperate for the youth vote... so much so, they'll sacrifice the larger portion for their base in the hopes of securing just one.... for the FUTURE.

longterm strategies for Demcorats involve securing district voting blocs within liberal cities and the young hipsters that attempt to seek life there. They're very much of the mind, if you build it, they will come.

Longterm strategies for Republicans focus on stacking... while both sides are guilty of underwriting non-related conditions into bills, the republicans are more tactical and use it to their advantage. They have a starting point and ending point. Democrats fluctuate by the whims of cultures -- there's several studies in how Democrats change everything from posture to tone in how they speak to different demographics, i.e. pandering to racist and condescending paternalism vs republicans that attempt to speak to everyone the same. But I digress. Stacking. Stacking the courts, in republican AND democratic cities (as where democrats can't be bothered with non-democratic cities and instead move to insults, insults which extend to many in their liberal cities. that sense of northeastern elitiism that has existed in the nation since the start of it).) Stacking the bills, they produce more pieces of legislation and if not applying directly to the party's goals, many of the obscure unrelated items connect together as part of a larger tapestry. whereas democrates, not so focused in that way.

pr in other words,

Democrats focus oft too much on the social -- so, they invest the most in public relations

Republicans on the legislation -- so, they invest the most into legal thinktanks.

r28

r31 They're hoping for another chosen to rise from the crowd and make a mark in history like JFK that became a martyr before he could fall from the lofty pedestal of their grace.

^ it applies to most, if not all politicians.... and in turn, the narratives we create for them. . . and they adopt as their own. like mexican wrestlers. . .

[quote] Imagine Ed Miliband at home on Sunday morning. He’s got his feet up in the front room; he’s hanging out in one of his smart-casual cardigans and chatting amiably with a couple of his friends about what a wanker Andrew Neil is. Justine wanders in with coffee and puts on something relaxing by Coldplay or maybe Acker Bilk. Here is the Labour leader at rest. Ed being normal. The real Ed.

[quote] How are we getting on? Is this easy? How about imagining Ed making toast? Does he spread the marge in a weird way? Does he hold the knife like it’s a spoon? Does he make a peculiar face when he gets to the edges? Imagine him eating a pear. Look at the thoughtful way he rotates it in his big fingers and licks the juice. He looks insane, eating that pear. That’s the way a lunatic would eat a pear.

[quote] The way people imagine their political leaders is, like it or not, an important factor in how they decide to vote and, indeed, whether they vote at all. Political personalities matter and one of the things we have started to expect of these personalities is that they be “normal”. This is a pity, because being normal is impossible. Especially on TV, which is how we mostly see them.

[quote] “Look at how phoney they are,” members of the television news audience say, as they simultaneously update their Facebook page. “Thank God I’m so genuine and multifaceted – look at my nuanced opinions about cheese and how I like both Coldplay and Acker Bilk. I am large[-ing myself up]. I contain multitudes.”

[quote] This is a culture in which the authenticity of politicians is habitually traduced by people who devote large sections of their day to carefully compiling and publishing evidence of their own personality. That is the advantage of social media over television: on Facebook, the sheer volume of selective bullshit spreads out until it starts to resemble a self; it’s like expressing a personality through a thousand personalised number plates so nobody notices that you’re the dick who went to the trouble of getting that first one.

[quote] In a TV interview, conversely, you’ve only got time to be one “thing”. Whether you’re taking part in a political interview or you’re a celeb on a chat show, you have to choose the “thing” before the “thing” chooses you. David Cameron, for instance, has chosen “reasonable guy”. David Starkey has chosen “spiteful old man”. Tony Blair started out with “everyone’s mate”, before making a late switch to “implacable warmonger”.

[quote] Ed Miliband, though . . . Ed’s “thing” seems to be “politician”. It’s not his funny voice or his unfortunate habit of closing his eyes after every phrase as if someone has just burped in his face: those things can’t be helped and don’t really matter. It’s the deliberate body language and the deliberate choices in how he speaks that ring false. He sits motionless and bolt upright like a politician. He steeples his hands like a politician. These are exactly the choices that soap actors make when they’re on a tight schedule and are untroubled by high expectations. On EastEnders, if someone gets surprising news on the phone, the scene ends with them looking at their handset in amazement. No one in real life does that. And no one makes their fingers into a little church to look clever. But we accept the convention and excuse the bad acting as a symptom of the bad writing: if I’m obsessing about Ed Miliband’s performance, it’s because he habitually lumbers himself with a lousy script.

[quote] He repeats stock phrases – “the squeezed middle”, “the cost-of-living crisis” – during a single interview in the hope of “getting the message across”, at the expense of “sounding like a person”. It takes iron discipline for a man of his intelligence to do it but it seems that he’d rather sound like a robot

[quote]Just. Win. Elections.

Uh, we did. We won all three branches of government.

But we need a "real majority", even though we had a supermajority in 2008 and still couldn't things done because of one person.

No, 52 is the magic number this time.

And if not, then it's going to be 53!

Or maybe 54.

Newsom is probably the best choice for 2024. He's a white male. He's not super old. He's (relatively) charismatic. Fairly progressive, but certainly not a socialist. He takes the gloves off (stopping short of shit-talking) when it comes to calling out right-wing extremism.

[quote]Uh, we did. We won all three branches of government.

I FUCKING HATE CLUELESS MORONS LIKE R34!

What the fuck do you think the three branches of government are, you complete imbecile?

Democrats do NOT have all three branches of government, you complete idiot.

Branch 1: The Executive (Presidency/White House). Yes, Democrats have this.

Branch 2: The Legislative (The House of Representatives and The Senate). Well, Democrats barely have the House, and have a split 50/50 in the Senate, a body that generally requires 60 votes to get anything done, so saying they have this branch is kind of laughable. At best they have a tiny bit more than half. Call it 51% maybe.

Branch 3: The Judicial (The Supreme Court). No, the Democrats do not have this. It's a 6-3 GOP court.

So no, you fucking numbskull, we don't have all three branches, we have at best a little over 1.5 of them. And Biden/Harris and Dems in Congress have STILL managed to accomplish a lot of amazing, transformational, and badly needed policies.

God damn, will you learn how your own government works before you go off on rants?

[quote]Newsom is probably the best choice for 2024.

He's not. And he's not running. He's said he won't go up against either Biden or Harris, and he supports both of them. Get over it. It's going to be Biden or Harris, and this stupid speculation about 2024, when we have the far more important 2022 right in front of us is nothing more than an agist, racist, sexist distraction and waste of time. Stop it.

[quote]Democrats barely have the House,

There's so such thing as "barely having" any branch of government. You either have a majority or you don't. They have a majority. What a stupid attempt at rationale.

[quote]and have a split 50/50 in the Senate

Kamala's vote makes it 51. And 51 over 49 is a majority

The democrats have control of the Presidency, Senate and House., Einstein.

[quote]we have at best a little over 1.5 of them.

Learn math before you call others dumb.

[quote]And Biden/Harris and Dems in Congress have STILL managed to accomplish a lot of amazing, transformational, and badly needed policies.

Such great stuff you can't even name it!

[quote]There's so such thing as "barely having" any branch of government.

Yes there is. When you have a very small margin, it's harder to do things, because you have to make sure almost everyone in your caucus votes the same way. The larger the margin, the more room there is for error. Seriously, this is Civics 101 stuff, how do you not know this?

[quote]Kamala's vote makes it 51. And 51 over 49 is a majority

... in a body that requires 60 votes to do most things, and a full 50 votes to do ANYTHING. And Democrats have 48 votes in the Senate. Two independents happen to caucus with the Democrats, but they are not Democrats. And we've had a member out with significant illness recently, meaning there were only 49 votes (and the VPs vote doesn't count until it's a tie).

So again, you're kind of making yourself look like a dumbass here. Learn how things work before you call other people dumb, dumbass.

[quote]Such great stuff you can't even name it!

Because it's a long fucking list, and you should already know it, since you're acting like a goddamned know-it-all, but sure, let's list just a few of the things:

-- The American Rescue Act (this was huge and very progressive)

-- The Infrastructure Bill (this was huge and over-due)

-- Over 80 diverse, liberal and progressive justices confirmed to Federal Benches including the first Black Woman Supreme Court Justice

-- The re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that Trump/GOP allowed to expire

-- FINALLY passing the Anti-Lynching bill

-- The first movement on Gun Safety in 30yrs which includes the massive benefit of closing the boyfriend loophole.

Biden promised repeatedly during the primaries that he could not only unite the democratic party to get things passed, but he was the only democratic candidate who would be able to get Republicans on board with his plans and unite the country in getting meaningful legislation done.

And if that wasn't enough, he even went so far as to say that Republicans would have an epiphany once Trump was out of office, come to their senses and start working with democrats.

All this bitching over majorities and everything else doesn't negate the fact that Biden can't do what he promised numerous times on the campaign trail that he would be able to do. Unite both parties for the sake of the country. He can't even unite the democratic party.

He.can't.do.it.

And those accomplishments if you take a good look at them, are very watered-down bills. The gun bill doesn't go nearly far enough, no matter how hard they try to push it as this huge legislation after so many years. Even people who support it admit that. It's watered down crapola. THIS is the best Biden can do after forty years in government?!

Newsome would be in danger of not winning a single purple state. He’s the embodiment of a coastal elite who has weak ties to middle America. I can’t imagine him doing well in the pivotal SC primary. He’s culturally not equipped to connect with swing state farmers, churchgoers, factory workers, blue collars, blacks, state fair types, and older voters.

Stop looking for "faces" and start doing things that actually help the citizens.

Then you wouldn't have to rely on finding faces to cover the inability to stand up genuinely for truly progressive policies.

[quote]Biden promised repeatedly during the primaries that he could not only unite the democratic party to get things passed, but he was the only democratic candidate who would be able to get Republicans on board with his plans and unite the country in getting meaningful legislation done.

And he's done a shockingly good job of that. The Infrastructure Bill is a big one, but the fact he got GOP votes on the first gun safety legislation to pass in 30 years is also a huge deal. Given the GOP's obstinate and unprincipled obstructionism, it's practically a miracle.

The Democratic Party is corrupt.

It is necessary that the Democrats lose Congress with this year’s midterm elections.

[quote]Then you wouldn't have to rely on finding faces to cover the inability to stand up genuinely for truly progressive policies.

"truly progressive policies" aren't going to win in Purple States, you realize this, yes?

[quote]The Democratic Party is corrupt.

You misspelled "Republican" there, bub.

[quote]It is necessary that the Democrats lose Congress with this year’s midterm elections.

If Democrats lose the midterms, you'll discover what corrupt really means when the GOP takes over.

If they take the House, that's the end of the Jan 6th committee and the end of any and all accountability for Republicans and their parts in the seditious treason of that date. It's also the beginning of endless bogus "investigations" and fake "impeachments" against Democrats and Joe Biden.

If they take the Senate, that's the end of getting good, decent, diverse, and qualified justices confirmed. It means we will not get the Supreme Court back in your lifetime.

If the GOP win either house of Congress in 2022, our democracy will be at deaths door, and it will likely end in 2024 or shortly thereafter.

It will be a disaster.

[quote]"truly progressive policies" aren't going to win in Purple States, you realize this, yes?

That's crap.

R48, no it's not, and we have ample evidence. These "socialists" only run in deep blue districts for a reason... they literally cannot win outside of them.

Because any progressive issue is demonized by Republicans and corporate Democrats. As is any progressive democrat.

No one with a half a brain would turn down free healthcare, debt relief, an increase in the minimum wage, and ending poverty. Progressive politicians who try and run-in states that aren't blue are often run off the ballot by these hacks or are shunned by the democratic party.

Tell the whole story and not just half of it.

R47 and R48—I made no mistake or misunderstanding at all. You both should do what the Democratic Party refuses: take a look in a mirror.

R49—If the U.S. political party which is more commonly associated with being left wing cannot argue for and defend policies which are on the left…there is no reason for them, and their so-called political party, to exist.

R51, you're a fucking moron.

R52,

I pay attention.

(You do not.)

No, you don't pay attention.

Democrats are the ONLY thing standing between us and a rapid, irreversible descent into oppressive Christofascism.

The GOP is utterly corrupt and irredeemable at this point. This is NOT true of Democrats.

You're just a moron.

(oh, and you're not R46, you're R44, numbnuts)

R54,

The Democrats are a scam operation.

The No. 1 enemy of true progressives is not the Republican but the Democratic Party.

What Gingrich showed is that you need only a handful to change the party and the narrative.

[quote]The Democrats are a scam operation.

They are not. This is a bizarre tin-hat conspiracy claim no different than those put forth by the Q-Anon crazies.

[quote]The No. 1 enemy of true progressives is not the Republican but the Democratic Party.

This is 100% laughably false.

R56 has a point. It's the DNC that prevents the progressives from rising. They are Republican lite presenting themselves as the lesser enemy.

Progressives are loud but not numerous

R2..at least is wasn't "milktoast".

[quote]It's the DNC that prevents the progressives from rising.

It's not really, but sure let's examine that anyway... the so-called 'progressives' aren't actually progressive, they're POPULIST, and organizations like "The Justice Dems" (who claim to be progressive) have plainly stated that their goal is a HOSTILE TAKEOVER of the Democratic Party. Now gee, why would the Democrats not want that?

The reality is that the so-called "progressives" that constantly attack the Democratic Party (again, gee, why wouldn't Democrats welcome these saboteurs?) are the Left's version of the right-wing "Tea Party"... which has successfully destroyed and taken over the GOP.

I think it's a very good thing that Democrats are not letting these whiny, obnoxious, ignorant-of-how-things-work idiots "rise". I don't want the Democratic Party -- the last party remaining that has any clue how to govern -- to end up like the GOP, controlled by clueless extremists.

Dems believe in institutions. Repugs believe in power.

Dems believe in Trannys.

Good on you r62. When besieged, it is easy to close ranks.

But you know those ranks don't always share your beliefs . Go with your gut.

Truth: The Democratic Party should have never allowed people like Bernie, Tulsi, Yang, or Marrianne to run as Democrats in their presidential primaries. NONE of them are Democrats.

But also truth: Nobody should expect Democrats to "act like Republicans" to defeat Republicans. You don't beat corruption by becoming just as corrupt. You don't beat liars by lying just as much. You can call it "milquetoast" of you want, but I want the Democrats to win by being BETTER than Republicans. Not by lowering themselves to the GOP's level.

If Democrats throw out democratic norms and standards in order to win against Republicans... what are we even fighting for? How do you ever walk that crap back and restore normalcy and decency? You can't. And we shouldn't want to try.

[quote] Progressives are loud but not numerous

What is a 'progressive'? Are they the ones who want to change sex and become eunuchs?

NEW: Reuters & Ipsos

Biden Job Approval Approve 37% Disapprove 58%

Suburban Voters Approve 33% Disapprove 62%

N=1,004 A / D45/R37/I18 / 07/25-26

R68 there are an awful lot of willfully ignorant & misinformed idiots in this country.

They pulled a fast one over the turtle. That is exactly the kind of shit I want to see. I hope Sinema doesn't fuck this up.