Why can’t the Democratic Party just understand that economic equality is the key?

"Forget the identity politics, forget the racial victimhood, forget the transgender nonsense."

Republicans are the ones obsessed with trans people. It was Nancy Mace posting 100 times a day about what bathrooms people use. Republicans use racial victimhood to pretend white people are victims. They still won the election anyway

Kamala's ads focused on how Trump's tariffs would make costs go up. She was right but she still lost

Republicans supported tax cuts for the wealthy since Reagan. If the public truly wanted economic equality they would never vote Republican

[quote]Republicans are the ones obsessed with trans people. It was Nancy Mace posting 100 times a day about what bathrooms people use.

Tranny Surgeries. For Prisoners.

Agree that a full on Fuck the Rich campaign is the best way to go. You can weave in other things, like the incredible, relentless, nonstop corruption and grifting of the Trump Cult, but build it all around Fuck the Rich. Nobody who voted for Trump in 2024 was voting for a huge tax cut for rich fucks. Ask constantly why that was what happened.

[quote]Republicans are the ones obsessed with trans people. It was Nancy Mace posting 100 times a day about what bathrooms people use.

A trans child should choose the Secretary of Education.

the crazy thing is Trump is determined to create an absolutely shitty economy. Absolutely none of his policies will make the country better economically, and most of them will work against it. There is nothing he is doing that will help inflation, or unemployment, or anything else. His one and only plan is to lie constantly about the numbers and pray that the morons in his cult won't notice.

I agree with the OP.

[quote] Up until the 1970s, you could work as a cashier and still be able to afford to buy a house.

Where?

R7 Must be 25. My father‘s parents were born in 1905 in 1906. And no, I’m not ancient, but there are big age gaps in my family. Anyway, my grandfather worked in a factory, and my grandmother was a housewife. They had a house, two cars, and even a swimming pool. Granted, they lived in the country, and built the house themselves, but still. That would be impossible today.

Because they're paid not to by the donors that own them.

[quote]Nobody who voted for Trump in 2024 was voting for a huge tax cut for rich fucks. Ask constantly why that was what happened.

Sacrifices had to be made to carry out the MAGA Ethnic Inquisition.

I just don't think it's ever that simple r9. I know we're all supposed to imagine a world where a few rich donors swoop in to tell Democrats eager to talk about economic inequality, NOOOO, FORBIDDEN!!! But I don't think it really works that way. I suspect the role of direct money contributions is wildly exaggerated in politics. What I suspect instead is buying into some weird and barely acknowledged belief that the people are crying out for some mushy middle compromise with the Republicans. They aren't. As the Gavin Newsom tweets are showing, they want somebody to be as rude and nasty and uncompromising as Trump. To actually say, fuck this nonsense and to get truly angry and bitchy and nasty as possible about it.

R8 Did they buy a house on one of them having a job as a cashier?

R9 is correct. No further answers are needed.

[quote]Up until the 1970s, you could work as a cashier and still be able to afford to buy a house.

I’m not sure that’s true.

You think all the counter people in drug stores etc. in the past were homeowners??

It took R11 a long time to dance around the answer that R9 provided in one sentence.

Trumptard trolls stricke again. 🥱

R11 Then why has the democratic establishment spent the last ten years undermining popular candidates with that exact message? They're on a leash. Their job is to come up with some kind of platform that can preserve as much of the upward wealth transfer as possible while allowing elites to feel that they're not being too cruel. Our two party politics is like an argument between two oligarchs if they should leave a little bit of food for a stray dog outside or just shoot it. Neither of them want it in the house.

I'm not dancing around the answer r15. You're looking for the most basic bitch answer possible, and it may not be accurate. Instead, Democrats really are free to try to be much nastier about all this than they think they are. They should take full advantage of that and not worry about any mysterious "rich donors" in the background.

Because r17, the democratic establishment has bought into the most tiresome bullshit for decades, really since 1972 and George McGovern's loss, that the American people are all so terrified of the Left that they are just peachy keen with the rich running the place. They ain't. They hate it. And Democrats who are forthright about that are going to do a lot better than Democrats who sugarcoat it and pretend it's always 1972.

R18 You're talking about something else now. I thought this was about the economic message, not Dems hand wringing about being aggressive. Do you think Gavin Newsom is into left wing economics? Give me a break. He wanted to screw over the poor in California with really harsh limits on means testing for healthcare.

R16 I don't see evidence of a single Trumptard troll.

R14 It's not true. I was born in the late 1950s. My parents owned a house. My father worked in a factory, he was in a union, he had paid vacations and full insurance coverage from Blue Cross. My mother had a job up until the time I was born. My grandfather lived with us and paid rent. So we had a nice house. We had two (used) cars. But on a cashier's salary? I doubt that, at least in prosperous parts of the country.

The other people on the street (a very average street) if I recall correctly, worked for the Post Office, for a food company, for the local police, for RCA. Some of the wives worked. My friend's parents were both teachers. Most moms stopped working when the kids came. It was definitely easier to live on one income than it is today. But to buy a house and pay a mortgage and all the rest of it you needed at least a good blue collar job.

I'm not disagreeing that it was easier to own a house then, and raise a family on one salary, but it still had to be a decent job.

Whatever Gavin Newsom was before r20, I suspect he's going to go into his presidential campaign with a more economically leftwing message. He may not be the one, he may not emerge as the nominee, but he is clearly somebody who is willing to see what is happening in front of his face. And what Democrats want now is confrontation and an end to this belief that our hands are always tied and dammit, we just can't really fight these guys.

Newsom is not a good governor. He was subject to a recall vote. He had a nice lunch in Berkeley while making people lock down. That shows a lack of sense, if nothing else. California has seen people leave in droves. They have a huge homeless population. It's not a state that's on the upswing. What are his glowing credentials? That he can mock Trump?

[quote] Whatever Gavin Newsom was before [R20], I suspect he's going to go into his presidential campaign with a more economically leftwing message.

I doubt people want a candidate who takes on a more left wing message because it's politically advantageous. How about a genuine progressive candidate who isn't putting on an act but who really believes in his own message?

Again, we keep getting this idea that the great and good American people are carefully sifting alternatives and looking for the single most competent. Nothing in the past dozen years makes any of that remotely true.

As for Newsom, if he can get Trump and the Cult on the defensive, he will be doing himself and the entire Democratic Party a huge favor. If other Democrats can join in that, as indeed some true progressives like AOC have, with very clear, very strong, and yes very nasty and scrappy reminders that the Rich suck, the Party of the Rich sucks and everyone should be slapping both of them down hard, that would be great. Authentic or not, people are sick of this shit and people are willing to vote for people who make it clear they are sick of this shit too, or at least will legislate that way.

R25 That's funny, for me it's just hollow performative bullshit.

Performative is better than mush and muddle and the "politics of joy." Long past time for the Democrats to grow a pair and act like a fight is a fight and not an invitation to a very, very polite debate. There is no polite debate. Stop pretending there is.

If people voted on economics, very few would vote for Republicans. Democrats come to power after Republicans fuck up the economy so badly that voters have to elect competent people. Republicans run on emotion, by selling fantasies of a past that never was. It’s hard to fight fantasy with reality.

Agree, time to fight hate with hate. Turn the hate on the 1 percent, the group that actually deserves it, the cunts that have actually been stealing everything in sight, including lately, Democracy itself.

Everyone hated the rich. Look at the response to Elon Musk. Agree that's where the Democrats should focus the public's anger.

Seriously, we're all supposed to pretend this cunt is an actual president worthy of the slightest respect? This is the cunt we are expected to pretend to take seriously? Why? What are we struggling with here? Why are we pretending we don't think this is a senile old fuck who is the most useless and ridiculous president in American history, and really in human history?

A huge challenge is that we as a party cannot all bond together in unity. If only we could fake like we are all one big happy party like the rethugs just to at least get elected.

I think something about the cashier comment is true. Before @ 1970 (and even after it, for a while), if you had a job of some kind, you could afford to be housed. Even if it was in a small apartment, a boarding house, a furnished room. That doesn't happen any more.

"[R8] Did they buy a house on one of them having a job as a cashier?"

A lot more cashiers used to be unionized.

"But to buy a house and pay a mortgage and all the rest of it you needed at least a good blue collar job.

I'm not disagreeing that it was easier to own a house then, and raise a family on one salary, but it still had to be a decent job."

Most cashier jobs prior to the 1980s were full-time, and offered benefits. People actually kept them, and retired. They weren't the best, but they were objectively better than they are now, which tends to be part-time, no benefits.

The thing we need to get, and really fight about, is the way we changed the entire definition of The American Dream in the 1980s. We went from, everyone who will try, and work, and be a reasonable person will get enough. Everyone will get some kind of housing and some kind of car and some kind of decent life, even if it isn't some spectacular luxury.

In the 1980s we switched that up, and decided, that no, the American dream was now making it big or falling by the wayside. That was the stupidest decision we ever made as a nation, and we are still trying desperately to dig out from under that load of shit.

R28 People live and operate by emotions. Only highly intelligent operate by reason more than emotion. Regular people operate by reason too but all channeled through their emotions. It’s hard to explain. I’m pretty sure this is a topic featured in psychology classes. The democrats need to remember that the electorate is not highly intelligent. I mean they do remember, that’s why they had Megan Thee Stallion twerking at rallies.

And the thing is, the Democrats, and in fact the left, did not always suck at this. There was a time when it was actually the liberals who understood all this deep down. I don't think that time is gone. I think we can do it again, if we get out of our own way and stop imagining silly things like appealing to everyone's better angels. Those angels have fled. Do what Gavin is doing, but also AOC and Jasmine Crockett and a few others, yes very much including Zohran Mamdani. Stop kidding ourselves that just one more well thought out position paper is going to make the difference.

Looking at you Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. Stop your shit and nonsense and get with the new reality.

All the 80-plus leaders of the Party need to step aside. It's beyond time.

Economic what?

That fucker Reagan. He started this shit. His folksy “man of the people”. Sitting with his kitchen cabinet he was a racist entitled wanna be rich like them cur. Even his kids are rewriting their relationship with him now.

I agree that identity politics did in the DNC. Economics mainly fueled (and fooled) the electorate into voting for trump again

[quote]Newsom is not a good governor. He was subject to a recall vote. He had a nice lunch in Berkeley while making people lock down. That shows a lack of sense, if nothing else. California has seen people leave in droves. They have a huge homeless population. It's not a state that's on the upswing. What are his glowing credentials? That he can mock Trump?

Thanks for all your Fox News talking points there R25 - now you should compare Newsom to Trump and the outfall of two terms of Trump presidency and get back to us with some facts.

[quote]How about a genuine progressive candidate who isn't putting on an act but who really believes in his own message?

Who R24?

Maybe this is all about keeping the donors happy . It is shown the donors interests are seen to in a ratio of 99 to 1 of that of the voter, We are that simple. Politics are that biased. .

Agreed R45. Money and financial lobbying in US politics has gotten out of hand and only works for the ultra rich and corporate interests who seek profit at any cost with the general population essentially being cannon fodder for the profit.

Not just being able to purchase a home on a normal single-job salary is gone. There were what was known as single-income households. Usually the husband went to work and the wife stayed home keeping the house up. Today most of the time, most are dual-income but barely making a living. Some people have more than one job. Homelessness has gone up. These things are symptoms of all the money going to the wealthy. Reagan gave us 'trickle-down economics. Money does not trickle down, it defies gravity and trickles up. The wealthy never seem to have enough and for the most part, they aren't inclined to share or donate any of it.

Technology trickles down. In the 1950s, power windows/seat/steering/brakes were extra-cost options on most cars. Air conditioning was optional even on luxury vehicles. The first car to have AC standard was the 1967 American Motors Ambassador. Today it would be very difficult to find a vehicle with out most of these features. Color tvs from the 1950 cost $1000, about $10,000 today. Those early sets had a very poor picture. Today you can buy a color set with a decent picture for very little money, hardly $10,000. Black and white sets are hard to find.

Standards of living improve, but poverty is relative---it's your economic position in a society, and determines whether you're able to

...able to buy something, you need like a house, or have to spend your whole life paying $$ to the rentier class. There are people these days who drive Uber with a RENTED car from Uber. A lot of people are disinclined to believe that people will take the shitty jobs/gigs that exist out there, but they 100% do, and we're in a walls closing in kind of situation, because soon those jobs will be the most widely available.

Biden worked to keep a lid on AI, but wouldn't campaign against it. How is that reasonable, given the polls that show that the majority tare suspicious that it will take their jobs and will destroy our way of life? The only answer is that the party is bought by donors (and yes, Republicans are worse---so what?).

Lots of good comments.

[quote]How about a genuine progressive candidate who isn't putting on an act but who really believes in his own message?

How about someone who can actually get elected?

And you guys should fix those pesky voting-machine "glitches."

Everybody lives WAY beyond their means today. Back in the 1970-80s, people ate out maybe once a week, with many families eating out once a month. You prepared your lunch at home and took it to work with you. The idea of spending $5 for a cup of coffee, or hundreds a month in cell phone and internet fees, would have been unfathomable back then. The biggest "luxury" back then was having cable. And we were MUCH happier without all that extra stuff.

Yeah, it was unfathomable because the internet didn't exist. But everyone thinks things were better "in my day"

And I'm sure people in the 70s and 80s complained about how everything sucks and said everything was better in the 50s.

Likely because they were, so far as the middle class being stronger

R23, he was subject to a recall vote because of Republicans who decided it would be great to waste everyone's time and money trying to recall a governor who isn't unpopular.

People do piss away their money on stupid shit, but then again a 2-BR starter home in my area is over $700K. It also comes with $500/month HOA fees.

No 25-year-old is going to be able to afford that under their own steam. They probably think, “why even try?”

My parents bought a 3BR house with central AC on 5 acres of land in the late 60s. They were 24 years old.

R23, California isn't on the upswing? Then why did it just become the 4th biggest economy in the world?

R56 You are not wrong. The reason why California always has thaw recalls is because there is over 50 million people in the state. The number of signatures is not relative to the state’s population. The threshold should be much much higher. What Newsom has been doing lately with his social media is brilliant. I still think it’s going to be rough for any Californian politician to win the electoral college in 28.

[quote] Why can’t the Democratic Party just understand that economic equality is the key?

Great question. I have a better one: "Why can't voters just understand that economic INEQUALITY is the defining and key characteristic of the GOP agenda?

So the key question might be Why can't the Democratic party just get the majority of voters to understand that the GOP is all about income inequality and making them into penniless drones?

The answer is, unfortunate but simple: Democrats need to entertain the dolts with histrionics and fact free hyperbole that engages their bigotries, recreates their biases and makes them feel like revenge is possible against the members of their families that look down on their sad, ignorant beliefs.

Soothe them to save them.

They aren't looking for facts, they are looking to feel better. Dems need to admit that and use it

What made America unique among first world nations—beginning in the middle 20th century, working class people got to live like upper middle class people. Middle class people lived like upper middle class people. And upper middle class people lived like rich people. Now new economic realities have set in. But once you start eating filet mignon, it’s hard to go back to eating Salisbury steak, so there will be chaos.

Funny how Gavin Newsome is "brilliant" for his Twitter memes (which are most likely written by his staff) but when Jasmine Crockett says similar things, she's "ghetto" and "uneducated".

[quote]Thanks for all your Fox News talking points there [R25] - now you should compare Newsom to Trump and the outfall of two terms of Trump presidency and get back to us with some facts.

All you have to do is look at Newsome's recent podcast and see the hardcore Republicans he's freely given a platform to and know how he would govern.

Trolling Trump is one thing, but having Steve Bannon on your podcast kind of nullifies the so-called heroic stance you've taken.

Furthermore, "But Trump" isn't erasing the over two million voters who have defected from the party, or the steep decline in popularity.

Maybe voters are tired of using this bottom of the barrel administration as a litmus test all the time?

[quote]Funny how Gavin Newsome is "brilliant" for his Twitter memes (which are most likely written by his staff) but when Jasmine Crockett says similar things, she's "ghetto" and "uneducated".

Right-wing media is constantly saying that Newsom is uncouth, unbecoming, pathetic, disrespectful, childish and embarrassing R62. The insults aren't just reserved for Crockett. But unfortunately, Jasmine Crockett doesn't have the charisma and gravitas Gavin Newsom has. He's been able to get cut through and this is what desperate Democrats are crying out for. The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

[quote] Jasmine Crockett doesn't have the charisma and gravitas Gavin Newsom has.

Crockett wasn't raised with a silver spoon in her mouth. Furthermore, she speaks her truth, which is a lot more impressive than hiding behind a Twitter screen.

[quote]The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

The truth never is.

We live in an extraordinarily wealthy nation here in the U.S. Even blue collar workers are wealthy compared to blue collar workers in other nations. Most people here don't want "economic equality" because that would mean having to share their wealth, present or potential.

Ridiculous. There is nothing anyone can do in terms of risk or work to earn a billion dollars. The system is not FAIR. Make it more fair through greater regulation. That is the ONLY way forward. And punitive taxe son the rich.

[quote]Funny how Gavin Newsome is "brilliant" for his Twitter memes (which are most likely written by his staff) but when Jasmine Crockett says similar things, she's "ghetto" and "uneducated".

Jasmine Crockett needs to get elected to a higher office with more responsibility like Governor, then she’ll be given the same level of respect afforded to Newsom.

It’s mostly the costs of housing and the costs of the education which have risen astronomically and prevent people from ever getting ahead. That’s where the focus needs to be.

Also, too many young people are encouraged to pursue degrees in useless majors which lead to a huge amount of debt and minimal earning potential.

[quote] Crockett wasn't raised with a silver spoon in her mouth. Furthermore, she speaks her truth

Oh, god. Fuck off, Oprah.

[quote]Furthermore, she speaks her truth,

Is that on the recently released list of 45 words/phrases that should never be spoken by Democrats again? Because it should be.

R63 The only people who call Crockett ghetto are online MAGA trolls and posters here. Some DL elders are democrats sure but harbor views toward minorities that would make a twenty something yr old white MAGA blush. That woman knows how to read the room and excels in unscripted interviews.

The people who call her ghetto would be the first ones to shit themselves if they were in a real ghetto.

Equality is not the same as to ensure that that even the poorest can live in dignity. Personally I don't care about some guy 's mega mansion.

I think it’s smart that Newsom had Bannon on. You have to think outside the box and be willing to converse with those whom you don’t agree with. Furthermore, someone like Bannon has some beliefs that makes both parties comfortable and the general public is receptive to them. Pick away all the fringe stuff, the white male victimhood, some of the shit he says is right. Work visas overly benefit corporate America and foreign people, not Americans. Yes it activates productivity in the economy but not the American workforce.

R71/R72 I think we need to be careful with this one. Simply calling her “ghetto“ is reductive, and she does make a lot of great points. At the same time, far left liberals have a tendency to pump people up just because they’re from some historically marginalized group. I do agree with a lot of points, but I don’t think she could win a general election.

Crockett won't be able to retain her seat in Congress let alone electwin an ion for Governor. She's a victim of redistricting. I can't believe any sane person thinks she could win election to any higher office. How about the Dems who have only nominated one white male in the past 5 elections for President just live in reality and nominate a white male in 2028.

...let alone win an election for Governor....

The Trumptards here are hilarious. Newsom won the recall 2-1. The GQP ain’t coming back in California. WE HATE TRUMP IN CALIFORNIA. Get over it. You’re done. You can have Bakersfield, Fresno, and Redding. They are shitholes. So is every other MAGA stronghold. White trash rednecks. Deal with it and STFU. We have had sufficient.

Why can’t the GQP understand that economics won’t mean shit if we live under a fascist dictatorship.

More emphasis from Newsom is needed to turn the beat around.

Make both parties *Uncomfortable. That’s what I meant to type.

OP, my theory is that in the late 00s, some wealthy people got spooked. They started to see a shift in how some normals were thinking, both on the right and the left. Too many people woke up after the Iraq War and 2008 bank crisis. The poeers that be were also spooked by movements like Occupy Wall Street in the early 10s.

So, what did they do? Backed some of the most extreme social causes on the left to get everyone focused on culture wars again. You saw this through the rest of the 10s and into the 20s.

OP, you are on to something! In my family one of my uncle's was a butcher and my aunt never worked. They had 3 sons and all went to private school on his salary and my aunt was a stay at home mom. My dad was an entrepreneur and we had more wealth than them but all were cared for in the same way. My grandparents were immigrants and both worked and had a beautiful home. When I graduated from college in the 90s there was no way I could afford rent by myself, I needed a roommate or 2. Today I notice that many kids are living at home with their significant others, saving to buy something

rich mostly need to be eliminated.. They are promoting Newsom because they think he will protect them, being of their class and opposing raising taxes on the rich in California. But I hope dems are smart enough to pick someone else. NO MORE JOHN KERRYS

Given a choice between everything offered?

Ironically, Trump promised very progressive, income equality-level policies like lower grocery prices, lower child care costs, lower tuition costs, lower gas prices, lower healthcare costs.

All of it was a lie—but the GOP instinctively knew that’s what people wanted to hear. Why can’t the Dems embrace this?!

R86 Did you read my plan? My ten page outlined thesis of how I would lower costs for working class families while balancing a budget and also highlighting cost saving fuel measures for yellow public school buses. It was number on my to do list to be executed if I had won the presidency, and achieved a historical feat by winning. Chile, let me take a sip as I listen to Kirk Franklin.

R86 mammala Kamala did offer it but no Elon stole the election for the teeny tiny penis creepy guy

People have forgotten that 33% of workers in the US in 1954 belonged to a UNION. It's not as though employers and corporate heads wanted to pay workers living wages. There were plenty of strikes and gains made through them. The 40 hour work week. Health benefits. Pensions. These were all things fought for. But the right wing cleverly planted seeds about communism, and corruption, and people taking advantage of the system. States started to enact right-to-work laws (read that name for what it means - ANTI-UNION).

I don't know if the kids of today have the gumption but the ONLY way they will increase their standard of living in the gig economy is to unionize - and then be willing to fight by striking. In spite of all the rhetoric we're hearing about AI, it is not yet able to do a myriad of jobs that human beings all around us are doing - at very low wages and without any kinds of benefits. Soon, we're going to learn first hand what it means not to have people to harvest our crops. And won't that be fun for us all.

American liberals forgot that capitalism is just a flimsy compromise to offset widespread violence by letting wealthy people slowly centralize power. The default conservative economic option will always be slavery. It’s always their end goal.

Trump voters have no desire for economic equality. Obama's alleged plan to redistribute wealth enraged the segment of the population that would benefit most from wealth redistribution. Any kind of "equality" is anathema to the Amerikkkan Dream

[quote] Newsom is not a good governor. He was subject to a recall vote.

In California, that means you are doing a swell job. Recalls are funded by oligarchs, lobbyists and corporations.

There's going to be all sorts of mud and allegations thrown at them by the right wing media to discredit whoever is the candidate. Fox News is the Trump administration's Russia Today. It's going to be nasty because the MAGA Party want to hold on to power now they've got it. They are going to do everything they can to stop the Democrats winning. Newsom looks like he's up for the job. Compared to a another MAGA president - I'd take Newsom any day.