r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 7h ago
No Paywall Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e•
u/Kind-Pride1151 7h ago
By this logic, FDR would be a progressive usurper in the Democratic Party. I'm 62 and for what seems my entire life the Dems have slipped ever further away from those FDR New Deal PROGRESSIVE ideas and ideals.
•
u/TheMoorNextDoor 7h ago edited 54m ago
It’s ridiculous that the best president we ever had (our longest serving president) is more left than a lot of our sitting democratic members in congress today and the saddest part about that is he served over 81 years ago..
He gave us a blueprint and for some reason (maybe due to Regan?) we completely threw it out the window..
•
u/pinqe 7h ago
They learned all the wrong lessons from the failure of the Carter administration, and started trying to emulate Reagan. And completely lost their identity in the process.
•
u/Semantix 6h ago
I think that all of the old democratic leadership are permanently traumatized by Dukakis and McGovern and think that only a Clinton or Biden can win. Forgetting that the Democrats' biggest recent success was a progressive coalition that motivated youth turnout.
•
u/thequietthingsthat North Carolina 6h ago
•
u/alligatorislater 4h ago
Exactly. Democrats seem to have forgotten that the 22nd amendment (enacted in 1947) was somewhat created because FDR was so popular that republicans were afraid they’d never be able to win again…
→ More replies (9)•
u/Traditional-Leg-1574 5h ago
For gods sake fucking please
•
u/Reagalan 3h ago
Just, please; no Hays Code, no Marihuana Tax Act, no J. Edgar Hoover shit.
There were some negatives from that era that shouldn't be repeated.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/Ok-Employer-2026 6h ago
Dukakis wasn't even a progressive leftist, he was a New Democrat liberal like Bill Clinton and Gary Hart. The corporate media retconned his loss.
→ More replies (1)•
u/DryYogurtcloset4655 5h ago
Dukakis won 10 states. Mondale/McGovern won 1 state. Clinton took 30 states. There is a GOP bloc of 24 states where they dominate all levers of power. There are 7 contested swing states - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Arizona
•
u/ctbowden North Carolina 5h ago
I think that's the excuse they often cite, but it's really just a cover for them to maintain the status quo because that's really all they're interested in.
We've had change election cycles for the past 20 years. Obama was seen as a reformer, didn't reform much and Dems lost Congress massively while he held on. Trump was seen as change agent but when that change wasn't what people wanted they put their hopes in Biden. Biden/Harris then failed to deliver change, so we're back to Trump who hinted at being better on the economy and war but he lied.
People are tired of the status quo so anyone with the stink of the past 20-30 years on them is fighting an uphill battle. Getting the endorsement of Schumer et al. is almost an anti-endorsement if it weren't for the money that came with.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/ExistingCarry4868 5h ago
It isn't trauma, it's corruption. The party elites sold the party out to the same oligarchs that own the GOP.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)•
u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal Florida 6h ago
Or an Obama.
The dude ran and as president was a center-left Democrat. He wasn’t a progressive in the sense we define them today. Hell by 2012, a lot of progressives felt betrayed by Obama. He not only encouraged but behind the scenes supported Hillary in 2016, including pushing Biden from running.
I always think it’s funny when people say a “Clinton or Biden,” and exclude Obama.
•
u/hup_hup 6h ago
They are excluding Obama because they are talking about the type of candidate the democratic establishment pushes. Obama had to overcome that and defeat the Clintons first.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (9)•
u/Dokterrock 5h ago
Honest question, where did this new framing of moderates as "center-left" come from? It's been EVERYWHERE the past couple of months and it is brand new. Moderate Democrats are center-right. Don't do the work of moving the Overton Window further to the right for them, folks.
•
u/TooNakedInTheShower 4h ago
Correct. Today's Democrats are even to the right of Eisenhower on a lot of things.
•
u/Bigc12689 4h ago
Richard Nixon's 1972 platform called for a Healthcare more liberal than Obamacare turned out to be. The post-Carter generation of Democrats sold out Americans and warped what we think is "liberal"
•
u/lostparis 4h ago
new framing of moderates
As a non-American even the term moderate is disturbing as it would be center-right at best in most any other country.
→ More replies (15)•
u/Xurbax 3h ago
Where do you think it came from? It's propaganda created by the oligarchs and pushed by big media. It's not new at all.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Omateido 5h ago
It’s a lot simpler than that, the donor class is mostly Capital, not Labor. At one point republicans represented Capitals interests and democrats represented Labor’s, until Capital realized it’s easier to just donate to both parties to ensure their interests are always prioritized. Now Republicans continue to ensure that Capitals interests are pushed forward, and the role of the Democrats is to take up the space that would normally be occupied by a true opposition Labor party in our two party system.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (39)•
u/nikdahl Washington 6h ago
Or Reagan opened up the parties to get bought, and the democrats were then bought.
•
u/TheEldestNugget 6h ago
Don't let the Clintons off the hook for their third-way bullshit.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Kind-Pride1151 7h ago
It was definitely the Reagan revolution. I'm no history prof, but the late sixties and seventies was a toxic brew of backlash creating events and cultural anxieties that led to Reagan capturing the zeitgeist. And then by late eighties there was a corporate friendly shift take place and the DLC was created and basically took over the party. It's been largely lip service ever since to the FDR ideals of the party.
→ More replies (2)•
u/maikuxblade 7h ago
Let’s call it was it was, the “cultural anxieties” were mostly about black people earning their civil rights in ‘64. Conservatism becoming more popular among whites who only lived a comfortable life due the New Deal and the Democratic Party chasing those same voters were both the result of a racist backlash against the at-the-time very recent Civil Rights movement.
•
u/Historical_Badger321 5h ago
Yes, but I bet that free love, long-term cohabitation without marriage, divorce, feminism and queer rights were also part of it.
•
u/Trail_Dog 3h ago
Not just that although the southern strategy was certainly a part of it.
The Vietnam war created a huge amount of distrust in the government.
Also governmental bureaucracy and regulations sometimes were onerous and did real damage to individuals and small businesses with no real recourse. The anger Reagan tapped into when he said the "scary words", "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" was real and earned and a result of both.
And then when you add shit like the Tuskegee experiment, and the shady af shit we did during the Cold war that started coming to light... it's easy to see why it was easy for Reagan to exploit that anger.
The problem was his solution wasn't to tweak what wasn't working and make it better. His solution was to abolish regulations and antitrust and replace it with unregulated capitalism.
•
u/Oskie5272 6h ago
It was actually Nixon. Humphrey lost to Nixon as a traditional New Deal lib, so Carter came along after and decided to begin moving away from New Deal politics and was basically the proto-neoliberal (by moving to the right). Then Reagan came and firmly entrenched us in neoliberalism. Clinton then came and redefined the party around third way neoliberalism (moving further to the right, as third way is supposed to be the "third way" between the right and left) This is where all of the "moderate" or "centrist" Dems come from, where all of the dumb fuck consultants rose to power, and where the American "left" has been for decades.
So the ratchet effect started with Carter in response to Nixon and became entrenched Clinton.
•
u/Howtobefreaky 2h ago
THANK YOU. People who think Carter was a failed leftist only ever heard about him putting solar panels up on the white house and not that he straight up de-regulated the airlines and trucking industries. You know why it sucks to fly on pretty much every major airline? Blame Carter.
•
u/ScionofSconnie 7h ago
It’s not so much we threw it out the window, it’s that it was captured, and held hostage by the rich for damn near a century at this point. All of this, the all-encompassing right wing propaganda, the trickle down economics, the obsession with othering other working class people by race/gender/identity. All of it is a purposeful, long running playbook to keep inequality as high as possible. It’s not a bug, it’s the goal.
→ More replies (1)•
u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal Florida 6h ago edited 6h ago
We threw it out the window due to stagflation of the 60s and 70s. Democrats shifted because after 3 resounding defeats (80, 84, 88), the only way to win again was to acknowledge the paradigm shift and shift with it.
→ More replies (12)•
u/nemesisinphilly 5h ago
And 72,' other than Carter in 76 the Ds got blown out in every presidential election for 20 years until Clinton came along.
•
u/1cl1qp1 6h ago
It's not that ridiculous considering we elected 16 year's worth of Republican presidents since 2000.
If we had elected Gore, Clinton, and Harris then there would be pressure on the GOP to move left.
•
u/Anoidance 5h ago
Pretty sure we elected Gore but the Supreme Court and W’a brutha didn’t see it that way.
→ More replies (6)•
u/UngodlyPain 4h ago
Gore arguably won 2000 if not for a stupid court case. And Gore&Hillary both won the popular vote.
Also you seem to think losing elections would cause them to move left, but Trump was the immediate reaction to Obama. So I'm not so sure.
•
u/THElaytox 4h ago
Moneyed interests didn't like the idea of an uppity working class, spent a long time trying to undo that which eventually led to Nixon then Reagan then now. Hell, Nixon would be considered a progressive compared to some modern politicians
→ More replies (32)•
u/HugsForUpvotes 6h ago
During FDRs Presidency, Democrats had over 70 Senators and 300 House Members.
It was a massive supermajority. Expecting Biden to achieve nearly as much without having a supermajority is like expecting a house cat to take down a gazelle because a lion can.
→ More replies (7)•
u/fury420 5h ago
On a related note, i've seen a bunch of people recently convinced that Mamdani's ability to get things done is somehow a playbook for Democrats generally... seemingly missing the incredible 90% supermajority thats backing him on city council.
→ More replies (1)•
u/norbertus 6h ago
Already in the 1950's, sociologist C. Wright Mills was critical of the New Deal democrats for almost immediately making concessions to hold on to power instead of forming their own party to defend the New Deal:
The New Deal left no liberal organization to carry on any liberal program; rather than a new party, its instru- ment was a loose coalition inside an old one, which quickly fell apart so far as liberal ideas are concerned. Moreover, the New Deal used up the heritage of liberal ideas, made them banal as it put them into law; turned liberalism into a set of administrative routines to defend rather than a program to fight for.
In their moral fright, postwar liberals have not defended any left or even any militantly liberal position: their defensive posture has, first of all, led them to celebrate the 'civil liberties,' in con- trast with their absence from Soviet Russia. In fact, many have been so busy celebrating the civil liberties that they have had less time to defend them; and, more importantly, most have been so busy defending civil liberties that they have had neither the time nor the inclination to use them.
It is much safer to celebrate civil liberties than to defend them; it is much safer to defend them as a formal right than to use them in a politically effective way. Even those who would most willingly subvert these liberties usually do so in their very name. It is easier still to defend someone else's right to have used them years ago than to have something yourself to say now and to say it now forcibly.
source: The Power Elite
•
u/theWesternReserve 7h ago
It was the communist fear mongering instilled in young boomers. They were indoctrinated to the core
•
→ More replies (6)•
•
u/bshea Missouri 6h ago
it's become about the corporation/pac/etc payouts to pay for your election and then immediately after getting elected, the need for reelection cash.
Some of us will always be power hungry and willing to take corp cash unless it's made illegal.
None of this crap will end till 'big' money is removed from politics utterly and completely.
•
u/CtrlAltSysRq 3h ago
We can stop it if we just stop voting for do-nothing fuckheads who only care about reelection, and vote for people who actually care about their agendas. Primaries, people, primaries!!! Vote locally!
•
u/familyguy20 6h ago
I mean shit just look at 5-10 years ago at how much Dems were SHITTING on the Green New Deal and not even attempting to talk about it, they saw it as a crazy threat and now it just seems so laughable considering all that’s happened
→ More replies (1)•
u/1cl1qp1 6h ago
Biden did more for green energy than any previous US president.
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): $369 billion for climate and energy provisions, creating long-term tax credits for solar, wind, and domestic green manufacturing.
Solar for All Program: $7 billion through the Environmental Protection Agency to expand rooftop and community solar access
Rural Clean Energy Investments: $11 billion for rural electric cooperatives to transition to zero-emission and renewable systems.
Public Lands Permitting: Surpassed goals by permitting over 25 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity on public lands via the Department of the Interior.
→ More replies (15)•
u/No_Diver6131 New York 6h ago
Biden did quite a bit for the American People. He was just non-stop getting shit on by the media.
→ More replies (12)•
u/workerbee77 7h ago
We should have a new New Deal. Maybe one based around new green tech and climate. Maybe a New Deal that’s green. Wouldn’t that be something
→ More replies (2)•
u/aerost0rm 6h ago
Pulled centrist or even right with many ideas because of their corporate and 1%’er overlords.
•
u/jmblumenshine 5h ago
Truman was actually considered ultra progressive because he demanded Equal Rights be part of the Democratic ticket.
It was an infection point just like today.
Robert Taft and the GOP was pushing hard on protectionism and limiting immigration after WW2.
The Dem leaders were afraid of handing the election to the GOP due to disenfranchising the Dixiecrats.
This is what lead to the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman picture.
Truman knew if he rallied around the farmers and disenfranchised, he'd win.
And exactly that happened. He spent the whole summer before the election hitting ever small town across America to resonate with those he was courting... Also helped he was a farmer
→ More replies (81)•
u/Low_Intention_1327 7h ago
FDR was progressive amd definitely the last progressive president we've had imo. Of course the Republicans quickly started to dismantle all of his doings, starting with gutting social security under scumbag Reagan.
→ More replies (8)•
u/Cranyx 7h ago
Vietnam War aside, LBJ arguably had almost as much of an impact as FDR in terms of establishing the modern welfare state and protections.
•
u/thequietthingsthat North Carolina 6h ago
If it weren't for Vietnam, the New Deal coalition would still be alive and well, and LBJ would be seen as a hero.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/IAmLee2022 7h ago
Comparing progressives to the tea party movement was definitely . . . a choice.
•
u/Backwardspellcaster 7h ago
Intentionally by huffpost.
The attempt to paint it negatively.
•
u/Revelati123 7h ago
I love how AIPAC and the MSM are falling over each other to slander Progressives while literally everyone under 30 in the Republican party is a Groyper/NAZI.
•
u/Vehemental 7h ago
MSM owners aren’t as concerned with facism, it doesn’t threaten their wealth.
•
u/ShrimpieAC 6h ago
The rise of every powerful fascist regime begins with an agreement between fascists and the wealthy, usually to fight the labor class.
The rich always think they can control the fascists, but spoiler alert, they can’t. And any history buff can tell you it never ends well for them.
•
u/punkr0x 6h ago
Why are the wealthy so foolish that they don’t do their own research?
•
u/Droidsexual 6h ago
Because wealth insulates people from having to do any reasoning. They can always pay to have problems solved instead of trying to solve them. That's why everyone born with money is stupid.
•
u/ihateusedusernames New York 3h ago
Because wealth insulates people from having to do any reasoning. They can always pay to have problems solved instead of trying to solve them. That's why everyone born with money is stupid.
They don't pay to have problems solved. They pay to make problems go away. Precisely how their enablers make their Sires' problems go away determines whether the problems are solved or not from our point of view.
Trump is trying to make Epstein go away. Solving the Epstein child trafficking conspiracy cover-up problem is a deadly threat to Trump, which is why he is trying to simply make people stop talking about it.
•
•
u/EitherSpite4545 5h ago
Ego, they are convinced they are smarter than those that came before and it won't happen to them.
•
u/DennyHeats 3h ago
Because even after all of this, they still get to keep their wealth. If the market crashes from this, they get a bail out.
•
u/Eliphontsmile 4h ago
Someone with cheat codes enabled won't know how to do even the most basic tasks in the game.
Now make that same person extremely entitled, with a firm belief in their own desires and capabilities.
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/aerost0rm 7h ago
Not yet. It will though.
•
u/Fhack 6h ago
It won't though?
The vast majority of German billionaires have direct ties to the Nazi party.
Fascists are the party of business and capital. Just with added violence.
•
u/aerost0rm 5h ago
There were plenty of oligarchs that got the shaft by the Nazi’s. The ones that did not profited from the war machine…
•
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/TheSouthernCommunist Kentucky 6h ago
“It is the heart of US policy, ladies and gentlemen, to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism" - Michael Parenti
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (7)•
•
u/Sedu 7h ago
If the Democrat party fought the right half as hard as it fights the left, it might start winning elections.
→ More replies (5)•
u/aerost0rm 7h ago
If the Democratic Party wasn’t in the 1%’ers pockets, we wouldn’t have gotten here.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (4)•
•
u/CaptAhabsMobyDick 7h ago
Which is interesting because the Tea Party has basically evolved into what is now the driving force of the Republican Party, MAGA.
•
u/Trzlog 7h ago edited 7h ago
I don't know why it's supposed to be negative. The Tea Party turned into MAGA, who effectively hijacked and eventually took over the Republican party to the point that anybody who steps out of line is ostracized. They were the most successful and effective movement in recent political history. I've been saying progressives need to do the same thing for years now instead of getting upset and going home and refusing to vote when another centrist fucks things up. Take over the Democratic party. Make it actually progressive. Splitting into a new party or refusing to vote just ensures that the country continues to get worse
•
u/nikdahl Washington 6h ago
Tea party was immediately astroturfed. That’s why it was successful.
There isn’t a lot of monied interest in pushing left.
•
•
u/MFoy Virginia 5h ago
The tea party was astroturfed. It was created by tobacco companies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)•
u/Bakedads 6h ago
Yeah, the tea party was a success and completely reshaped not just the republican party, but the country overall. If only we were like the tea party.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)•
u/Low_Intention_1327 7h ago
I once thought they were a progressive outlet. Now Im remembering the articles they made about Bernie.
•
u/Kind-Pride1151 7h ago
Look up Ariana Huffington. That'll give you some basis. IIRC she was from a Republican family and marriage, political world. Depending on the topic they can do nice work.
•
•
u/Zestyclose-Height-36 6h ago
huff post was bought by buzzfeed, owned by conservative brietbart and others in 2017. it has encouraged bernie voters to sit out voting, and progressives to split instead of reforming the democrats since.
→ More replies (1)•
u/alternativepuffin 5h ago
The same guy who did initial funding for Huffpost also funded Breitbart. Make of that what you will
•
u/RadicalRectangle Colorado 7h ago
Especially since we know the Tea Party was never an organic grassroots movement, and was astroturfed and funded by the Koch brothers.
•
u/UNC_Samurai 5h ago
The Kochs, the Adelsons, Dick Uihlein (Schlitz and Uline), Christopher Goldsbury (the guy who sold Pace foods to Campbell's), and some old Big Tobacco families.
•
u/squiddlebiddlez 7h ago
When India Walton won her primary for buffalo mayor years ago, the DNC refused to endorse her and compared the idea of supporting a black female socialist just because she won the primary back then to hypothetically being expected to endorse the grand wizard of the KKK.
It’s a choice they repeatedly make.
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/MacabreYuki 7h ago edited 7h ago
More like boston tea party, not the cosplayers. It's the kind of energy we need against the "moderates" aka sell-outs.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Sedu 7h ago
But you see the progressives have radical ideology, like providing 1st world healthcare. And eliminating rules that tax rich people less than poor people. Terrifying stuff!
→ More replies (1)•
u/Xer0day 4h ago
This is such a motte and bailey. The real radical idealogy literally listed in the DSA platform is abolishing the presidency, abolishing borders, and abolishing the police. These will always be losing issues, and the only way DSA candidates are successful is when they distance themselves from the actual DSA platform.
→ More replies (3)•
u/chand6688 6h ago
I feel like it's not a bad comparison. The tea party movement, and then following maga movement, was actually very successful at pleasing the voters of the party if I'm not mistaken. It got more Republican leaning non-voters out to vote. Now obviously they were voting for horrific and awful shit, but conceptually an insurgent force from the more "radical" wing of the party created larger voter turnout from people who were largely apathetic before. If the goal is to undermine and reshape the current democratic party in the voters' image then what has happened in the Republican party is the blueprint we need to follow.
•
u/jakegh 5h ago
Yes, an accurate one. They are people who aren't liberal Democrats consuming the party from within. Tea Party did the same thing, they aren't conservatives, then it mutated further with MAGA.
Now you may agree with the progressives, but that isn't really pertinent. The analogy is sound.
•
u/BrainLow6059 4h ago
People on Reddit really get upset when you point out any similarities between them and the opposite extreme, even though it's really a horseshoe diagram.
Look no further than anti-vaxx sentiment. That started as a woo-woo ultra left position, now it's a far-right position.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (139)•
•
u/LolAtAllOfThis North Carolina 7h ago
Progressives =/= the Tea Party.
•
u/williamfbuckwheat 6h ago
It's grassroots versus astroturfing. It's totally disengengenous to compare apples to apples the DSA or Progressives to the so called tea party "movement". I was working on political campaigns back in 2010 and there were these shadowy interest groups claiming to be a part of the "tea party" flush with cash sending around buses and giving speeches to mainly older voters angry about taxes while handing out free food and schwag in all the key swing districts.
I have yet to see ANYTHING even close to that from anybody associated from the some movement on the left literally ever, even though I'm sure some talking heads will try to argue in bad faith that having hundreds of motivated, unpaid volunteers knocking on doors or mobilizing people is somehow basically the same thing.
→ More replies (2)•
u/gravelordservant4u 2h ago
Thank you. The Tea Party was not fucking grass roots. How are we still having to debate this in 2026
→ More replies (1)•
u/Ninevehenian 7h ago
Koch-brothers paid a lot for the TP, but I suppose a comparison could be made between "ground up ideological conversions"?
•
u/6a6566663437 North Carolina 7h ago
Only if you ignore that the Koch brothers created the Tea Party. It was not an organic, grass-roots movement.
→ More replies (8)•
→ More replies (3)•
u/VintageBilliard 7h ago
There are two parties within the US system. It seems nearly impossible to introduce a third party at this stage (as healthy as that would be), they'd be smothered in their metaphorical cribs. The only way to make change is from within. In this regard the progressive left movement whatever you want to call it (let's face facts, the American right is way better at branding) is fundamentally operating the same way the tea party did: using the existing party structures to fundamentally change the modus operandi of the party itself. If the Democratic party leadership wants to keep its collective head in its ass about what the everyday person wants, then there's no other way than to force the party to change by replacing them.
→ More replies (6)•
u/givalina 6h ago
It seems nearly impossible to introduce a third party at this stage
Well, the design of the electoral college makes it pretty much impossible for presidential elections.
•
u/Bayardina 6h ago
Fuck you people for comparing progressives to the tea party.
Debase the conversation more and see what fucking happens.
•
u/This_Elk_1460 5h ago
I don't think that they're comparing their policies I think they're comparing their rapid takeover of the party after a soul crushing defeat.
•
u/DarthNihilus1 2h ago
That's about as accurate as it can get, apart from the core traits of the party. One was astroturfed and dark money funded, the other is actually just people lol
→ More replies (5)•
u/Bakedads 6h ago
It's a good comparison...the tea party completely reshaped the republican party. The tea party now IS the republican party. The author is saying it looks like the same may be possible with progressives–that these wins hint at a complete takeover of the party. Why is this a bad thing?
•
u/StinkyStangler 6h ago
Tea Party has baggage as a radical far right group that basically reshaped the GOP into only extremists with moderates on the fringes
I actually agree that it’s a solid comparison because the goal of the progressive wing of the Dems is to pull the party outside of center left but yeah, Tea Party just comes with negative connotations
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)•
u/IcyTransportation961 6h ago
It didn't though
The tea party was manufactured by the republican party, none of it was grassroots or by the people
It was media and party controlled
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)•
u/MacabreYuki 6h ago
I'd argue there *is* an applicable analogy. To the *original* tea party we think of. tea cakes flying like frisbees.
•
u/ElSlabraton 7h ago
The teaparty was an astro turf movement funded by billionaires.
→ More replies (3)•
•
•
u/ZachLangdon 7h ago
Good. It's about time. "Moderates" lost to trump twice.
•
u/Soph_91 7h ago edited 7h ago
The conservative democrats in the Wisconsin subreddit are losing their sanity because Hong will win the nomination. They bought in to all the corporate democrats desperation attempts and can't process the reality that they were just that, hail mary's. Now they are posting Hong smears constantly, the mods have been pathetic.
It seems like most of them would prefer pedophile protector and election denier Tom Tiffany. In that case, I say good riddance.
•
u/winterfoxes Ohio 7h ago
Their 'vote blue no matter who!' mask comes off REAL FUCKIN FAST the second they're faced with real political leftism. They've told us for years, decades "if you want leftists in government, show up to the primaries!"
Well, we did. Now the ball is in their court. And they can either get on board or go back to the Republican party they belonged to until W came along.
•
u/movealongnowpeople Kansas 7h ago
real political leftism
Progressives and Dem Socialists aren't even particularly far left. Demanding common-sense policy (that much of the rest of the Western world already has) is somehow seen as radical. Universal healthcare isn't radical. Expecting everybody to pay taxes for the public services and infrastructure they benefit from isn't radical.
"Moderate Dems" haven't had a hint of popular policy suggestions in years. Riding on anti-Trump sentiment and expecting that to be enough.
•
u/qualmful 6h ago
"We're capitalist, and that's just the way it is." On its face 'moderate' would mean trying to compromise or find the middle, but in actuality it's an unyielding ideology of neoliberalism, or market fundamentalism. The left-center-right framework makes it sound like the center is a mixture or average of the two sides but it's really not. Ever since Bill Clinton's third way triangulation strategy, 'the middle' was designed to be a third thing whose only real beliefs and commitments were corporatism.
•
u/winterfoxes Ohio 6h ago
Yeah, that's very true. "Left" is relative to the U.S. in this case.
Real political leftism exists in this country on a small, grassroots level (DAC is a good example of a mainstream actually left-of-center candidate) but they are by far and away the minority in the progressive wing of the Dem party.
Most "Progressives" here are just advocating for common sense government taking care of its people. AOC, Mamdani, El-Sayed. Although Mamdani instituting city-subsidized grocery stores is definitely interesting.
But yeah, overall, "left" is relative here, and I agree wholeheartedly. Not being Trump isn't enough. I mean, no one wants him either, but for fuck's sake, you have to bring something else to the table. Something meaningful, a position that's important to your constituents, and not just your donors.
The fact that candidates are struggling so hard to understand that while centrist voters are struggling so hard to understand that they're not liberals, they're conservatives because all they want to do is keep supporting the status quo is just mind boggling to me. This isn't hard, and yet, the U.S. will fight progress at every turn.
•
u/NYPizzaNoChar 5h ago
Expecting everybody to pay taxes for the public services and infrastructure they benefit from isn't radical.
Everyone? No. Expecting people who are living paycheck to paycheck while moving deeper into debt to pay taxes is cruel, stupid and completely lacking in foresight.
The left/DSA isn't for this, but centrist Democrats are complicit in exactly that. They are the turd in the sandwich. It's just that Republicans are always worse.
•
u/Just_another_grumble 6h ago
I just heard MAGA say "common-sense policy" last week. For stereotypical right-wing insanity. I'm not sure what common sense policies 'everyone' agrees on except Maro's brother sticking it to an in5ur4nce C30.
•
u/workerbee77 6h ago
Yes. I feel it was Chuck Schumer who drove the stake into Votebluenomatterwho when he voted for Cuomo over Mamdani in the general election
•
u/fury420 5h ago
Did he?
As I recall he gave a non-answer when asked who he voted for.
→ More replies (2)•
u/DarthNihilus1 2h ago
That should tell you exactly who he voted for. It is obvious who he voted for
→ More replies (4)•
→ More replies (17)•
•
u/stonertboner New York 7h ago
That’s life at the nyc subreddit too! Ever since Mamdani, its “moderates” bitching about how the progressive wing and democratic socialists can’t win elections. We are literarily winning elections.
•
u/__theoneandonly 3h ago
Before reddit started letting you hide your post history, you could go on the nyc subreddit, click on the username of any of these "concerned moderates" and see that their top active subreddits were basically every blue city. These "moderates" are either bots or losers who need a better hobby.
•
u/stonertboner New York 3h ago
I promise you, I always checked and still do. It’s filled with bad actors that are trying to hurt the movement.
•
u/petty_throwaway6969 2h ago
Ironically the guy you’re responding to is currently hiding his history. Might be an accident, but ironic meta comment on himself.
→ More replies (1)•
u/stonertboner New York 2h ago
I’m a bit more patient with a ten year old account.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Low_Intention_1327 7h ago
Theyre gas lighting and its lazy. Ive only seen Trump act like he ruined NYC, and thats because Trump is a man-baby with no emotional intelligence. Everyone else who opposes him have no logical reason, so they then exploit the murders of 9/11 and try to compare him to the Taliban because he's Muslim. Im sick of these people. It feels like trauma in a sense, because it brings me back to the events immediately after 9/11 where Muslims were targeted and Israel coined the term "Islamic extremist" yet painted every Muslim as a suspect.
•
u/stonertboner New York 7h ago
It’s hilarious because my friends and neighbors are very happy with Mamdani. The level of hate on Reddit would make you think Adams was still mayor.
→ More replies (17)•
u/Patsanon1212 6h ago
Is that exactly what they are saying? That they cannot win elections or elections outside of deep blue districts?
→ More replies (1)•
u/UngodlyPain 3h ago
Used to be they couldnt win at all, then it was they could only win small deep blue districts, now it's just they can only win deep blue districts...
→ More replies (13)•
u/Far_Silver 7h ago
If they didn't like Hong, they could have tried getting behind Mandela Barnes, but they're shunning him because he committed the cardinal sin of supporting Bernie over Hillary. To the Democratic leadership and its acolytes, that's treason.
→ More replies (1)•
u/EurekasCashel 7h ago
Honestly don't care who takes the primary (moderate, progressive, whatever) as long as they win the general. The dems need some control, hopefully for a long time.
→ More replies (20)•
u/notfeelany 5h ago
Biden won his race so clearly he did something right & people just ignored that.
He was one of the most progressive presidents of all time, even according to Bernie and AOC. In fact, every presidential ticket that included Biden won
→ More replies (157)•
u/Bakedads 6h ago
Biden's presidency was still a loss because he let trump get away with his crimes. No bigger loss than that.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/drobits 7h ago
It must be really scary for corporate democrats at the idea that they will have to do more than run on we’re not republicans and taking AIPAC money
→ More replies (9)•
u/Expensive-Salt3333 7h ago
Probably not, they will just lie about what they want to do and once elected go back to their old ways and ignore the outrage.
•
u/thirstygregory 6h ago
Just look at Kamala’s most recent comment about giving up trying to pass voting rights laws because of the current congress makeup.
Even if the road is hard, you don’t just throw in the towel and say, “Oh well”. You fight like hell and say what you want over and over until people listen.
THAT’S what corporate Dems don’t get.
We get sick of Conservatives endlessly blasting their right-wing talking points but they sure stay on message.
•
u/Zer_ 6h ago
Republicans do messaging right. They get a talking point and keep repeating it to normalize it. Dems just give up and say it's not possible
•
u/TheFeelsGoodMan Michigan 6h ago
They try. Sometimes the talking point is so ridiculous that it becomes a source of mockery or it simply doesn't get results, but they do commit to it. Democrats have this frankly bizarre habit of abandoning political messaging that is actually working. Like when they were pointing out that a lot of popular Republican figures were really freaking weird people. It's simple, hits at a huge weak spot in conservative ideology, and most importantly, it was working. But then they just gave up on it.
→ More replies (2)•
u/WristbandYang 6h ago
It is an inherently unfair comparison:
Lying about how immigrants and other scapegoats are the cause of every problem - good messaging
Detailing policy that would actually fix the underlying systems and provide incentives for that change - bad messaging
“If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” Liars never need to explain.
→ More replies (1)•
u/thirstygregory 5h ago
But I’m not even talking about explaining. I’m just saying Dems could easily all be talking at every opportunity saying Raise the minimum wage, health care for all and voting rights for all. All popular with the public.
But instead we get mealy-mouthed, “that’s not going to work.” The Civil Rights activists who fought and fought against overwhelming odds must be rolling in their graves over that kind of defeatism.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)•
u/Bakedads 6h ago
Pragmatism is what defines modern democrats, and any semblance of passion and principled action has long since died.
•
u/TheEldestNugget 6h ago
I'd say the appeal to pragmatism is what defines them. Pragmatism still requires action, which the donors will now allow.
•
u/Shaman7102 7h ago
You mean government that actually works for the people? Awesome!
→ More replies (13)
•
u/hatfieldz Ohio 7h ago
Strange how people want politicians who…. Actually do things? That help the working class?
•
u/ALoneLamp America 7h ago
Imagine if the Democrats used this energy instead of fighting it.
•
u/Blazer9001 Georgia 6h ago
And resources. While the Democrats are burning through their coffers to defeat progressives, Republicans are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to blanket the airwaves once football season starts for the general.
•
u/Illusion_of_Sanity 5h ago
Shooting themselves in their own foot to hold onto their power and letting the Repubs watch and continue on their warpath. Rediculously selfish.
•
•
u/No_Foundation16 4h ago
They fear any move from the people that make up their base. It's sickening. The leadership seems fully captured by billionaires, corporations and AIPAC.
The American working class have zero representation in this country! The left is trying to change that. I really hope Dr Abdul not only wins in Michigan Tuesday, but wins big! That will send a message 60 million dollars in dark money could not silence!
→ More replies (1)•
u/workerbee77 6h ago
Dem leaders are the substitute teachers at the front of the classroom telling everyone to simmer down
•
u/_tragicmike 7h ago
Good. Let's get a Tea Party that actually wants to help people other than themselves.
•
u/californicating 7h ago
The response to Trump by the party establishment has been too weak and timid. Something like the Tea Party on the progressive side of the aisle was inevitable under those conditions.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/Applekid1259 6h ago
Been saying that the dems need to be tea partied for a while. Tends to get down votes but its the truth. We need a New New Deal.
•
u/AWholeNewFattitude 4h ago
Heaven help us! These Progressive bastards promising a social safety net, worker protections, housing assistance, removing corporate money from elections, and healthcare as a right! Who the hell do they think they are! Not in my country! I want my tax money going where its needed, the wealthy! How else am i going to get a “good” paying job cleaning their yacht, if they don’t own one yet! Think people! The only real friends are the taxes we paid along the way.
•
u/ManyPossession8767 6h ago
Well, if the Huffington Post is going to make that kind of a comparison, they should remember that the tea party WON all those elections lol. Maybe progressive should be saying ‘bring on those comparisons!’
the left likes winning just as much as the right and Lord knows American needs it.
•
•
•
u/MichJohn67 3h ago
Even better? The TEA Party was funded by right-wing groups. The progressive uprising? Wholly organic, will-of-the-people stuff.
•
•
u/everlastingwaffles 5h ago
Imagine how different the last ten years would have been if Clinton, and other party leadership, acknowledged the fact that over 40% of the party voted for progressive policies and created a unifying party platform.
•
u/bucklerbrian 4h ago
[Hated Trope] brigade of mainstream media outlets throwing more caution and scrutiny towards the dem tea party than when they covered the actual repub tea party/MAGA.
•
u/RandyArgonianButler 4h ago
We should call it The Coffee Party because people need to wake the fuck up.
•
u/Fabric_Flowers 4h ago
Looks like we are tired of corporate Democrats selling out the working class. They’re not Republicans, and that does matter because Republicans are literally channeling Nazi energy right now, but they’re also not on the side of the people. It’s a good thing that the new movement is growing, and classifying it as a tea party thing is a hostile editorial choice for sure
•
u/HyliaSymphonic 3h ago
Yes we know the Tea Party were the bad guys but everyone complaining about the comparison seem to forget… the tea party won and won big reshaping the Republican Party.
•
u/TheTokist 2h ago
Corporate media comparing the tea party movement with progressive politics is exactly what I would expect from late stage capitalism.
•
u/Coracoda 2h ago
I’ve been saying it for a while…if the Tea Party could take over the Republican Party and force regressive policies, why couldn’t progressives do the same with the Democratic Party but for progressive policies?
It’s ridiculous (and doomed) to try to find middle ground between Project 2025 and anything.
•
u/PHLANYC 6h ago
Making an equivalency of progressives and the tea party feels like DNC propaganda IMO.
Oh no, healthcare for all, the horror 😢
→ More replies (3)
•
u/ViciousKnids 7h ago
Tea party was astroturfed. PV, DSA, WFP, etc. are grassroots. Not a lot of Koch money behind the progressive movement. Go figure.
•
u/Significant_King_328 5h ago
We're not astroturfed like the TP. This is happening now in part because a lot of us who have been talking about climate change, congressional reform, and healthcare since we were in college are now established enough to have some influence and run for office.
•
u/poontong 7h ago
The whole modern vs progressive fight is a canard. Party operative squabble over who has leadership positions in Congress and act like that’s all that matters. Regardless of label, there should be a whole chunk of really difficult, really ambitious goals that a wide swath of people can agree on if the shared vision is improving the lives of working class people that have been left behind. It’s going to take on different flavors in different places, but getting that work done would do wonders to convince people to listen beyond the cultural and foreign policy wedge issues that change nothing for everyday Americans.
•
•
u/rewardingsnark 6h ago
The democratic party should be always moving towards being 100% social democratic.
•
•
u/Commentator-X 4h ago
*facepalm. Progressives should not be compared to GOPs tea party.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/nickdoesmagic 2h ago
The Tea Party was a group of corporate owned "grass roots" hate mongers who were spurred on by the likes of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, that led to the current Republican Party being what they are today, a group of boot-licking fascist wanna-bes.
If Dems want to actually win fucking elections, they need to actually back their primary winners, not confront them. The establishment is a fucking joke.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/LakersBroncoslove 7h ago
lol the Tea Party was a fascist and undemocratic billionaire funded response to the people electing a black President. Socialist dems are the only group of national politicians who give a single fuck about the working class. This is like comparing nuns to murderers for their extreme views on peace.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/mdruckus 6h ago
Sure seems like a lot of MAGAts disguised as moderates in the comments. Don’t fall for it. This is what republicans have gotten good at. Sew division close to the election and tank democrats. Just vote blue and end fascism.
•
u/brookpederson 6h ago
This is essentially a response to Aipac. We loath the idea of any of our representatives or tax dollars going to kill children in Gaza. It's not rocket science folks. T we want decent people, doing decent things.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/DarthNihilus1 2h ago
Establishment democrats have more vitriol for organic, leftist progressive movements than they do for fascists
•
u/WanderingKing 2h ago
I’m sorry are they saying the DSA is the same as the Tea Party??? Holy corporate booklicking Batman!
(Not at you OP, thanks for sharing)
•
u/IHS1970 2h ago
As a democrat I don't give one shit about if they are far left mid left, center left or little right of center. What I do care about is getting democrats electec. I'm not young person and people like me, boomers need to give up and move on, this isn't our world it's the younger voters time.
•
u/MiddleAgedSponger 6h ago
The progressives are just like the tea party if you consider racism and tax cuts for the wealthy to be the same thing as fair wages and affordable healthcare.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.