• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Elections 2032 is going to be very bad for Dems

We have varying forms of Democratic elections to select representatives to lead our government.
This describes literally every single country in the world. In other words, a useless statement.
The ignorance of people. America is not a democracy. We are a republic. The idea of a pure majority rule is appalling.
Here's you original statement. America is a democracy, period. Depending on your definition of democracy and whether you prefer qualitative vs quantitative, it's been one since anywhere from the 1800s to 1960s.
We are not a pure democracy.
We use a mix of direct democracy and indirect democracy to handle most government decisions in the US. Ergo, we are a democracy.
Very rarely, and typically at the local level, do we ever have direct democratic rule.
Democracy includes both direct and indirect. It is a baffling you are attempting to argue otherwise. Have you ever read any work by political scientists who specialize in comparative politics or democratization?
 
This describes literally every single country in the world. In other words, a useless statement.

Here's you original statement. America is a democracy, period. Depending on your definition of democracy and whether you prefer qualitative vs quantitative, it's been one since anywhere from the 1800s to 1960s.

We use a mix of direct democracy and indirect democracy to handle most government decisions in the US. Ergo, we are a democracy.

Democracy includes both direct and indirect. It is a baffling you are attempting to argue otherwise. Have you ever read any work by political scientists who specialize in comparative politics or democratization?
So your issue is that I didn’t use the word “direct” when I was talking about, and responded to a post regarding, direct democracy?
 
www
So your issue is that I didn’t use the word “direct” when I was talking about, and responded to a post regarding, direct democracy?
My point is you don't even know the definitions of the simple terms you're using. Secondary to that, no one argued for direct democracy. I noted that the presidential election should be pure popular vote. That's indirect democracy.

So not only do you not know what a democracy or republic is, you don't even know the difference between direct and indirect democracy.
 
www

My point is you don't even know the definitions of the simple terms you're using. Secondary to that, no one argued for direct democracy. I noted that the presidential election should be pure popular vote. That's indirect democracy.

So not only do you not know what a democracy or republic is, you don't even know the difference between direct and indirect democracy.
Changing the presidential election to a popular vote is changing it to a system of direct democracy.

Obviously it’s still representative in that they aren’t voting for literally every policy decision, but it’s clearly a step closer to direct democracy than the electoral college.
 
Changing the presidential election to a popular vote is changing it to a system of direct democracy.
That is textbook indirect democracy. Direct democracy would be Americans actually voting on individual decisions and laws. Effectively a plebiscite or referendum system.
Obviously it’s still representative in that they aren’t voting for literally every policy decision, but it’s clearly a step closer to direct democracy than the electoral college.
It's a transition from to clear indirect democracy. There's a reason no democracy today uses the electoral college. It's a archaic idea that wastes votes and creates too many perverse incentives.
 
That is textbook indirect democracy. Direct democracy would be Americans actually voting on individual decisions and laws. Effectively a plebiscite or referendum system.

It's a transition from to clear indirect democracy. There's a reason no democracy today uses the electoral college. It's an archaic idea that wastes votes and creates too many perverse incentives.
Your argument is absurd on its face.

Just say you don’t like the electoral college because you want majority rule.
 
There isn’t a human being alive who would say that eliminating the electoral college and installing a direct popular vote isn’t a step closer to direct democracy.
 
Your argument is absurd on its face.
Are you going to admit you confused direct and indirect democracy yet?
There isn’t a human being alive who would say that eliminating the electoral college and installing a direct popular vote isn’t a step closer to direct democracy.
It gets you to indirect democracy. This is vey basic political science 101, I'm not sure why you are struggling with these concepts so much.
Just say you don’t like the electoral college because you want majority rule.
I'd be fine if states divvied up electoral votes proportionately. But at that point, you've just created 90% of the popular vote attthe cost of pointless complications and incentivizing gerrymandering.

I like democracies. Ergo, I don't like the electoral college. That's not hard to follow. Why is it you think the US needs an electoral college when every other country has dispensed with it because it's a terrible idea?
 
It's really not that hard for them. Dump the far left crazies and their far left crazy policies. It's as simple as that. They'll make up the difference with independents. They can still do it, but it's like watching poison running through someone's veins, and you give them an antidote, and all they have to do is use it. They don't for some reason, and just ride it out and let that poison spread.

It's up to them whether or not they want to actually be a viable party in the future, or a footnote in history.

You live in a fantasy world where the Omars of the world and blue haired woke college teenagers are running the democratic party.

The core and major power of the democratic constituency is still the tired old center left represented by the Bidens, Obamas, Clintons of the world. Newsom is trying to be the next guy. The idea that the left has been overtaken by woke ideology is a (successful) narrative woven by the right. Kamala Harris is the farthest thing from a "radical leftist". And all this insistence on gender and woke agendas is a distraction, since it is really a relatively inconsequential and fringe matter, that represents a tiny fraction of expenditure and legislation. You think Joe Biden or Gavin Newsom care about pronouns or transexual rights? Even AOC doesn't spend much time on that topic. It's not an issue that affects the immense majority of people's lives, just something that the right exploits, intelligently, to gather popular favor.

I live in California and work in higher education and have barely had ever to even think about pronouns and transexual relations in the workplace or everyday life.

The more "radical" wing are still pretty standard social democrats trying to address the working class, labor issues, health care, etc. It hasn't worked because they have lost credibility over decades of ornate rhetoric losing its luster.

If anything the left has suffered from its incapacity to reinvent itself beyond the tired moralist tropes of the welfare state that they ran since the 60s. The most radical voice continues to be a crusty Bernie.
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump was closer to winning New York than Kamala Harris was to winning Florida. Democrats are going to have to drastically change their agenda and policies.
 
The ignorance of people. America is not a democracy. We are a republic. The idea of a pure majority rule is appalling.
It's just funny, because that's what he was originally arguing for and claimed every other democracy in the world has that system. He was proven wrong, and in typical leftist fashion, instead of just admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about, he writes a novel on how despite being completely wrong, he's still "mostly correct". Sound familiar? LOL.

Besides, he's only against the electoral college because he sees it as a Republican tool to win elections. If they got rid of it and the Reps started running away with mob rule, he'd be right there arguing that it's racist, and they need a system similar to the electoral college for all voices to be heard.
 
It's just funny, because that's what he was originally arguing for and claimed every other democracy in the world has that system. He was proven wrong, and in typical leftist fashion, instead of just admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about, he writes a novel on how despite being completely wrong, he's still "mostly correct". Sound familiar? LOL.
Hey Mr. Canada, did you ever figure out how your country picks PMs? You seemed very confused.
Besides, he's only against the electoral college because he sees it as a Republican tool to win elections. If they got rid of it and the Reps started running away with mob rule, he'd be right there arguing that it's racist, and they need a system similar to the electoral college for all voices to be heard.
I'm universally opposed to it, same as the filibuster. It's not a partisan preference and I don't care who it benefits. I can understand, however, why the idea of having consistent principles of your own is so alien to you.
 
You live in a fantasy world where the Omars of the world and blue haired woke college teenagers are running the democratic party.
It's more the far left aura surrounding them at this time. They gotta stop arguing for illegal immigrants, chicks with dicks, "restorative justice", DEI, CRT...the whole bit. It's killing them, and this idea that if they truly embraced it and had an actual extreme leftist at the helm, they would do way better, is delusional. Now, they do need a leader with a clear vision, but the far left ain't it. Even without all the social bullshit, people aren't stupid and know that they know little to nothing about economics. The "free shit" party ain't free, and socialism ain't popular among any working class voter.

Whether or not the establishment Dems actually believe in any of it, is beside the point(you don't have to tell me that they're full of shit most of the time). They've managed to make it their brand all the same(or at least a big part of it). They've also managed to piss off both sides with their double talk and hypocrisy. Problem with promoting that ideology is that it's never enough, and you're one little misstep away from dividing your base. They invited the lunatics into their party, and they're paying for it...and will continue to pay for it if they don't find a way to pivot and leave these "small" issues out of
 
It's more the far left aura surrounding them at this time. They gotta stop arguing for illegal immigrants, chicks with dicks, "restorative justice", DEI, CRT...the whole bit. It's killing them, and this idea that if they truly embraced it and had an actual extreme leftist at the helm, they would do way better, is delusional. Now, they do need a leader with a clear vision, but the far left ain't it. Even without all the social bullshit, people aren't stupid and know that they know little to nothing about economics. The "free shit" party ain't free, and socialism ain't popular among any working class voter.

Whether or not the establishment Dems actually believe in any of it, is beside the point(you don't have to tell me that they're full of shit most of the time). They've managed to make it their brand all the same(or at least a big part of it). They've also managed to piss off both sides with their double talk and hypocrisy. Problem with promoting that ideology is that it's never enough, and you're one little misstep away from dividing your base. They invited the lunatics into their party, and they're paying for it...and will continue to pay for it if they don't find a way to pivot and leave these "small" issues out of
"They're eating the dogs bro, I have proof. BTW, stop being so extreme."
 
LOL.

Who do you think you're fooling?
So, that's a no, you still haven't figured out how Canada picks its PM.

Are you sure you aren't living in another country pretending to be a Canadian who weirdly roleplays an American Maga head?
 
It's more the far left aura surrounding them at this time. They gotta stop arguing for illegal immigrants, chicks with dicks, "restorative justice", DEI, CRT...the whole bit. It's killing them, and this idea that if they truly embraced it and had an actual extreme leftist at the helm, they would do way better, is delusional. Now, they do need a leader with a clear vision, but the far left ain't it. Even without all the social bullshit, people aren't stupid and know that they know little to nothing about economics. The "free shit" party ain't free, and socialism ain't popular among any working class voter.

Whether or not the establishment Dems actually believe in any of it, is beside the point(you don't have to tell me that they're full of shit most of the time). They've managed to make it their brand all the same(or at least a big part of it). They've also managed to piss off both sides with their double talk and hypocrisy. Problem with promoting that ideology is that it's never enough, and you're one little misstep away from dividing your base. They invited the lunatics into their party, and they're paying for it...and will continue to pay for it if they don't find a way to pivot and leave these "small" issues out of

This "aura" you speak of is a fabrication, and the product of right-wing narrative, which has been clearly effective at generating this impression.

The major political campaigns by Obama, Biden, Harris had very, very little to do immigration and "chicks with dicks," or DEI. None of their campaigns ran on these matters. They focused overwhelmingly on funding schools, healthcare, and working class rights, tax exemptions for middle and lower class families, programs for social assistance. Kamala, and even Bernie, were even lukewarm about condemning Israel.

That is, the party ran on a traditional welfare state agenda and moralism against oligarchic privilege, but it is a narrative that has ran its course and lost its persuasiveness. Clearly, most of them know that going 'officially woke' would be suicide, which is why they have never done that and have stayed within their usual rhetoric. But that is precisely what got them into trouble, not being able to change generate a rhetoric that is appealing massively and capable of luring back the working class, while making the right appear nauseating. The right, in turn, was very savvy and reinventing itself and turning from the crusty old moralist conservatism to a techo-liberatarian circus with entertainment and unhinged populist vulgarity, nevermind traditional values or morals.

I'm not sure who ever claims that "if the left embraced wokeness" it would do them any favors. If anyone does that's a really fringe and stupid position. There are a few people in congress that are of that stripe, but they are very, very few and far between.

The democratic party needs something besides what they are (center left discredited liberal progressives or centrists) and what the right says they are (a horde of communist radicals who want to open the borders and make everyone trans).

You are confusing the perception of the party with what the party itself is. The former is mediated by the counter-narrative produced by their opponents. Which is why all these woke issues are put under a magnifying glass by the Trump administration, even if they are really marginal issues that affect a tiny fraction of the population, and that do not represent the left except in extremely minoritarian places.
 
Back
Top