Sweeping Democratic victories in off-year elections seem to be foreshadowing a very good midterms for the party, and one expert believes it’s even bigger than that.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally transform legislative power,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), which focuses on electing Democrats to statehouses, told Mother Jones.
dodo 🇨🇦🇺🇦 - 16hr
lol. The great blue tsunami? Probably more like great blue tear splash. Never underestimate their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s by design.
101
HazardousBanjo @lemmy.world - 16hr
Only if progressives throw their hats into the primaries in 2026.
I've seen a disturbing lack of progressives readying up to kick out establishment dems, just like every year.
69
ORbituary - 16hr
Dems broke their spirit.
23
SantasMagicalComfort - 15hr
MAGA took over the republicans without bitching that it was hopeless.
17
Soggy @lemmy.world - 14hr
The Tea Party gave Repubs the courage to be the racist Christofascists they already were, the left side of American politics is far less homogeneous.
18
RunJun @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 11hr
The Tea Party and MAGA also had billionaire funding.
13
Xanthobilly @lemmy.world - 10hr
Yah this. The idea that an organic, grassroots movement can overcome current oligarch control over media and politics is nonsense. Ever since Citizens United and all the prior consolidations of power (Nixon, Gingrich, Patriot Act, etc.), there is no fighting back for the common man, even en masse. There are protests as large as 14M people and it had no effect on politicians, revolution should have already happened, but politicians are ignoring the call. They are hell bent on answering only to Billionaires. I really think there’s only one solution left and it’s right here in a quote from JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
4
Krono @lemmy.today - 3hr
JFK has a lot to teach us about how politicians should be treated.
A wide ranging peaceful protest movement with specific legislative goals such as the Civil Rights Act.
And when that doesn't work, it's time to touch grass. Lots of grassy knolls are available if people are motivated.
1
Krono @lemmy.today - 13hr
MAGA did not try to upend the pro-buisness nature of the Republican party. MAGA and old school republicans serve the same masters.
Progressive reformers have a much steeper hill to climb, as it would require a near-total destruction of the Democratic Party status quo in order to effect meaningful change.
Both D and R politicians are deeply addicted to dark money donations; we have legalized bribery and corruption. Ending this addiction, even in one party, is not a small, simple act- it is a revolution.
15
Blumpkinhead @lemmy.world - 9hr
A revolution sounds pretty damn good right about now.
2
timbuck2themoon @sh.itjust.works - 6hr
Yep. All it ever is is excuses.
2
Splount - 12hr
If there's a way, no matter how small, for the Dems to squander this opportunity and wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory, they will leave no bland page of the most moderate and uninspiring speech unread to a near empty chamber.
43
SoleInvictus - 12hr
My thoughts exactly. I can't wait to see the controlled opposition "accidentally" fumble a guaranteed win.
20
TropicalDingdong @lemmy.world - 12hr
Schumer's and Jefferies are currently working directly against Democrats abilities to storm into a majority. If you only have the ability to lead in fair weather and favorable winds, you don't have the ability to lead.
These two in particular are doing material damage to Democrats abilities to barnstormer November.
20
Kairos - 16hr
Democrats will just go more right in response
39
Moose Winooski - 14hr
That happened in Canada's federal election. Our Conservative party was acting like Trumpists, so people flocked to the Liberal party, our left-ish parties collapsed, and the Liberals took a big step right.
14
goferking (he/him) - 57min
Just like the labour party in the UK
1
NotSteve_ - 15hr
I gotta ask, like what's the plan even if there is a big blue wave? The current dream scenario it seems is just a centre-right single party state where the Republicans poof into thin air and leave just the Democrats. Your guys' country needs more parties
This bill bans partisan gerrymandering, requires Congressional constituency lines to be drawn by independent boundary commissions, introduces new limits on campaign finance, requires polls to be open for at least two weeks, introduces an automatic voter registration scheme, makes the final day of voting a federal holiday, expands postal voting, makes obstructing voter registration a federal crime, restores voting rights to felons when they leave prison, bans lying to voters about when or where to vote, introduces public financing of elections, limits the amount of money that political parties can spend on an election, requires candidates for president or vice-president to disclose their tax returns, imposes a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, and bans companies from making big donations to inaugural committees.
This bill did not pass because the Senate was evenly divided and the Democrats suffered a backbench rebellion from two "centrist" senators.
23
Unruffled [they/them] - 11hr
As is tradition.
10
floofloof @lemmy.ca - 11hr
This bill did not pass because the Senate was evenly divided and the Democrats suffered a backbench rebellion from two “centrist” senators.
There's a reasonable suspicion the Democrats only advance these bills proposing real change when they already know they have those two "rebels" lined up to block it. That way they keep the voters coming back for another try, while looking after the interests of those who pay them.
11
NateNate60 @lemmy.world - 7hr
I'm pretty sure if that were the case then someone would have blown the whistle on this several years ago. These people employ staffers, many of whom are very ideologically dedicated to the progressive cause, and would not hesitate to become a person familiar with the manner who agreed to an interview on condition of anonymity. In fact, this is probably where 90% of Congress leaks come from.
2
queermunist she/her - 11hr
The Democrats could mobilize their base (not just the voters, but the unions and civil society orgs and universities and the like) and actually implement some party discipline by going after rogue party members that stand in the way of the agenda.
Senators have homes. They have investments. They have donors. They have families. All are points of leverage.
But they won't, because that's their job. The whole reason those """centrists""" are in the party is to discipline the left flank and stop them from hurting the money's feelings, disciplining their right flank would defeat the purpose.
9
I_Jedi @lemmy.today - 14hr
The plan is to create a de facto one-party state where Republicans consistently get around 20-30% of the vote.
To stay in power, the ruling party needs the opposition to be too weak to attempt a takeover, but too strong to be wiped out. By doing this, the "I'm not [opposition]" can remain the default messaging.
4
NateNate60 @lemmy.world - 6hr
Historically, when a party is defeated electorally over and over again, its members either form a new party or they rebel against leadership and the party lurches left or right in the direction of the voters. This happened to the Republican Party after they lost five presidential elections in a row (four of which were won by Franklin Roosevelt). The next Republican president in office was Dwight Eisenhower, who by today's standards would be a moderate liberal.
You can also see it happen in other countries. After being stuck on the left side of the room for 14 years the British Labour Party elected a... moderate conservative as leader and then subsequently won the next election.
Generally speaking, when a party keeps losing elections over and over again, picking a more extreme candidate is usually catastrophic to their electoral chances—see what happened in Canada and Australia.
Before anyone comments with objections or observations of this dynamic in modern American politics, do note that no party has lost 3 elections in a row in five decades.
1
VirtuePacket @lemmy.zip - 10hr
Even if this were true--which I am skeptical that it is--we cannot wrest our republic from the brink by winning every election by wide margins. If we can't find a way to reconcile the degree to which we can't agree on a basic set of facts and institute government that is responsive to the needs of the people, then the seemingly impending authoritarian age will come to pass.
27
Foni - 16hr
With a true left-wing leader, someone with leadership like FDR in the 1930s could be worth something. This bunch of cowards won't change anything, at least nothing that really matters.
21
Boomer Humor Doomergod - 16hr
Even if they win every election they will find a reason not to do anything
19
LifeInMultipleChoice @lemmy.world - 12hr
Probably, my questions would pertian to what wealth could you get a majority of the population to agree on taxing, and how much.
It's easy to say "I think we should put in wealth taxes" it's hard to get people to agree that above $x dollars and for y% is what would be needed. Many Democrats would agree on wealth tax of 10% over $300 million. A lot of progressives would say that is far to little and to high starting entry, but if you shift those numbers lower/higher you would lose chunks of the population agreeing, and ultimately destroy the possibility of it being started. Which to be honest getting it instituted first, then modifying it seems like the easier thing to do, than launch i high enough tax to fix the issues up front. You'll lose all the corporate democracts, and essentially have 25% voting for it at that point.. making it a dead end
2
lemmylump @lemmy.world - 16hr
I'll believe that shit when and only when it happens. I'm so sick of having only false hope.
17
TropicalDingdong @lemmy.world - 12hr
Somewhat..
This would require a complete shift change in leadership long before the races begins. Democratic leadership is still polling at historic lows and they're dragging the part down with them. A bluenami has already been knee capped by Scumers and Jefferies disgusting weakness, cuckolded by both power and influence.
Absolutely the conditions are ripe. but it requires excellent communication, strategy, a bold vision for the fight that can actually galvanized the base that Democrats have worked so hard to erode.
16
Formfiller @lemmy.world - 10hr
We are literally surrounded by ignorant Nazis raging for the machine who voted for a pedofile con man 3 times….don’t hold your breath
14
switcheroo @lemmy.world - 11hr
This is the chance for Dems to once again wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory.
We need a better party. Dems are centrists; we need a progressive. One who won't olive branch the traitor party.
13
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 9hr
however, the government favors just the republicans and the democrats. if the us went for a parliamentary system (with an executive president, rather than a president and a prime minister), we would have a lot more options, and the progressives would win a bit more. seriously!
3
null_dot @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 8hr
No you don't. You'll just split the vote.
Americans are too stupid to collectively be aware of the problem
Don't fuck this up.
2
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 9hr
how do you think we're gonna do that?
2
expatriado @lemmy.world - 16hr
every other year we got once in a generation elections
13
caboose2006 @lemmy.world - 14hr
Too bad the leadership are feckless losers.
12
floofloof @lemmy.ca - 11hr
They are paid to be so.
4
Birch @sh.itjust.works - 7hr
Narrator: But they won't.
12
DaMummy @lemmy.world - 16hr
"Your father and I support the jobs the comet will provide"
12
RememberTheApollo_ @lemmy.world - 14hr
I'm sure they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again, or squander the opportunity to make real gains with any win.
8
Eugene V. Debs' Ghost - 11hr
Time to have a bad candidate in the "once in a life time" election from the Dems again so Trump gets his illegal 3rd term. Can't have a popular candidate, they might raise taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor.
7
Mulligrubs @lemmy.world - 6hr
Hmmm, I wonder if Trump will use executive orders to circumvent congress completely, and the Supremes will back him up per Bezos instructions?
Nah, that's crazy, I'm just paranoid.
p.s. Senate will continue ignoring actual law and insist on following Senate rules (not law; can be changed at any time with simple majority vote) per cloture to avoid the "filibuster"; this blatantly unconstitutional "rule" was magically created to prevent another New Deal
Do all the comments in this thread sound like Russian propaganda too? Or are there perhaps valid criticisms of the Democrat party?
6
goferking (he/him) - 60min
There are way too many people who think any criticism is desire to make the dems better is nothing but outside influence.
Especially when pointing out the flaws or failures
1
ZILtoid1991 @lemmy.world - 44min
And they'll bust it with their tried and tested method for failure: trying to court the right by moving right and abandoning leftist causes.
5
DylanMc6 [any, any] - 9hr
i think the democratic party should do that in the midterms. if NOT, we should form an alternative socialist-progressive government of the united states as a micronation. seriously!
5
ORbituary - 16hr
Never underestimate Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
5
jj4211 @lemmy.world - 10hr
To find the cloud in the silver lining, I can easily see how this doesn't happen.
Currently we are outraged at ICE and military in our streets inflicting harm on innocents, nervous about getting in a war no one would have even thought of, suffering from tariffs increasing prices and ACA premiums going way up.
The thing about every single one of those is that Republicans caused them and Republicans can mostly fix them. Simply by undoing the things they caused in the first place makes folks feel like things are getting fixed, and many will forget why they were broken and just be focused on how they got better during the election year.
So I expect immigration enforcement to tone down (already saw a story to that effect), for them to manage a last minute ACA subsidy extension with much drama, pulling back a lot of tariffs, and chilling out on Venezuela for 2026. Going extra by cutting some "tariff fund" checks and some HSA deposits, to make sure the people get some money, even if it is smaller than the money lost, people fall for "windfalls". Maybe throw some folks under the bus like RFK Jr and Hegseth, to drain the swamp so to speak.
3
queermunist she/her - 15hr
That's what Democrats are afraid of.
3
DrDickHandler @lemmy.world - 11hr
Imagine thinking that legit elections are on the way.
3
JeeBaiChow @lemmy.world - 11hr
Lol. Really? The last time they had a choice between a tepid mid candidate and an impeached, convicted piece of literal rapist shit and they chose to let the rapist shit into the office. I don't have high hopes, tbh. The voters would rather virtue signal than get off their fat asses to save their country.
3
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot @lemmy.world - 10hr
They thought that voting for the impeached, convicted piece of literal rapist shit would mean they'd have more money. It turns out he made them have less money, so now they're re-considering.
1
nymnympseudonym - 16hr
Well I'm prayin' for rain
I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way
-TooL
2
BigMacHole @sopuli.xyz - 15hr
In order to SNATCH this Victory for DECADES and DECADES to Come, bringing in a HUGE Era of Democratic Rule, we should FIRST Shut Down the ENTIRE Government for over a MONTH for LITERALLY no Reason!
2
JeeBaiChow @lemmy.world - 11hr
That was the Rs.
2
aceshigh @lemmy.world - 12hr
The d’s really have a lot to learn from maga. MAGA created plans (project 2025, project 2026) that they started actualizing immediately after Trump won. Where are the d’s project 2029?
tonytins in politics @lemmy.world
Expert says Dems have "once-in-a-generation" chance to flip hundreds of seats across the nation - LGBTQ Nation
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/12/expert-says-dems-have-once-in-a-generation-chance-to-flip-hundreds-of-seats-across-the-nation/lol. The great blue tsunami? Probably more like great blue tear splash. Never underestimate their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s by design.
Only if progressives throw their hats into the primaries in 2026.
I've seen a disturbing lack of progressives readying up to kick out establishment dems, just like every year.
Dems broke their spirit.
MAGA took over the republicans without bitching that it was hopeless.
The Tea Party gave Repubs the courage to be the racist Christofascists they already were, the left side of American politics is far less homogeneous.
The Tea Party and MAGA also had billionaire funding.
Yah this. The idea that an organic, grassroots movement can overcome current oligarch control over media and politics is nonsense. Ever since Citizens United and all the prior consolidations of power (Nixon, Gingrich, Patriot Act, etc.), there is no fighting back for the common man, even en masse. There are protests as large as 14M people and it had no effect on politicians, revolution should have already happened, but politicians are ignoring the call. They are hell bent on answering only to Billionaires. I really think there’s only one solution left and it’s right here in a quote from JFK: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
JFK has a lot to teach us about how politicians should be treated.
A wide ranging peaceful protest movement with specific legislative goals such as the Civil Rights Act.
And when that doesn't work, it's time to touch grass. Lots of grassy knolls are available if people are motivated.
MAGA did not try to upend the pro-buisness nature of the Republican party. MAGA and old school republicans serve the same masters.
Progressive reformers have a much steeper hill to climb, as it would require a near-total destruction of the Democratic Party status quo in order to effect meaningful change.
Both D and R politicians are deeply addicted to dark money donations; we have legalized bribery and corruption. Ending this addiction, even in one party, is not a small, simple act- it is a revolution.
A revolution sounds pretty damn good right about now.
Yep. All it ever is is excuses.
If there's a way, no matter how small, for the Dems to squander this opportunity and wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory, they will leave no bland page of the most moderate and uninspiring speech unread to a near empty chamber.
My thoughts exactly. I can't wait to see the controlled opposition "accidentally" fumble a guaranteed win.
Schumer's and Jefferies are currently working directly against Democrats abilities to storm into a majority. If you only have the ability to lead in fair weather and favorable winds, you don't have the ability to lead.
These two in particular are doing material damage to Democrats abilities to barnstormer November.
Democrats will just go more right in response
That happened in Canada's federal election. Our Conservative party was acting like Trumpists, so people flocked to the Liberal party, our left-ish parties collapsed, and the Liberals took a big step right.
Just like the labour party in the UK
I gotta ask, like what's the plan even if there is a big blue wave? The current dream scenario it seems is just a centre-right single party state where the Republicans poof into thin air and leave just the Democrats. Your guys' country needs more parties
The last time the Democrats won control of Congress, they tried to pass a very large electoral reform law.
This bill bans partisan gerrymandering, requires Congressional constituency lines to be drawn by independent boundary commissions, introduces new limits on campaign finance, requires polls to be open for at least two weeks, introduces an automatic voter registration scheme, makes the final day of voting a federal holiday, expands postal voting, makes obstructing voter registration a federal crime, restores voting rights to felons when they leave prison, bans lying to voters about when or where to vote, introduces public financing of elections, limits the amount of money that political parties can spend on an election, requires candidates for president or vice-president to disclose their tax returns, imposes a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, and bans companies from making big donations to inaugural committees.
This bill did not pass because the Senate was evenly divided and the Democrats suffered a backbench rebellion from two "centrist" senators.
As is tradition.
There's a reasonable suspicion the Democrats only advance these bills proposing real change when they already know they have those two "rebels" lined up to block it. That way they keep the voters coming back for another try, while looking after the interests of those who pay them.
I'm pretty sure if that were the case then someone would have blown the whistle on this several years ago. These people employ staffers, many of whom are very ideologically dedicated to the progressive cause, and would not hesitate to become a person familiar with the manner who agreed to an interview on condition of anonymity. In fact, this is probably where 90% of Congress leaks come from.
The Democrats could mobilize their base (not just the voters, but the unions and civil society orgs and universities and the like) and actually implement some party discipline by going after rogue party members that stand in the way of the agenda.
Senators have homes. They have investments. They have donors. They have families. All are points of leverage.
But they won't, because that's their job. The whole reason those """centrists""" are in the party is to discipline the left flank and stop them from hurting the money's feelings, disciplining their right flank would defeat the purpose.
The plan is to create a de facto one-party state where Republicans consistently get around 20-30% of the vote.
To stay in power, the ruling party needs the opposition to be too weak to attempt a takeover, but too strong to be wiped out. By doing this, the "I'm not [opposition]" can remain the default messaging.
Historically, when a party is defeated electorally over and over again, its members either form a new party or they rebel against leadership and the party lurches left or right in the direction of the voters. This happened to the Republican Party after they lost five presidential elections in a row (four of which were won by Franklin Roosevelt). The next Republican president in office was Dwight Eisenhower, who by today's standards would be a moderate liberal.
You can also see it happen in other countries. After being stuck on the left side of the room for 14 years the British Labour Party elected a... moderate conservative as leader and then subsequently won the next election.
Generally speaking, when a party keeps losing elections over and over again, picking a more extreme candidate is usually catastrophic to their electoral chances—see what happened in Canada and Australia.
Before anyone comments with objections or observations of this dynamic in modern American politics, do note that no party has lost 3 elections in a row in five decades.
Even if this were true--which I am skeptical that it is--we cannot wrest our republic from the brink by winning every election by wide margins. If we can't find a way to reconcile the degree to which we can't agree on a basic set of facts and institute government that is responsive to the needs of the people, then the seemingly impending authoritarian age will come to pass.
With a true left-wing leader, someone with leadership like FDR in the 1930s could be worth something. This bunch of cowards won't change anything, at least nothing that really matters.
Even if they win every election they will find a reason not to do anything
Probably, my questions would pertian to what wealth could you get a majority of the population to agree on taxing, and how much.
It's easy to say "I think we should put in wealth taxes" it's hard to get people to agree that above $x dollars and for y% is what would be needed. Many Democrats would agree on wealth tax of 10% over $300 million. A lot of progressives would say that is far to little and to high starting entry, but if you shift those numbers lower/higher you would lose chunks of the population agreeing, and ultimately destroy the possibility of it being started. Which to be honest getting it instituted first, then modifying it seems like the easier thing to do, than launch i high enough tax to fix the issues up front. You'll lose all the corporate democracts, and essentially have 25% voting for it at that point.. making it a dead end
I'll believe that shit when and only when it happens. I'm so sick of having only false hope.
Somewhat..
This would require a complete shift change in leadership long before the races begins. Democratic leadership is still polling at historic lows and they're dragging the part down with them. A bluenami has already been knee capped by Scumers and Jefferies disgusting weakness, cuckolded by both power and influence.
Absolutely the conditions are ripe. but it requires excellent communication, strategy, a bold vision for the fight that can actually galvanized the base that Democrats have worked so hard to erode.
We are literally surrounded by ignorant Nazis raging for the machine who voted for a pedofile con man 3 times….don’t hold your breath
This is the chance for Dems to once again wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory.
We need a better party. Dems are centrists; we need a progressive. One who won't olive branch the traitor party.
however, the government favors just the republicans and the democrats. if the us went for a parliamentary system (with an executive president, rather than a president and a prime minister), we would have a lot more options, and the progressives would win a bit more. seriously!
No you don't. You'll just split the vote.
Americans are too stupid to collectively be aware of the problem
Don't fuck this up.
how do you think we're gonna do that?
every other year we got once in a generation elections
Too bad the leadership are feckless losers.
They are paid to be so.
Narrator: But they won't.
"Your father and I support the jobs the comet will provide"
I'm sure they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again, or squander the opportunity to make real gains with any win.
Time to have a bad candidate in the "once in a life time" election from the Dems again so Trump gets his illegal 3rd term. Can't have a popular candidate, they might raise taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor.
Hmmm, I wonder if Trump will use executive orders to circumvent congress completely, and the Supremes will back him up per Bezos instructions?
Nah, that's crazy, I'm just paranoid.
p.s. Senate will continue ignoring actual law and insist on following Senate rules (not law; can be changed at any time with simple majority vote) per cloture to avoid the "filibuster"; this blatantly unconstitutional "rule" was magically created to prevent another New Deal
@But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world re: https://lemmy.world/comment/20954304
Do all the comments in this thread sound like Russian propaganda too? Or are there perhaps valid criticisms of the Democrat party?
There are way too many people who think any criticism is desire to make the dems better is nothing but outside influence.
Especially when pointing out the flaws or failures
And they'll bust it with their tried and tested method for failure: trying to court the right by moving right and abandoning leftist causes.
i think the democratic party should do that in the midterms. if NOT, we should form an alternative socialist-progressive government of the united states as a micronation. seriously!
Never underestimate Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
To find the cloud in the silver lining, I can easily see how this doesn't happen.
Currently we are outraged at ICE and military in our streets inflicting harm on innocents, nervous about getting in a war no one would have even thought of, suffering from tariffs increasing prices and ACA premiums going way up.
The thing about every single one of those is that Republicans caused them and Republicans can mostly fix them. Simply by undoing the things they caused in the first place makes folks feel like things are getting fixed, and many will forget why they were broken and just be focused on how they got better during the election year.
So I expect immigration enforcement to tone down (already saw a story to that effect), for them to manage a last minute ACA subsidy extension with much drama, pulling back a lot of tariffs, and chilling out on Venezuela for 2026. Going extra by cutting some "tariff fund" checks and some HSA deposits, to make sure the people get some money, even if it is smaller than the money lost, people fall for "windfalls". Maybe throw some folks under the bus like RFK Jr and Hegseth, to drain the swamp so to speak.
That's what Democrats are afraid of.
Imagine thinking that legit elections are on the way.
Lol. Really? The last time they had a choice between a tepid mid candidate and an impeached, convicted piece of literal rapist shit and they chose to let the rapist shit into the office. I don't have high hopes, tbh. The voters would rather virtue signal than get off their fat asses to save their country.
They thought that voting for the impeached, convicted piece of literal rapist shit would mean they'd have more money. It turns out he made them have less money, so now they're re-considering.
Well I'm prayin' for rain I'm praying for tidal waves I wanna see the ground give way
-TooL
In order to SNATCH this Victory for DECADES and DECADES to Come, bringing in a HUGE Era of Democratic Rule, we should FIRST Shut Down the ENTIRE Government for over a MONTH for LITERALLY no Reason!
That was the Rs.
The d’s really have a lot to learn from maga. MAGA created plans (project 2025, project 2026) that they started actualizing immediately after Trump won. Where are the d’s project 2029?
lol yeah in 2012