this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024

441 points (96.2% liked)

politics

18966 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

441

The Best Counter to Project 2025 Is a Progressive Project 2025 (inthesetimes.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

To win back support, the Democratic candidate must offer a positive and coherent vision centered on care and progressive policies, rather than relying solely on anti-Trump rhetoric.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 106 points 5 months ago (57 children)

Democrats would rather lose than embrace progressives.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Not just Democrats "centrists" in basically any western nation.

Just look at macron allying with the right so the leftists that just absolutely saved him and his party from being wiped out by RN, can't form a government.

load more comments (56 replies)

[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I think the best counter would be to get money out of politics. These groups and massively wealthy individuals only have power because many politicians will do anything to get that money.

Stop letting them buy influence. Make it hard to find a loophole. And actually punish people for violating campaign finance laws.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They'd win in a landslide if they brought forward a plan to make this happen... But they'd rather lose the election than lose their sugar daddy corporations.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Hillary in her campaign was focused on removing Citizens United.

After she lost, hasn't been brought back up again.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

With the way they've packed the courts, there's virtually no chance of this happening any time soon.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 43 points 5 months ago (3 children)

As a leftist, it absolutely boggles my mind how utterly naive and stupid other leftists and Democrats can be. No, you don't need more great policies - policies are not going to win you the election. We already have great policies.

Republicans don't give a flying fuck about policy. You know what they are really good at though? Fucking voting!

As much as I know you will hate to hear this, the only thing that is going to prevent you from Republican fascism next year is to spread the word and vote against these idiots who are poised to win in 2024. Do whatever it takes to get the apathetic voters out of their goddamn chairs and vote blue in November.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. One thing I think Democrats have been missing has been a vision for the future. The closest we got was Obama's "Hope & Change" which didn't have any real meat to it. Having a clear set of policy goals that people can get excited about will drive voter turnout, thus beating the Republicans.

I see tons of people complaining that the Democrats don't have any policies except "We're not Republicans." That on its face should be good enough, but since it's not maybe doing something else would help. And don't just make it for 2025, but a permanent change. Like how the Republicans worked for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade.

load more comments (1 replies)

[+] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That is intentionally misrepresenting what he said entirely. His point was that policies don't win elections. If they did, Republicans would basically not exist now.

Public image wins elections. Obama was only able to overcome American voters' racial biases and win 2008 because of his public speaking abilities and building his character over the course of the years beforehand. He also actually did pretty well as a president, at least significantly better than the presidents since Reagan imo, which definitely secured him the re-election regardless of his incredible charisma, but no amount of good policies in his previous campaigns could've made up for charisma.

Since Biden just dropped out, it's Kamala's job now to secure the election by improving her public image. She's already gotten on that to some extent by recently starting to emphasize how much she contributed to many of the key good policies throughout her Vice Presidency – it tells voters about what kinds of policies she supports, yes, but it's mainly a way to tell voters "hey, I've been here this entire time, I've implemented all this amazing stuff despite it never breaking the news, I'm competent and fit for the job"; the image of efficiency & competence is more important than the actual policies themselves.

A "leftie" Project 2025 counterpart would just make most voters immediately think dems (and Harris) as more divisive and even petty/retaliatory. It's stupid to think like that, yes, but voters are pretty irrational. This includes like at least 1/10 of the democrats' voterbase (and I'd wager probably a lot more in important swing states with a high suburban&rural population like Michigan) which is basically slightly conservative middle-class centrists who would prefer progressive policies (excluding some of the socially progressive ""identity politics"" as they call it) but are easily pushed into "collaborator" territory if they feel like dems start being too "radical", too "divisive", too "virtue signaling", etc. Such problems are inevitable when you brand yourself as "the party of compromise".

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I didn't care about a progressive project 2025. I want guardrails that neuter project 2025 from being an effective project 2029.

Voters have very short memories and Cheeto Mussolini losing doesn't mean that this repugnant bullshit won't be enacted in the future.

We need federal court reform.

Protections for non appointed federal employees.

Protections for women's health.

Protections for voting rights.

Protections for religions (of and from).

And probably dozens of other things to make sure project 2025 doesn't become project 2029.

We cannot wait for the religious right to act before we respond. We have to respond now. They have shown us their hand and they think we are too weak to stop them. It is time we relegate their views and ideals to the trash heap in which they belong.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Could we also do something about not allowing propaganda to be called "news"? I realize that's dicey with the 1st amendment, but we've got some smart people that should be able to figure something out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

It used to be a thing but it only applied to over the air broadcasters. This would actually still be a good thing as most local stations would fall under this and many people trust their local more than cable news. It would hinder things like this

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Don't call it that.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Knowing how great democrats are at branding, they'll 100% call it that and nobody will be able to work out which is which after everyone's done muddying the waters.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Progressives are equally bad at branding and i fully expect downvotes for pointing this out.

Things like "fuckcars" and "antiwork" feed right into right-wing media.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago

I still think it's ridiculous that both candidates had a debate before they even worked out a manifesto/program. Like, I know in the US the campaigns aren't ever about policy, but they're not even trying to have that pretense.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The best counter to project 2025 is to fucking run a candidate who can win, ffs.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Can we shorten it to PP2025? I feel like Progressive Project 2025 is kind of a mouthful.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Progress 2025 would be better than "peepee"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

PEEPEE 2025 LETS FUCKIN GOOO

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Do you work for the Democratic party? Because this sounds like something they would definately do. "Biden's PeePee2025 plan".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (5 children)

What would it take to implement even a part of the Nordic model social welfare here in the U.S.?

Not an economist, but I think it would take taxing corporations a fair share of the resources, human and otherwise, they enjoy.

So much wealth is misappropriated as undeserved CEO pay, and restructuring CEO pay even just a little to allow paying for greater corporate taxes will create enough revenue from taxes and implement social welfare for 100s of millions.

Housing support for families and individuals who need it, free healthcare for all, and free K-12 education for all should be a bare minimum. Moreover, if people are losing work and income due to AI, there needs to be retraining.

But why do all this? Why reduce suffering and misery? Less worry about money and health = happier lives = stronger bodies and minds = more resilient people = communities which can withstand shocks from natural or manmade disasters. In some way, having stronger communities ensures homeland security.

More than that, everything which supports the work of corporations relies on civilized society and the structure gained from civilization. These are the basics which are ignored in favor of shortsighted policy making benefiting only the greedy.