An established position they used to; lose to Donald Trump. lmao. The Democratic Party's support among business and media hinges upon its function as a champion of capital while any name recognition and support among voters hinges upon its ability to do anything for them in any way. One of these has got to go and I'm figuring it'll be the latter.
I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm. But social democracy and social liberalism works amazingly in many other countries, and jumping onto that, potentially with a rebranding of it into something that isn't considered a curse word by most of the country, might actually go further than relying on the establishment and history of the party.
Most Americans agree more with Democratic policies, even the ones who vote GOP (when you do not say which policy belongs to which party).
Republicans simply are much much better to get voters to vote against their self interest. They're more shrewd at framing stuff. It's been proven time and again and again.
Do you have a source for this? It's possible, but I'm not necessarily sure if this actually applies to most Americans, especially given misinformation and low education rates.
Second, and more importantly, Democrats have been getting clobbered in non-presidential races. Don't just focus on the presidential race. Republicans have won so many seats at the state and federal level that they are actually extremely close to being able to call a constitutional convention. They are only ~1-2 state legislatures away from having the power to amend the Constitution.
It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.
From a Southern Nationalist webpage (Occidental Dissent):
Southern Nationalists are ethnonationalists whereas White Nationalists are racial nationalists. We want Dixie to be an independent country like Ireland. We believe in staying put where we are, organizing and networking in the real world, and working toward the goal of Southern independence from the United States.
White Nationalists want to move somewhere, secede from the United States, and create a White ethnostate in North America. 20 years later, White Nationalists still haven’t decided where the White ethnostate will be located and there hasn’t been any mass migration of White Nationalists. The White ethnostate is an abstraction.
And so I go back to my previous point: yes, it is important to have an electorate that actively participate. But far more important than that is the need for an electorate to think critically and have built in bull***** filters, because without it, there is no defense against a person who comes in spouting nonsense that obviously has no basis in reality. And there is no more fitting description for Donald Trump.
The fact of the matter is the Democrats lost due to their nominating an extremely unpopular candidate, in addition to widespread disapproval of Obamacare and its effects on insurance premiums. And even then, they only lost barely. For the Democrats to win, they merely need to portray Trump as incompetent, unable to lead the country, and bad for America. This won't be hard, because Trump is all of these things.
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
Donald Trump offers exactly what Southern white voters want. Why would they think the left is a better option all of a sudden?
But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.
So, in the three elections prior to 1992, democrats got completely trounced. The one they won before that, Carter in 1976, was won by sweeping the deep south. Somehow I doubt Democrats are going to regain those voters.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...
Fascism, specifically? That's quite a statement. Can you back that up with some more direct evidence?
I don't think the Democratic party has ever been what I would call a "champion of capital." That's more of the Republicans' realm. But social democracy and social liberalism works amazingly in many other countries, and jumping onto that, potentially with a rebranding of it into something that isn't considered a curse word by most of the country, might actually go further than relying on the establishment and history of the party.
Do you have a source for this? It's possible, but I'm not necessarily sure if this actually applies to most Americans, especially given misinformation and low education rates.
It's a little scary to consider since that could lead to a second civil war or worse. Though from the sounds of some of the alt-right rhetoric, they wouldn't mind that.
From a Southern Nationalist webpage (Occidental Dissent):
I was making a point of an alternative, not a contradiction. But Highroller made the point at the end of their post even better.
But the northern and midwestern votes made more of the difference in this election. Of course the democrats are not going to win back the southern vote, but the midwest has more potential to go either way.
One could argue that the barring-a-fascist-takeover worse that Trump is, the better an option the left will look in the next election. Though that didn't work with Dubya, so...