Historic Poll Devastates Democrats: Worst Voter Approval Rating in 35 Years

Always in His Presence said:

Let me tell you what I do know -

1. Bernie is a self described Socialist Democrat
2. Alexandria is a self described Socialist Democrat
3. I posted the link to the Socialist Democratic Party Website that they both self identify with.
4. The Democrats are loosing support as evidence by their historic low approval ratings.
4. Alexandria, while the most popular - does not hold the majority even in her own party

Many of their base are leaving because they say their party is out of touch

Enjoy exploring - perhaps you will do something no democrat has seemingly figured out yet;

LOL.... oh, you are serious......

Click to expand...

Democratic socialism looks pretty good from where I sit.

Pommer said:

Democratic socialism looks pretty good from where I sit.

Click to expand...

And the policies poll well when not branded as "socialism."

Pommer said:

Democratic socialism looks pretty good from where I sit.

Click to expand...

Dropping the Critical Theory and going to Democratic Socialism is the best bet for the Democratic Party. That will at least bring back the working class. The younger voters they need aren't phobic to the word "socialism," but they'll continue to lose young males pushing Critical Theory ideologies.

Always in His Presence said:

Sure - and here is the answer in their own words:

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -

Working towards a better future for all.

www.dsausa.org

Don't forget - I 100% support her running. Alexandria would be the biggest gift the whomever her opponent is that the Republicans could ever hope for. She is good for the Republican Party I support and endorse her campaign running.

Click to expand...

Democrats should consider nominating leaders like Governor Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear. Those who expect AOC or Sanders to win a national election may not fully understand American politics.

mark46 said:

It is quite possible that a far-left Democrat will win the nomination, resulting in a true landslide, not a close win as we have had in the past few elections. Think McGovern or Mondale winning 1-3 states.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the Democratic Party truly needs this kind or election so that they (we) can move forward.

BCP1928 said:

And the policies poll well when not branded as "socialism."

Click to expand...

Pommer said:

Democratic socialism looks pretty good from where I sit.

Click to expand...

And there is a significant minority may agree. Depending on the list of policies run on there could be a majority, bit NOT enough to elect a president.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

Democrats should consider nominating leaders like Governor Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear. Those who expect AOC or Sanders to win a national election may not fully understand American politics.

Click to expand...

Sanders is over the hill and he knows it, he's just doing a John the Baptist kind of thing. AOC's best chance is Speaker in, say, six years. Neither is running for President. Labor's future lies in control of the House.

BCP1928 said:

And the policies poll well when not branded as "socialism."

Click to expand...

BCP1928 said:

And the policies poll well when not branded as "socialism."

Click to expand...

Democrats need to look to their identity politics and lack of understanding of issues of workers, farmers and other non-elites. They need to dump the emphasis on issues such as insisting that we not be so ignorant as to want to teach our children that there are two sexes and that males should be welcome in girls' sports. They must understand that parents (n school boards) should be as important as teachers' unions in deciding what should be taught to our children. Curiously, we have come far from Obama's inclusive policies and his wish that we do not emphasize race and gender.

===================
Believe it or not, it is not Republican labeled socialist policies that are at issue from 1912 until now. The Republicans are right. Democratic socialist policies have been part of the Democratic Party at least since Roosevelt's New Deal. And we are proud of our success in implementing these policies.

The failure of the Democratic Party does NOT lie in the implementation of a better and better safety net and better and better civil rights and environmental protections. And yes, these were part of the progressive Social Party platform in 1912. The major objection that the majority has opposed over the years is federal ownerships of some industries and mining resources, although we do have AMTRAK.

=====================================================

The Socialist Party's 1912 platform advocated for a radical reorganization of American society and the economy, calling for
collective ownership and democratic management of major industries and resources.
The platform focused on a wide range of issues, including:

Social and industrial reforms

• A shorter workday, more effective inspections of workplaces, and the prohibition of child labor under 16 years of age.
• Minimum wage scales, according to Sage American History.
• Old-age pensions and insurance against unemployment, invalidism, industrial diseases, accidents, and death.

Economic policy
The platform proposed public ownership of major industries and resources, such as railroads, telegraphs, and mines. It also called for progressive income and inheritance taxes to help fund the socialization of industry and advocated for the collective ownership of the banking and currency system.

Political reforms
Key political reforms in the platform included unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, direct election of the President and Vice-President, and the abolition of the Senate and presidential veto power. The party also sought the abolition of the Supreme Court's power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation and easier ways to amend the Constitution.

Other Issues
The platform supported freedom of the press, speech, and assembly, the conservation of natural resources, and the collective ownership of patents. It also aimed to address the needs of farmers through measures like state-backed cooperatives and progressive land taxes. The party's stance on racial segregation evolved, ultimately adopting a resolution against racism and supporting the organization of workers across racial lines.

The ideas presented in the 1912 platform, while considered radical at the time, reflected Progressive Era concerns about industrialization and inequality, advocating for increased government regulation and social welfare.

mark46 said:

Democrats need to look to their identity politics and lack of understanding of issues of workers, farmers and other non-elites. They need to dump the emphasis on issues such as insisting that we not be so ignorant as to want to teach our children that there are two sexes and that males should be welcome in girls' sports. They must understand that parents (n school boards) should be as important as teachers' unions in deciding what should be taught to our children. Curiously, we have come far from Obama's inclusive policies and his wish that we do not emphasize race and gender.

===================
Believe it or not, it is not Republican labeled socialist policies that are at issue from 1912 until now. The Republicans are right. Democratic socialist policies have been part of the Democratic Party at least since Roosevelt's New Deal. And we are proud of our success in implementing these policies.

The failure of the Democratic Party does NOT lie in the implementation of a better and better safety net and better and better civil rights and environmental protections. And yes, these were part of the progressive Social Party platform in 1912. The major objection that the majority has opposed over the years is federal ownerships of some industries and mining resources, although we do have AMTRAK.

=====================================================

The Socialist Party's 1912 platform advocated for a radical reorganization of American society and the economy, calling for
collective ownership and democratic management of major industries and resources.
The platform focused on a wide range of issues, including:

Social and industrial reforms

• A shorter workday, more effective inspections of workplaces, and the prohibition of child labor under 16 years of age.
• Minimum wage scales, according to Sage American History.
• Old-age pensions and insurance against unemployment, invalidism, industrial diseases, accidents, and death.

Economic policy
The platform proposed public ownership of major industries and resources, such as railroads, telegraphs, and mines. It also called for progressive income and inheritance taxes to help fund the socialization of industry and advocated for the collective ownership of the banking and currency system.

Political reforms
Key political reforms in the platform included unrestricted and equal suffrage for men and women, direct election of the President and Vice-President, and the abolition of the Senate and presidential veto power. The party also sought the abolition of the Supreme Court's power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation and easier ways to amend the Constitution.

Other Issues
The platform supported freedom of the press, speech, and assembly, the conservation of natural resources, and the collective ownership of patents. It also aimed to address the needs of farmers through measures like state-backed cooperatives and progressive land taxes. The party's stance on racial segregation evolved, ultimately adopting a resolution against racism and supporting the organization of workers across racial lines.

The ideas presented in the 1912 platform, while considered radical at the time, reflected Progressive Era concerns about industrialization and inequality, advocating for increased government regulation and social welfare.

Click to expand...

That's why I think the Republicans are doing us a favor by winning the culture war and discrediting those Democrats who fought it with them. I'm an old guy who grew up in the fifties, the MAGA Garden of Eden. Sure, LGBTs had to stay in the closet and risked getting punched if they stuck their noses out, but there are not very many of them after all, and the working class as a whole was getting a bigger share of the pie that the Republicans would rather choke to death than give us now.

BCP1928 said:

Sanders is over the hill and he knows it, he's just doing a John the Baptist kind of thing. AOC's best chance is Speaker in, say, six years. Neither is running for President. Labor's future lies in control of the House.

Click to expand...

Yes, AOC's best chance for power is in House leadership, the MAGA equivalent on the left. With a Democratic majority she actually has a better chance for leadership than the far-right Republicans do now. By working with Pelosi, AOC showed that she does understand political pragmatism.

BCP1928 said:

That's why I think the Republicans are doing us a favor by winning the culture war and discrediting those Democrats who fought it with them. I'm an old guy who grew up in the fifties, the MAGA Garden of Eden. Sure, LGBTs had to stay in the closet and risked getting punched if they stuck their noses out, but there are not very many of them after all, and the working class as a whole was getting a bigger share of the pie that the Republicans would rather choke to death than give us now.

Click to expand...

sigh
I must admit that I am youngster (not from the 50's) that graduated from high school in 1964 and spent much of the next ten years at Berkeley.
========
Please consider median income now and in the 50's. Consider the advances in the safety net, civil rights protections and environmental protection now and in the 50s. BTW, these changes are due to the policies and hard work of Republicans and Democrats, and of course US workers and businessfolk.

The Middle Class is much, much better off than in the 50's.

Whites, blacks, LGBT's, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americas are all much better off than in the 50's.

US small business owners are much better off than during the 50's.

larger companies are much better off than in the 50's.

And, yes, the rich (especially high-tech leaders) are much better off than in the 50's.

mark46 said:

aaah, a MAGA analysis

We are to judge not by voters but by perceived crowd size.

Click to expand...

What? I'm not referring to how broad thwir support his. The poster suggested that the two were out of touch with thwir base...

I don't see that at all. Thwir base seems pretty happy

Always in His Presence said:

Trumps campaign’s accurately demonstrated that immense crowds don’t equate to equivalent levels of votes.

Bernie and Aandrea combined have less than 40% of their party. In addition the self titled Democratic Socialist are promoting an agenda that has less than 20% approval nationwide.

You cannot win a majority when you appeal only to a minority.

I 100% support them running. It will mean another Republican win IMHO

Click to expand...

While I'm inclined to agree it would lead to a republican win....aoc and berries BASE are very happy with the..and their policies. Entrenched democrats are NOT thwir base.

When poor Republicans realize their party has no interest in supporting them economically we will see what happens next...do they continue shooting themselves in the foot or take a BIG chance and vote (gasp) for someone else.

mark46 said:

sigh
I must admit that I am youngster (not from the 50's) that graduated from high school in 1964 and spent much of the next ten years at Berkeley.
========
Please consider median income now and in the 50's. Consider the advances in the safety net, civil rights protections and environmental protection now and in the 50s.

Click to expand...

All being rolled back.

mark46 said:

BTW, these changes are due to the policies and hard work of Republicans and Democrats, and of course US workers and businessfolk.

Click to expand...

The hard work of those bring those changes about and the hard work of those opposing them.

mark46 said:

The Middle Class is much, much better off than in the 50's.

Click to expand...

LOL!

mark46 said:

Whites,

Click to expand...

No

mark46 said:

blacks, LGBT's, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americas are all much better off than in the 50's.

Click to expand...

Relative to white people, yes, and much of that will turn out to be irrevocable, thankfully.

mark46 said:

US small business owners are much better off than during the 50's.

Click to expand...

LOL!

mark46 said:

larger companies are much better off than in the 50's.

And, yes, the rich (especially high-tech leaders) are much better off than in the 50's.

Click to expand...

By George, I think he's got it!

Always in His Presence said:

Be in leadership for the next foreseeable future

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. See, Trump won largely based on his personality alone. Sure, he followed the agenda of the Heritage foundation, and he gained the support of the Christian right for some odd reason (it sure wasn't his character or moral stance), but take his personality out of the picture, and who will MAGA rally behind? JD Vance? I somehow don't see it. Same for Trump's progeny.

Who else is there?

But this thread isn't about the GOP. It's about Democrats, and I echo the feeling that Democrats need new blood and new ideas, and desperately need to refocus their agenda on working class issues. I don't think they should abandon the LGBT issues, as some have suggested, since they are still Americans and need advocates to protect their rights from erosion from the right, but I do agree that shouldn't be the sole focus of the party.

AOC I do believe can grow into a force for working class Americans, but I'm not sure she's quite there yet. Newsome is promising, as is Katie Porter. A few others who have dipped their toes into the campaign pool seem interesting, but we'll have to see if any of them gain any traction at all.

-- A2SG, be interesting, that's for sure....

BCP1928 said:

Relative to white people, yes, and much of that will turn out to be irrevocable, thankfully.

Click to expand...

White-people “lost” when other people gained?

Are you sure that you wanna go with this, chief sir?

A2SG said:

I don't know about that. See, Trump won largely based on his personality alone. Sure, he followed the agenda of the Heritage foundation, and he gained the support of the Christian right for some odd reason (it sure wasn't his character or moral stance), but take his personality out of the picture, and who will MAGA rally behind? JD Vance? I somehow don't see it. Same for Trump's progeny.

Click to expand...

Trump’s a smart guy, politically, (for not being a politician)…if he can convince people that this trait/talent applies to anything he may deign to touch, he’s going to use that until it doesn’t work anymore. But by then, he’ll have everything else in place so that, when the facade crumbles, we’ll all understand that the All-powerful don’t need “permission” of the people, to rule.

Pommer said:

Trump’s a smart guy, politically, (for not being a politician)…if he can convince people that this trait/talent applies to anything he may deign to touch, he’s going to use that until it doesn’t work anymore. But by then, he’ll have everything else in place so that, when the facade crumbles, we’ll all understand that the All-powerful don’t need “permission” of the people, to rule.

Click to expand...

Oh, I get Trump's skill in the political arena, but it's borne out of personality or charisma, not skill at governing. So I wonder, when Trump is no longer able to actively participate (despite what he may believe, that's the end of this term), who will carry on the agenda of the Heritage Foundation? Who has the personality or the charisma (or sheer hutzpah) to be the next Trump?

I don't see Vance doing it, nor any of Trump's descendants. Or Lindsey Graham. Or Ted Cruz.

-- A2SG, doesn't say a lot for the enduring future some see the GOP having post-Trump....

BCP1928 said:

That would be a mistake I don't think she will make. The place for AOC is Speaker of the House--a much more powerful position in terms of policy than President.

Click to expand...

Speaker of the House is nowhere close to the power of the President in terms of policy.