Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
WSJ Headline:
Democratic Donors Sit on Sidelines as Party Schism Persists
Republican National Committee had $86 million in cash reserves at start of October, compared with $12 million for its Democratic counterpart
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/democratic-don...The Republican National Committee heads into the year before the midterm election with a significantly bigger bank balance than the Democratic National Committee, a reflection of the GOP’s dominance in Washington and the minority party’s ongoing struggles.
The gap is a warning sign for Democrats as some of their donors remain skeptical of the party’s direction and of whether there is a viable plan to win again.What is their plan? Be the anti-Trump? Every email and text I get from them talks about Trump.
How about telling us what it is you'll do different than last time?
No. of Recommendations: 7
How about telling us what it is you'll do different than last time?
They don't know.
Rather, the various individual people who make up the Democratic party all have plans for doing things differently next time. But different groups within the party have different ideas about what they should do differently. There are no mechanisms within a political party for conclusively resolving disagreements in opinion about the future of the party except at certain times in the Presidential election cycle - and even then, it's still not always "conclusive."
So there's no way for "the Democrats" to answer this question, because there are a very large number of different Democrats who have different answers.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Democratic Donors Sit on Sidelines as Party Schism Persists
They don't want their names on a list that may find it's way into the hands of Trump's SA?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
They need to see which way wind is blowing vis vis which way the party will end up going AND do they perceive it to be a good candiate.
And - as of now in a tribalistic country, nobody knows.
There was a similar time in the GOP--- a guy named Trump was making waves. Speaking to a party faithful *and* others who had the "finally! someone is saying what i've been waiting for! Someone isn't ignoring me!" thing going on and initially GOP donors didn't back him.
Then they had to, and they have to do it ---to this day.
On the Democrat side, there is much talk about getting away from solely Coastal and Campus politics namely, dithing the Trans Bullying, the he/him intersex stuff, the welcome illegal aliens stuff----and getting back to wages, schools, health insurance. (Stuff Dems can easily win with). As part of that, there is a hope that it's a DLC type of candidate. Be it a Beshear, a Shapiro, etc.
However 2 things can fudge this up:
1.)Republicans are in shambles in 2028. like it was in 2020 for reasons we don't know yet. (War, AI taking jobs. Scandal)
2.)Republicans DON'T extend ObamaCareCredits.
THAT will make the Dem nomination a sure-thing to the Presidency *and* either of those scenarios gives voice to DEMOCRATS who feel "finally, we're not being shy. We're letting ourselves fly proud".... enter AOC. Nominee and President. Donors won't fund her candidacy today----but they might be forced to.
Kinda like they said will never happen for Trump. Until it did.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Rather, the various individual people who make up the Democratic party all have plans for doing things differently next time. But different groups within the party have different ideas about what they should do differently. There are no mechanisms within a political party for conclusively resolving disagreements in opinion about the future of the party except at certain times in the Presidential election cycle - and even then, it's still not always "conclusive."
So there's no way for "the Democrats" to answer this question, because there are a very large number of different Democrats who have different answers."The Democrats" generally coalesce around certain ideas, they push for certain policy ideas. They had a platform for 2024 and still have a list of issues on the DNC site, though it has not been updated since the 2024 election. That's bad in itself, in my mind. If it's not correct update it or take it down.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/issues-2024/But yeah, point taken. Schumer and Jeffries are herding cats.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Rather, the various individual people who make up the Democratic party all have plans for doing things differently next time. But different groups within the party have different ideas about what they should do differently.
Dispels the RW insinuation that Democrats all march in lockstep, financed by the likes of George Soros.
The disparate RW groups stick to their disparate guns to the benefit of a party whose morals and principals are 'flexible'.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's more than herding cats.
It's Tribes and Castes.
Schumer isn't just herding cats----despite both sides inevitably claiming win when the shutdown ends ---- the FACT is that keeping the government closed *might* start to wear poorly on Democrats for the first time. OH and Democrat staffers not getting paychecks ---keep in mind these are 20 and 30 somethings, some with college "debt" and "student loans" and bills to pay for the organic food, the puppy, the thermos, the peloton, the yoga pants. How many paychecks can they seriously miss?
Conversely if the government re-opens, it gives AOC a *huge* opening from the Left *IF* there's not enough pounds of flesh extract from the Republicans.
This is 100% in sync with my other post on this thread.....
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Democrats" generally coalesce around certain ideas, they push for certain policy ideas. They had a platform for 2024 and still have a list of issues on the DNC site, though it has not been updated since the 2024 election. That's bad in itself, in my mind. If it's not correct update it or take it down.
They can't update it. There are rules for drafting the platform, and the substance of that platform is heavily contested and results from a lot of negotiation and jockeying from interested parties. There's no one who has the power to just unilaterally decide to change it until the next convention cycle and a new Platform Committee meets.
Taking it down is worse. Right now the concern is that the Democrats don't stand for anything. And you're going to eliminate the platform without replacing it with anything?
The thing is, there's a fundamental disagreement between various broad factions within the Democratic party over what the party should stand for. Those disputes aren't likely to get resolved any time soon, because there is no real mechanism for resolving them outside of a Presidential primary.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Right now the concern is that the Democrats don't stand for anything.
I thought the government shut down was because Democrats stood for affordable healthcare for ten of millions of ordinary American citizens.
My bad.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Democrats want healthcare addressed. The Republicans use the impasse as the excuse for the shutdown. But in truth they want the shutdown to keep the Epstein files from being released to the public.
No. of Recommendations: 10
The Republican National Committee heads into the year before the midterm election with a significantly bigger bank balance than the Democratic National Committee, a reflection of the GOP’s dominance in Washington and the minority party’s ongoing struggles.
Fucking Citizens United. Now all the uber wealthy can bribe Trump without impunity.
No. of Recommendations: 6
The disparate RW groups stick to their disparate guns to the benefit of a party whose morals and principals are 'flexible'.
The GOP has certainly benefited, in this respect, from the utter dominance of Donald Trump over intra-party politics. Prior to Trump, the GOP was similarly riven by different factions - the hardcore evangelical social conservatives, the austerity-minded business conservatives, the military hawks, etc. Those different groups disagreed over lots of things. Those disagreements have been utterly quashed. Everyone has to do what Trump says.
This actually benefits the GOP as a party a great deal, in a lot of respects. For example, the GOP was often hobbled by the national hardliners on abortion when trying to compete in purple districts and states. Donald Trump, however, doesn't give a rat's behind about abortion - so the Right to Life faction in the party has just had to shut up and swallow it. Trump's Administration is out there breaking every barrier to advance every single aspect of their agenda....but not on abortion. They couldn't even muster enough movement on that issue to slow down generic mifepristone, which would have been literally the easiest thing to do.
So Trump has forced a winner on every internal GOP battle. Abortion: evangelicals lose, center-right wins. Immigration and tariffs: business faction loses, nativist faction wins. Foreign policy: interventionist faction loses. Social Security: austerity faction loses, populist faction wins. And so on, down the line.
There's no one to do that in the Democratic party, and won't be until 2028.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Dispels the RW insinuation that Democrats all march in lockstep, financed by the likes of George Soros.Yup, Dems are the new "global conspiracy that threatens our way of life", just like the Islamic boogyman 20 years ago, and the "international Communist conspiracy" in the 50s.
Remember the words of Will Rogers? "I am not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat".
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/will_rogers_122...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
I thought the government shut down was because Democrats stood for affordable healthcare for ten of millions of ordinary American citizens.
That's an effort by the leadership to correct the impression that the Democrats don't stand for anything. By reminding folks of one of the major things that the Democrats stand for - government-subsidized health care.
But the progressive base is dissatisfied with that, believing that the Democrats don't support enough policies full-throated enough to "meet the moment," as the kids say. The centrist faction is dissatisfied because they're frustrated by "everything bagel" approaches to policies - the old saying that if everything is a priority, nothing is.
It's hard to answer the question, "What are the three policy things the Democratic Party cares most about?" with the ease that you could do so for Trump. With Trump, it's: i) immigration hardline; ii) tariffs and reworking international trade; and iii) low low taxes. But with the Democrats, what are they? Is it still health care? Climate change? Voting rights? Reducing inequality? Child care, trans rights, free college for all, increased labor protections, reducing housing costs.... what's the top three?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Taking it down is worse. Right now the concern is that the Democrats don't stand for anything. And you're going to eliminate the platform without replacing it with anything?
The platform document is what it is. It has a best-before date on it.
The DNC website says at the bottom "Copyright © 2025 DNC Services Corporation All rights reserved."
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/issues-2024/I'd search and replace references to "the Biden administration" with "Democrats", but, whatever, it's a quibble.
The thing is, there's a fundamental disagreement between various broad factions within the Democratic party over what the party should stand for. Those disputes aren't likely to get resolved any time soon, because there is no real mechanism for resolving them outside of a Presidential primary.Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
No. of Recommendations: 1
ack.
without impunity.
Of course I meant 'with impunity'.
No. of Recommendations: 1
But yeah, point taken. Schumer and Jeffries are herding cats.
They're herding? That seems to indicate they're doing something. As near as I can tell, they are doing nothing but issuing really awkward sound bites.
Without a voice in the Dems, why would we expect donors to step up? They have no leaders or candidates, for all practical purposes.
