How can they learn what they already knew? The weakness/corruption/etc. is on purpose to serve their donors. The DNC already knows how powerful a leftist, grassroots movement is, which is why they snub the lefty candidate at every chance instead of letting their namesake run its course.

Bettteridge says no.

Haha no

Copying and pasting my comment from the earlier thread.

Did anyone actually read the article or did y’all just read the headline?

He says probably not, but it doesn’t matter, because it’s up to the people to rise up and push them out like they’ve started to as part of the Sanders/AOC rallies, the No Kings protest, and Mamdani’s primary victory.

Those of us not in a ranked-choice system in NYC may need to have a plan for the seething MAGAt olds that infest our red states and rural areas. Ignoring them does seem ideal, but the math doesn’t work out right.

It’s not just about winning, it’s about ideology. Embracing demsoc candidates wouldn’t just be a change in strategy, it would be a change in the party’s core ideology. Ideology is why political parties exist. Political parties are usually based in ideology, that’s why in other democracies there are liberal parties, conservative parties, socialist parties, Libertarian parties, etc. But here in the US we don’t have a system of political ideology plurality, so the two parties that we do have are often fighting internally to determine what the core ideology of the party will be.

You know why so many Democrats don’t like demsoc candidates? Because they’re not demsocs. They’re social liberals or neoliberals, and they want the Democratic party to remain an ideologically Liberal party.

If our democracy were more like most every other democracy on the planet, the neoliberals and the demsocs would each have their own party, and they wouldn’t need to be engaged in this constant, zero sum fight for control of one party.

Will the current Democratic party leadership learn the lessons of the Mamdani campaign? Probably not.

Nah

A girl can dream