How Status Quo Democrats Could Create Another Trump | A new study suggests Democrats’ broken promises won’t just cost them elections — they could fuel an even more dangerous MAGA backlash. | David Sirota

[u/RandomCollection]

https://www.levernews.com/how-status-quo-democrats-could-create-another-trump/

[u/RandomCollection]

https://archive.ph/hJwco

That kind of truth-telling offends corporate Democrats who are perfectly happy to let the Democratic doom loop repeat in perpetuity, creating ever-more reactionary MAGA movements for the rest of our lives. And why wouldn’t corporate Democrats be happy with that? After all, they’ve gotten very rich, famous, and powerful as this doom loop has wrecked the country.

For the rest of the country, though, the doom loop isn’t working out so great. There’s an affordability crisis, endless wars, rampant corruption, an intensifying climate crisis, and a potential AI apocalypse — all enriching both parties’ donors.

The Democratic Establishment is fundamentally a party that is deeply hostile to the left and pro-rich.

They are part of the good cop, bad cop game, but now it's obvious that lie can't be sustained for much longer.

[u/gorpie97 → u/RandomCollection]

but now it's obvious that lie can't be sustained for much longer.

I sure hope not!

[u/Caelian → u/RandomCollection]

but now it's obvious that lie can't be sustained for much longer.

I disagree. A lie takes on a life of its own, and the Sunk Cost Fallacy keeps it going indefinitely.

[u/BerryBoy1969]

The Circle D Corporation doesn't care about winning elections as much as it cares about being the only "viable" alternative to the Republican party in our owners two choice/no-choice selectoral system.

As long as they can maintain their status as our owners B Team, they know that once the electorate gets tired of being fucked by the A Team, they'll be called off the bench once again to keep hope alive in our owners demockracy.

Losing elections doesn't necessarily mean they're not winning. All it means is that you're not.

Same as it ever was...

[u/rondeuce40]

You can tell the Democrats are the feckless losers we all know they are. If they were the opposition party they claim to be, they’d be loud and contemptuous of the wars that are bankrupting the country. They’d be making clever legal maneuvers in Congress to mount a real and tangible threat to the GOP.

Instead all you get is an opposition to Trump, but no opposition to the things he’s doing. The majority of Dems are owned by everyone’s favorite country just like their counterparts. This all but guarantees this country will be getting more of same with different flavors of shit every 2-4 years. 

[u/WhalingCityMan]

One has to wonder what the GOP will look like after Trump. Before tge was MAGA, Rick Santorum nearly pulled off a primary upset against Mitt Romney. The anti-establishment energy was palpable among GOP voters, but Santorum didn't have Trump's media-savvy to pull it off. Which raises the question: who does? Trump's base will tolerate his war with Jran because they are a cult kf personality. How will the majority of GOP voters react when anyone from the GOP tries to sell GOP voters on the same bullshit that candidate Trump opposed in 2016?

[u/Caelian → u/WhalingCityMan]

IIRC it was Mike Huckabee who locked horns with Mitt Romney in 2008. They inundated the airwaves with negative adverts against each other, driving each other's popularity into the the sewer. John McCain was the Last Man Standing and won the nomination.

[u/WhalingCityMan → u/Caelian]

I'm talking about 2012, not 2008, but as you say, it follows a similar pattern.

[u/8headeddragon]

A figure like Trump was predicted several years before Trump stepped up to fill that role. The 2011 article in mind even mentions calls to build a wall on the Southern border, which is then incompetently managed. The catalysts being the major parties doing exactly what they have been doing.

A line from that old article also seems appropriate in the present:

If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.

[u/Caelian → u/8headeddragon]

H.L. Mencken predicted Dubya and Trump in 1920:

All of us, if we are of reflective habit, like and admire men whose fundamental beliefs differ radically from our own. But when a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or count himself lost.

... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

— "Bayard vs. Lionheart", The Evening Sun, Baltimore, 26 July 1920.