How arrogant to claim that i only know of things written in headlines and posted to Lemmy, while completely failing to elaborate on even a single point mentioned. Please enlighten us with actual examples of this “new” DNC in action.
Because before the leadership change, he was one of the most distinctly anti-DNC posters I remember interacting with. He was so incredibly critical of the Democrats it was easy to mistake him for one of those MAGA/tankie trolls trying to discourage people from voting (that was never actually his message, but it was easy to misinterpret it as such).
Point is, IMO he has street cred against being a “vote blue no matter who” type.
Can you explain how that makes you believe him? I recall the same thing as someone who is also highly critical of the DNC after what they’ve done this past decade and I have yet to see anything signaling change from them that would warrant even the smallest belief in what they say.
They recently blocked the release of the “autopsy report” of the 2024 election:
Despite a pledge from DNC Chair Ken Martin to release the post-election report, the committee announced Thursday it would not share it publicly.
The DNC wanted to avoid another public debate over how the party lost the White House to Donald Trump, and instead, turn its focus on its recent successes (such as?), according to this official.
“In our conversations with stakeholders from across the Democratic ecosystem, we are aligned on what’s important, and that’s learning from the past and winning the future,” Martin continued. “Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”
So apparently Martin was either lying or isn’t wielding unchecked power like that person claims. Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a “distraction.” This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they’ll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they’ll do it. They’re abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They’re not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear. These are their real statements and actions. That user is trying to sell you a bill of goods of more future promises with nothing to back it up.
To me this just reinforces my view of them being little more than patsies and controlled opposition for the Republican party. They only exist to legitimize a completely broken one-party system of the ruling elite while we’re treated as little more than cattle.
Okay, let me rephrase that: I believe that he believes what he’s saying – I don’t think he’s trying to “whitewash” the DNC (i.e. I don’t think he has an ulterior motive), as your previous comment accused him of. Whether he’s actually correct in his assessment might be another matter, but I believe he is expressing it in good faith.
Also, responding to this part separately:
Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a “distraction.” This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they’ll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they’ll do it. They’re abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They’re not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear.
I think you’ve got some misconceptions and false assumptions going on here:
“Populism” (i.e. listening to the majority, which is the working class) isn’t a bad thing. Bernie Sanders and AOC are “populist.” The word with a negative connotation that you’re looking for is “demagogue” – that’s what Trump is.
Your speculation about them deciding to support fascist shit is fearmongering. In reality, that’s incredibly unpopular amongst the actual people (as opposed to extremists amplified by sympathetic media) and I don’t think they’re that stupid that they’d support it by mistake. If anything, moving to “populism” means moving away from that.
The DNC’s problem up to this point has been exactly the opposite: refusing to do what their voters want and instead catering to what their rich donors want. Frankly, Martin claiming that they want to win (instead of being controlled opposition while raking in corporate donor graft) is the best fucking news I’ve heard in a while.
Im assuming you meant ‘demons’ and I’d argue that this line of reasoning is exactly why we are where we are currently. Republicans make things bad and then Democrats come later and keep them bad. Republicans make things worse and Democrats come in and keep things worse. Nothing ever actually improves and you get to a point where people are so desperate for anything different that they elect Donald fucking Trump to be president. This is the ratchet effect that Democrats enable through inaction due to their stated ideals being diametrically opposed to their actual ideals and the ideals of their wealthy donors. They simply tell you what you want to hear during election season and then disregard you once they take office.
I wouldn’t call having the same shitty, hand-picked type of people forced upon you over and over “democracy.” That’s just the illusion of democracy much like going to the grocery store and seeing shelves full of ‘competing’ products that all turn out to be owned by the same three companies. Things will not change until we break this cycle.
This person has single handedly taken on the task of white washing the DNC on lemmy. They’ve been posting stuff like this for months.
Yeah, you really have to follow details of politics to understand what he’s talking about, and not just headlines on Lemmy.
The effect of the DNC rule changes or the effect the head of the DNC head are not things that are covered here.
How arrogant to claim that i only know of things written in headlines and posted to Lemmy, while completely failing to elaborate on even a single point mentioned. Please enlighten us with actual examples of this “new” DNC in action.
I actually believe him, and I’ll tell you why:
Because before the leadership change, he was one of the most distinctly anti-DNC posters I remember interacting with. He was so incredibly critical of the Democrats it was easy to mistake him for one of those MAGA/tankie trolls trying to discourage people from voting (that was never actually his message, but it was easy to misinterpret it as such).
Point is, IMO he has street cred against being a “vote blue no matter who” type.
Can you explain how that makes you believe him? I recall the same thing as someone who is also highly critical of the DNC after what they’ve done this past decade and I have yet to see anything signaling change from them that would warrant even the smallest belief in what they say.
They recently blocked the release of the “autopsy report” of the 2024 election:
So apparently Martin was either lying or isn’t wielding unchecked power like that person claims. Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a “distraction.” This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they’ll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they’ll do it. They’re abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They’re not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear. These are their real statements and actions. That user is trying to sell you a bill of goods of more future promises with nothing to back it up.
To me this just reinforces my view of them being little more than patsies and controlled opposition for the Republican party. They only exist to legitimize a completely broken one-party system of the ruling elite while we’re treated as little more than cattle.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/dnc-kills-its-own-public-2024-autopsy-00697403
Okay, let me rephrase that: I believe that he believes what he’s saying – I don’t think he’s trying to “whitewash” the DNC (i.e. I don’t think he has an ulterior motive), as your previous comment accused him of. Whether he’s actually correct in his assessment might be another matter, but I believe he is expressing it in good faith.
Also, responding to this part separately:
I think you’ve got some misconceptions and false assumptions going on here:
“Populism” (i.e. listening to the majority, which is the working class) isn’t a bad thing. Bernie Sanders and AOC are “populist.” The word with a negative connotation that you’re looking for is “demagogue” – that’s what Trump is.
Your speculation about them deciding to support fascist shit is fearmongering. In reality, that’s incredibly unpopular amongst the actual people (as opposed to extremists amplified by sympathetic media) and I don’t think they’re that stupid that they’d support it by mistake. If anything, moving to “populism” means moving away from that.
The DNC’s problem up to this point has been exactly the opposite: refusing to do what their voters want and instead catering to what their rich donors want. Frankly, Martin claiming that they want to win (instead of being controlled opposition while raking in corporate donor graft) is the best fucking news I’ve heard in a while.
Ken Martin was the best choice of the short list for chair of the DNC. We will see what his leadership brings.
Sounds like a roundabout way of calling him the “lesser evil.” Sounds like the same old party to me.
If all you want is heads on pikes you can say that. If you want democracy you have to work with the demos your have.
Im assuming you meant ‘demons’ and I’d argue that this line of reasoning is exactly why we are where we are currently. Republicans make things bad and then Democrats come later and keep them bad. Republicans make things worse and Democrats come in and keep things worse. Nothing ever actually improves and you get to a point where people are so desperate for anything different that they elect Donald fucking Trump to be president. This is the ratchet effect that Democrats enable through inaction due to their stated ideals being diametrically opposed to their actual ideals and the ideals of their wealthy donors. They simply tell you what you want to hear during election season and then disregard you once they take office.
I wouldn’t call having the same shitty, hand-picked type of people forced upon you over and over “democracy.” That’s just the illusion of democracy much like going to the grocery store and seeing shelves full of ‘competing’ products that all turn out to be owned by the same three companies. Things will not change until we break this cycle.
“democracy” rule by the people
“Demos” the people.
If you want democracy, then the people around you get a say. Yes, things will not change until we change them. That’s how democracy works.
If things are shit, we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing things to be shit.
This is soooo exactly spot on, thank you.