The problem with the left is they're now completely out of touch with the bottom 75%, which is what the massive Hispanic vote swing should be throwing alarms for.
The left is filled with richer, coastal elites (top 25%); and impoverished minorities in blue cities that vote overwhelmingly left traditionally. On what planet does that recipe work out over time?
The left became a gross contradiction. It should be for the masses, it should be primarily focused on the working class. All those elitist Hollywood endorsements are just a big obnoxious joke, they repel the average person and amplify the point that the left is out of touch.
The Democratic Party keeps moving left on cultural issues and right on economic issues, when the world (not just the US) is starting to move in the opposite direction.
These things aren’t actually either/or, but when you pontificate on gender-affirming care in a country where half the population can’t afford just regular healthcare because of high deductibles… the feeling people get is exactly what you expressed.
In what world is the Democratic party moving to the right on economic issues?
1. Tax breaks for first time home buyers
2. Tax breaks for families with a new born
3. Pondering an unrealized capital gains tax
> pontificate on gender-affirming care
This is such a hackneyed point and it surprises me that this is something anyone considers. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Trans issues should not be difficult to 'pontificate' on. There is gender affirming health care for trans individuals, Democrats broadly support those individuals having access to that care. Democrats are also the party that is aggressive on healthcare and supporting government programs for reducing healthcare costs.
In all seriousness, do trans issues actually impact your day to day in any way? Trans people seem to live rent free in people's minds and I only ever hear about it in a political scenario. It seems like the most manufactured issue aside from immigration in recent memory.
Im pretty left, I just also recognize demand-side provisions (tax breaks) dont work when the enemy is asset inflation (housing costs). In reality, that extra capital would just flow into the hands of people already holding the assets, and the now financially stretched buyer has to hope housing price growth continues (making the situation even more dire for future buyers), or the bet they've made doesn't make sense.
The reality with housing is: someone has to take the loss, but we keep choosing to double it and give it to the next generation.
I think a lot of people are probably not exactly thrilled about the 'extra' provisions for "first generation home buyers" (meaning the parents didn't own one).
In the current political climate, with the current border policy, that sounds an awful lot like a two-tier entitlements system where the more significant help will go to 'illegal immigrants', 'asylum seekers' etc.
Also $25,000 really doesn't mean much when the entire housing market is set to double or even triple when you look at the last 5 years and project into the future. If your mortgage is still going to be $2,500 for a run-down house that would have cost $40,000 25-30 years ago but it's more like $400,000 and rising now... it's not exactly the 'lift' I think most people want.
Honestly as someone who has been scrimping and saving to try to buy a home for the last 6 years, I would be somewhat annoyed if suddenly every broke first generation person is thrust to first in line for the limited housing supply we have, driving prices up further. The fact that it is specifically structured to exclude people with roots here is kind of a slap in the face -- there is no reason it shouldn't just be tied to income, so suddenly it is needlessly political.
My point isn't really to argue the merits of either approach though - just wanted to give you some insight into why as a 'first time' but not 'first generation' potential home buyer I find her plan to be a short-sighted attempt at grabbing votes. Not that it matters now - clearly there is a mandate to swing the opposite direction we have been going.
I'll also add this though:
Under the last Trump presidency, I made literally 50% less than I do now (thankfully got a solid 50% bump right before covid happened) and I had MUCH more disposable income. It's crazy that I am longing for the days and economy where I made $60k and could go out AND save money regularly. Now I have to plan any extra expenses, I have moved back in with family to be able to save, and even without the $1,800 rent payment I am still behind where I was in the last Trump economy.
>Honestly as someone who has been scrimping and saving to try to buy a home for the last 6 years, I would be somewhat annoyed if suddenly every broke first generation person is thrust to first in line for the limited housing supply we have, driving prices up further. The fact that it is specifically structured to exclude people with roots here is kind of a slap in the face -- there is no reason it shouldn't just be tied to income, so suddenly it is needlessly political
Yeah, this was my reaction to it as well. The only real way to bring down housing prices is to drastically increase the housing supply and find a way to prevent companies like Blackrock from snapping them up and leaving them empty to keep rental prices high. The "enemy within" is actually PE firms...
"The only real way to bring down housing prices is to drastically increase the housing supply and find a way to prevent companies like Blackrock from snapping them up and leaving them empty to keep rental prices high"
This is exactly the change that needs to happen - the fact that entire subdivisions of housing are being built specifically so these multi-national conglomerates can use them as an investment vehicle, AND all the existing homes are being snatched up by them is criminal in my eyes.
The most impactful thing anyone could do to improve the housing situation in this country is to prevent these operations from using single family homes as investment vehicles. I don't know the 'exact right' way to achieve this - but I'm certain the exact legislative language could be hammered out to make things better for EVERYBODY except the bottom feeders.
The economy is approaching great depression levels of 'bad' - and plenty of things have inflated 100% or more, 20% is more like the general 'average'. And plenty of those things are critical items, like laundry detergent, gas, and insurance.
I'll put it this way:
When I was making $60k 5 years ago, a night out for two in my preferred 'fun time out' would be:
$35 concert ticket x 2, $20 ride x 2(to and from show to avoid dangerous driving), $6 drink x 6/2 -- so a complete fun time out was roughly $140
Now the same concert venue and ticket is $85 x 2, the ride is $40 x2, the drinks (if you don't abstain due to the previous costs) are $14 x 6 and suddenly $140 turned into $354 (more than double). And honestly depending on the day or event that could be more.
This is just one example of how 'going out and enjoying life outside your cubicle' has easily doubled in cost.
You can zoom in on any portion of the economy and find similar. Laundry detergent isn't only up 20%. Gas isn't only up 20%. Insurance isn't up 20%. Groceries have easily doubled, regardless of which basket item you decide to focus in on to obscure that.
Great question though - How have they managed to crash the 'living wage' economy so badly that I either have to live like a broke college student with six figures, when I used to be able to go out weekly.
Averaging out the inflation across the economy doesn't really work for those of us 'making it' -- but if you already made it and the increase in price for laundry detergent, gas, food, or whatever else doesn't actually impact you I'm sure it's difficult to see how bad things have got.
I think you'd have to ask Biden or Yellen or someone in the outgoing administration exactly how they pulled it off though.
I'm just wondering where in the country you live with those prices. When I used to go out _10_ years ago there's no way I would ever find a $6 drink. Right now a cocktail costs me $13-$15. 10 years ago, a cocktail used to cost me $13-$15. Gas is back to pre-covid prices.
I don't know. I've seen prices go up, but I honestly think people are exaggerating. I buy groceries and food too. I don't spend anywhere close to double what I did even 10 years ago.
Drink = Canned Beer @ one of the countries best music venues outside a major metro area.
I'm not going to be posting more details regarding my location on a public forum however.
"I don't spend anywhere close to double what I did even 10 years ago."
I bet you also have had to tighten your belt buckle to achieve that - if not, you are an anomaly.
Really though my anecdote about my personal inflation woes is not the point, and I just included it as an after thought to provide some context. The core message I am trying to convey is before that, and I don't see much value in comparing individual items in different geographic regions.
If you are genuinely as unaffected as you say, good for you - the only people I know who are in that position are retired already and insulated from changes more than most.
it sounds like price gouging to me. The venue is more than doubling its price and charging you $14 for a can of beer. How is this Biden's fault, of all things?
Anyway, I'm relatively cheap so I always pay attention to prices. Eggs, milk, bread, chicken, etc have all gotten slightly more expensive. Nothing even close to double. I don't understand what people are buying.
I am also perplexed by this. As someone who obsessively tracks and categorizes all my spending, I have not observed a significant upward trend in my grocery spending. And I have data in a spreadsheet which confirms this. I'm honestly not sure what I'm doing so differently than the general population which perceives prices as skyrocketing.
While most goods are slightly more expensive, egg prices have been a notable outlier, which I believe was more an effect of culling due to bird flu rather than inflationary. If anything, the most notable cost increases I've observed are in restaurants and takeout places, not grocery stores.
It's entirely possible these costs are highly region-specific, so it's interesting to hear different takes on it.
"it sounds like price gouging to me. The venue is more than doubling its price and charging you $14 for a can of beer. How is this Biden's fault, of all things?
Anyway, I'm relatively cheap so I always pay attention to prices. Eggs, milk, bread, chicken, etc have all gotten slightly more expensive. Nothing even close to double. I don't understand what people are buying."
This is exactly why I tried to redirect you to the core point of my message, instead of the 'addendum'. It was obvious you were looking for some 'leverage' to declare your perceived experience as the 'correct' one.
Now you have pivoted to 'inflation isn't really real, that venue is screwing you' because of zeroing in on one item. I can assure you, prices are similar throughout the city I am referencing. It wouldn't matter one bit which venue I chose.
Perhaps you are OK with staying home and watching every penny and never doing anything enjoyable in life that costs a few bucks.
For the rest of the country, they are feeling it in their everyday lives - whether that is food costs, hobby costs, or whatever matters to them -personally-.
Under Trump we were doing demonstrably better. It took an immediate nose dive under Biden, and his entire administrations policies have made things worse - and most importantly, there is no sign they had a real plan to fix that, and it showed at the polls.
It's fine if you want to get hyper-fixated on the one statement you feel compelled to 'debunk' my lived experiences and observations, but that wont change the fact that entire metro areas are becoming either unlivable or pointless to live in unless you are making $200,000+ (in that you can afford the rent but not to enjoy the local attractions).
I'm glad you aren't feeling the squeeze, genuinely.
According to PBS / NPR roughly 60% of the country believe we are in a recession.
You can count me amongst them, because of my lived experiences. I'm not going to continue to quibble about what -I- am doing wrong budget wise accourding to your tiny little insight into my life which this comment provided.. and I think you'll find if you approach most anyone who has legitimate concerns in this manner you will have changed exactly 0 minds.
By all means though, if you are comfortable then I'm sure 60+% of the country who feels like they are living through something worse than '08 must bet making up things to complain about and hoarding their money secretly to plan an epic prank on... someone
But we're not in a recession. There was a pandemic and people spent a shitload of money and never let up, and this caused prices to go up. Coupled with money printing, most of which was done during Trump's presidency, and some lag, this causes inflation. Biden brought the inflation back down without causing a recession. Now, inflation went down, so prices remain the same. Prices don't go back down. That would be deflation. You need to vote for the person who has plans to stop price gouging and raise minimum wages and create more safety nets so that your real money goes up again.
You realize Biden took office in Jan 2021? The money printing started way before during Trump's time in office due to the pandemic, so you can't really blame the previous administration for inflation (which happened everywhere around the world due to COVID-related stimulus).
Yea, inflation sucks. But it's not like Trump can fix the fact way too much money was printed during COVID crisis. The crisis should have resulted in a major economic depression, but instead we got a big party through stimulus. Now we're suffering from a hangover, and Trump can't change that.
Trump can absolutely reign things in, I don't think anyone thinks he can snap his fingers and 'fix' something broken this badly.
But yeah, he 100% can take a different direction than the administration that printed more USD than had previously existed in the entirety of the countries history.
'Trump can't wave a magic wand and un-do what the current admin did, so it doesn't make sense to change directions best to stick with the current administration that doesn't think there is anything they could or should have done different' is not the rationale for my position.
Just look at how the stock market responded today - clearly I'm not the only person who thinks 'this will position our economy much better than it is today'.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, as this is spot on.
The Democratic part has completely lost touch with the working class. Harris struggled to articulate any sort of economic policy other than "we're going to ban price gouging, give money to people to start businesses, and help people make down payments on houses" with no details. Meanwhile, they latched onto some of the most fringe culture war issues like making sure that trans men can compete in women's sports.
I voted for her because another Trump presidency is literally an existential threat to the country, but I saw this coming from a mile away.
I believe the Dem plan contributed to the massive apathy or large cohorts voting for the GOP candidate. People that have houses, school age kids and aren't planning on starting businesses see nothing valuable with those plans.
The Democrats are ignorant that their open arms (accepting everyone, working for everyone) policies and rhetoric will sway minorities when culturally there are strong christian and catholic populations amongst demographic minorities that have firm beliefs that are conservative.
Dems have not pontificated on gender-affirming care. It is an insignificant issue that affects a minuscule amount of the electorate. There would be minimal discussion on it if it wasn't for the incessant harping from the right to rile up their base.
It is so simple and effective to weaponize social issues. This is easy to see when you read right-wing discussion: they believe that the left is absolutely obsessed with gender-affirming care, because that is the reality they are fed.
I have a conservative relative who talks about 'wokeness' and gender-affirming care almost non-stop, because he believes that it's being 'shoved down his throat', when in reality, it is right-wing media that is doing the shoving.
Both things can be true. Conservative media outlets know that these issues evoke visceral reactions from the base and therefore they can sell more ads.
But I’ve also encountered teachers who confided that they teach gender fluidity to their 1st grade class without parental consent. Teaching trans ideology to children has become a humanitarian cause for many on the left and there’s a strong desire among parents for public school systems to take an aggressive stance against the handful of bad actors doing this.
I agree. It actually looks quite similar to the situation here in EU, with traditional leftist parties losing popularity to right-wing populists. Leftist parties should focus first and foremost on protecting worker's rights, anything else should come second. Supporting open migration policy in particular is problematic, as it drives down wages to the very workers who might want to vote leftist parties. People who are struggling financially also don't particularly enjoy hearing how they are privileged because of their gender/skin color or whatever.
The left should simply recognize that distribution of wealth and means of production is the number one factor affecting equality. It's their job to lobby for things like progressive taxation and social safety nets.
People in general are feeling less secure. The rise of the 'precariat' class is a good example of this.
This gives rise to legitimate concerns about immigration. But the left and centrist parties fail to address these concerns - instead blaming people for having them.
I don't subscribe to the idea that everyone voting for right wing parties is a racist xenophobic. Unfortunately the only parties that address the concerns people have are often led by racist xenophobics.
I am definitely left wing, but I blame the left for the rise of the right. They abrogated their responsible to represent people by failing to address their most pressing concerns.
>But the left and centrist parties fail to address these concerns - instead blaming people for having them.
Well what do you want them to do? You suddenly go anti-immigration in a country known as a melting pot, a country where many were once immigrants, and you lose even more votes.
Also, I'll even say we're being tricked by an issue that is actually bipartisan: in a bad economy outsourcing grows to get around strong labor laws. The big companies want immigrants, so this supposed dream of mass deportation is one of a fools'. If you don't want people taking your jobs, make stronger job protections, not blame the people worse off than you.
But sadly, deflecting blame to feel powerful seems to be a universal concept. Crabs in a bucket.
> Leftist parties should focus first and foremost on protecting worker's rights
They should focus first and foremost on improving the economic condition of the average American. The low income, as well as the middle class slipping into poverty. Worker's rights is a major part of that, but only one part of it. Watching the prices of basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare while billionaires and corporations are making record profits is bound to piss off the people.
That said, Trump certainly isn't going to make any of that better. In fact, it'll all get much worse, but on the slim chance democrats actually try to win voters back vs just counting on America to come crawling back to save the US from the four year shit show we've just started and if our new dictator allows us to have fair elections in the future, I think you've got the right idea for where they can start.
What does the massive Hispanic vote swing want? To deport their own people and magically fix the economy?
That seems to go against the point why they voted left. And no one's going to fix this inevitable recession (which I argue was here for a long while) overnight.
Look at senate and governor candidates that over performed and underperformed vs Kamala in their state. People have studied it for years and the basic finding is the classic one. Moving to the center wins you votes. You'll find that moderate/centrist dems over perform and leftist dems underperform.
They've studied this. And the cause is is the following. Yes you get your base to turn out more. But extremism motivates their base even more than your own, and switched vote from an independent is twice as impactful as an extra vote. A simple example is you get one more of your base to turn out. You lose an independent, and you get 2 of their base to turn out. And end up down 3 votes.
Part of the problem is that our primaries are weird. Primary voters tend to be more extreme (left and right) and when moderates show up to vote in the election, they're upset there's no moderate choice. I was talking to some colleagues from Australia and not voting is a fine. Makes primaries much more representative of the actual election when you get everyone to vote.
I've had the thought that the US primary system prevents any meaningful application of Ranked Choice, or other alternative methods. Currently there's no other proximate-choice candidates that make it to the general election; i.e., the case where Kamala and Bernie and Trump are on the General Election ballot can't happen in most places right now, which narrows the choice field significantly.
Note: There is small minority that show that this is effect shrinking with time. My personal belief for why this is happening is basically voters are judging individual politicians more by the moderation/extremeness of the party's positions and less by the politicians personal beliefs.
I think people mistake his radical-styled rhetoric for radical policies
Trump is one of the most moderate Republicans on most social issues (abortion, lgb, criminal justice etc.)
He is the most moderate on entitlements (constantly promises to not cut medicare, medicaid and social security) contrary to every Republican campaign in the past (remember Paul Ryan?)
He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk, not a 60's style pacifist)
I could go on but I think the important point is; every point he wants to make, he makes in the loudest most wild way possible and people who aren't disposed to vote for him anyway see that as "radical". The correct word IMO is "crazy" or "wild".
Voters who are in the center or can swing either way see him as promising fairly conventional things but in a crazy tone. Maybe tone doesn't matter as much to them
I agree that there's a huge difference between the rhetoric and policies. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around people viewing him as both a "straight talker" and someone who's "just jokin'". There's also huge variability about his personal policy whims he may lose interest in, and those in power around him with strong and motivated agendas.
He is a "moderate" on foreign policy (not a Cheney/Bush war hawk)
Which is hogwash, because at the time Trump went along with the Iraq war just like everybody else, of course:
In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
"Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."
That really doesn't make your point.
"I guess so" is the absolute opposite of what a hawk would say. "I guess so" is what the comment you're replying to is still implying he'd say.
I have no idea if they edited this in later or you removed it but just pointing this out:
> not a 60's style pacifist
A linear model (liberal vs conservative) is not great. Consider a planar model with two dimensions: social and economic policy. Trump combined conservative social policy with populist economic policy. Harris promoted liberal social policy. However, in her last town hall, framed herself as a "pragmatic capitalist" (her emphasis). This is a continuation of Democratic rightward shift, the Neoliberal compromise, that was crystallized by Clinton with NAFTA in the 90s. In this election, like 2000, the US public had to choose: a liberal social policy -or- a populist economic policy. What was not on the ballot: liberal social policy with populist economic policy.
The DNC has some serious soul-searching to do. If they didn't figure out that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, I doubt they will learn that the US voter didn't like getting lied to about Biden's mental fitness and then just inserting someone we never voted on.
I think they knew full well that people wanted Bernie over Hilary, and they just didn't care. They believed that they could shove Hilary down our throats and actively colluded with her campaign to undermine Sanders. When people objected they fought to defend the position that they aren't required to hold a fair primary election. I doubt they'll learn anything from this and that they'll never give up the ability to make backroom deals then force their chosen candidate regardless of how democrats feel about them.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The general "air" about the democratic party seems to be that they know what's best for you, so shut up and vote blue so that we can "save democracy" (by the people who inserted a candidate that no one voted for).
Regardless of policy, which I won't get into here, we have to acknowledge that treating adults like children isn't a rock-solid battle strategy.
Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary. That's not some big bad Democrat party thing. That's literally how Democratic primary voters voted in 2016. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is completely opposite reality.
No one was shafted. He lost. He lost as bad as Hillary Clinton did to Obama in 2008. Literally the same margin of defeat. You just got manipulated into thinking it was something sinister. You can probably thank a foreign power for that.
We have leaked emails proving that the DNC colluded directly with her campaign, Sanders had to file lawsuits against them to get access to information he was entitled to, and in a lawsuit following the leaks the DNC's own lawyers argued as their defense that they had zero legal obligation to run a fair primary. (see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Wi...) Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned following the scandal and as payment for her services she was gifted a cushy position working for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
This isn't some conspiracy by "a foreign power" it's well documented history
I get what you are saying, but let's be realistic here: even with an unfair vote you could still get people out to vote and get the majority. If we could have done that then MAYBE we'd have a point here.
But reality: Bernie was really popular with the 18-36 demographic. But they don't turnout to vote in the general election, let alone a primary. So here we are. Old people get their way because they show up.
And I'm not saying Bernie didn't energize voters: just that it's a really high bar to energize that to a point of participation.
I've seen it argued before that it couldn't have turned out differently (https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-...) and maybe that's true. The sad fact is that we'll never really know what could have happened if the DNC had played fair. I agree that young voters don't generally turn out to vote. They also don't generally turn up to campaign rallies but for him they actually did. They showed up in numbers so large that they filled entire arenas past capacity. He often drew crowds much larger than Clinton did and she had the name and the money for paid attendees to boost her numbers.
What I can say is that in that election the country was looking for something different from the government. They knew that the status quo wasn't working for them and that was the only thing Clinton was offering. I know that in the end that feeling was enough to drive at least some people who normally voted democrat to vote for trump (or third party). The fact that the DNC ignored the will of registered democrats and decided for themselves that Clinton was their Chosen One before the primary election was held also caused some democrats to vote for trump or to stay home entirely. I can't claim that the DNC was the cause of trump getting elected the first time, but they sure didn't help.
In early 2020, Sanders flipped Biden, leading more than Trump lead his rivals for much of the primary, and likely would have gone on to win the nomination, with the momentum he was carrying into the bulk of state contests. Biden's centrist rivals colluded with him and the DNC, suddenly dropping out before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg, one of the dropouts, was awarded with a cabinet appointment that he was completely unqualified for, as exemplified by his gross mishandling of first a rail strike, and then a large accident (caused by conditions the strikers were organizing to rectify) which dumped toxic chemicals into a small town.
That was the one I paid close attention to. If 2016 was anything like it (and I'm sure it was, considering this year's convention tactics were used all the way back in the 1940s to force Truman on us), I have no doubt that this is the DNC's modus operandi. The true steal of the last 3 elections were establishment Democrats' theft of the liberal and leftist vote. And in 2 out of 3 of those cases, they paid in the general.
One person recognizing they can't win and getting out to support their preferred remaining candidate is a big conspiracy? This kind of conspiracy peddling is why fascism won on Tuesday.
I already mentioned one instance of his failure as Secretary (a major accident that occurred shortly after helping to quash a strike that sought to address the issues that eventually lead to the accident). We are also only just this year seeing significant action taken against Boeing. Baltimore also lost a major bridge and access to a regionally-important port under his leadership. He's not good at his job. He should never have gotten it.
>You're saying we chose the corruption free candidate instead of the big bad Democrats?
I did not. You clearly did not read my posts and are only willing to engage in bad faith.
It seems you've confused postponing a strike with quashing a strike. Don't worry, all strikes in every industry will be quashed by Trump and Musk over the next 4 years.
Also, do you seriously consider a single neglectful shipping company ramming into the bridge to be the fault of the transportation secretary?
Everything I am saying is straightforward and in good faith.
>Don't worry, all strikes in every industry will be quashed by Trump and Musk over the next 4 years.
That's how strikes work under the rule of law and the faith that all parties will operate fairly within it, which we can agree is going away under Trump to some extent.
>Also, do you seriously consider a single neglectful shipping company ramming into the bridge to be the fault of the transportation secretary?
Yes. As with the train incident, it speaks to a culture of ineffectiveness under his direction. (Admittedly rando) guy at this link makes a good point:
>I can't think of a single mode of transportation that has gotten better under Buttigieg, can you?
In his examples, he mentions air travel headaches, which combine with my Boeing criticism from earlier. I also hadn't considered personal vehicles: to add to his talk about EVs, there are also the many controversies involving self-driving cars and the companies his department have allowed to operate recklessly, per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0.
In all, Buttigieg's tenure has been marked by a lack of sufficient oversight of industry; his lax supervision has lead to a disturbing number of incidents across all modes of transit. He's supposed to be keeping them honest, and they ran roughshod over him for the majority of his time in office. He was not ready for the position and it was a mistake to give it to him. He only got it through a corrupt transaction that lead to Biden's improbable nomination over Sanders in 2020, which has ultimately lead to the electoral trouncing we saw last week.
For what it's worth, we don't need "luck"; we need people like you to stop carrying water for pompous losers who put their pocketbook before people (and to maybe stop being them, too).
This true. They will keep playing this stupid game. Thinking they are on the right side of history, which might be true, or it might not be true; but in the end, the right side of history is decided by the winners. And their current strategy is to alienate as many voters as possible by powering through on issues nobody cares about and acting as if there are no real issues left to fix.
I think they are referring to the anti-liberal authoritarian left wing that has gained a foothold not only in the DNC but into the mainstream culture in certain ways. But "left-wing fascism" is a thing, or at least and idea, that has been around for awhile. Some call it "red fascism" and is in reference to left wing ideologies that are far from the center. It sort of invokes "horseshoe theory" that says left and right get pretty similar the further they get from the center.
