That title is quite loaded. You could also write "US government shuts down after Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats". Such disagreements always come down to both sides -- either side could unilaterally solve the disagreement by giving in.
It’s shocking to me how little control the democrats seem to have these days over then narrative. I don’t see them in the news giving their spin at all really
The modern era is a lose-lose for them. Either they keep their dignity and get ignored, or they could stoop to the level of the opposition and lose the respect of their constituents and themselves.
I would respect them a lot more if they actually put some effort into being an opposition party instead of saying they hope the Republicans will engage in bipartisanship. They're losing lots of respect for their apparent lack of a spine.
Lack of spine? Or is it just lack of substance? Lack of credibility? Lack of talent? Lack of focus on the issues that people actually care about? Lack of leadership? Lack of a real true grass roots base?
The Democrats are basically in complete shock right now and probably realizing that they’re gonna have to rebuild the entire party. I fail to see anyone at this point in time within the Democratic party that is capable of taking the reins that has any charisma or plan that really addresses the key issues that most Americans care about.
The only bright spot (as far as liberal media seems to be determined) for the Democrats seems to be a young upstart mayoral candidate in a large American city who they don’t even support.
>The Democrats are basically in complete shock right now and probably realizing that they’re gonna have to rebuild the entire party.
If that's the case, so be it. Step down and leave it to those who do have all those factors.
>I fail to see anyone at this point in time within the Democratic party that is capable of taking the reins that has any charisma or plan that really addresses the key issues that most Americans care about.
I see some. They are of course cast down for the same reason Kamala was (despite her being much more moderate in comparison). Legacy media is not going to show off that charisma, you need other channels.
it's a lose-lose game cuz they are held to a much higher standard than their opposition. and also because their opposition is held to no standards at all
I see it all the time. The congressmen are out there talking to youtubers, on MSNBC, sometimes CNN, and many have social media with their own Youtube, Instagram, etc.
But looking through the comments in this community makes it clear what skew this place has.
They're obviously trying, but the media (especially social media, which prioritizes outrage) is always going to put more eyeballs on the modern GOP because they are more outrageous
It’s almost as though the mainstream media are all controlled by huge conglomerates run by multimillionaires or billionaires who have a strong political interest in keeping “the narrative” skewed against the Dems.
The Guardian is owned by a British left leaning nonprofit.
As someone who actually worked with the DNC a decadish ago, the issue is the organization has been hemorrhaging talent for a decade, and hiring pipeline became horrid in the run-up of the 2020 primaries, because it became multiple internal turf wars, as state level Dems were stagnating in states like CA and IL, thus leading to dissent internally.
The moderate vs progressive culture war didn't help internally either (eg. asking whether "Latinx" might be alienating Latiné voters wouldn't end well if you wanted a career in the CA and TX Dems).
I'd hardly call the Guardian mainstream. I'm talking about the places the septuagenarians get their news. The three-letter places with shows. That is the mainstream media. Guardian's an underdog upstart in that landscape.
Even the AP, with their dedication to balance, truth and accountability is restricted in what they can cover because they didn't bend the knee. And even their headline is blaming the shutdown on the Dems.
As I understand it as a foreigner, some/many Democratic primaries are decided by registered Democrats voting for their preferred candidate. While the vote at the general election might see most voters already decided, the candidates that get onto the general election ballot would be influenced by those that register with the party. Over time - and without forgetting the advantages of incumbency - this could skew the type of candidate that appears on the ballot with a D next to their name, and lead to candidates that even consistent Democrat voters might reject.
Hypothetically that is what is supposed to happen, but in action, politics has become so polarized, that swing electorates are almost non-existent.
At this point elections are won based on whether or not subsegments of the population can be rallied to show up or not show up to vote in elections.
This is becuase in most elections, most voters simply do not follow the news, and if they do it tends to be a quick video or a listicle.
Thus, the voters that can swing an election are those that are part of organized voting blocs (eg. A specific union or a local PTA), and cultivating those local groups and ties matters more.
Mainstream news is boring, repetitive, uninformative, and mainly representative of the extremes of politics. This type of programming is not attractive to most people, only shallow political junkies consume it voraciously. Most people care about healthcare, housing, education, and community. The value proposition for most people to watch the news is not very attractive.
>most voters are already decided so a reduction in party membership didn't have much of an impact.
2024 clearly says otherwise. They won't vote for R's, but they may also just not vote at all. That's almost as dangerous. The DNC definiately needs to energize its base again, not just say "well we aren't Trump".
If you inherently support the democrats and detest the republicans, nothing in the title is anti democrat. Of course they would oppose the republican funding plan, good for them! You might say.
