The party seems pretty rudderless right now.

Schumer is done and Jeffries is an idiot.

The Bernie / AOC wing of the party is about to get knocked out with the Mamdami thing .... he represents most of what B/AOC stand for and it is going to fail spectacularly and take them down with him.

The California contingent is too easy to combat as well - their track record in their own state is so horrendous, the debate counterpoints write themselves.

The rest have so much TDS they cannot come up with one single coherent policy platform that doesn't include Not Trump.

(11-12-2025 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

You know I love ya man but that's way out there. I'm unsure of your meaning regarding the bold section. Please clarify.

Clarify: The Democrat Party not only lacks a leader. It lacks a core message (at least one that it can publicly acknowledge). It's only defining thread is a hatred of basic American values.

How does any political party manage to win any election under these circumstances? Because it doesn't need a message when it has an all-purpose villain.

That is, in my assessment, what allowed them to sweep the VA and NJ elections. Both of those states have elected Republicans before. And if there ever was a year in which Democrat initiatives have been shown up as complete failures, this was the year. Donald Trump has been stunningly successful on all fronts (the tariff nonsense excepted).

Yet that message gets lost. Maybe it's specific to these two blue states. If believing that to be so lets you sleep better, be my guest. I don't happen to agree. Maybe the very persuasive arguments put forth by Bartlett ("AM being AM"), Rath ("what a miserable person AM must be") or by shere ("Reeeee") are convincing to you. This is a free forum, and you are welcome to accept whatever arguments you choose.

I just don't see it that way.

(11-12-2025 08:25 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

AM, you don't think Pelosi was a leader of the Dem Party? Who did you think the "Wicked Witch" that's retiring is, lol?

You also think not having a leader is a Dem strength? I don't get that, or understand how that affected the elections last week, which all were in blue areas, as you mentioned, or maybe purple with VA.

If Pelosi was truly the leader that you say she was, AOC would not exist.

The fact that Pelosi was out-manuevered by a smoking-hot, but low-iq, bartender suggests that she wasn' the leader you might think.

AOC exists because she represents an uber leftist district and media on the right made her the Face ID the of the batsh!t crazy left on purpose.

Now we see the idiot mayor elect of NYC on every page for the same reason.

Take a saffron pill. Relax. Enjoy the day.

Who is their party leader?

Satan

(11-12-2025 09:45 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 08:25 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

AM, you don't think Pelosi was a leader of the Dem Party? Who did you think the "Wicked Witch" that's retiring is, lol?

You also think not having a leader is a Dem strength? I don't get that, or understand how that affected the elections last week, which all were in blue areas, as you mentioned, or maybe purple with VA.

If Pelosi was truly the leader that you say she was, AOC would not exist.

The fact that Pelosi was out-manuevered by a smoking-hot, but low-iq, bartender suggests that she wasn' the leader you might think.

Huh? Pelosi wasn't a leader of the Dem Party? You never mentioned effective leader. You just said leader. She sure as hell was the leader for a long time. It wasn't Biden. Or Harris. Or Schumer. Or Jeffries.

And how does Pelosi prevent AOC from being elected? I don't get it. AOC was coming to Congress no matter who was the leader. Same with the idiot Jazzy.

I don't see where AOC out-maneuvered Pelosi. Pelosi just got old and quit.

And if you think AOC is the leader of the Dem party, well, we aren't going to agree. I think they don't have one. AOC and the Squad don't appeal to enough voters across enough states to be the leader of anything.

That's why I asked the question in the OP. Who really is the Dems' leader now? It's not Bernie. Not AOC. Not Pelosi. Sure as hell not Schumer or Jeffries. I don't see one.

Obama is trying to fill the void, but his mojo is fading.

(11-12-2025 09:59 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 09:45 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 08:25 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

AM, you don't think Pelosi was a leader of the Dem Party? Who did you think the "Wicked Witch" that's retiring is, lol?

You also think not having a leader is a Dem strength? I don't get that, or understand how that affected the elections last week, which all were in blue areas, as you mentioned, or maybe purple with VA.

If Pelosi was truly the leader that you say she was, AOC would not exist.

The fact that Pelosi was out-manuevered by a smoking-hot, but low-iq, bartender suggests that she wasn' the leader you might think.

Huh? Pelosi wasn't a leader of the Dem Party? You never mentioned effective leader. You just said leader. She sure as hell was the leader for a long time. It wasn't Biden. Or Harris. Or Schumer. Or Jeffries.

And how does Pelosi prevent AOC from being elected? I don't get it. AOC was coming to Congress no matter who was the leader. Same with the idiot Jazzy.

I don't see where AOC out-maneuvered Pelosi. Pelosi just got old and quit.

And if you think AOC is the leader of the Dem party, well, we aren't going to agree. I think they don't have one. AOC and the Squad don't appeal to enough voters across enough states to be the leader of anything.

That's why I asked the question in the OP. Who really is the Dems' leader now? It's not Bernie. Not AOC. Not Pelosi. Sure as hell not Schumer or Jeffries. I don't see one.

Obama is trying to fill the void, but his mojo is fading.

White womens love him. And half gay white men with soft hands.

Probably the only place aoc and jazzy appeal to are in new yorkistan and blackish houston. In the US they are non-entities and the only reason they are popular is because they have big mouths and love the publicity and the press loves to give it to them. There are idiots on the Left that fawn over both of them but remember the Left isn't the majority as was proven in Trumps election.

For Demonics their candidates don't have to prove any morality as their platform shows they have none and yet even some "Christians" still vote for them. I just warn those "Christians" even the getaway driver of a bank heist will be found guilt. So go ahead my "Christian" brothers keep driving those get away cars.

(11-12-2025 09:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  How does any political party manage to win any election under these circumstances? Because it doesn't need a message when it has an all-purpose villain.

World class truth here. But what do they have when he's gone?

Schumer is not done.

If they have the expected mid-term success, he'll be the Dem leader in the Senate for another decade.

(11-12-2025 09:59 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Huh? Pelosi wasn't a leader of the Dem Party? You never mentioned effective leader. You just said leader. She sure as hell was the leader for a long time. It wasn't Biden. Or Harris. Or Schumer. Or Jeffries.

And how does Pelosi prevent AOC from being elected? I don't get it. AOC was coming to Congress no matter who was the leader. Same with the idiot Jazzy.

I don't see where AOC out-maneuvered Pelosi. Pelosi just got old and quit.

And if you think AOC is the leader of the Dem party, well, we aren't going to agree. I think they don't have one. AOC and the Squad don't appeal to enough voters across enough states to be the leader of anything.

That's why I asked the question in the OP. Who really is the Dems' leader now? It's not Bernie. Not AOC. Not Pelosi. Sure as hell not Schumer or Jeffries. I don't see one.

Obama is trying to fill the void, but his mojo is fading.

I know that I am not very good at this. And probably should just stop trying. But I'll give it one more go.

You are correct, Nancy Pelosi was not going to prevent the election of AOC. NYC is simply off the charts insane. BUT, in my view, if Pelosi was a leader AOC would have been contained.

The Republicans have had their share of crazies. Just to name a few - - Rep. Steve King; Rep. Lauren Boebert; Rep. George Santos. Republican leadership didn't prevent any of them from being elected. But they did stop them from hijacking the party. Nancy Pelosi could not do that with AOC nor any of the "Squad". They are running amok.

That is my definition of a leader. The Republicans have leaders. You may not like them. But they control the prevailing message. The Democrats, in my view, do not have a leader - - other than some faceless entity named "Not Trump". The more "Not Trump" the Democrat is, the more power they wield.

That's a disgusting statement regarding the sickness in the Democrat Party.

But it also is a statement about Donald Trump himself, who seems to enjoy the very unhealthy (for the nation, at least) attention that he is able to command from the left.

(11-12-2025 10:51 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 09:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  How does any political party manage to win any election under these circumstances? Because it doesn't need a message when it has an all-purpose villain.

World class truth here. But what do they have when he's gone?

Not so fast. TDS or oppose Trump at everything he says or does is getting stale and tiresome is not an ultimate winning strategy. Yes, that segment are still out there and will ‘vote blue no matter who’ and get extra motivated against trump but even the rabid media is noticing screaming the ‘sky is falling’ isn’t working overall on people including average democrat. We’re not even a year into Trump first year and while his numbers have dropped I don’t think it’s cement in time or clear enough to make any sense of it. Time will tell

(11-12-2025 11:40 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 09:59 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Huh? Pelosi wasn't a leader of the Dem Party? You never mentioned effective leader. You just said leader. She sure as hell was the leader for a long time. It wasn't Biden. Or Harris. Or Schumer. Or Jeffries.

And how does Pelosi prevent AOC from being elected? I don't get it. AOC was coming to Congress no matter who was the leader. Same with the idiot Jazzy.

I don't see where AOC out-maneuvered Pelosi. Pelosi just got old and quit.

And if you think AOC is the leader of the Dem party, well, we aren't going to agree. I think they don't have one. AOC and the Squad don't appeal to enough voters across enough states to be the leader of anything.

That's why I asked the question in the OP. Who really is the Dems' leader now? It's not Bernie. Not AOC. Not Pelosi. Sure as hell not Schumer or Jeffries. I don't see one.

Obama is trying to fill the void, but his mojo is fading.

I know that I am not very good at this. And probably should just stop trying. But I'll give it one more go.

You are correct, Nancy Pelosi was not going to prevent the election of AOC. NYC is simply off the charts insane. BUT, in my view, if Pelosi was a leader AOC would have been contained.

The Republicans have had their share of crazies. Just to name a few - - Rep. Steve King; Rep. Lauren Boebert; Rep. George Santos. Republican leadership didn't prevent any of them from being elected. But they did stop them from hijacking the party. Nancy Pelosi could not do that with AOC or any if the "Squad". They are running amok.

That is my definition of a leader. The Republicans have leaders. You may not like them. But they control the prevailing message. The Democrats, in my view, do not have a leader - - other than some faceless entity named "Not Trump". The more "Not Trump" the Democrat is, the more power they wield.

That's a disgusting statement regarding the sickness in the Democrat Party.

But it also is a statement about Donald Trump himself, who seems to enjoy the very unhealthy (for the nation, at least) attention that he is able to command from the left.

Then we agree. The Dems don't have a leader.

Which is exactly why I started the thread, wondering what everybody thought about that fact.

We disagree about whether Pelosi was one. At the time of her power, she sure as hell was one. And I don't think AOC had much to do with hijacking anything. It's much bigger than her.

Plus, we have different ideas about leaders. You are saying Pelosi wasn't an effective leader. Nowhere in my OP did I say anything about effectiveness. I simply said she was a leader of the Dem party.

She was. And they don't have one at all now, effective or not.

And the DJT thing seems to be bugging you again. Why?

(11-12-2025 11:52 AM)TripleA Wrote:  And the DJT thing seems to be bugging you again. Why?

Because I foresee trouble. I've been wrong before (2024 and 2016). But I've also been right (2020).

I hope that I am wrong this time. But I see Donald Trump doing nothing to help the prospects of Republican representatives and senators trying to maintain majorities in 2026. I instead see him squandering off-the-charts policy successes with never-ending look-at-me nonsense. Why is he so incapable of just laughing off a meaningless insult?

I also fear that he will get in the way of his successor in 2028 -- whether that is JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Ron DeSantis or someone else. Sharing the spotlight is seemingly not in his nature.

(11-12-2025 12:03 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 11:52 AM)TripleA Wrote:  And the DJT thing seems to be bugging you again. Why?

Because I foresee trouble. I've been wrong before (2024 and 2016). But I've also been right (2020).

I hope that I am wrong this time. But I see Donald Trump doing nothing to help the prospects of Republican representatives and senators trying to maintain majorities in 2026. I instead see him squandering off-the-charts policy successes with never-ending look-at-me nonsense. Why is he so incapable of just laughing off a meaningless insult?

I also fear that he will get in the way of his successor in 2028 -- whether that is JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Ron DeSantis or someone else. Sharing the spotlight is seemingly not in his nature.

Well, the out of power party usually does well in the off year elections.

Trump is incapable of laughing off minor insults b/c he's a classic narcissist. With him, you have to take the bad with the good.

I don't see where he has gotten worse, and has your Spidey senses all tingling again.

IMO, the Dems have a shot at retaking the House, which is why Trump was pushing Texas to redistrict midstream.

But in 2028, based on what we know today, I would say JD has a huge advantage on whomever the Dems run, unless it's Wes Moore.

(11-12-2025 07:39 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Leader is the same as it's been for years.

George Soros, Inc.

I would also add large scale investment firms, corporate lobbyists, and the overseas globohomos like Klaus and corp...

I always find these threads amusing when it's all about the monster $$$ that are pullin' every bit of the Geppetto shuffle...

the only thingy that matters is who the whip becomes in efficacy...

the best thingy for the pubs is their bench is being depleted with clueless crew replacements ... the pubs bench is deeper than a porn star's snatch...

IMO, it's nothing but choice between the least of the two 'evals' at this point ... I'll take the brains over the lack of brawn and brains that are full of emo all day long...

everyone loses if the fiat fails...

Hey Stink, I get the $$ part. I was just curious as to whom anybody here thought was in charge of the party (maybe in name only). It has been a long time since that was hard to recognize.

It was Obama when he was president. It has essentially been Pelosi since then. But she's out of power and soon to retire. Schumer just cratered. Jeffries is a moron. AOC and Bernie are players, but their actual number of socialist buddies is still small.

So who is it? Seems like nada anybody.

(11-12-2025 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Stink, I get the $$ part. I was just curious as to whom anybody here thought was in charge of the party (maybe in name only). It has been a long time since that was hard to recognize.

It was Obama when he was president. It has essentially been Pelosi since then. But she's out of power and soon to retire. Schumer just cratered. Jeffries is a moron. AOC and Bernie are players, but their actual number of socialist buddies is still small.

So who is it? Seems like nada anybody.

I'm simply with rath ... I just did the stinky finga thingy to tack on a bit more ...

it. just. doesn't. matter. ... the dems aren't a serious party....

Of course it doesn't matter. I was just interested in who was in charge.

In case I wanted to file a complaint with them. Which I do.

The brief flurry of attacks on Vance have suddenly stopped. Anyone notice? They were there and then - gone.

The plan for the mid-terms is to focus on the hatred of Trump. They don't want to distract from that in any way.

The day after the mid-terms the attacks on Vance will restart using which ever of the trial balloons looked best as the first volley.