Labour and the Democrats

Written By: - Date published: 9:34 am, January 20th, 2024 - 64 comments
Categories: helen clark, jacinda ardern, Joe Biden, labour, obama, us politics - Tags:

It is remarkable that both Biden and Ardern began with strong momentum, yet Labour got smashed at the next election and Biden is now trailing against Trump nearly everywhere. Do Labour and the Democrats have something in common?

Like Obama did for black America and many minorities, so Helen Clark for women and many minorities. They both united single women, the university educated, and immigrant minorities, in ways that ensured massive and stable governments that made huge institutional changes that are still with both countries.

Since the retirement of Obama and the progress of Helen Clark on to global roles and think-tank leadership, both the Democrats and Labour have simultaneously haemorrhaged the support of males and working-class and lower middle-class voters.

The issues that drove these voters away include immigration, the decline of unions and the national industrial manufacturing base of closed factories, the scale and personal oversight of government into ones’ life, state favouring of minorities, and furors over sexual identity. These are not the fields of failure of traditional social democrat focus such as health and education.

None of the above issues speak to how well both Obama and Clark did to build institutions that gave citizens more tools to fight monopolies, more savings options, more consumer power, and a stronger state to deal with crises when they loom high and hard. Voters clearly care about issues of immigration, minority rights, and the right role of the state more than anything else. If that sounds unfair, well voters are clearly unfair and it’s not voters that have to deal with it.

By 2010 Democrats were down by an overwhelming 23 points among this large diverse group and even further behind in the industrial Midwest. It’s worse now since they lost the Congress majority and are on a razor’s edge in the Senate.

In 2023 New Zealand Labour is down to 26.9%. It has been ejected from heartland working class and immigrant seats right across the country and it now has a tiny on-ground electorate MP presence.

Both parties are failing massive segments of voters. In Labour Prime Minister Ardern’s policies tracked far away from what was acceptable to its old base. New Zealand in the 2023 election was particularly fortunate that it did not have a cult figure like Trump to step into that abandoned space. As a result the Democrats in the United States are now facing a series of constitutional and electoral crises the likes of which they have not seen since the Civil War. New Zealand may also face its own constitutional crises about Treaty of Waitangi legislation.

Labour and the Democrats need to compare notes to start with.  Both the US Democrats and NZ Labour need to take hard looks at themselves. Failure is not inevitable. But there is now only one English-speaking centre-left democracy left in the world: that is the state of where we are now.

64 comments on “Labour and the Democrats ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Morrissey 1
    20 January 2024 at 10:28 am

    But there is now only one English-speaking centre-left democracy left in the world

    ?

    Where is it? There are plenty of centre-left democracies in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking Latin America, in spite of the U.S. regime's incessant attempts to destroy them. None of them use English as a first language.

    So where is this "one English-speaking centre-left democracy left in the world" exactly?

    • Macro 1.1
      20 January 2024 at 11:04 am

      Australia?

    • lprent 1.2
      20 January 2024 at 12:10 pm

      Try looking at the emphasis on centre-left and it may come to you if you try to think really really hard. Even if you often do seem to come from the perspective of the old-school-looney-left.

      • Morrissey 1.2.1
        20 January 2024 at 12:16 pm

        old-school-looney-left

        ?

        Such abusive and imprecise abuse says nothing about the target, but it says a lot about the abuser.

        • Morrissey 1.2.1.1
          21 January 2024 at 7:45 am

          Mike, everything that applies to Australia applies to Canada. Apart from its ruthless repression of First Nations people, Canada has been in lockstep with Washington's agenda of illegal mass spying on citizens, its destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, its support of Al Qaeda against the government of Syria, and the ceaseless war against real democracies in Latin America. One of the most repellent sights of the last decade was of Justin Trudeau, not in blackface on this occasion, declaring his support for the ridiculous Venezuelan far right puppet Juan Guaidó.

        • lprent 1.2.1.2
          21 January 2024 at 10:54 pm

          Stop writing shit comments that I can tear into so easily and I'll stop trying to encourage you to lift your level of commenting.

          In the meantime, I will keep putting the barbs in as I see them.

          Based on your previous commenting performances over the last 15 years, unless you are given sharp incentives, you just drone on with rote and parrot propaganda – that you have clearly never thought about. I’m sure that there is a intelligence in there somewhere, but you clearly don’t engage in expressing your own ideas and views or participate in robust debate.

          What you do is to pontificate like a tired old cleric who hasn’t thought about any doctrine since your seminary training, but merely recites the latest bull (papal bull?) from propagandists without any original thought that comes from your views on it.

          I call people who do that as astroturfers, and I don’t maintain this site for dickheads acting as bill stickers.

          • Green Hammer 1.2.1.2.1
            21 January 2024 at 11:45 pm

            Agree with all that Morrissey has said here. Hot pants Iprent needs to loosen a few buttons. What a whinger !

            • lprent 1.2.1.2.1.1
              22 January 2024 at 2:09 am

              If you were able to write more than three lines of short words and no interesting content in any comment, you might be get more respect. However based on your writing to date on this site, your handle should probably be moronic superhero sidekick because you have the dialogue to match.

              I’m currently writing new code for the site. Perhaps I should test a new automatic handle substitution procedure on your comments. Then you could have a new role of comedic relief where every day all of your comments change according to the BOFH current opinion of you.

              I suggest that you read the site policy.

          • Morrissey 1.2.1.2.2
            21 January 2024 at 11:56 pm

            Your attempt to reduce me to a caricature, and your constant hurling of abuse ("drone on", "parrot propaganda", "clearly never thought about", "tired old cleric", "bull", "dickheads", etc.) is unfortunately something we've seen before. It is nothing more than argumentum ad hominem. I find it interesting that you feel empowered to make clearly untrue statements, such as accusing me of not expressing my own views and not participating in "robust debate."

            A quick check of your archives will show that I am more than happy to engage in debate, and I have done so on many, many occasions here. The only thing that kills debate here is the oppressive and inhibiting atmosphere engendered by the belittling comments of one or two of the "moderators."

            Your comment about "astroturfing" is as ridiculous as it is untrue.

            • lprent 1.2.1.2.2.1
              22 January 2024 at 1:58 am

              Your attempt to reduce me to a caricature

              You do lend yourself to being a caricature. Why shouldn't I comment or opine on that?

              your constant hurling of abuse

              There is not abuse. Those are my opinions based on what is in your comments of what you are trying to present. I do that to everyone.

              I seldom have to do 'argumentum ad hominem', I have a completely different level of writing style for that.

              such as accusing me of not expressing my own views

              No. What I have said is that in the comments I have replied to, you haven't expressed any of your views because you have mostly only expressed that I and others should click a link. Or that you didn't like me pointing out that was all that you had done.

              and not participating in "robust debate.

              So far you haven't trying to anser or refute any point that I have made in my replies to you. Instead you have pretty much just complained that I haven't treated you with respect. This comment for instance. But respect has to be earned – and you haven't tried to do that because apparently, you are incapable of debate.

              A quick check of your archives will show that I am more than happy to engage in debate, and I have done so on many, many occasions here.

              Nope. The last few times I have noticed you in recent years, it has been because you were clearly trying to avoid debate after you made assertions and were challenged on them, or a moderator was pulling you up from dropping small text that essentially said 'click this link'. A behaviour that I consider to be astroturfing. BTW: I did check your archives. Perhaps you should as well. The search client side link

              If I was moderating it'd look more like this.

              [lprent: stop being a fuckwit and astroturfing or I will kick your useless arse off the site. Read the policy ]

              On your comment, bold, bracketed, my handle attached, and a demand or command. Generally some quite uncivil descriptions of what I thought of your behaviour, and a link or reference or decription of why.

              I seldom have the time to write extended replies when I'm giving moderation notes.

              • Green Hammer …
                22 January 2024 at 3:42 pm

                You havent set the example for positive discourse. Why dont you actually show how Morrissey is incorrect instead of punching the wall ?

                • lprent …
                  29 January 2024 at 9:25 am

                  Pretty sure that I did. In exactly the form that morrissey started with. morrissey asked a rhetorical question in a sarcastic form to the posts author.

                  "So where is this "one English-speaking centre-left democracy left in the world" exactly?"

                  I responded with rhetorical answer in a even more sarcastic and personalised form explaining why I suspected that morrissey couldn't see a answer.

                  BTW: Multiple times in my site sessions that day I ran across morrissey doing the same kind of smart-arse comments across multiple comments in multiple posts. I see that as a behavioural problem because it adds nothing to the comments on the site.

                  It may give morrissey satisfaction to act like a narcissistic arsehole showing that they are a smartarse here. But as the person who maintains the workings of the site it gives me no satisfaction to provide the time and resources to see debate dropped to the equivalent of doing dumb graffiti on top of my work.

                  I wasn't trying to give "positive discourse" in general. I was giving morrissey a discourse about his behaviour before a moderator or the author took action.

                  But I guess that you're a bit too thick to read such nuances eh?

                  BTW: my equivalent of “punching the wall” on here is somewhat more extreme – I simply boot people off my computers.

          • Adrian Thornton 1.2.1.2.3
            28 January 2024 at 4:01 pm

            "Stop writing shit comments that I can tear into so easily and I'll stop trying to encourage you to lift your level of commenting."…thats good coming from you…the guy who writes volumes of words on Geo-Politics that time and again only display a total ignorance on the subject….but then again, when we did finally get Mr Iprent to divulge the source's he goes to for his usual wrong headed opinions on these matters…it became all too apparent why this sad state of affairs exist in his comments.

            • lprent 1.2.1.2.3.1
              29 January 2024 at 9:46 am

              Yeah right. I haven't actually noticed you ever demonstrating much knowledge about geo-politics that you appear to have thought about yourself.

              I have opinions and express them as being my opinions including the reasons why I have them with links to text usually that have extensive links to sources.

              I'm usually (ie when not busy) happy to argue the points raised by others Frequently with long and linked replies. I've even been known to change my opinions or at least look down a whole new path when someone manages to provide a convincing argument.

              But I do have opinions also about the qualities of the arguments of others. For instance yourself.

              In my opinion, you routinely parrot what I often think is just a propaganda line with the absolute certainty that is the truth of all of the faithful.

              Your usual backup or response to criticism is to link to a talking head in a youtube that has unverifiable sources, or a link to text that references a series of unsubstantiated and unverifiable sources.

              You respond to criticism about this approach, especially the ones that cast doubt on your sources, with all of the intellectual ability of a religious zealot having their faith attacked. By crying heretic.

              It is deeply unappealing. Which is why these days I seldom dig down into your links unless you explain what I am likely to see in there. I seldom read your comments outside of moderator mode, unless I see that you are expressing an opinion rather than parroting a religous doctrine of absolute faith or decrying the heretic.

              • Adrian Thornton …
                29 January 2024 at 10:19 am

                “deeply unappealing”…coming from you…LOL

                Well at least I link to sources…unlike you most of the time.

                And when you do, and when I do bother to check on them, which is rarely, because I know exactly what I will find…they are of course the usual Neo-Imperialist, fundamentalists like yourself, spouting their usual "religous doctrine of absolute faith'" in western hegemony at any cost…

                …and then "decrying the heretic" to anyone who stands against this despicable ideology….as you do regularly…and anyone on TS who would like to observe your bullying rhetoric in this regard , I would suggest you only have to have a quick glance at Iprents trolling of Morrissey…but then of course never of Joe 90, who is just a never ending stream of misinformation…..but then of course he is in same religion as you, so why would you.

      • Green Hammer 1.2.2
        21 January 2024 at 6:02 pm

        Australia centre left?? Good grief!! I see pro war pro genocide pro tax cuts for the rich pro jailing of journalists pro jailing of climate change activists and pro privatisation . If thats centre left then what is centre right or even right?

    • Mike the Lefty 1.3
      21 January 2024 at 1:30 am

      I would argue that there are two – Australia and Canada, although you could also argue that they are way more centre than left.

  2. UncookedSelachimorpha 2
    20 January 2024 at 10:50 am

    I think Ardern was NZ's Obama. Both came in with lots of hope and promise, but remained hard neoliberal and so inevitably could do nothing about entrenched inequality and disadvantage.

    Both were followed by cruel, right-wing, populist, anti-evidence leaderships.

    By pretending class issues and inequality don't exist, both Labour and the Democrats are almost as responsible for nasty right-wing shifts as the right-wingers themselves, in my opinion.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    20 January 2024 at 11:03 am

    One of the biggest issues with the modern "left" is a program of restricted immigration, house building, protecting local jobs, being anti-establishment, speaking out for the little guy and generous welfare for locals only – once the bread and butter stuff of the left – is now largely seen as the territory of the populist right. Why is that, how on earth has that come to pass?

    It comes back to the issue I've been banging on about for a while now – Labour is now the party of the third sector and recruits almost exclusively from the third sector (and academia) for it's candidates. In turn, the third sector is almost exclusively white collar service sector roles recruited from socially liberal classes. Just the other morning Jan Tinetti was on morning report defending Labour's record on the NCEA results. The first sentence out of her mouth was a defense of the education establishment, not an admission of failure of any sort. She projected a hyper-normalised vision of education where the ministry pretends it knows what the problem is and the educators pretend the solution is working, because everyones salary depends on it and no one is held accountable.

    The problem is the third sector's growth is a direct result of neoliberalism and it's obsession with seperating purchaser and supplier, plus the drive to lower costs via outsourcing of government functions to charities and NGOs. As a sector it is utterly dependent on the neoliberal status quo. The reshaping of society along neoliberal lines over the past forty years has been significant. The championing of narcissistic individualism has seen a decline in willingness to participate in institutions like traditional churches, trade unions, and community activities. At the same the state has used it's power as main source of funds to force nonprofits into compliance with government ideology, cost cutting and bureaucratic norms. Also, the third sector has become a useful dumping ground for difficult and unprofitable welfare sector functions – so it has become habitualised to systemic failure within an environment of constant petty bureaucracy to ensure compliance with government rules to retain access to funding streams.

    This reliance on third sector, academia and declining traditional institutions for candidates means Labour has difficulty connecting with the dynamics of modern NZ and the issues that society cares about. Look at the loss of New Lynn and Mt Roskill – both lost to "new" New Zealanders who reflected more accurately the aspirations of their electorate. To often, Labour's candidates come from a background of working for organisations where the dominance of the market in society is to the point where it becomes an end in itself. Outcomes are less relevant than justifying your continued existence within the neoliberal funding model.

    Labour – the wider left – needs policies that seek to break the neo-liberal paradigm. The first thing they need to do is find better candidates. New Lynn needs a bloke who has a mullet, wears sharkeys, drinks Lion red and is interviewed whilst tinkering with his outboard in the front yard and actually talks to people on struggle street, Swanson. And how about some policies aimed at reviving it's base? How about the ability to claim a 100% PAYE tax rebate on the first $15,000 earned on proof you've done 75 hours of volunteer work per annum with an approved provider? Pretty simple to administer – just create a register of approved orgainsations and do the whole thing online. Or how about making government online free for everyone by zero rating all .govt.nz sites and providing a free government ISP service? Or addressing voter disquiet about MPs by introducing term limits for list MPs? Or promising an actual program to forcibly break up the supermarket duopoly?

    The alternative to reform of NZ Labour will be a version of what is going to happen in the UK. Kier Starmer is a gutless, chinless wonder, a Tory member of the establishment who will sleep walk to victory with the biggest majority ever. He'll then preside over the worst Labour government of all time thus opening the door for a near full Fascist Conservative government under Cruella Bravermann to sweep back to power in five years and implement a full-on authoritarian police state in the UK that will destroy even the notional left, whilst Starmer and most of his cabinet will fuck off into the House of Lords and/or the Blair institute and carry on like nothing has happened.

    • Dennis Frank 3.1
      20 January 2024 at 12:17 pm

      Bleak appraisal but a damn good overview, hope you're wrong about Starmer but don't expect you to be! The left seems like it doesn't stand on solid ground nowadays.

      Think of someone standing staunch a century back, then the ground starts to shift, with a fault line running through between his feet – like the mid-/Atlantic ridge. Plate tectonics shifts those feet ever-further apart till he's obviously doing the splits, arse perilously close to the ground, legs almost horizontal each side of him. The effort of maintaining this stance thro 4 decades of neoliberalism has made him go cross-eyed due to the intensity of focus required to maintain the increasingly ridiculous posture.

      • Green Hammer 3.1.1
        21 January 2024 at 7:15 pm

        "The left seems like it doesn't stand on solid ground nowadays."

        what left for Christ's sake???

    • Grey Area 3.2
      20 January 2024 at 7:11 pm

      “..the third sector is almost exclusively white collar service sector roles recruited from socially liberal classes.”

      No it isn’t. The third sector is the Not-For Profit sector, as in first sector government, second sector business, third sector NFP.

      http://toolkit.northernbridge.ac.uk/engagingwithpolicymakers/engagingwiththethirdsector/whatisthethirdsectorandwhatdoesitdo/

    • Michael who failed Civics 3.3
      20 January 2024 at 7:22 pm

      Some good ideas there – and some horrific predictions that, I reckon, could well come to pass. But FWIW, I think the NZ Labour Party is a busted flush, a creature of the Public Service Association ( neither a union nor affiliated to the NZLP but dominating it, all the same). I can't see the NZLP ever forming a government again – nobody trusts it, nobody knows what it stands for (apart from office and enrichment of a few PSA types). As for a replacment, I'd like to see something authentically socially democratic in a way the NZLP never was.

    • Darien Fenton 3.4
      21 January 2024 at 3:26 am

      “New Lynn needs a bloke who has a mullet, wears sharkeys, drinks Lion red and is interviewed whilst tinkering with his outboard in the front yard and actually talks to people on struggle street, Swanson.” I hate to be picky, but Swanson is actually in the Te Atatu Electorate. As is Ranui. New Lynn goes right up into Titirangi and has a small loop into Waitakere Village, Bethells etc. Paulo Garcia won on the anti Labour sentiment and rush to the right, (along with well funded campaigns) not because he brought anything new or brilliant or different to the people you seem to think live in New Lynn, who sound like those Chris Trotter once described as “Waitakere man”.

      • gsays 3.4.1
        21 January 2024 at 8:30 am

        I understand if you don't want to answer…

        From your perspective, what are the chances after Labour's soul searching, they reject, even partially the Chicago School way of doing things?

        Having Ernst and Young appointed tohead up Te Whatu Ora feels like peak neo-liberalism.

        As examples, bring roles that used to be done 'in-house' back. Eg catering/gardening/laundry in hospitals.

        Or have Aotearoa Government/Public Service buy NZ wool carpets for floors. Yes, I am aware of the arguments for synthetic, fossil fuel, micro-plastic shedding floor coverings.

        Just the idea of pivoting a little inwards to look at what benefits the wider society rather than a limited balance sheet and global outlook.

        Above is a clumsy as I am a tad rushed this morning but I think you get the picture.

        • Darien Fenton 3.4.1.1
          21 January 2024 at 9:29 am

          No worries ; I have plenty of thoughts I will share in Labour and in the movement. There is a lot of discussion to be had, and I hope Labour gets to take its time and let people have their say. But just on those contracted out jobs ; funny thing is those hospital jobs have remained unionised – partly helped by Part 6a of the ERA which stopped competitive contracting on wages. Requiring all government contracts to pay at least a Living Wage has also helped. And boy did we campaign hard within Labour to get those changes. Sometimes things that make a huge difference we have won under Labour governments we forget. And Labour sets a standard while in government that becomes embedded which the Tories won’t touch. They end up playing in the margins with their pathetic approach to 90 day trials for example.

          • gsays 3.4.1.1.1
            21 January 2024 at 5:34 pm

            Thanks for yr reply.

            Well done on yours and others mahi. It says a lot about the state of the party when you had to fight hard for workers nearer the bottom rungs.

            That is good news about those contracted workers getting living wage. The nature of that work is still precarious.

            • Darien Fenton 3.4.1.1.1.1
              22 January 2024 at 8:35 am

              It is called political organising. This was a ten year battle, beginning well before Labour was in power in 2000 : in fact in the late 1990s, when the ILO looked at contract labour (I was there). The legislative change first happened in 2004. It had nothing to do with the "state" of the Labour Party, but a lot to do with how its constituent parts, including affiliated unions, can make a change. It took effort, solid organising among the workers, a campaign called "contract workers count" and organisation in the Labour Party at conferences, with remits, with elections. It sure does take mahi as change always does but isn't that what we do? Or should?

            • Darien Fenton 3.4.1.1.1.2
              22 January 2024 at 11:09 am

              And further, I see Labour as part of the Labour movement, which is why I support union affiliation. If you are talking about precarious work spare a thought for all of those who will not have FPAs. FPAs didn't happen because some bright spark in Labour Head Office decided it was a good idea. Again, we had to organise, win support, convince others, do our research, win the debates at conference, bring others on board, and argue against the inevitable backlash from the right. This started in 2011 with Labour's first work and wages policy. It took another 6 years before Labour had a chance of implementing it. NZ First blocked progress of legislation so it wasn't until 2021 that it could proceed. Unlike NAF, it went through a whole select committee and parliamentary process. This takes time and is always a competition about what is most important on the legislative agenda. Political and organising change is a long game.

            • Robert Guyton 3.4.1.1.1.3
              22 January 2024 at 11:43 am

              In answer to your earlier comment:

              17 January 2024 at 6:16 pm

              • gsays …
                22 January 2024 at 3:43 pm

                Cheers, Robert. You have no argument from me as regards the trucking industry, congestion, dangerous (especially on the narrow country roads where they often have their wheels over the centre line), damage to roads and perhaps most sinister- the lobbying power they have over government after government.

                However, electric vehicles still contribute to hospital and rehab costs, therefore ACC levies. The roads still need to be maintained, repaired and the sides mown. Being in an EV shouldn't make you exempt.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  22 January 2024 at 4:44 pm

                  Agreed, gsays and I hadn't said they should be. Just wanted you to recognise that I had done my best to answer the question put to me. I have almost no interest in or knowledge of transport matters; vehicle types, fuel sources, road-user charges etc. I am interested in progress toward a significant reduction in fossil-fuel use and this Government is proving hopeless in that regard, imo.

    • Cricklewood 3.5
      21 January 2024 at 8:37 pm

      Lots of good stuff there, I for one dont understand the fasination with big centralized beucaracy on the left (although as you point out completely understandable how we got there)

      The solutions to so many things are local and community lead, to my mind a proper left govt would look to fund directly into communities whether it be Marae, Rotary or whoever really.

      Take health for example Labour set up big health beaucracies instead I puld argue they fund gp's, Php's basically any community organisation that has reach locally to get people in for an annual checkup. The best way to target those who need it most would actually to providing funding to the point where they actually pay people to turn up.

      If we had a system that say paid $50 or $100 on the spot once per year if you come in for a check up it would to my mind make a massive difference to health inequality. Would prob save a fortune in long term health costs as well.

  4. tsmithfield 4
    20 January 2024 at 11:52 am

    I made a comment on a youtube video about how it is unbelievable that a country as big as the US can't find two better candidates than what seems will be the case.

    I got a reply from someone saying that "one should be in jail, and the other in a nursing home". I couldn't disagree with that sentiment.

    • Morrissey 4.1
      20 January 2024 at 12:29 pm

      They should both be in jail.

      • tsmithfield 4.1.1
        20 January 2024 at 1:34 pm

        Maybe.

      • Phillip ure 4.1.2
        20 January 2024 at 7:06 pm

        I am about as far away from being a trump supporter as one could be….but the uncomfortable fact is that biden…like obama…is a war-criminal..

        And trump invaded nobody…

        And re the american election: I may be forced to root for trump…as biden could beat trump…whereas haley would likely beat biden..

        So re trump/repub nomination:

        Be very careful what you wish for..

    • Ghostwhowalks 4.2
      20 January 2024 at 1:55 pm

      "a country as big as the US can't find two better candidates "

      You better ask the voters that , because its them who choses not the party officials like NZ

      The primaries are where a whole line up of sometimes even older candidates are running for the delegates . Bernie Sanders is older than Biden

    • Craig H 4.3
      20 January 2024 at 2:36 pm

      I'm sure many people could name multiple candidates for both major parties who would be better. However, the voters want the incumbents. Without removing democracy from the primaries, how would either party put forward better candidates?

      • Ad 4.3.1
        21 January 2024 at 6:28 am

        The Democratic Party had great candidates prior to the Primary system being set up in the 1960s.

        Over-democratising doesn't get better leaders.

        • Green Hammer 4.3.1.1
          21 January 2024 at 9:28 pm

          "Over-democratising doesn't get better leaders."

          i disagree . What tye DNC did to bernie in 2016 and what they are doing now with no primary debates shows how the Democrats fear democracy

      • Ghostwhowalks 4.3.2
        21 January 2024 at 8:26 am

        "A party" doesnt put forward candidates

        All sorts of people decide themselves to run under a party banner

        The nominating convention – run by the party- decides who is the candidate. Nowadays its really the winner of popular vote- delegate numbers which decide the democrats.

        democrats have a lot of super delegates who are there because of their position rather than from being voted in during primary

        for 2024 the are 4500 delegates in total, of which 744 are super delegates- mostly elected congress, senators, governors and members of the DNC

  5. Jenny 5
    22 January 2024 at 7:49 am

    Centrists

    ….it's no use saying that you don't know nothing
    It's still gonna get you if you don't do something
    Sitting on a fence that's a dangerous course
    Oh, you could even catch a bullet from the peace-keeping force

    Once upon a time in the West.

    "Tell me how we're gonna do what's best"

    For the Democrats, it is not good enough, not being Trump.

    For Labour it just not good enough, not being National

  6. Corey 6
    22 January 2024 at 5:08 pm

    In 2023 I went to a democratic party hall function and an Nz Labour party hall function.

    The functions were almost identical, both rooms were 80% upper middle class white people moaning about how guilty they felt about being white while scoffing at the idea of progressive housing or economic reforms.

    Both parties have outlived their usefulness and are unapologetic defenders of the status quo.

    Both parties are increasingly internally antidemocratic with the leaders meddling in leadership election rules.

    Both parties are defenders of elitism and privlidge and go to great lengths to defend institutions and organizations that bake in that privlidge.

    Both parties waved goodbye to working class people a long time ago and embraced indivualism and identity over class and economic justice.

    When it comes to economic policy both parties refuse to do much of anything progressive in fear of alienating a mythical center, but when it comes to social policy both parties take pride in alienating the center and proclaim "it's not up for debate"

    Both parties pretend class doesn't exist and only see the world through identity, thus their truest enemy is the white straight male.

    As a gay man the way the "left" talks to white straight men is awe inducing, even if he's poor he's privlidged according to millionaire's.

    Within the Labour party and Democratic party, a white straight male at best provokes a condescending eye roll, at worst it provokes a lecture about sexism, consent, homophobia, transphobia and racism because just by existing he's all of those until proven innocent.

    Why would any men ever vote for this shit. Why would a young man who wants to fight economic justice join up to a movement that ignores economic justice and lectures him for his identity?

    Both parties constantly fail to deliver for their voters and when their opponents deliver on their policies think it's the end of the world.

    Both parties try to scare guilt their voters into voting for them painting the opposition as a scary threat, while offering literally nothing economically.

    Both parties represent the very establishment that atleast Labour, was created to fight against.

    Both parties are too far gone into identity and class denial ism and intellectual snobbery to reform

    After labour's result of 17 electorates and the democrats upcoming implosion where they will lose the popular vote, the Whitehouse, the house and the senate, both parties are headed for the dust bin of history….

  7. Adrian Thornton 7
    28 January 2024 at 4:23 pm

    @Ad…"Do Labour and the Democrats have something in common?" surely it must be becoming obvious to you that the 'Centre" is an political ideology all on it's own….it and should not have the Right/Left tagged on to it's name, this 'Centre-Left' terminology is nothing more than smoke screen for the Centrists to hide behind.
    If anyone wants a couple of tag lines for the death cult, cancer that is the 'Centre' then use 'Free Market Centre, or Neo-Imperialist Centre or Neo-Liberal Centre..they all describe the Centre far more closely than Left or Progressive ever will.

    The way it (the Centre) and it's centrist press (The Guardian/BBC/WoPo,RNZ etc) defended itself against Bernie in 2016 and Corbyn shortly after, was an explicit display of this…and anyone who doesn't understand the deep and obvious implications of those vigorous and brutal destructions of the progressive Left within those two political parties during that time, cannot be taken seriously as a political commentator IMO.

    Turn Labour Left!!