The democrats haven’t held a legitimate primary since 2008!
In 2008 it was a genuine competition between Obama, Hillary, and a handful of other lesser known politicians. Obama won the general in a landslide.
In 2012 Obama ran unopposed. Obama won the general.
In 2016 the democrats rigged the primary against sanders for Hillary, and to absolutely no one’s surprise who was paying attention, Hillary lost the general. Why? she didn’t genuinely win the primary. Shocking!
In 2020, refusing to learn mistakes from 2016, the democrats once again screwed over bernie and didn’t run a legitimate primary - rigged it so that all the candidates except no-path-to-win Warren exited the race to split the progressive vote away from bernie. Joe biden won by the skin of his teeth, and he would of lost if it weren’t for the country reacting to trumps handling of covid.
In 2024, once again refusing to learn the democrats didn’t even bother with a primary, ran an old demented geezer as a presidential candidate, realized that wasn’t going to work, and then anointed unelected Kamala Harris who didn’t even need to compete in a primary.
And they’re shocked they lost?! These people make way too much money to be this stupid.
You act like they’d have “lost” if Kamala won…
They win either way, just different amounts.
Meanwhile the average American always loses, just different amounts.
It doesn’t have to be like this, we don’t need to run shitty conservative Dems that billionaires like, because then we won’t need to spend a billion on ads that don’t even change anyone’s minds.
We ran a Dem candidate that wants a border wall, doesn’t want universal healthcare, and is pro-genocide…
Because that’s what the billionaires wanted. And because we listed to donors over voters, we lost an election
Got a serious question re genocide angle, how is trump well known for being anti-genocide?
He’s obviously not…
But if the entire existence of American politics hasn’t been enough to show you that “lesser of two evils” is a losing strategy, I’m not sure how I’m gonna manage it.
Taking the Dem party to the right doesn’t work, we just keep doing it because the DNC only cares about donations raised. They cater the party to billionaires and not voters.
And trump really cares about the voters by passing laws that help them and not the billionairs who financed his campaign?
I am from UK, don’t really like labour but seriously another conservative government would leave us far, far worse off than plain do nothing shit. It’s not rocket science to figure out who will want to at the least do nothing instead you know sell off your already rubbish worker rights, broken healthcare and now reproductive rights…
Anyway this is a depressing day
It doesn’t work, it’s the definition of insanity to keep trying it knowing it doesn’t work while refusing to run a young charismatic candidate with a progressive campaign when we know that works.
Running a candidate that genuinely wins a primary! That’s the whole point of my post! If democrats want to win then engage in democracy!
I am confused, which candidate was young and charismatic there?
I’ve noticed…
The last young charismatic candidate with a progressive platform was 2008 Obama.
But like I said, if you still don’t understand why “lesser of two evils” isn’t working, there’s nothing I can say here that will magically make it click for you.
It’s not about Obama, it’s about the fact that he had to compete in a free and fair primary against numerous competent competitors and came out on top. Sure he was the first black president which helped his numbers but he won 2008 because he had to compete in a competitive primary and won the will of the voters running up to the general.
We don’t need another Obama, we need a competitive candidate that beats out other competitive candidates.
It was very much about Obama which was the biggest issue.
We needed a movement and got a disappointing man.
And after that man’s 8 years ran up, we had no plan and Hillary filled the void and we still haven’t recovered.
If Obama had appointed DNC leadership instead of ignoring the party, trump would never have become president the first time.
So the answer there is to pick the worst initially? Like how would that be helpful?
But more than that, what annoys me more is that this time around (so far) there were 18 million fewer votes. That hits hard 😭😔
Lesser of evils is a losing strategy because soon enough you’re asking people to choose the lesser evil between Hilter and Mussolini.
He’s not. He’s arguably worse. I proudly voted third party (socialist).
Cue the liberal tears. You lose the electoral college and the popular vote by a margin far greater than third party voters. Cry about it.
C’mon. Like any politician, she had to try and be electable if she were to accomplish anything. How can it be that this is not obvious?
And my point is that “electable” for a Dem candidate isn’t what she was doing.
That would be matching her platform to what Dem voters wanted. Instead she based policy on “all voters” which includes the 40-50% who will never vote D under any circumstance. And in that process she lost votes from voters who will never vote R under any circumstances.
If she was trying to be electable, it just shows how important it is we clear house at the DNC and run a fair primary in 2028.
Because the same people have been running the show since 2016, and they’re 2-1 against fucking trump.
They clearly aren’t up to the task
Another pretty fucking important thing to point out is that total voter turnout dropped by like 18 fucking million. The centrist bullshit just made a lot of people further to the left feel like it wasn’t even worth it to show up.
Run a fair primary in 2028? Lol they won’t! Watch them coronate Chelsea Clinton or one of the Obama girls lmfao.
You think there’ll be a Democratic Party in 2028 that’s not simply controlled opposition?
No lmfao
And she failed miserably at being electable. The democrats are totally gonna learn the lesson that ratcheting to the right wins them elections, not.