this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
108 points (65.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2042 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bremmy@lemmy.ml 84 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The 14th amendment should have been the end of Trump, period. But Democrats don't want to look partisan and now look where we are.

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I seen to remember a bunch of 14th amendment lawsuits that got shut down by SCOTUS a few days before primaries started.

[–] Bremmy@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's why Obama should have packed SCOTUS, fuck the optics and just do what's right. We saw this coming and still Democrats assumed terrible people won't be terrible given the chance

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I hate Obama but nobody not even my cynical self saw things going this blatantly corrupt.

If he packed the court back then it could of sparked a civil war.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] missingno@fedia.io 81 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I can't stop thinking about how in 2016, my conservative grandmother watched the primary debates and told me she actually thought Bernie made a lot of good points.

And then she went on to vote for Donald Trump in November.

This, I think, is the disconnect the DNC keeps failing to recognize.

We just keep nominating milquetoast centrists whose message is little more than "maintain the status quo", when nobody is happy with the status quo.

But we have to run centrist candidates, they say, or else we'll lose all the voters in the center!

If that's how it works, then why is the GOP winning by doing the exact opposite?

In a world where rent keeps going up but wages stay the same, people are scared and frustrated, and they don't feel like their frustrations are heard.

Along comes a smooth-talking con man who tells them, "I know you're angry at the world, and I'm going to give you a scapegoat to blame it on. It's the immigrants' fault. It's trans people's fault. It's the woke left's fault. It's whatever target I tell you to hate next's fault. And if you elect me, I will stick it to these people in order to Make America Great Again!"

Meanwhile, the best we can do is "Vote for me because everything that other guy said is horrifying." That's it. That's the only real sales pitch we have for Harris. But no matter how terrible the other guy is, it reflects horribly on us that we can't even talk about our own candidate's merits at all.

We need to run a candidate who can say, "I too know you're angry at the world. And I'm here to offer real solutions, not snake oil, and more importantly, not the status quo either."

The difference between the right and left here is that the right actually likes their guy. And if not even we like our candidates, why should voters?

Alas, we learned nothing in 2016 and I suspect the DNC will continue to learn nothing now.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago

The dnc is absolutely not gonna learn a god damn thing except to once again give a tongue lashing to the left while making out with corporate America and the military industrial complex.

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Every Republican family member except one that I've asked about Bernie has said more or less the following:

I like him, I like that he's not Dem/Repub, he's got the country's best interest at heart, etc.

Then it's usually followed by how he'd never get a chance, and then it revolves back to why Dems suck and repubs rule, or at best, "they're both the same."

You are 100% right: people want change, they want progress, and regardless of how shitty he is, Trump got things done that his base wanted.

Clinton, then Biden, and now Harris, promise marginal improvements to the status quo while dismissing large swaths of their electorate that don't fall in line.

If they ran progressive candidates with progressive policies, they'd pull voters from all over. But they wont, hence, fascism.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago

Interesting. Every Republican family member that I have talked to has said Sanders is a Marxist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pigup@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The billionaires, who already owned the whole thing, did not want it. We got what we got. This downfall started long before 2008.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Got a serious question re genocide angle, how is trump well known for being anti-genocide?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trajekolus@lemm.ee 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No matter who wins the election we all lose and the capitalists win, they own both parties. It’s a billionaire pissing contest.

Also I agree about the downfall being far before 2008, but my point is about primaries and earning the popular will of the voters, something the democrat party could care less about. They would rather the country fall to fascism than allow any kind of progressive let alone leftist leadership come to power.

[–] the_tab_key@lemmy.world 51 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

My view: yes, the Dems could have some better, but they still put up a legitimately good candidate. The GOP put up a pile of orange dog shit... And the dog shit won. How is it the Dems fault that more than half the population enjoys dog shit?

For the Dems to win, they need to run a fucking perfect campaign and the GOP doesn't. Why? Because media fragmentation and propaganda. The bulk of the population doesn't want to be informed. How is that the Dems fault? How did the Democratic party reach those voters that don't give a shit about truth?

This isn't a failure of the Democratic party, this is a failure of our society.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think Harris and Walz were good candidates but their pitch was simply unappealing. The average american has been hurting bad the last 4 years. Harris' pitch was to maintain the degrading status-quo while trump promised to do SOMETHING. Whether or not that something is successful doesn't matter, people are sick of slowly getting crushed by costs of living.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

And so they chose to vote for the candidate who will only make COL worse. Pathetic.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

People struggle with differentiating causation and correlation. The past four years of inflation has wrecked peoples' pocketbooks and Harris spent a lot of her campaign refusing to acknowledge the unpopularity of the current administration she's serving in. Meanwhile, most people don't remember struggling as hard as they do now under Trump (myself included). I didn't vote for him BTW, but I'm not going to act like I don't understand how his pitch appealed to lots of people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

The left needs to stop making the perfect be the enemy of the good, or we will never get anywhere.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is what we're doing right now getting anywhere?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

You can try to change tens of millions of potential voters minds so they vote for worse candidates than they want...

Or we can convince the double digit number of wealthy and connected people running the dnc that what they keep shoving down our throats isn't what voters want.

Which do you think is easier?

And as a bonus:

Which one results in a better America?

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Good fucking luck with that. Too many people view their spotless moral record as being more important than outcomes or improving lives (/not actively making things worse).

Misanthropy is the only real outcome to this sort of behavior.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Everybody’s fault but the candidate huh?

I’ll see you in 4 years for your encore performance

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Dems are the greatest ally the GOP could ask for. Lost to Trump at his weakest, literally doing a Nazi rally. Being spineless doesn't get you wins. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar won re-election by comfortable margins and the rest of the party are fighting for their lives in these states. Some Red States still voted to protect abortion rights and just choose not to vote for Harris.

Even if Jill Stein voters had picked Harris she still would have lost. There is no-one to blame but Harris and embracing people like Dick Cheney anrd The Blue No Matter who crowd themselves. You let Republicans unapologetically be themselves but your're whole brand of politics makes any group who works with you expendable and centers a chance for that 1-2 GOP voters joining. I hope it was worth it.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's past time everyone realized the people running the DNC just don't really care if a republican wins.

The only danger to their careers or quality of life is if a progressive wave takes over the party, because they won't keep pro-corporate people in leadership positions.

And they legally control the primary, so they never have to give up power.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

There are a lot of "leftists" here on Lemmy that have been quite vocal about not caring about, or even preferring if Trump wins, but for way less consistent reasons.

I don't think that this is just a problem with Liberals. People keep using the office of president as a battleground for single issues, and end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater every time.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

People keep using the office of president as a battleground for single issues,

Yeah, like when Obama ran on healthcare and flipped all those red states...

What "single issue" has any of the subsequent Dem candidates ran on besides "my name isn't trump"?

We can't just keep running these "moderate" candidates and keep acting surprised when Dem voters reject them. Biden barely pulled it off, and both Hillary and Kamala failed miserably.

Neoliberalism is not a valid strategy

Now, it's possible you meant single issue voters, but I just didn't think anyone would make that claim and try to blame 5-10 different groups with separate "single issues".

But who knows, a neoloberal just lost the presidential election, were about to see crazy level of mental gymnastics about how the party needs to move even further right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Harris and embracing people like Dick Cheney

I knew it was over at that point. Whoever suggested that was a good idea for Harris that late in the campaign definitely has a MAGA hat in their closet.

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I knew it was bad at the debate, where Trump even called her out for adopting his polices like the border wall and stuff. But the Dick Cheney thing was crazy because not only was he rejected by Liberals in the past. But he is still one of the most hated War Criminals of all time. He isn't going to sway over GOP people when you're active in genocide. It just makes you look like the type of people he likes.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Seriously? People making the choice to have Trump because she had Cheney supporting her, that is some funny math...people need to stop demanding a perfect candidate and start thinkinh about who do you want to be your opponent for the next four years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Tbh, if she went all progressive, we would have been in here dating she needed to reach across the aisle. It's hard to be both and I'm not sure it's just the dnc to blame here, misogyny, ignorance and racism is hardly their fault,she the dnc has a role here, but...

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I disagree. If weve learned anything from the past two elections, it should be that there is no "middle aisle" to appeal to anymore. It makes no sense to go "mild" when the people really sitting home on Nov. 5th are the "wild" ones who feel like you aren't progressive enough.

Case-in-point being Trump's own campaign which did exactly that and is now looking like it won the popular vote by a higher margin than Biden won in 2020, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its cos they are scared of what will happen if bernie where to win the primary

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intelisense@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The electorate swung solidly right, giving Trump the popular vote. Much as I'd like a more left-wing administration in the US, the evidence does not support the theory that a left leaning campaign would have helped. The US apparently wants an authoritarian government, and it got it.

This is not just the US either - globally we are shifting rapidly to authoritarian regimes. In my own UK where the center left (at best) Labour won the election, but only because the right wing parties were split by FPTP. The Tories elected a far right leader last week and got derided for it, but for them, it's absolutely the right move, and the next election will likely deliver a far right Tory or Tory/Reform coalition. For reference, Labour got less votes than the previous election that they lost in a land slide.

Same where I currently live, Germany, and my fiancé's France.

Dark times are ahead. Prepare for the worst.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I don't know if sentiment swung or if Dems just didn't show up.

Biden had over 80 million votes in '20. Trump had like 74. Trump got less total votes this year than in '20. Only problem was like 15 million Dems didn't show up.

If there is one thing you can count on from a Democrat "voter", it's for them to not actually vote.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Lesrid@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't agree with Zizek on everything, but in his 'debate' with that lobster Kermit guy he said something to the effect of 'China is a tragedy because it is a model for the future of governance.'

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Fuck no, the republicans shouldn’t even be close. The fact that they're tolerating Nazis and other similar views is why they felt comfortable voting for Trump. I will NEVER forgive them.

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

On top of that, dems have done a load of jack shit in power, even with a majority for half of the last term. Most of the policies Biden promised never came to fruition. Just sitting back and slowly letting the people shrivel. Advertising themselves as "maintaining the status-quo" isn't appealing for the average voter. As a Harris voter, I say that dem voters have an apathy problem.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I don't think it's exactly a matter of appealing to progressives, but an inherent difficulty in trying to appeal to a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests. You end up having to make vague promises in order not to offend anyone, which comes across as being boring or disingenuous, like you are only saying stuff in order to get elected and not because you actually belive in it. Conservatives can have much simpler and more straightforward messaging because their base is much more homogeneous.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I disagree. Championing progressive policies in most instances actually appeals universally to a majority of the electorate.

I'm not suggesting they'd be able to follow through because I think a significant number of Democrat representatives can't stomach actually progressive policies... but I think they'd win more elections.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Weird you didn't post this before the election results came in, since it was so obvious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›