98

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] the_tab_key@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] jaxxed@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

The candidate wasn't bad, at least not as bad as 2016. The process was bad. The Democratic primaries have been suspicious for a long time - so they aren't trustworthy.

Don't forget all the Democratic shakiness, just because of the Republican shakiness. Democrats needed to gain trust.

[-] d3lta19@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago

Maybe the Dems candidate and platform aren't as good as you think they are if over half of the country would rather have dog shit than your candidate?

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

they still put up a legitimately good candidate.

Its hard to imagine any greater evil than the mass murder, systematic rape, and targetting of innocents of all kinds that the Israels have done using our direct military support, and this candidates unflagging support.

[-] weeeeum@lemmy.world 19 points 23 hours ago

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 13 points 22 hours ago

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

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

He didn't even pitch the economy

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago

Once again smug liberals blaming voters for voting wrong instead of blaming their party for running shitty untested candidates.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Can't both be true?

And for the record, I'm not smug, I'm furious.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world -1 points 18 hours ago

No, at the end of the day it’s the political parties responsibility to run electable candidates. Not even having a primary makes it so they ran someone untested. And lost.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

Harris is objectively better than Trump by any measure. If the voters were educated on their respective platforms instead of voting out of hate they'd have voted Harris.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Better than Trump by any measure

Except the only measure that matters, which happened last night. Can't even say she was more popular either.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

I don't consider popular to be "better", especially when the popularity is among the current republican voting base

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

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

[-] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 1 points 8 minutes ago

I don't think anyone is asking for perfection just basic human decency, but I guess that's like asking for a thousand talking unicorns in politics.

[-] missingno@fedia.io 12 points 23 hours ago

Is what we're doing right now getting anywhere?

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It felt like we were taking a step out of the swamp and were about to make some more progress as a country, now we are taking ten years back

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours 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 6 points 23 hours ago

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.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

“How could the Germans allowed the Holocaust to happen?!”

Look in the mirror, fool.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 22 hours ago

Uh... Harris wasn't good. Harris was fucking shit. Perfect will always be the enemy of fucking shit.

[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 5 points 21 hours ago

Everybody’s fault but the candidate huh?

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

[-] the_tab_key@lemmy.world -1 points 20 hours ago

Fuck you, I literally said the Dems could have done better.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world -3 points 21 hours ago

“Good candidate” is your opinion. She did not compete in a primary, she was given the nomination, and shockingly /s she lost. Turns out she was not a good candidate!

God y’all are delulu

[-] jaxxed@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I don't know why you are getting down voted. She lost , so she was a bad candidate.

She might have been a good candidate, but she was never chosen in the primaries, so why would the voters choose her.

[-] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Because the blue MAGA crowd are completely fucking delusional and can’t cope with the fact that they lost because they’re incompetent and corrupt.

I completely expect a repeat of this behavior in 2028. And a repeat of blame the left and third party voters… despite the fact that trump won with enough votes that all the third party votes combined going solely to swing states wouldn’t of changed the outcome.

They want somebody other than themselves to blame.

[-] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 22 hours ago

Let’s not pretend that anyone supporting genocide is a ‘good’ candidate.

this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
98 points (65.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5514 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