Or people who have been through more than one election cycle and have seen how far the establishment will go to tank a candidate they don’t like in favor of a milquetoast conservative that will lose to a real conservative in the general.
You realise you can present historical actions that support your argument without being a complete bellend about it, right?
For example, in 2015 Bernie Sanders was becoming a hot favourite to become the public’s new pin-up boy for the 2016 presidential run. Unfortunately for him, it is alleged that the DNC had already banked on Hilary Clinton being the primary winner, so their plan may have had it’s legs done before they even started.
So, it is widely reported that the DNC provided very little support to Sanders for the remainder of his campaign run, while pouring big money and organising competing support behind Clinton, stacking the odds in her favour.
In this instance, history tells us that whereas a candidate may be supremely popular, they may not end up getting the support of the political party they represent.
(The above is a massive oversimplification to fit into a bite sized lemmy post, so points of discussion are expected)
We literally just picked the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor. What about that is confusing to you? If the DNC didn’t want him, they shouldn’t have allowed him in the primary. That part is over now. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic candidate. That’s how primaries work. Stop misinforming people. They’re uninformed on the process as it is.
That’s funny, and cute you believe that.
Comments like this are always from people who are ignorant, or people that aren’t even in the US.
Or people who have been through more than one election cycle and have seen how far the establishment will go to tank a candidate they don’t like in favor of a milquetoast conservative that will lose to a real conservative in the general.
You realise you can present historical actions that support your argument without being a complete bellend about it, right?
For example, in 2015 Bernie Sanders was becoming a hot favourite to become the public’s new pin-up boy for the 2016 presidential run. Unfortunately for him, it is alleged that the DNC had already banked on Hilary Clinton being the primary winner, so their plan may have had it’s legs done before they even started.
So, it is widely reported that the DNC provided very little support to Sanders for the remainder of his campaign run, while pouring big money and organising competing support behind Clinton, stacking the odds in her favour.
In this instance, history tells us that whereas a candidate may be supremely popular, they may not end up getting the support of the political party they represent.
(The above is a massive oversimplification to fit into a bite sized lemmy post, so points of discussion are expected)
The reality is very few people vote in primaries and, as you’ve just read in this thread, many don’t even know what primaries are.
We literally just picked the Democratic candidate for NYC mayor. What about that is confusing to you? If the DNC didn’t want him, they shouldn’t have allowed him in the primary. That part is over now. Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic candidate. That’s how primaries work. Stop misinforming people. They’re uninformed on the process as it is.