Al Gore would have stopped 9/11, preventing two massive land wars in the middle-east, and the subsequent hollowing out of the US middle class.
We would probably also not have a climate apocalypse to look forward to that will kill millions and displace billions.
Al Gore would have stopped 9/11
Kind of like how Clinton stopped the bombing in '93?
Gore’s presidency would have been a continuation of Clinton’s, who were aware of the threat potential posed by al-Qaeda. So if/when the now infamous Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US memo landed on his desk on August 6th, 2001 - or the even earlier “UBL [Usama Bin Laden] Threats Are Real" memos from months earlier; they would have been taken seriously and acted upon.
Instead Bush’s response was to fob it off disinterestedly, saying: “All right. You’ve covered your ass”
So yes, learning from earlier failings - a theoretical Gore presidency would have taken these threats much more seriously, and could have prevented the thousands of deaths of 9/11, and tens of thousands of deaths in the subsequent wars.
So if/when the now infamous Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US memo landed on his desk on August 6th, 2001 - or the even earlier “UBL [Usama Bin Laden] Threats Are Real" memos from months earlier; they would have been taken seriously and acted upon.
Acted to do what? Implement TSA in January of 2001? Create DHS inside the first 100 days? Put air marshals on planes by June?
Intelligence knew about the pending attacks, but had no real way to interface with airport security. That was the root of the problem. And nobody was going to solve it until after 9/11 because Congress would not have taken this any more seriously than they took it during Blowjob Gate, when Al Qaeda was taking pot shots at the USS Cole.
The president has quite a bit of ability to set priorities and work assignments within the justice dept and intelligence agencies and other parts of the executive branch. Unlike legislative things, he really can just say “put 1,000 people on this Bin Laden thing” one day and just from that they just go off and do it exactly like he said.
Bush did pretty much the exact opposite, actively refusing to use his leadership position to instruct the people who worked for him to do anything about the threat that they were telling him existed. Idk if anything Gore did would have made a difference, but there definitely is a consensus that Bush fucked up on recognizing and reacting, in retrospect.
The president has quite a bit of ability to set priorities and funding levels and work assignments within the justice dept and intelligence agencies.
If he’s a Republican, sure.
But Democrats always have their hands tied.
Bush did pretty much the exact opposite, actively refusing to use his leadership position to instruct the people who worked for him to do anything about the threat that they were telling him existed.
Bush was fixated, laser-like, on Iraq and looking for any excuse to invade. The Al Qaeda memos were treated as a distraction.
However, the theory that he just had a big “Stop Al Qaeda” button under his desk and refusee to press it is naive. There’s no real policy Gore could have implemented to stop the 9/11 hijackings that would have come into force between January and September.
At best, he could have brought on a senior staffer who better coordinated between the NSA and the FBI. But even then, you’re assuming the FBI would have been in the right place at the right time to act.
Gore, personally, wasn’t going to do anything to change the outcome.
idk bro, but maybe they should have tried something
While you should vote for the best possible option, I feel like these kinds of posts are constantly shifting responsibility away from Democrats for their own short-comings.
A couple of weeks ago I voted in the European Parliament elections for the option that had, in my view, the best possible agenda: socially progressive, ecologist, economically left-leaning, decent foreign policy and coherent voting records. But the campaign they ran was absolutely terrible, starting by the candidate. Even though she is admittedly an accomplished woman who has had a very solid career, she doesn’t know about the concept of charisma. She wasn’t selected because she was the person who would perform the best in debates or in speeches (and she definitely wasn’t), but rather, because she was an option that would provoke little conflict among the different factions of the coalition. That was the sign that the internal dynamics of the coalition had degenerated and were acting out of their own inertia, rather than seeking the best possible outcome.
Expectedly, we got about half the seats we were aiming for.
The very next day, the leader of the coalition resigned from that position. Even though she’s a great minister (making policy), she’s proven she isn’t good at keeping the aparatus under control in order to achieve good results (doing politics). It’s a painful process, but a necessary one where mistakes and short-comings must be admitted in order to grow into something more virtuous.
Having read US liberals for years, I grow more and more convinced that they’re instinctively hostile to constructive criticism of their party’s aparatus. And, when your country’s voters declare themselves to agree far more with your party’s policies than those of their direct opponent, and yet they can’t bury their opponent into irrelevance, you have to admit that your party is doing electoralism wrong, and must question why.
TIL Dems are responsible for the EC, FPTP instead of proportional representation for Congress, the cap on number of representatives, gerrymandering, the decades of propaganda, Southern Strategy and so on. Thank you for informing me.
Yeah I ultimately do not like their choices. They have to run candidates who will win the swing states because a cult of rabid idiots who have more voting power per person than the rest of us consistently and reliably show up and vote entirely Repub from top to bottom of the ballot.
I mean, sure, fire the heads of the party and put new people in. Fuck 'em. But they aren’t going to be able to win just by running candidates who appeal to the majority of the country, because the majority of the country’s votes are diluted since they reside in densely populated cities. That’s a sickening reality we all have to deal with.
It’s Gerrymandering. That’s the answer to the question: why?
This is a truly terrible take. If I run a restaurant, and it goes out of business, I don’t get to blame my customers. If I ever want to run a successful restaurant, I have to look at my product, marketing, and service and figure out where I failed. If Biden loses, then them Dems need to look at where they failed; I’d start with the fact that they chose not to hold a primary when the majority of their own party didn’t want Biden to be the candidate.
This is a bad analogy. This isn’t like running a business. Voters don’t have a lot of choice over the product, they just have their vote. We have two choices (effectively) and some will reject a candidate over a single issue when the consequences are much broader.
You’re right, it’s not a good analogy. In this country, voting is not mandatory, election day isn’t a holiday, and in many states, mail-in voting is not available and polling locations are sparse. Voting is a hardship for many Americans, especially lower income Americans. This isn’t like asking someone to go to a restaurant; going to a restaurant is easier and has more tangible benefits.
However, my core point is the same. The most basic function of a political party is to get votes and win elections. If the party can’t do that, the failure lies with the party, not the voters.
Politics isn’t show biz.
…OK? Neither are restaurants.
Let’s fix this analogy.
It’s as if a town has the choice of having one restaurant and only one restaurant. We have one that meekly attempted to do right by their customers and fell short, or the other that actively tries to harm some of its customers (often your family and friends).
You only have those 2 choices. You can’t get a different restaurant. You’re forced to eat at the restaurant that is chosen, whether you helped choose it or not. And yes, you can blame the customers because they have literally only this option, and there is no better choice this time.
Let’s fix your fixing of my analogy. Imagine the two restaurants you mentioned exist. Now imagine thinking the people who don’t go out to eat are entitled.
And yeah, I know you’re going to tell me that elections have consequences for everyone, whether they vote or not, but most people who don’t vote don’t see it that way. Sure, a small percentage of them are withholding their vote as a protest, but most of them are working class people that are barely getting by. They’re not going waste what little free time they have voting for a candidate if they don’t think it will help them. So stop trying to shame them into voting and give them something to vote for.
Stop running shit candidates?
I think the Great Recession was bound to happen regardless of who was in office, but everything else is correct.
Depends. Someone could have seen the writing on the wall and said hey we gotta do something before this goes nuts. Gore strikes me that he would have listened.
Wasnt uh… Werent’ the rules rolled back under Clinton? Glass–Steagall . Yeah that was it. Glass–Steagall, which basically separated commercial and investment banking.
I just want to join in to remind everyone that multiple things can be true at the same time.
-
The DNC/Biden can and should be doing better.
-
We only have 2 options for president. It will be one of the two main candidates because that is how the system works. Don’t pretend it doesn’t. You either vote for one of those two or you are ok with either.
-
We should be pressuring Biden to do more about both Ukraine and Gaza. Ending both conflicts and getting aid to people.
-
Choosing to vote for a 3rd party to protest Biden’s response to Gaza/Israel is only going to help Trump in the short term. Yes, long term Biden and DNC may notice their total votes going down, but in the short term it will put Trump in the Whitehouse and now what? What did you accomplish if the DNC realizes they fucked up, but can’t do anything about it because Trump is now a dictator?
-
Politics is a slow moving thing. Too many people expect some perfect ideal candidate or policy and won’t compromise on anything. That isn’t how it works, you have to compromise and slowly pull things the way you want. It doesn’t happen in one election cycle.
-
We should have been and should be campaigning and pushing for changes to our system so that we can have better options in the future. We need to push for Ranked Choice Voting (or anything better than FPTP). And voting in local level elections to make small changes across the country. Term limits. Campaign finance reforms. Etc etc. because until we get a new system we effectively can’t just vote for who we want or it doesn’t do anything more than a fart in a hurricane.
I see a lot of people who are saying they will not vote for Biden because the Gaza/Israel issue. Which I completely understand. But the two truths you have to accept in doing so is that you will not be complicit in the genocide. But you will be complicit if Trump wins. Both can be true. You decide which one you would rather see. If you don’t want Trump then the only option is a vote for Biden. And until we reform our voting system we don’t have viable 3rd parties and pretending we do is just delusional. Look at every election for the last hundred years and you will see enough proof. It’s not ideal, but it is reality. **Accept it **so we can change it together.
-
Somehow, despite having a majority for only several months out of the last several decades, that is all the Dems’ fault for not trying hard enough or whatever.
Therefore I (definitely not an accelerationist cosplaying as caring about leftism) could not possibly support anyone other than candidates certain to lose the election.
Change the Senate to population proportional seats and eliminate the electrical college. This country would change in a big way in a few years or less. Easier said than done though.
More brain rot Liberal crap. DNC should run better candidate instead of blaming the people.
#Jill2024
Heaven forbid we try running charismatic candidates like Obama and Bill…
Like, it’s insane to me that everyone seems to be aware of what wins elections, but the people running the Dem party just keep insisting we need to shut up and vote for someone very few people actually want.
Like, we can’t do this without the voters, they’re the irreplaceable part.
We can get different people to run the party, or just coalesce around another.
You’re totally right they should just put their hand inside the magical candidate bag where all the charismatic candidates are stored, say the magic formula, and pull one out. How stupid can they be!
We could try running a fair and open primary…
If we really want to focus on getting the most popular candidate with voters rather than the corporate favorite moderate…
Dems have complete control of their primary, they can get corporate money out of it at literally any second.
But they dont.
Because the people running the party don’t want the candidate that voters are most likely to vote for. They want the candidate that will get the most donations from corporations and billionaires.
Lots of people keep trying to explain why if beating Republicans is the only thing that matters, everyone involved in the process should make choices that maximize the amount of votes that the Dem candidate gets.
However “moderates” keep insisting the wealthy and corporations gets what they want and everyone else need to support them unquestionably…
Which is already what the Republicans do.
So if both parties are catering to the rich and powerful…
Why not try giving the millions and millions of voters what they want and making the rich and powerful compromise?
Why do they always win no matter what?
Historically giving Dem voters a candidate they want translates to a Dem president.
Biden won by less than 100k.votes spread out between 3-5 battleground states. And has nowhere near his 2020 support. Probably because in 2020 he was pretending to be more left leaning.
And 2024 he’s just ignoring anyone that’s saying anything besides unadulterated praise.
When the other side are fascists openly running on a platform of doing fascists, needing to feel excited to fall in line and vote against them just makes you a fascist who thinks they can get bribes out of it.
Who cares?
What works is running charismatic candidates.
So why not run charismatic candidates and beat the fascists?
Why not shut the fuck up and vote against the fascists because you’re not a fascist?
You aren’t owed exciting candidates, you owe keeping fascists out of power to not be considered a collaborator by the people who’ll actually suffer because you felt like you were owed feeling excited about your duty as a person who is not completely without moral fiber to shut the fuck up and vote against the fascists.
It isn’t patronization when it is the genuine state of affairs. If you want to claim you aren’t a fascist, you owe that fucking vote as the price of admission. You are just a horrible fucking person if you need more than “they’re fascists, vote against them.” You do deserve to be looked down at and condescended to for needing more motivation than “this is a vibe test and some the fuck how you are managing to drift dangerously close to failing what should be the easiest shit on the planet by even needing it explained to you that you do indeed just owe voting against fascists to not be regarded as a collaborator.”
If you need more than “they’re fascists”, you’re a fucking fascist and if the acceleration you’re betting on happens you’ll be lined up with all the rest of the collaborators by the people who are actually going to suffer the consequences of your brilliant plan of “I just need to vote for someone!”
Grow the fuck up and look at the lay of the actual land you whining, entitled, naïve as a cherub child. They are fascists, you have to vote against them, you have to, the time for demands and negotiations and “excitement” came and went a long time probably even before your parents were born, now we are at war, we have a duty to the people of this nation who are unable to speak for themselves, and if your response to being presented that duty is to ask what you get out of it, you have no business counting yourself as any sort of ally or help to the cause.
Why not shut the fuck up and vote against the fascists because you’re not a fascist?
Mate…
Do you think you can have this argument with tens of millions of Americans, and it will convince them?
We know what will get enough votes to beat Republicans. But for some reason people just keep repeating that these “moderate” and uncharismatic 70+ year olds have a better shot.
They don’t.
We’re not even arguing if they should have a better shot because of their views.
Because we have literal decades of history to show they’re not what wins elections.
So if all that matter si beating trump, why is this the third election in a row we’re not using the best strategy?
What’s the point of running more conservative candidates than voters want when it makes it more likely the fascists win?
Do you think you can have this argument with tens of millions of Americans, and it will convince them?
Nah bruh. They think they’re arguing against you. That if they abuse you enough that you’ll cow: but if there is one thing we have excellent evidence for, its that abusing or guilting voters into doing what you think they should does not work. Not for Democrats or Republicans.
They are taking the criticisms they should be putting at the feet of the DNC and its associated cheerleaders in media, and blaming the voters. But we all know, they’re just wrong. Like, they’re completely wrong about how voting works, how campaigning works, and how winning elections work.
If they really cared about winning elections, they would bring this criticism to the DNC and demand better candidates; and not budge until they do so. But they actually don’t care about winning the election. They know (I believe) they’ve committed to a losing strategy, and they are setting up the rhetorical case on the back-end so that they have some one to blame for them insisting we do something that isn’t going to work.
Mate how about you stop making excuses for fascists and stop giving them the benefit of being presumed to have a reasonable position that deserves anything but getting called out for their collaborationist shit.
“Tickle my funny bone or I’ll let your kids get sent to camps!”, that’s the mentality you’re trying to argue is fair and reasonable and worth having a debate with as if it’s anything but abject failure of one’s own ability to not be one of the worst kinds of people imagineable.
“Make me excited about not letting the morality police happen!”
“I wanna feel good about preventing contraceptive bans!”
“What am I getting out of preventing them putting machine gun nests on the wall with orders to shoot to kill anyone who approaches?”
Yeah I agree Biden’s boring, I agree Clinton and Gore and Kerry were boring too, doesn’t change that they ran against christofascist candidates, and the supposed not fascists of this country abjectly failed to do their bare minimum duty because “I don’t really feel like it.”
deleted by creator
how about you stop making excuses for fascists
Who’s doing that?
I’m saying we need to do what has the best chance to beating the fascists.
Which is run a charismatic candidate who agrees with Dem voters.
You on the other hand, keep insulting people and saying voters need to compromise but politicians don’t.
That’s not democracy. Especially when the DNC has argued in court they can interfere with a primary as much as they want, because the results are non finding anyways.
Think about that.
It means Dem voters never get any day in who represents them.
When the goal is getting more votes than fascists, that’s not a good plan. We need to start out with a popular candidate that most Dem voters already want to vote for. Not pick someone most dont want and then try to breathe literally tens of millions of people into holding their noses.
You just have a bad plan, and I feel like maybe if you just calm down, you could realize that what matters is beating republicans, so we should run candidates Dem voters want.
I can’t control how other people vote, but the party’s can. That’s their job.
I knew the DNC fucked up when they tanked Bernie’s run.
And look what we got.It’s insane that in my lifetime I’ve seen the Dem party at the point where they’ve completely given up on courting and just yell at people that they have to vote for them.
Like, who the fuck is coming up with this strategy, and why is anyone listening to them?
It just makes zero sense.
YOU DO HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM
THE OTHER OPTION IS LETTING FASCISM HAPPEN
WE HAVE FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS NOW ACTUALLY BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE, YES, GENUINELY, YOU DO ACTUALLY JUST HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM
GOOD PEOPLE DO NOT TO BE MADE TO BE EXCITED BY DOING THEIR DUTY TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
YOU DO ACTUALLY JUST HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM TO NOT BE AN AWFUL FUCKING HUMAN BEING WHO DESERVES SCORN FOR BEING FUCKING AWFUL
You’re approach isn’t working. It never works. Because all it does is makes people more defensive, and it divides the DNC even further. it just makes me roll my eyes and think “okay, boomer, time to change your diapers again.” And yes. I know that’s totally ageist of me, but frankly, at this point, I’m tired of it.
But why are the uncharismatic conservative candidates the only other option when we know for a fact they’re not what Dem voters want?
Why not run someone voters actually like and who will get the most votes?
Why don’t you understand that gets the most votes for the Dem candidate?
Although I would like to thank you for not insulting me this time, we’re making progress. Would all caps help you more? I know it’s easier for some to read so I can do that if you’re doing it so you can read easier.
Depending on what you’re using you can make the text appear larger or a better font too.
Big caps with bold! Listen to meeeeee!
When you only have one choice, you don’t have a choice.
Yea obviously we’re at the point where the only non fascist choice is to vote for an unpopular incumbent, but it seems like the choice has been completely removed from the democratic process in the US and you have to wonder how much of it is exactly by design, and whose.
deleted by creator
Tanked his run by counting all the votes not cast for him?
Why am I still surprised that people who need to be dragged kicking and screaming to generals, nevermind primaries think that people who don’t need any convincing not voting for their guy for them is cheating?
No, by obstructing his and his supporters efforts in key primaries, because the DNC knew they wanted Hillary for reasons.
This is a rather unique thing you see on Lemmy I’ve noticed. I mean everyone knows the Democratic Party pulled some bullshit during that primary, but the delusions you see on Lemmy take it so much further. It honestly kind of reminds me of Lost Cause myths. It’s very much in the same vein.
I have legit seen people suggest the very normal and totally socialist thing of counting individual donations instead of ballots as the only legitimate way to run the primary.
The socialists. Wanted to create a literal donor class. That is recognized in party procedures. Because they were that mad that working class black voters identified more with the southern lady than a darkhorse from Vermont who’s not even a party member 99% of the time. Even after a bunch of white liberal arts majors talked at them about how he’s totally down with the culture because he got arrested at a protest one time.
^Someone who doesn’t actually want to win elections.
“It’s not our job to campaign or do politics, the Democrats cannot fail, only be failed” - Democrats, totally caring about fascism.
If you need more than “the fascists will win if we lose”, you’re a fucking fascist.
Quit trying to make your wanting to be bribed to not let concentration camps happen some kind of moral cause or “well they should have made me want it more!” realist cynic take.
If you need more than “the fascists will win if we lose”, you are a fucking fascist, and will be treated accordingly when the people who you’re actually hurting have their chance to reap justice for what you let be done to them.
I’d take it more seriously if the Democrats did or treated this as a serious issue. Instead they use it as an excuse to be 99% fascist and use it as an excuse to not campaign or take up popular issues because if they lose, it is because the voters didn’t fight to have 99% fascism instead of 100% fascism.
It’s not just the president, you need to vote for house of reps and Senate. Obama only had control for 2/8 years. In that time he got the ACA. The remaining 6 years of Obama the GOP were more than happy to block everything. They even shut down the government. If you need charisma to feed your emotions every 4 years, yeesh.
*Oh I caught on, it’s the thiny veiled Biden bad hinting he has no charisma and nobody wants to vote for him. They just have to run someone else nudge nudge. Nuts to that, Biden is doing great.
I get people want to fall in line at this point and I have and will vote for Biden, but your head is deep in the sand if you believe Biden’s senility and lack of charisma isn’t hurting him here. The only thing we’re lucky on is that Donald is running again who is for all intents just as senile and far more deranged and far less compassionate.
But Biden doesn’t hold a candle to Obama.
There it is again “senility”. Everyone working with him says he’s sharp, but you just gotta get it in. Would I prefer younger? Sure. But he’s not senile JFC. Lack of charisma? The guy presents absolutely fine and does great work. How much does one need to appeal to emotions.
How much does one need to appeal to emotions.
you haven’t been paying attention, have you? the entire republican platform is an appeal to their emotions. It’s why it’s successful. appeals to emotion are vastly more successful than appeals to logic or reason, even if they’re wrong. Our brains are literally hardwired to consider emotion before reason, to react on emotion before logic; and triggering the emotional response to manipulate people is an entire field of science in neuropsychology. (and probably one of the best funded areas of research…)
This “we need someone charismatic and then we’ll vote” is the emotion for the supposed logical informed left wing voter who votes based on policy (or lack of policy when they protest no vote).
So you just like to scream at people while ignoring human nature,
Okay, good to know. I’m sure it’ll work out fine if you just continue screaming at people…
Funny because I think it’s the other way around, people screaming “but but but charisma! But but but old!”
I thought maybe it was someone else I just told but no it’s you. These are the supposed logical people waiting for the supposed logical platform. But no, they want emotions. Notice that doesn’t add up?
And you’re still trying to sneak it in. Biden is just fine charismatically.
Okay, dude — Just humor me for a second:
- A whopping 66-77% of Americans polled again and again view Biden as too old to be President. So in this respect, I’m just reflecting a widespread concern of what millions upon millions of people see and feel.
- His staff, who must literally kiss ass to maintain the privilege of working a job in the White House and like warfare will give no quarter to any argument the GOP makes no matter how true it is - is NOT a good counter-argument to make. It’s as outlandish as the Republican senators coming out of the meeting yesterday saying Trump is sharp as ever.
- Even the likes of The Daily Show to SNL mocks this aspect of Biden for good reason.
- Blaming for the stutter works only insofar as you’re old enough to remember Biden as VP under Obama in 2008.
NOW, here’s the thing: less time needs to be spent trying to shore up the bullshit argument that Biden is “sharp as ever,” and more about pivoting to Trump’s incoherent rambles and his own age. Acknowledging Biden’s age is actually a great one-two punch to use for anyone on the fence because it gives you a point where both can agree: “Yeah, I agree Biden is showing his age clearly. No differently than McConnell… No differently than Donald (give examples), but I think Biden is at least a more compassionate person… And say, while we’re at it, can we agree we should have an age limit if we already have an age-minimum on the Presidency?” <clinks-beers and everybody laughs.>
This wasn’t about him being old, this was about you saying “senility” and whoever didn’t believe that had was “head is deep in the sand”. But when I call that out, you have to pivot that to old.
Ok I should have said people that meet him say he’s sharp. They are not beholden to him. One guy met him said he remember meeting his mom like a decade prior and remembered her and all the details. Fuck that’s better than I do. Now in case you say “but that’s not work”, but yes also the people that work with him say he’s sharp too. Seems to me you just want to get the ‘senile’ bit out any way you can.
Wow and now you’re trying to ignore that he does in fact have a stutter? Ok that’s about it, you’ve shown you’re dead set on vilification no matter what. Stutters come and go, how prepared you are for a speech, etc. It’s not consistent that never changes one bit.
Thanks for showing the world that your mission is to bad mouth Biden. You sneak in “senile” then pivot when called out. You say everything good must be bootlickers. And you preemptively try to ignore that he has a stutter. I’m probably not going to reply anymore.
Geriatric, old, senile — same thing for all intents of this discussion. Yes, they are head-deep in the sand.
Hell just watch the clips from this Daily Show skit of Biden.. I can tell you three things: (1) Obama never did this, (2) Biden never did this during Obama’s first term in office, and (3) this is clearly a sign of senility no different than McConnell just freezing during a press conference.
Wow and now you’re trying to ignore that he does in fact have a stutter?
Not what I said. Work on reading-comprehension, please. Try again and stop putting words in my mouth.
Also I didn’t “sneak” senile in anywhere — I said it quite in the open, really.
senile /sē′nīl″, sĕn′īl″/ adjective
Relating to or having diminished cognitive function, as when memory is impaired, because of old age.
Being a disease or condition whose cause is primarily advanced age. “senile cataracts.”
No not the same thing.
And attacks. Ciao.
Democrats need to fall in love. Republicans just need to fall in line.
It’s like you read the meme and went yep, totally their fault. I’m ok with my life gets shittier until I fall in love with a politician. It’s not my fault. I am owed this.
Is there a term for the political version of an incel?
Yes. It’s called a political agitator.
This user canvases lemmy threads with anti Biden and anti Dem strawman arguments completely out of context of the thread. Every thread calling out Republicans for bullshit, this user is there never acknowledging how terrible the GOP is, and going straight into anti dem whataboutism.
Just look at the sheer number of comments this user posts daily. And search the mod logs for deleted comments on this user.
If they’re not being paid to disenfranchise progressive voters into abstaining from this election, they should look for a sponsor because they’re working for free.
deleted by creator
Your car has a blown head gasket. It still turns over, but the check engine light is always an on the oil looks like peanut-butter.
You need to drive 100 miles to get to the airport tomorrow. All the indications you have suggest your car isn’t going to make it. Every piece of reliable data you have says its not going to work. Historically, people have tried to use cars like this to get to the air port, it doesn’t work. You have friends and family members with cars would happily drive you to the airport. You could even just borrow their car. Technically you haven’t decided what car to drive to the airport yet; this actually doesn’t happen till you and your family have a group call tonight. You have alternatives.
Biden is the car. Literally any generic Democrat is the car of your friends or family. The group call is the convention.
You are insisting on a strategy that is going to hand Trump the election. When it does, we’ll be pointing to these posts of yours.
Insisting we run Biden when we haven’t had a convention and literally every Democratic governor polls higher is you insisting we lose this one.
deleted by creator
You are the one not taking it seriously. I watched Kerry fail to Bush. I watched Clinton fail to Trump.
Biden won in 2020 in spite of being Biden. It’s 4 years later and he’s become a worse candidate. This candidate can’t win.
You need to take this shit seriously instead of insisting on a strategy that guarantees us Trump.
I’m just gonna stick to pointing out one particular lie. Not the most obvious or egregious one, but definitely the funniest one.
I watched Kerry fail to Bush.
HAHAHAHAHA THE FUCK YOU DID
deleted by creator
This is a fantastic metaphor but I’m afraid it’ll be lost on Blue MAGA.
Weird analogy.
Bernie Sanders 2024!
"Everyone I disagree with is an agitator, now shut the fuck up about candidates earning their votes and do as you’re told because ONLY WE can save the country from fascist policies (even though Biden is doing half of it himself!)
No theres nothing fascist about that attitude or our incessant need to spread misinformation about anyone who thinks Biden sucks, SHUT UP AND FALL IN LINE OR ELSE!"
Yeah ok. Plenty of people were saying the same thing while letting Hitler rise to power too. But what could we possibly learn from history?
You do, of course, realize Hitler was put into power by the conservatives, right? Like, von Pappen was Centre Party, von Hindenburg was a nationalist. They turned to Hitler to avoid losing power to the left.
And come November, what are you suggesting? Biden or Trump, because those are your only viable choices.
And they’re our only viable choices, why?
Because people refuse to vote for anybody else, even though the duopoly parties are effectively the same picture. People obsess over the “World ending” scenario but people are always saying the world is going to end - It’s just a boogeyman to keep people voting duopoly, Democrat’s ONLY platform for decades has been “We aren’t Republican, and Republicans will end the world as you know it.”
Of course, it’s not just pres. People need to run and vote for non-duopoly candidates all the way down, and once establishment candidates start losing votes they’ll either shift their positions or double down strengthening the non-duopoly candidates. Ain’t nobody moving left so long as you keep rewarding them for sprinting further and further right.
People have made American politics like training a dog not to bark but you’re giving them a treat everytime they bark and punishing them when they don’t bark then wondering why they bark all the time.
They’re our only viable choices now because the primaries are over, and as much as people here want a super leftist candidate, the reality is that when it’s time to vote, those candidates don’t get enough votes either because these same people don’t actually vote, or this stance isn’t nearly as popular as some may think. I say this all as a Bernie supporter, but vocally against the disinformation agents who push agendas like “both sides” or the previous “Bernie or Bust” mantra.
Like it or not, the reality is, come the general election it’s either Biden or Trump. Unfortunately, anything other than a Biden vote helps Trump.
Gnash teeth and complain all you want, but that’s reality. Anyone pushing another agenda is lying or naive.
The way y’all treat our political system is proof that America is already and has always been fascist. Election after election, decade after decade, the entire Democratic platform is saying “We aren’t them” then doing half of what they wanted to do anyway. People CAN make change if they stop rewarding democrats for sprinting right, and if they can’t - Well, that’s just proof that we AREN’T free, innit?
“ONLY WE CAN SAVE THE COUNTRY AND IF YOU DON’T SUPPORT US YOU’RE THE ENEMY” It’s the only argument Democrats have, and like it or not - that’s fascist messaging. Blue fascism is still fascism.
No!…it’s the voters who are wrong. Better blame theme some more, as that will surely boost our historically abysmal national voter turnout come November.
/s
Like. lets talk about what happened.
it’s reasonable to claim that Gore actually won in 2000. There were sixty one thousand votes that had not been machine-counted because of rampant, clearly partisan, bullshit reasons (among them “hanging chad”,). the Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual count of those ballots with SCOTUS, lead by Scalia, decided to stay because the recount would give Bush a veneer of “illegitimacy”. (gee. wonder why, ya fucking partisan hack.) To be perfectly clear, Gore lost Florida (and the electoral college) by 570 votes. The decision in Bush V. Gore to stay the manual recount basically handed Bush the win. (and, I might add, cast doubt on the legitimacy of bush’s win. it was handed by a court that had no business ordering that stay. But did anyway, because they’re partisan hacks. I’m not angry, honest.)
Kerry flip-flopped more than a fish out of water, making it hard for independents and centrists to know what his positions actually were. 2 years prior to the election he was, for example, staunchly against gay marriage (and lets be honest, the US was very hostile to gay marriage then. There’s been a massive sea change in that, but it hadn’t happened yet.), but in 2004 signed a letter urging Massachusetts to not outlaw gay marriage. Further, he had the personality of a cold fish. and his running mate was an empty suit with nothing to back it up- who couldn’t even deliver his home State of North Carolina… In short, you had a couple warm bodies running. At the time, Bush was still riding high off 9/11 and the Iraq war and americans were still angry at that; the war wasn’t unpopular yet. Katrina hadn’t happened yet, and Bush was still reasonably popular. So, of fucking course Kerry lost.
Hillary. Where do we begin? her emails? lets start there.
Sure, “HeR EmAiLs” and “LoCk HeR uP” is an idiotic rallying cry of MAGA morons everywhere. But, even so, she conducted official Sec of State business on a personal email routinely. It’s such a great rallying cry because it actually has some teeth. it should be scandalous. Even if she was perfectly not-at-all-corrupt, it looks that way. I- and most everyone else- would be legitimately fired for conducting that level of business off a personal email. it should be 100% unacceptable. Not saying she should have been locked up or grilled the way she was. But seriously. It looked bad. and it played in the news.
Then we got Benghazi. an American ambassador died in a terrorist attack. There’s some things that hindsight says they could have done differently. Republicans latched onto it for political theater, with 10 different investigations and multiple sessions of grilling Clinton, who even then was the presumptive nominee to replace Obama. there was some funding that her office denied, she might not even have been aware that “she” denied it. Hindsight’s a bitch. Anyhow… the republican shenanigans played well in the media.
Oh. “Super Criminals”. Hillary was very unpopular with minority voters- particularly Black and Latinos. sound clips calling for law-and-order tough-on-crime calling black people “super criminals” didn’t help. there was a lot there, especially with her attitude, but in the end they simply didn’t show up for her. Even if you look at women voters, she under-performed compared to Obamma. (i mean, he looks mighty fine in a tan suit… sorry, sorry. couldn’t resist.) Like, how unpopular do you have to be as a woman, to lose women voters from Obama’s election, when you’re running against Donald- “grab them by the pussy”, “When you’re that rich they let you do it”, “Octopus-Arms” -Trump.
Lets also talk about how she boosted trump specifically because he was “a clown” or whatever. She gave us trump and then proceededly arrogantly not campaign in key states.
oh, and there’s more that I just don’t have time to get into… but we got Whitewater, Travelgate, filegate; and shit rolls down hill so lets toss in Paula Jones and Monika Lewinsky scandals. Like there’s a lot of smoke there, and there might be a couple fires, or maybe they’re just really not that corrupt as people and it’s all a big missunderstanding. but again, that plays in the media, and it looks bad. Hilary was the definition of The Establishment™️ running against an anti-establismhent candidate. Of fucking course she’s gonna lose, and she really didn’t help matters by fucking around with not campaigning in key swing states because, “naw, it’s fucking trump”.
Yup. so aside from Gore, there’s really rather good reasons to have not liked her, and the DNC idiots thought they new better and ran them anyhow… and we got fucked because of it. blaming voters for your own stupid blunders seems to be a DNC favorite. And they’re doing it again.
You missed basket of deplorables which is likely the exact moment she really lost.
And she was fucking right, like she was about everything, and I suspect that deep down you people know it, and are ashamed, and that’s why you lash out at her.
You’re right.
There’s not nearly as much as Trump but it’s still a lot, grrr
Pokemon Go to the polls. That campaign had a death by 1000 paper cuts. Yet she still won the popular vote.
Hell, she’s STILL out here working to tank democrats in the name of status quo corporatism,
“What do you say to voters who are upset that those are the two choices? Get over yourself.”
Democrats need the boogeyman of Trump but they will 1000% take Trump before they give an inch to the left, but they’ll be happy to blame leftists for their loss after 4 years of telling em to eat a dick.
I’m no Hillary fan, but I thought the consensus was she lost because of Comey’s bullshit October surprise.
Her Basket of Deplorables remark is actually the moment she MOST energized her base and grassroots coalition. That was a blip of authenticity I and many others appreciated.
You know, the people who actually go out and do the door-knocking, phone-banking, fundraising, and pushing back against Uncle Bob and their parents while dragging their friend to the poll out of voter-enthusiasm.
Right!?
Young and charismatic. That’s all that is necessary for Dems to sweep elections. Proven time and time again. With a hearty massage of progress and love.
It’s that fucking simple.
(signed someone who ultimately voted for Hillary and Biden but they were far from my 1st preference in the primaries).
The last time the Democrats ran a progressive candidate allowed Nixon to sweep every state except a few in that election. I mean, just look at this shit!
So yeah, if anyone is wondering why the Democrats don’t run progressive candidates, this is why! They’ve only moved further to the right since then. Expecting Democrats to run a progressive would likely sweep the whole nation blue, but if you thought tRump was bad, a progressive would be just as bad for monied interests, which have only grown more emboldened and enriched the last 40-45 years.
It will take a lot of time, I’m afraid, to undo the damage Republicans have have done with their shitty ideals and politics, starting largely with Reagan’s racist, homophobic, anti-union, and regulation gutting bullshit!
In fairness I emphasized young and charismatic — was McGovern charismatic? I don’t know about that.
Still, I think this is the exception as opposed to the norm, considering we can point to JFK, Obama, Carter, and FDR. RFK was setting up to be another obvious front-runner.
It’s a race to the bottom to put forward someone who will water their rhetoric down and cater to ignorance; but of course, some of the country isn’t educated enough to understand why progressive policies must be better — hence why you run someone young and charismatic — hence why Obama swept traditionally red counties that neither Hillary nor Biden picked up.
Young and charismatic might mean higher taxes for the rich and more progressive policies.
The Democratic leadership doesn’t want that. They really like the neoliberal consensus, they like having funding parity with the Republicans. They like being seen as “very serious people “ and they’re deathly afraid of being called socialists.
The problem is that their apparatchiks all came of age, politically, in the 1990s under that same neoliberal golden age. That’s not the world they’re in anymore. They aren’t running against Bush the Elder, and cutting taxes while playing jazz isn’t going to cut it when they’re losing working class votes to fascists.
We saw this play out horribly in the UK: where Labour’s party leaders would rather sabotage their own leader because he was too progressive then risk him winning and give socialism credibility.
The political left really liked the 1990s, but it’s a bygo era and it isn’t coming back.
How long til they all die of old age?
Do we have that long?
Not if Drumpf gets the electoral college majority.
I agree that the third-way shtick of the Clinton era must go. Watering down reality to appeal to ignorance just doesn’t work.
I’m starting to think that the corporations (who own both parties, but prefer republicans) are sabotaging the democrats. That’s why they ran Hillary. And now we have an absolute joke of a Supreme Court that will suck every single nanoliter of jizz from the corporate dick any time day or night.
I’m starting to think that the corporations (who own both parties, but prefer republicans) are sabotaging the democrats. That’s why they ran Hillary.
Oh my god you’re so frustratingly close to realizing the truth that we’ve been telling you all along.
The corporations (and Putin) did sabotage the Democrats. But not by some bizarre overcomplicated plan of infiltrating of the DNC to send up moderate candidates who consistently win the popular vote yet are just unlikeable enough to not win swing states. They just used propaganda to get people like you to hate perfectly good candidates.
You can see controlled opposition in the Green party and RFK Jr. They put up shit candidates and then try to pull some people away from Democrats. If the corporations and Putin could infiltrate the Democratic party, they would just have the DNC close up shop and we would have Republicans forever. Why the fuck would corporations try to put up a candidate who wants to raise their taxes?
You’re coming up with these insane scenarios because it’s embarrassing to admit that you are one of the ones who fell for the propaganda, but think about it. Occams Razor. That’s the simplest explanation.
Ok
Blackstone wants democrats to win while Blackrock wants republicans to win. To corporations, the choice between biden and trump is like Coke vs Pepsi because they largely win either way even if they’re a bit disappointed they have to drink Pepsi when they wanted Coke.
The USA is going to shit FAST bro
Not saying you shouldn’t do the right thing when the choice is limited, but how about the DNC stops putting its finger on the scale for unpopular establishment candidates?
It’s clear that the ‘safe’ choice can still lose, so why not go for the person the base actually likes instead of another centrist wet napkin who appeals to no one?
Because the DNC is conservative. They don’t want a left leaning candidate. That’s not who they intend to represent. They represent money. That is all. They will let the Republicans pull things to the extreme right and then they can hang out right of center and now there is no other choice.
Reminds me of when the army tried to simplify uniforms by measuring a bunch of soldiers for data and making an average size medium, large, and small that ended up not fitting anyone well at at all.
The DNC is bought by big money donors just like the RNC is. Those big money donors would rather see a fascist in charge than a socialist.
History repeats itself once again.
People always trying to push Biden bad. This is the candidate that won. He is popular. This is what the base likes.
Everytime the Dems move left they lose. Happened to Al Gore, he tried to move left after hopefully the population warmed up with Bill Clinton. Bam lost the election. Thanks 3rd party voters. Hillary tried just a tiny little bit with the map room to fight climate change, after hopefully the population. Bam lost the election. Thanks protest no-voters!
Imagine what the landscape would be if they won. If you want the Dems to move left, you have to give them victories. Because when they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
Gore ran to the left? The guy who picked Lieberman as his VP?
Gore the big climate change candidate. Yeah that’s left.
He became the big climate change guy after he lost.
I’d also point out that he only looks like a big climate change guy now. Back in 2000, the right wing hadn’t gone all-in on climate denialism yet. You could easily find Reagan and Bush people who didn’t think it was controversial.
They need the conservative voters in swing states. Do the Dems in swing states get excited about leftists or progressives? Like in 2016 Hillary had more votes in AZ, NV, FL, OH. I wish Bernie had gotten to the general and I think the EC is a cancer. But I don’t think going by popular vote is a viable strategy given that we have to deal with that reality.
They need swing voters and yeah that’s what I’m saying. When they lose, they go to the center to find the swing voters.
So how do you get them to go left? By giving them victories. Because when they lose they go to the center.
Happened to Al Gore, he tried to move left after hopefully the population warmed up with Bill Clinton.
Gore didn’t lose. had a proper recount been done (including the overvotes,) Gore probably would have won. SCOTUS intervened and stopped recount of the undervotes and Gore never pushed for recounts of the overvotes (which should have been recounted anyhow by florida state law.)
Oh so we had President Gore? We can talk all day about recounts, but we did not have President Gore. Thanks 3rd party voters!
He’s not a safe choice. Its the illusion of safety that extends from an incorrect worldview of how voting manifests.
Voters exist as discrete psychodemographic blocs and move in schools/ flocks. They don’t exist on a continuum.
This is from an analysis I’m doing right now:
This is a simulation I ran on the likely (November) distribution of approvals we should expect from Biden given his current approval, and how we’ve seen approval ratings change between in the five month period between now and November.
This is the results of the simulation when we look at the probability of a sample coming from the above distribution coming from the distribution of approval ratings for a president that won a second term.
Basically, this is one way of calculating Biden’s probability of winning the election given the historical relationships between approval ratings, how they change in time, and their relationship to electoral outcomes.
Currently, Biden is rolling with an approximately 6.22% chance of winning.
Biden is not currently a viable candidate.
deleted by creator
Wheres the bias? Show me or shut the fuck up cus I’m out here trying to see what the actual data say and you just flappin’ your gums.
The analysis is very very very fucking simple:
We’re using the Gallup approval data because its the only consistent data longitudinal enough to do this kind of analysis.
Calculate the mean and standard deviation of approval ratings for presidents who won a second term (the average of the 30 days right before the election).
Calculate the mean and standard deviation in approval deltas from the approval at election time (november) relative to now (june).
Take the presidents current polling, take a random sample from the delta distribution, and add the two numbers together. Calculate the probability that this number was sampled from a “winning re-election distribution”. Write that probability down.
Do this many times (I did it 10k times).
You and every one who is in denial about Biden being an un-electable, piece of shit, you-are-causing-trump-to-win-by-running-biden, choice.
Yall are so full of shit its coming out of your ears.
deleted by creator
You don’t know up from down child.
deleted by creator
What does Bush Jr have to do with this? More seriously, Are you going to publish this somewhere?
So Bush Jr. had the lowest approval rating for a president that won a second term. He ended his second term with one of the lowest approval rating of any president of all time (just a short and curly ahead of Nixon).
Some detail:
Including George W. Bush
Approval Shifts: Mean Shift: 1.91% Standard Deviation: 10.53% Winning Candidates' Approval Ratings: Mean Approval Rating: 50.73% Standard Deviation: 11.14%Excluding George W. Bush
Approval Shifts: Mean Shift: 3.60% Standard Deviation: 9.40% Winning Candidates' Approval Ratings: Mean Approval Rating: 56.35% Standard Deviation: 4.31%Notice how the standard deviation associated with the winning candidate tightens up significantly with out Bush?
I do publish the results of these analyses, here, on lemmy. However, I just have a day job that has prevented me from doing “the rest” of this analysis. This is only one part of a larger analysis I have planned.
Here are the two distributions:
That’s a great conversation to have the next time its relevant.
When will that be?
We couldn’t primary Biden in 2024 if we wanted to. Even the unaligned votes that should be a symbol of “hey, you’re not pleasing your base” were ignored. In 2028, they’ll surely push K-hole as the safe choice because even if Trump dies, you know they’ll put his head in a jar to run him again and clearly his only natural enemy is bland centre-right politics.
Biden’s appeal wasn’t that he was charismatic or brilliant or super-competent… it was that he was a reasonably sincere, respectable human, and he’s proceeded to squander that by failing to handle Gaza gracefully.
Don’t tell me he can’t do anything. Just run the same playbook we subjected Venezuela or Cuba to, and that would get Bibi’s attention.
Biden was the incumbent. When he chose to run in 2024, the decision was made. You don’t just throw away that advantage. If the DNC funded an opponent, it would only divide the base.
Case an point - just look around at Lemmy users. There are still a ton of users clinging onto the DNC boycott after the controversy of Hillary getting the 2016 nomination.
Now is not the time to divide further. Now is the time to shut the fascists down before we lose the ability to run any opposition, charismatic or not, in 2028.
You act like this is some big Injustice or surprise. Let me ask you a question. When has any party ever primaried an incumbent candidate of their party. Who were the 2019 republican primary candidates? Are the Democrats doing anything to you. Or are you a victim of your misunderstanding. This isn’t a defense of Democrats mind you. It’s just unusual that they’re always held to different/unrealistic expectations.
Also I think it’s important to point out. One of the only people to even remotely seriously push to primary Joe Biden was Dean Phillips. You know the Trump appeaser. Who recently called for New York’s Governor to Pardon Trump. Sure sad I didn’t get to vote for that man LOL. The fact is everyone knew there would not be and didn’t necessarily need to be a primary this year. I hope everyone is ready for 28 though. I’m really hoping for some younger blood now that the boomers are dying out. Honestly I’d like to see Ocasio Cortez make an effort. She’s young and might not make it. But she’s got plenty of time to work at it and hone her skills.
It’s just unusual that they’re always held to different/unrealistic expectations.
Perhaps they’re victims of their branding/positioning.
If a Trump, or even a Romney, says “we can wash our hands of a little genocide in the middle east for political gameplay/economic convenience/religious theories”, that’s pretty much within what people expect of them. The GOP has had a vaguely evil air since at least Nixon, if not McCarthy.
The Democrats, however, try to present themselves as trying to be on the right side of history. While this is no doubt a combination of cynical “this locks in some demographics” and “social justice is still cheaper than actual economic reform”, it means people expect a little higher standards. The bar is unbelievably low here, and he’s still tripping over it.
Okay, so Biden abandons Israel tomorrow. Does the genocide stop? Nope because it was always Congress that authorized and controlled the spending and weapons shipment. Mike Johnson and the Republicans will gleefully fund the genocide in Palestine. And on top of that now we’ve lost all diplomatic influence with israel. They are now all in on the genocide. Worse Biden who’s actually made many overtures trying to bring peace actually working with the system and not viewing things through a childish black and white lens. No longer has any pull to negotiate any peace treaties or ceasefires.
Whether or not abandoning Israel completely would slow the genocide anytime soon. It would ultimately increase the killing. Many countries in the region. Would readily attack Israel without the United States to defend it. So the genocide would switch from innocent Palestinians to innocent israelis. I’m not sure how that’s a better thing. It’s just exchanging alike for alike.
You seem to think this is very simple however. And I’d be interested to get your thoughts on this. Please explain and simple thoughts how you feel the Democrats should handle this. And then explain why them following your actions would have the outcome you claim it will.
You mean now? The convention hasn’t happened yet.
Because the base likes centrist wet napkins. I’m not sure who you’re picturing as the base democratic voter block but they’re not exactly a bunch of radicals.
They can get excited for a candidate who’s literally the living antithesis of their supposed values and yet Democrats not only have to be more popular but wildly so for electoral results that let them go anywhere meaningful.
Not even nominal trifecta control is evidently enough if even one dem thinks a procedural glitch caused by only repealing half a rule by accident, because somehow the cornfields get to hold everything hostage by just declaring “nah we’re not done debating yet” and then just never letting it be discussed again.
It’s frustrating beyond imagination and even worse it is all entirely by design with the intention of continuous disenfranchisement, against the young, against women, against people of color, and even past all them, against people who don’t own their own land.
The establishment types and chrisnats drone on and on about how America is a shining city upon a hill, and in doing so have completely lost the plot. America should never accept that it is the city on the hill, it should forever be striving to be the city on the hill. We need to find a way together to break the walls down and rebuild the structure of this country to be one that is well and good capable enough of getting out of its own way to be able to seek constant and pro-active improvement to the model.
Holy shit man, are you commenting on every single reply in this topic? Take your meds.
Living antithesis of Democratic values you say?
Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, revoked the Keystone Pipeline permit, created a 13 million acre federal petroleum reserve for Alaskan wildlife, greatly increased oil site lease cost, signed $7B in solar subsidies, enacted the Inflation Reduction act to support clean energy, leveraged the NLRB for an FTC ruling that eliminated non-compete agreements, forgave billions in student debt from predatory loans, created the CHIPS Act to improve reliance on domestic technology, reenacted Net Neutrality, repealed Title 42, ended the Muslim Ban, reinstated the law prohibiting Israeli settlement on Palestinian territory, signed the Equality Act for LGBTQ+ rights, restored gay rights to beneficiaries, reenacted trans care anti-discrimination law, signed the Respect for Marriage Act, enabled unspecified gender on US Passports, rejoined WHO, rescheduled marijuana, actively reducing drug costs with the American Rescue Plan Act…
I was referring to Trump.
He’s literally a big city elite with multiple children by multiple women who openly flaunts his disregard for the institution of his own marriage, but the redcaps don’t even blink at the thought of casting the ballot for him, because he’s the candidate, and him losing means the other guy wins, and unlike Dems, they are actually able to care about “if our guy doesn’t win the other guy will” by itself.
Hilary and Gore won the popular vote. Why don’t Democrats ever do something about the blatant theft of votes from minorities instead or blaming their own base for getting their votes stolen.
Who do you think is doing anything about disenfranchised voters? Want to know?
Spare me, both Hilary and Gore rolled over for Republicans. And Democrats never bring up election theft by Repubs in any real way.
Lol. Okay.
The Democrats could stop dropping out of primaries to back conservative cardboard cut outs.
But no, it’s the voters who are wrong!
Cross reference the states the conservative cutouts are winning in the primaries with whether or not they are swing states and number of EC votes, then get back to us. In 2016, Hillary had more votes in AZ, NV, FL, OH. What do you want to happen for that shit, bank it on states like WV (+42 R) suddenly flipping blue?
Because there isn’t an overwhelming swarm of people voting for anyone who isn’t Repub, the Dems have to chase the reliable voters, who are more conservative.
It is the voters who are wrong, by staying home election after election or throwing their votes in the trash instead of pushing against the sliding window.
I don’t like the Dem choices but IDK what the fuck else they are supposed to do once the primaries start. Running the candidate who wins with Dem voters in swing states makes sense as a strategy.
Arizona is not a blue dog state. There is a large gap between a mostly progressive democrat party and a batshit insane republican party.
And it might also have to do with Idaho and South Carolina going first, with everyone else dropping out before super tuesday even happens. Most of the states don’t even get a real choice.
I hate how the primaries do that. That is indeed bullshit. That sets up momentum for the rest of the primaries and they aren’t really swing states. So stupid. All primaries should be on the same day.
While I’m wishing for voting in this country that isn’t dumb as hell: let’s do no primaries at all and STAR voting in the general.
Aren’t you saying that voters are wrong voting for candidates you don’t like?
More the Democrats that make-up the DNC who control the voting menu.
Take the case of Howard Dean. Destroyed electorally by the media in 2004, managed to become chair of the DNC, implements the 50 state strategy and Obama wins big.
Dean was the last Democrat marginally willing to adopt a winning strategy and he was destroyed for it. Democratic Speakers of the House, Party Majority Leader, Whips, Chiefs of Staff all vocally and vociferously against him.
He only won them Virginia which has been Blue(ish) since. He had the party do outreach in North Carolina and flipped it for Obama. His strategy even won INDIANA.
He is replaced with Tim Kaine.
No. I’m saying they don’t even run the full primary. They drop out and back the party’s favored candidate. It happened with Clinton and Biden. Voters aren’t being given an actual choice unless you live in one of two states.
No, they’re being sarcastic, they mean the opposite
On this site it’s kinda hard to tell. A lot of people think that voting should just be checking the box beside the name of someone that agrees with them 100% and then everything instantly becomes they want it to be the day after the election.
deleted by creator
