Once again, they are only looking at the people who DID vote… Those people always vote, and clearly the proportion of blue “always voters” is dwindling compared to red “always voters”. Yes ignorant voters lean red, but it doesn’t matter. Stop pretending like there’s a huge swath of “swing” voters. There’s not. Trump got basically the same votes this time. This election came down to the 10 million Biden voters who stayed home for Kamala. That’s it. All the rest of this is nonsense bullshit propaganda to obscure the truth. Why didn’t they come out for Kamala??
- Because she’s a woman
- The DNC failed to remind people what happened under Trump (Which is how Trump got away with “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”
- Less vocal on support for trans rights than Biden in his campaign and first days of presidency despite literal millions being poured into anti trans ads.
- Yes, the whole genocide thing, like talking about it or not, Michigan for example certainly lost a huge blue voting block just by the more predominantly Arab districts alone. Michigan, red. And nobody was thinking trump was the better option there, they just did not feel the need to participate
- They only mentioned how grave a threat a fascist who has openly talked about subverting democracy, and then were more than cordial when it came to a loss. The DNC didnt fail to mention, its that its not worth shit because trump is still a free man and our laws should have upheld those principles. You can remind people how presumeably bad it was, but it doesnt mean anything if youre not offering a clear better alternative while our system of laws is literally failing us.
God forbid Biden were to have run again, it would’ve still been a landslide, and he aint a woman. Maybe old as shit, but there is still a lot more common issues people grew to not like so much about Biden, then Kamala said she wouldnt be any different from.
I dump this comment because I personally believe reductive narrative will hurt our ability to effectively work together, and probably the biggest part the dems failed.
the whole genocide thing
No informed voter thought Trump would be better for Palestine than Kamala. Remember, people say one thing publicly when their private reasons are actually less popular.
The conservative Muslims who claimed they loved Palestine voted for Republicans because they are conservative. They are using the Palestinian people as political pawns, just like Hamas. They share conservative values with Republicans based on cultural issues. They differ on the justification for it, but they are all supporters of hierarchy. Same with conservative Latinos.
It’s not popular to say “I like hierarchy and I want to be on top”. Many supporters of hierarchy claim they love “individual rights” when they really want privileges for themselves. That’s the reason why some people love the “Bill of Rights” but hate equality.
No informed voter thought Trump would be better for Palestine than Kamala
That doesn’t change the dems abetting a regime currently committing a genocide. Don’t forget over half the nation doesn’t vote. It was never about changing already fixed or the elusive swing voters minds, it was about getting people out. Its a little harder to when the voter is aware of a moral conflict regarding their vote, regardless of your percieved political intentions of theirs. Are you doubting a significant amount of voters abstained? Because theres gotta be some reason trump had basically the same turnout while dems lost significantly.
It’s not popular to say “I like hierarchy and I want to be on top”. Many supporters of hierarchy claim they love “individual rights” when they really want privileges for themselves. That’s the reason why some people love the “Bill of Rights” but hate equality.
I don’t understand your point, is this in relation to conservative arabs?
It’s not reductive to acknowledge that we have a sexism problem.
When mostly white and hispanic men voted for Biden but not Harris then it’s hard to pretend like that has to do with the economy or some other shit.
Biden and Harris have the exact same policies, white and hispanic men voted for Biden but stayed home for Harris, logically you have to accept it was about being a woman.
The gender gap in voting narrowed slightly this year, so I feel like this isn’t supported by the available evidence. If you could chalk this up to just misogyny you would expect that gap to have widened rather than narrowed
https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-gender-gap-votecast-05672b6426cb5965c446ae2871d97eaf
I believe I conceded that some voters may have had sexism play a part, but being cynical and avoiding crtitique wont get the party anywhere. Its really easy to just say shit, but coming up with solutions is harder. So if its just sexism, I’d like to hear your 5 step plan to mend this qualm.
Biden and Harris have the exact same policies
Maybe that was part of the issue, when voters want change, how is that supposed to help?
Everybody who was voting age was old enough to remember the trauma of 2016-2020 without reminders. Yes the dems should leverage everything anyway, but even the non-politically-aware have it in working recent memory. We can take that out of the list of causes.
Because she’s a genocidal
copprosecutor. Who could be less inspiring?The convicted felon who is friends with Putin, Epstein, and Diddy
That’s pretty uninspiring IMO
And the other guy is a genocidal sexual predator felon. Who could more inspiring?
Says a guy who wholehearted supports genocidal Islamist terrorists. October 7th massacre? Now that’s inspiring!
The missing 10 million Biden voters is a silly talking point, leads to entitled questions, and reaching infantile and politically impotent conclusions. Are you so dense that you don’t know how electoral college works?
lost the ones more easily duped by soundbites of lies.
“I love the poorly educated!” -Trump, 2/2016
It’s too bad she didn’t offer any soundbites of truth. Her entire campaign was built around being inoffensive to everyone which meant saying nothing that might evoke meaning. Lies thrive in that environment.
She did, you just weren’t listening.
I’m easily the most politically engaged person I know. If I wasn’t listening (though I was) then that’s a really bad sign. We need candidates that drive engagement.
Kamala had a lot going in terms of technocratic improvements that actually would provide some value for voters, but there was nothing transformative, and there was no interesting narrative.
The most interesting thing she did was campaign with Liz Cheney, so that’s what got the attention. She wanted to convince right leaning voters that she understood them, but instead communicated that she is just another neoliberal warmonger. It doesn’t matter that she might have threaded the needle perfectly in her rhetoric because she stepped into a narrative that said otherwise.
I have spoken to two kinds of voters.
First off, was my dad. He never ever voted in his life. This was his first year of voting and he went Harris. Simply because he knew enough of what she was about and liked her character.
Meanwhile, the other party was my formerly adoptive mother. She voted Trump because “I just don’t like the other party”. That was her only reason. And that was just simply dishonest and uneducated.
So, it is possible that someone is capable of just even doing the tiniest research can give you an idea of who to vote for.
Wait, what do you mean by formerly adoptive mother?
deleted by creator
No, SHE didn’t.
Corporate News Fucked Up Again.
For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.
I don’t think it’s fair to just dump all the blame on corporate media. The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected, but despite having 8 years to formulate a sound media strategy the DNC is still campaigning like it’s 2015.
Like, sure, the Democrats are running with a handicap in the current media landscape, but that isn’t new, and it’s the responsibility of the DNC to figure out how to overcome that disadvantage — a task that the current leadership has proven itself woefully incompetent at.
The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected
I think that’s the heart of the issue. Yes, DNC should have figured out away around all corporate media outlets but that’s an enormous, unbelievable ask.
Yes, the DNC should be mobile, and memeable, and . . . fuck, I dunno - on 3.14chan or whatever, but at the end of the day they still have to rely on the fucking Today Show and NBC Nightly News and the motherfucking New York Times to carry their message without shitting on it - which they absolutely will. never. do.
The right has poured hundreds of billions into this since the mid-90s. The left has no fucking clue. Despite having all the academics and content creators telling them what to do. It’s time to put a fist in the face of corporate news. Sweet talking has gotten us a fascist dictator.
I mean… bernies doing it. Dude is like 80 and is absolutely idolised by the younger generation and regular middle and lower class people because he seems to actually practice what he preaches and is genuinely interested in what’s good for people. Most politicians to me just give the impression of seeking politics to enrich themselves and clasping onto power to avoid losing that even when their senile and completely incapable of fulfilling their role.
Bernie’s got an app?
Yeah but like, it’s a bit crazy that the right has: Fox News, OAN, NewsMax (or whatever it’s called), Joe Rogan Experience (gateway drug/sanewashing), Benny Shaps network, X, Truth Social, Prager U, Tim’s Pool, right wing radio, and lots of other smaller shops and they all seem to claim corporate media is the worst and they’re all here to tell you the truth.
Yes. Add to that that they have no ethics, and will say and do anything.
People on the left tend to actually adhere to their moral and ethical framework, which immediately puts us at a massive disadvantage against the dirty cheaters.
Don’t forget Sinclair Broadcasting. They’re the local branch of the right wing propaganda machine.
Fuck Reagan and his deregularion.
What’s crazier is when WB bought CNN and literally said Faux News was the plan for what they wanted to do, and loads of journalists resigned from CNN over the changes…
People still think any media organization owned by billionaires has a chance to be “on the left”.
If a billionaire (or group of billionaires) own a media company, it’s only to manipulate people into blaming anyone except billionaires for the current state of affairs.
Like, it’s great you’re realizing it now…
But the merger was two years ago…
None of this was done in the shadows, they came right out and said it. Publicly and repeatedly.
What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.
The problem is they’re getting it for the same reason: to trick us into voting against our own interests.
What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.
The news could literally just use the same standards for both political parties and treat significant news with the stress it deserves regardless of parties and they would already look like left-wing lunatics.
Democrats ran another perfect losing campaign. Some people might say that losing makes a campaign definitionally imperfect, but that’s only sane people.
Removed by mod
She lost to a carnival barker. Other than that, the campaign was perfect! Great news for the Democrats because they have the perfect formulae. (/s in case you missed it.)
It’s that kind of incisive political analyses that make all the “lolDemz” leftist commentary worthwhile. Thank you for your service. /s
Why the fuck would anyone respond to the comments you made here with any real analysis? If that’s what you wanted than you’re as tone deaf as Harris.
Fair enough! So ordered.
This is what happens when you sell all of the major news outlets to billionaires - they publish pro billionaire propaganda
I’m doing my part by getting more news than I probably should from Lemmy.
For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.
Wait…
You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?
Why?
What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?
And I’m scared to even ask, but:
Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?
Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval
Fucking up implies they didn’t get exactly what they wanted.
There’s no way in hell either Kamala or Biden’s egos left any room for them to want to lose. They tried to win and to please their patrons at the same time and found out the hard way that it’s not always possible.
Sure they wanted to win but losing doesnt change Kamala’s or bidens lives at all. They dont have to bear the burden of the trump nonsense like average people might.
Yeah, autocrats are well known for going easy on their former political opponents.
Wanna bet on whether or not Harris outlives the Trump administration?
I expect she will be fine, but she has enough reason to worry.
deleted by creator
This is the real answer
Fair. “Fucked Us Up Again”?
Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.
Will we be nominating better voters next election, or should we try to nominate a better candidate?
Who’s “we”? Democrats? Leftists? I voted against Biden in both primaries (because this outcome from a shitlib was inevitable) but there were not a lot of good alternatives in 2024.
I keep hearing Jon Stewart thrown out there, but I’d be shocked if he could be convinced to run. He is definitely the template for what we need.
There will never be another fair and free presidential election in this country if Trump and his clownshow are allowed to take power.
Trump and his clown show will be taking power. I’m not giving up.
Ok, what does that actually mean when you apply the sound bite to reality? What are your specific expectations for “the people” as individuals?
Poor soul thinks said corporate media somehow exists completely outside of the scope of the DNC as if the DNC itself isn’t just a convention for corporate donors to show up and throw in their demands in exchange for campaign funds and lobbying money.
I mean I’m sure the headline NYT article about Clinton having a 91% chance of winning was totally some next level corporate funded psyop and not a one of the many thousands of advertisements paid for by the DNC. /s
No, it’s totally the corporate media that’s after her and has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate that dropped the entire uncommitted movement worth of constituents for $100 mil in corporate AIPAC money. /s
Is the DNC in the room with us?
WTF is with people on this site and the DNC?
Mostly the anger at having to pick a slightly less lethal poison election after election
The DNC went full mask off this year by not holding primaries. By campaining with the cheneys and pushing 10 year old GOP policies/talking points.
All they will learn from this is losing elections still lets you amass a “warchest” of one billion dollars
The last president – Obama – that the DNC really wasn’t at all involved with was still somehow not very progressive.
lol. Slightly.
I’ll remember this thread when abortions are banned nationwide.
“Stupid uninformed people didn’t vote.”
Oh really?
I’m politically engaged. She lost me and loads of others when she said shes a Zionist and supports destroying the environment.
So, she never lost you then?
the palestinians thank you for not voting they think it was really smart and brave
Oh I voted.
Lmao it’s gonna be funny when you realize this effects you too XD
The ones that get their information from places like Fox, Threads, Facebook, Nextdoor, X, etc.
How can you not include X?
You’re right. I just don’t use it and deleted my account, so it wasn’t in my head. Added.
They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn’t care. It’s as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump
We can point fingers at demographics, and certainly that may have been a part, but its reductive to say just sexism. If we accept any single reason, there will be no reason to improve our platforms.
You’ve got Democratic leaning media blaming the dems for being too woke… and more than half the country just didn’t vote. We need a platform that argues in favor of worker and individual rights alike while not capitulating on either, because as soon as you do capitulate to the right, you lose support, plain and simple.
When the only voters who sat out were white and hispanic men then what would be the logical reason?
Why didn’t women sit out this election at the same rates? Why not any other groups besides white and hispanic men?
What other conclusions can you even draw for these specific groups that have masculinity issues than not voting for a woman?
Let me go ask my whole voting block brb
Latinos shift to Trump won him the election. Harris had the white and black support she needed
We cant split hairs on demographic turnout if overall turnout is way down from 2020, I mean we can make Latinos a scapegoat, but again we’re completely subverting critique that could actually help win an election.
Im not trying to scapegoat. I’m just pointing out the facts.
The fact is those margins in the Hispanic community would barely make a dent on overall turnout? Hence, scapegoating.
53% of white women voted for Trump. Your “America won’t vote for a woman” argument doesn’t hold water.
Americans won’t vote for specific women, sure. Namely Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. The fact that they are women is not why they lost so cataclysmically; they ran platforms that were deeply unengaging to Democrat and Independent voters. Worse, they tried to appeal to Republicans, which only underscored how out-of-touch and unprepared they were to hold the office. Moreover, neither of those specific women, nor the DNC that backed them seems to have learned anything from their continual failures, which, again, only deepens the divide among Democrats’ necessary coalitions.
Their failures are a function of being bad at post-Obama politics, and bad at running for the highest office in the land. It’s not because they are women.
Can’t forget when I overheard someone say, “when was Biden is not running for president” as Trumps was announced he was president elect…
Democracy dies in ignorance
Honestly I thought it was really stupid to hear Trump going after “low propensity voters” as if Kamala wasn’t.
To me, politically engaged people by nature will vote so why the fuck wouldn’t you be trying to reach those that don’t pay much attention? Like ffs if these people can’t be their own advocates how could we expect them to run the damn country… Very very stupid. :(
The problem is that ots much easier to get people enraged than it is to get them to show understanding. The reds only talk about hate, and that’s very hard to combat. It’s been their strategy my entire adult life, and I’m 51. It’s culture war propaganda.
What we need are Podcaster and other influences to rail against billionaires and their crimes.
“Politically engaged” in completely disgusting politics is not a positive thing.
The hegemonic narrative (eg. nbc) will never prevent this viewpoint.
In other words she is a black woman…
Sounds like they are trying to shift blame, again. We knew exactly who she was and knew she can’t be trusted with our support.
Shifting blame by… checks notes… analyzing the demographics of voters.
How are they analyzing the demographics of non voters at exit polls when non voters wouldn’t be exiting the polls to be questioned?
Which non voters are you talking about? The article is about politically engaged voters and voters who don’t follow politics, both of which are voters.
knew she can’t be trusted with our support
Ah so you ARE a Trump supporter. Got it.
Life must be so easy being binary and thinking, critique of one does not imply support of the other. Your party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist who openly welcomed war criminals and you guys thought it was okay. We did not
party ran a piece of shit right-wing blue fascist
LMAO Just more projection from a MAGA Trump supporter
classic blue maga behavior - any structural critique must be met with tribal-style ad hom: “yeah well you probably just support kang instead of kodos.”
blue maga
So cringe
Critique was due in any other election year without an actual literal fascist on the Republican ticket.
bLuEMaGA screechers=Projections from Trump supporters
Like I said, binary thinking
Hate to break it to you, but the US elections ARE binary for as long as FPTP is the voting system nationwide. You want real change? advocate for things like RCV. I wouldn’t even vote for the DNC IF RCV was nationwide and third-parties actually stood a chance, I’m just being realistic.
As things stand now, you’re just demanding a fantasy. A pursuit that will now have blood on its hands because now instead of a “not really a fascist, just not as left as id like” president we have a full throat legit fascist.
Now you have every decision that Trump makes on your conscious.
Oh, fuck off with that. The fault ultimately lies with a party that thrust a candidate on us that primary voters flatly rejected in the 2020 primary, then ran a Republican lite campaign strategy when voters have been demanding change for decades.
My conscience is clear, I voted for no evil.
The 2024 US presidential election was a binary choice, because that’s how it works with first past the goalposts elections.
If you voted 3rd party, you voted for Trump.
Why do you guys pretend to understand the electoral college in one breath and in the other assume every critic of the Democratic party lives in NC, GA, PA, MI, etc.?
My vote would have literally been more wasted voting for Kamala in a deep red state. At least a third party vote could get your party to notice something.
The vast majority of Americans do not live in swing states.
It’s an ML that doesn’t understand how elections work…or they are the CCP ops…one of the two.
“Corporate wants you to find the difference between these two pictures”
Donald Trump
Third party candidates
“They’re literally the same thing!!”
Third-party candidates?
Oh, you mean the ones who have never won a presidential election in the entire modern history of the US and has become nothing but pawns for the 2 established parties to harm the other e.g. Jill Stein, Russian asset?
Those third-party candidates?
“A non-vote or vote for a third-party is a vote for Trump”
So congrats MAGAt, your guy won!
We also knew exactly who Trump is. We have a very long history.
I particularly love stuff about him before he was in politics, like the Motley Fool podcast on how he duped public investors for his private company through pumping up real estate values. They went to his office, saw this weird array of gaudy decoration and oddly attractive employees, sat down with him, and saw through his lie. Then made the only short in their firm’s entire history… and it paid off.
There’s no excuse of bias. You can’t blame any politicians. It’s just him. And while not perfect by any means, you have to squint hard to see Kamala in the same light.
Right.
But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn’t enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.
Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn’t want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.
They didn’t do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn’t happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.
It’s clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters
So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?
Like, we’ve tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?
Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.
Stop worrying about if you’re right.
Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit
Why is the default argument from liberals always ‘but Trump?’ Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.
That doesn’t matter. She was the only other option we had
She was forced as the only choice on voters and liberals find that acceptable
Fucking child. Grow up.
It doesn’t matter. She was the choice we had.
Because she wouldn’t have been shit. Your argument is invalid.
So, we should elect Donald Fucking Trump instead? Is that your conclusion?
Who said anything about electing Trump? The only people that say, but Trump are the liberals that think you’ve only got two options. There’s a lot of us that did not vote for top of the ticket and voted downline, top of the ticket was garbage, regardless of which fascist you decided to support
I can go ahead and call 2028 for you now.
It’s gonna be the Dem or Rep nominee.
It is binary. If you believe another outcome is likely, let’s bet money.
Kalama lost bc voters for who voting is a real burden didn’t show up to vote. They are poor and likely people of color. Fuck off with blaming people.
Hey I’ll likely be fine. Better off than the people you identified in your comment.
I’m a cis white male who makes ~$250k/yr.
The ones who sat at home are likely going to be much worse off.
At least it’s gonna be very hard to make the brain dead “both sides” argument over the next 4 years.
I’m a cis white male who makes ~$250k/yr.
opinion discarded
It’s just too much to expect lots of you to simply evaluate an idea on its merits.
See you in 2028 when the Dem or Rep wins again.
It’s binary because voters keep it that way
Sure. Agreed.
That doesn’t change the fact.
I made no claim about the mechanics of it. Only the outcome.
You’re an idiot if you think that not voting for Harris means you didn’t implicitly vote for Trump.
There were two viable candidates in this election, because that’s how the US election system works. A 3rd party will never win until the entire system changes. Full stop.
Is it really how that works? No way! Ive literally never heard anyone say that! Definitely not over and over in this thread or anything!
Thanks internet stranger for solving the third party problem! Not all hero’s wear capes!
You know what makes for a viable candidate, people voting for them. Liberals claim to support a 3rd party but not until they are viable. They essentially want other people to do the work for them so they can hop on someone else’s bandwagon and claim this is what they always wanted
We have a voting system that mathematically devolves into a two party system. If you think voting third party will change anything the way the system is set up right now, you’re naive.
There’s a lot of us that did not vote for top of the ticket and voted downline
No, the republicans won all three branches so that’s a lie.
I hope the democrats move hard right next election to target people who actually vote and don’t just sit it out.
I hope the democrats move hard right next election to target people who actually vote and don’t just sit it out.
Pretty much why y’all lost 2016 and 2024 but go off
If they do, they will lose… Again
Dems moved hard right this election and it cost them
How is reporting what PEOPLE filled out in exit polls, shifting blame? These are just facts.
You have to understand, the people who constantly attacked Harris before the election now have to figure out some way to make her just as bad as Trump, to excuse their own behavior. Is it disgusting? Yes. Is it reprehensible? Yes. Is it absolutely predictable as a means of trying to escape responsibility for the rancid shit hurricane that will be Trump Part 2? Yes.
Plenty of people voted for kamala and are huge critics of how the campaign was handled. Both can happen.
“Plenty” was not enough. The pre-election criticism looks like it worked exactly as intended.
Yeah I’ve been seeing the exact same thing, and I think it will be interesting to see them gradually unravel in the coming months.
You can see that all of the astroturfing, bot accounts vanished after Election Day, and all of the useful idiots are left to try to fight the cognitive dissonance they’re feeling after seeing the immediate insanity of Trump since winning.
Unfortunately, if they actually are progressives, they will likely have a much harder time ignoring the cognitive dissonance than conservatives (who seem to excel at that ability). They’re in for some real psychic pain when they witness Trump’s actions in Palestine.
And how are they polling these non-voters at exit polls if they did not vote? Odd dog. The story is blame shifting bullshit, what Democrats love doing whenever they can’t manage to run a decent candidate or election
…
How are you using exit polls to find out about why non-voters didn’t vote?
Did everyone say they were politically engaged as they were leaving a polling location?
Or are you using logic to determine everyone that just voted was politically engaged, and those who didn’t are politically disengaged?
Cuz like, yeah, obviously that’s true…
But what matters is why they’re politically disengaged and how we can get the to engage again.
A very very easy way, would be to make sure the next candidate agrees with Dem voters more than Republican voters.
“following politics” is not the same as “voter engagement”.
Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.
They’d be “do not follow closely” on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they’re were 18…
How exactly are they “politically disengaged”?
They’re still voting, just not paying attention.
Like, there are loads of over things we’re going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.
If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don’t get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.
A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.
So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.
The consultants running the campaign measure success in dollars raised. That means they only messaged those politically engaged.
It’s worse than that.
The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in
Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?
Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.
What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.
It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.
Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.
Made this point on another article and the response I got was that they need to keep fellating rich donors because if they stop those rich donors will run attack ads against them and cost them the election. I don’t know if that’s true or not but if so they might as well give up now because those rich donors aren’t winning them elections either.
The rich 100% would.
But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…
That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
By “I’m not sure if that’s true” I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I’m pretty sure they would. For what it’s worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I’m not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don’t think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.
To be fair, inflation is better, but it’s also valid to question how it’s being calculated and if it really reflects how much money people can have at the end of the month.
What does this have to do with the subject of discussion?
