Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy, and then refer to Sanders support on this map as ‘empty land’.
Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy,
Isn’t focusing on liberal and swing states exactly what you criticize the DNC for?
In fact, here’s you explicitly praising the 50-state strategy.
So you’re… imagining yourself?
/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable; tha tis, the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, we fall for the same old trope of watering down OUR vision and OUR policy platform that we KNOW must be done (e.g., climate change as just one), and end up just looking bland to these voters. We don’t stand for anything, except for the progressive caucus of this party.
So in short, we need a 50 state strategy; but a national vision that brings that all together and is adapted to modern times. Not this incessant pivot to the “center” that is arbitrarily defined by Republican lines in the sand.
It was a conversation from a year ago, so without context I believe I was speaking then about a viable strategy that worked: bringing a left wing policy (at the time healthcare reform) to the conservatives and red states.
The Democratic Party abandoned that strategy since. They still made overtures to appeal to conservatives and red states, but they’ve done it through adopting rightwing, divisive policies. And then they don’t even run a US Senate race is Nebraska.
/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I’m wrong but I think what they’re saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable;
That would contradict their statements in response to my criticism
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary.
It’s literally not, though. As I’ve said numerous times before, the “Do you want [GOOD THING]?” polling that people so often point to ignores that a very large proportion of the people who respond positively to that will walk it back the moment you introduce any sort of the things that conservatives hammer as a downside.
The answer is, mind you, not to water down progressivism - it’s to stop trying to fucking bend over backwards for areas that vote 95%+ (not joking, I lived near districts with those numbers) GOP every fucking election. While going immediately full-throttle far-left on every issue may not be ideal, Clintonesque ‘triangulation’ is a clear and distinct failure, and needs to be abandoned, despite the DNC’s reluctance to let it go. We do, as you said, need a coherent and firm vision we can push going forward.
But don’t be fooled into thinking there’s some easy way to reach out and ‘convert’ these rural working class voters. They have fundamentally different values than progressives.
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don’t dismiss the support as empty land.
What was the point of that?
Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.
The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.
I’m sorry that you don’t like being called out for kettle logic?
…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.
lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in ‘50 state’ by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you’re on record?
I’m flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.
No, it’s not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren’t working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.
They, by your own description, are not ‘turning around’ and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don’t support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn’t it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?
I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.
Considering that I’m the one in this thread who’s objected to the map’s misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?
Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.
Look, I know you’ve long ago tagged me the tankie and yourself as the chad, it’s whatever. But you need to stop calling yourself a shitlib.
Removed by mod
Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.
But I’m here less to disagree than I am to witness in awe how you dived into that user’s history to dredge up something they said a full year ago, within 3 minutes of them posting their comment. I’m going to be very nice to you cause you fumkin scary lol
Lemmy has a search-by-user option. If you know political terms, it doesn’t take long to dig up someone’s opinions. Doubly so if you’ve had run-ins with them in the past and have a vague outline of their beliefs.
Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.
That’s the opposite of what the 50-state strategy is, though. Trying to flip purple states is standard practice. You literally can’t win a presidential election without it.
Yeah I assumed both that you were doing some power search and that the two of you have a bit of history :P
Why would the dems even want to win, when their co-workers are doing a much better job of passing the fascist policies that they all agree on? Why settle for kamalacaust when trump will go even further?
Sorry but voters don’t get a say in USA. They only can choose between the 2 that their bosses have chosen.
every comment in this thread along the lines of
“wElL yOu sHoUldVE vOtEd tHeN!!!1!”
fucking confounds me bc ig you guys either have a weird victim blaming kink or you have massively more faith in our electoral system’s veracity than i do.
Be a lot easier to discuss how well things worked if everyone participated.
i honestly am skeptical of western media’s narrative that everyone is complacent and doesn’t give a fuck. i’ve met a lot of people. every single one of them gives some sort of a shit about politics. it feels like homegrown astroturfing to keep anything from ever actually coming to a head. keep people feeling alone and isolated, hopeless. if 60-80% of americans are complacent, don’t participate civically, and are actively disengaged from the political process… then where are these people? i should be seeing them in droves right? but i’m not, and neither is anyone i know. my network isn’t really geographically limited either. anecdotal evidence regardless, sure, but still suss imo.
i’ve seen the statistics and polls, the election results and non-participant ratio, you don’t need to share those sources with me.
idk, maybe i’m fucking crazy and a conspiracy theorist. a wise man once said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Perhaps those that care about politics are the ones with which politics gets discussed? Unless you’re sitting down and going “so that trump, huh?” With every person you meet.
i do admit the bias of my sampling, but also at the same time:
Unless you’re sitting down and going “so that trump, huh?” With every person you meet.
yeah… i mean i do end up doing this much of the time? my time and labor is valuable… i’d rather not waste it on working with fascists, but i recognize i have the privilege of making that choice due to the kind of work i do.
if you lived during the reich would you not be like “so how ‘bout that hitler?” to every person you met??? i would???
That doesn’t speak to my point at all. I’m saying you can’t tell how well a system works when it barely has half the participation it’s supposed to have, and is constantly fucked with. This is the direct result of Republican interference in Texas, no conspiracy theories required.
i appreciate your input and discourse, but i think i disagree on a few key points. you can tell how well a system works in this scenario.
if a system of governance collapse under the stress of the majority of the population becoming disinterested in civics, it isn’t a good system of governance. it is predictable that the status quo would have came about, our institutions are just not build for an inevitability; and that is a patent weakness. western thought has a weird fetish for democracy as some sort of penultimate form of governance but if democracy has historically always decayed into authoritarianism it’d be naive to insist on rabidly defending it bc not only can we do better, we have a responsibility to do better. we collectively have blood on our hands as a consequence of our inability to affect change.
i don’t know what the answers are. but i know what we’re doing is misguided and leads to inevitable human suffering. there is no way to absolve ourselves of that sin, we can only move forwards.
i am strongly of the belief that zero-knowledge and trustless systems will form the bedrock of future governance. trust cannot be a factor as it is a fickle maiden. you don’t question the character sheets or narrator in d&d implicitly, not because you trust everyone around you but because, with a good DM who enforces the rules, the system will work out in a way that is amicable to all parties. this isn’t the best example bc i’m kind of tipsy rn tbh, there’s still trust involved in that system, but it is the most colloquial example i can think of without using abstract shit straight out of my textbooks on math and logic.
again, sorry if my reply is subpar. kind of drunk tonight lmao. appreciate the discourse and civility tho. i love that about lemmy. it’s why i stick around here. and just to clarify - my position is not advocating authoritarianism or anything crazy like that. i’m just kind of recognizing that western liberal democracy has flaws that are so egregious as to be responsible for tragedy. we are culpable for that and i feel strongly about our collective responsibility to do better. we have a way, but do we have a will?
edit: you’re my 200th comment on lemmy, btw! congrats!!
40% of voters in Texas didn’t vote in November.
Gen X in Texas at least doesn’t seem to vote much if at all.
Be a lot easier to participate if anybody’s vote actually mattered. Literally worthless vote where I live.
I “wasted” my vote on Cornell West in the presidential category. Doesn’t matter at all.
Well, when you don’t vote you’re guaranteeing your opinion doesn’t matter. The math always works in favor of everyone voting.
Libs want to feel like they’re “right” even while they don’t do shit but support fascism.
bc ig
People should have voted in primaries, then. I did. Both times. Clearly not enough did.
Elizabeth Warren should have dropped out before Super Tuesday
🐍
No, no, you see, if we just convince enough people NOT to vote in the primaries, the whole system will collapse!
The dems are doing a great job of convincing people not to vote. There’s really no better method than constantly nominating garbage candidates.
There’s really no better method than constantly nominating garbage candidates.
I said, and I quote:
No, no, you see, if we just convince enough people NOT to vote in the primaries, the whole system will collapse!
What the ever-loving fuck do you think a primary is
I’ve learned that an unsettling amount of people on Lemmy don’t know what a primary is and this really explains why primaries only have a 10% turn out most of the time.
The worst part is that people on Lemmy are more politically engaged than your average eligible voter. This is literally the top half of the population, in terms of political engagement and education.
God help us.
More engaged, yes. More educated, ehh. I don’t know about that. I’ve seen several and been involved in arguments where one, or in some cases both, parties learn policy from memes, other comments, or YouTube videos.
Not to mention the high volume of tankies and wannabe tankies there are on Lemmy. That’s the exact opposite of what I would define as educated.
Great, now we’re doing “land votes” takes just like conservative boomers posting minion memes on Facebook.
I’m so glad to see that the ‘left’ isn’t as fucking braindead as the ghouls on the right. /s
You do see California all blue, right? That’s 10% of the population of the US, just right there.
California, New York, and Florida are in no way just land.
-
Cali in this picture is quite distinctly pale and white in densely populated regions. Compare.
-
The message of the map is quite clearly not “Cali is voting for Bernie, look at how overwhelming that is!”, but using the physical size of the country and Bernie’s support in low-density states to portray him as winning an overwhelming victory, when Bernie’s frontrunner status at this point was a fairly slim plurality.
Bernie’s frontrunner status at this point was a fairly slim plurality.
Yes, he was the front runner. The dems chose a losing fascist instead. There are your braindead ghouls.
Yep. It would’ve been nice if more people who weren’t braindead ghouls chose to show up to the primaries and vote, but I guess they had more important things to do on that day, like jerking off.
-
But the land does vote.
That’s the whole issue with gerrymandering and the electoral college.
They’re talking about traitor lunatics who complain that a mostly red map (traitor lunatic counties) doesn’t result in a traitor lunatic victory. It’s the whole “people live in cities” joke.
I don’t get it actually. I think you are relying on me getting some of those terms and I am not.
Sorry.
Sorry about that. I was being cheeky but serious. Here it is in English:
They’re talking about Republicans/right wingers who complain when a mostly red looking map (Republican won counties) doesn’t result in a Republican victory. It’s the whole “people live in cities” joke.
So what happens is, these folks look at a map of the US that’s divided into counties and they see these enormous swaths of red, but a Democrat has won, and they—100% in earnest—say that it’s evidence that the election is stolen. That’s why we respond with “land doesn’t vote” and “people live in cities”.
Does that make more sense?
Yup yup!
The maps are as misleading as a Verizon coverage map. And Kornacki at the board saying it really only matters for the counties that have millions of votes vs all the tiny counties that come in immediately cause they have 10,000 people living there.
I think the problem is that we have accept these counties do matter though. A state being 3 blue and the rest red even if it’s where everyone lives is blue means that the land is voting. Very heavily too. And stuff like electoral votes being so many for this less populated land means we have to take it into account. So losing 1,000 battles but losing the war sounds like losing to me.
Okay but:
-
Bernie was never going to win the deep-red states on the strength of his primary polling.
-
Land doesn’t vote in the Dem primaries.
-
The implication of these maps is to present one candidate or party or idea as overwhelmingly popular, when it’s just color-by-the-numbers for largely empty space.
But it’s not empty space?
It is the low density states that make it so much easier for the Republicans to win especially when the Democrats avoid them and people call it empty.
Those states that are “empty” are always half of the electoral votes.
Also don’t do statistics for a thing we don’t have any data for we don’t know how he would have performed cause it’s not just simple math it’s real life and we never got to, nor will we ever know.
-
Either Delaware has a population density to rival Kowloon Walled City, or this is a bit more than a “land votes” take
It’s tracing where candidates predominate, with blue and deep blue being Sanders - the impression is given, by the presence of blue across a large swathe of the country, that Sanders is winning an overwhelming victory. However, much of the area that is blue is not considerably populated; while Sanders enjoyed plurality support at this point in the primary (I remember it well, because I was so fucking excited and hopeful), it’s not even vaguely close to the implication of overwhelming support that the map gives off.
Let’s see the map for kamalacaust then? lmao.
The fuck does Harris have to do with what I’m saying?
California, New York, and Illinois are land votes?
No, the vast majority of the map is empty land.
So you’re mad at the population distribution of the USA? I guess you gotta blame something for your gross candidate and pathetic loss.
… what
I’ve been saying since 2016 that Sanders’ executive orders alone would have moved the US further in the right direction than any president since LBJ.
The last six months of Donald Trump have proven that. The presidency has all the power any party needs if they actually want to do real good.
I think its hilarious how before Trumps 2nd term, the libshits would argue "but if they use executive orders to push through {legalization of abortion, marijuana, socialized healthcare, public transit, any number of good left leaning policies} the R’s will do it back when theyre back in office!!
Now look where we are.
fucking libshits and MAGAts.
They have the house, senate, the courts and are all yes man followers.
Yeah so Biden did an executive order to forgive student debt, it got challenged in the courts and so it didn’t happen.
People saying “Democrats should just do executive orders like Trump does” need to look into who’s on the Supreme Court.
The “do everything by EO” strat only works for a party that has had a loyal voting base for decades so they have control of the courts.
Sorry to interrupt the “both sides” narrative leftists/MAGAs love so much.
It doesn’t hurt to try though. Make them actually shoot the EOs down. Don’t just assume they will so you do nothing. Force their hand.
No, the real strat is to ram hundreds of EOs through so fast the courts don’t have time to shoot them all down. And then, I dunno, drone strike the opposition and call it an official presidential act cause evidently that’s cool now.
Exactly, it was all set up in the first term. They not only got the Supreme Court but also put in place a record number of judges across the country as well. They went for the throat, and everyone let them. Now you have corrupt people everywhere they need to do whatever they want, and also showed that even if they do get shot down, they still don’t listen, and nothing happens, so whats the actual point?
^ This. If we’re lucky enough to get a Democratic president willing to abuse the executive order system the way Trump is, and make no mistake, it IS abuse… the same Supreme Court that ruled “Well, the President can do it” would look at a Democratic President and go “Whoah, woah, whoah, we didn’t mean YOU could do it.”
we had better damn well put in a president who’s gonna EO everything to the far left
Yeah, elder statesmen like Biden still believed in things like exercising power responsibly within the balance of power like many presidents before them.
That wasn’t good enough, too many people took the “lesser evil” quote to heart. So now we have a dipshit writing EOs faster than the court system moves, and I hope there’s a god to help the country get out of this.
Stop huffing your own farts
Let’s not forget they’ve spent the past 4-8 years putting their people into the right places to allow them to start doing whatever they want.
You say this as if the dems could have never done what they did.
God forbid someone want to keep some semblance of democracy without completely giving up hope in a race to the bottom.
That’s still completely true. Not only that, Congress and SCOTUS can nullify any executive order.
haha, yes they sure can. And they have! Look at how well its going!
There are only “checks and balances” when all 3 branches of government are not fascist/corrupt.
None of these things can be performed by executive order. A big reason that bill just had to be passed was his deportations and detainings couldn’t be performed without money from Congress
Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified. The conservative supermajority is what has allowed Trump to get away with the vast majority of this.
Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified.
If they’d run Sanders, they’ve had ended up with a Democratic supermajority. SCOTUS would have been largely irrelevant.
But it doesn’t change facts. The powers of the presidency in the hands of an actual reformer, not a performative one like Biden or Obama, would have entailed true, fundamental change.
Sanders couldn’t even win the Democratic primary. What makes you think he stood a chance at winning the election?
Good morning.
Respectfully, what you’re repeating here is a lie. The primaries were rigged against Bernard Sanders, and when the Democratic Party was later sued for it, they admitted it. The bummer here is that in rigging primaries for Clinton, Democrats not only gave us Donald Trump, but also gave Trump control of Congress at the same time.
Rigged how, exactly? Were all the voters that didn’t vote for Bernie in on the conspiracy?
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Bernie polled better during the primaries than both Clinton AND Trump. In fact, there were polls showing that he polled better than Trump among Republicans (so long as you only talked about his policies without mentioning his name. As soon as you said his name they’d call him a dirty communist and 180 their opinion - quite literally going from saying they’d vote for somebody with those positions to vowing to never vote for him). Clinton polled worse than Trump, and Bernie had a decent lead over Trump - enough that he was considered the better candidate to run against Trump right up until he dropped out of the race.
So, what happened? Well, major news networks airing 30 minutes of Trump’s empty podium instead of Bernie’s speech happened. He was the target of a major campaign by the leaders of the party who poured tons of money into making sure Hillary’s face was everywhere and his voice was snuffed out. They quite literally said that they were under no obligation to run a fair primary.
The DNC didn’t ‘rig’ the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.
That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Telling people to ‘get over it’ ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.
Did Bernie get more or fewer votes than Clinton?
Any good candidate would lose the democratic primary.
If they’d run Sanders, they’ve had ended up with a Democratic supermajority.
Least delusional Sanders revisionist take.
I love hearing from centrists, who’ve shat the bed every election for over a decade. Without COVID we’d currently be in the third Trump term, all because of you folks.
You see AOC and Bernie filling football stadiums in red states and you think: “We should totally nominate Harris again”. Here in Missouri voters approved a $15 minimum wage, required paid sick leave, and legal abortion, but sure, just keep running centrist candidates. That’s totally gonna work.
I wish you all would fight fascism with an iota of the fervor with which you fight the Mamdanis of the world.
$15 minimum wage, required paid sick leave, and legal abortion,
The fact this isn’t a centrist position shows how cooked the US is.
I think the big issue with centrists is they pay absolutely no attention to what’s really happening, but wear the term “centrist” like a badge of honor.
So on one end we have Nazis, and the other end we have Democrats who are mostly Center-Right, and then the centrists try to find the middle of that but not having any idea if what that means.
And then we keep getting the enshitification of the U.S.
The centrist position is pro-starvation and pro-theft of labor wrapped in a rainbow flag. (and a bloody one at that, considering how pro-war they are too.)
Yeah, $15 is so put of date. They were pushing for 15 BACK IN 2008, the last time it moved, before housing prices doubled/tripled. 15 would be trash pay, but it’s still TOO MUCH for corporate owned Democrats to even pretend to support
Basic human decency is some woke commie lefty bullshit
/s
A guy on the internet thinking something doesn’t elect the candidate… votes in primaries do. And they have consistently chosen centrists.
Respectfully, you should go read up on why superdelegates were invented, and maybe the lawsuit in Florida where the DNC stated publicly that they rig their primaries.
Voters do not choose Democratic presidential candidates.
Superdelegates have not been used for either Hillary or Biden. If they had been you’d be right to be pissed, but there was no need because they got enough votes. Voters did choose the candidates.
Leftists consistently lose elections.
Voters have consistently shown they don’t want to elect leftists.
Centrists have won the majority of elections since the 90s.
AOC and Bernie would lose worse than Harris in a national election. Just like all leftists have.
When voters have chosen the option furthest to the right it is stupid to think that running a candidate further left would do anything but lose.
Centrists lost to Trump, the objectively worst candidate for president.
Sanders received a loud applause from a Fox News town hall. I’m not so sure he’d have lost.
When voters have chosen the option furthest to the right it is stupid to think that running a candidate further left would do anything but lose.
Trying to do right-wing policy “better” than the right-wing candidate has consistently lost elections to far-right candidates. All it does is validate the far-right candidate’s positions, and they’ll always be considered “stronger” on those positions
People primarily vote for change, and that’s exactly what the centrists haven’t been able to offer. It’s why Biden lost, it’s why Harris lost, it’s why Clinton lost.
I saw that town hall on Fox News with Bernie. The people in the audience were asking about what he was going to do to fix climate change and a lot of subjects that Republicans deny even exists. That audience wasn’t Republican don’t lie to yourself.
Bill Clinton won two consecutive terms.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost because of Russian election interference.
Biden won.
Harris lost because of inflation caused by post covid supply chain problems, according to the polls.
Ignoring the fact that voters chose the furthest option to the right give the next election to the GOP, if there is another election.
Just because what you’re saying on lemmy gets upvotes doesn’t mean it would get votes irl.
Popular opinions on lemmy are the exact opposite of what voters vote for.
There was recently a post here on lemmy that proposed AOC running for president and the top voted comment was that she would lose. Even here on lemmy enough people are aware of the leftists echo chamber and how detached it is from reality.
Democrats had to rig not one, but two primaries against Bernard Sanders, and not only did they not deny it, they argued in court that it was their right to do so.
No one fails harder than centrists. They are objectively, evidently pathetic. If COVID hadn’t occurred we’d be in the third Trump presidency, and you’d still be sitting here like a good bootlicker telling me I didn’t vote hard enough for centrists and ignoring that AOC and Bernard Sanders are filling football stadiums in red states.
I repeat: I wish you all fought as hard against fascism as you do for the billionaire class.
AOC and Bernie stopped in my red state. I went and saw more than half the license plates were from out of state. Those that were from my state were from the one blue county.
We recently had an election between an establishment Republican and a progressive and the progressive lost by a landslide.
Don’t lie to yourself. AOC and Bernie have fans that will travel to see them from other states.
Democrats are trying to stop progressives from throwing the election like they have every time they win a primary.
Progressives can’t even beat other candidates that get funded by AIPAC let alone beat republicans.
Centrists do some self reflection challenge: impossible.
That’s wholly incorrect. The only reason Trump’s executive orders have any power is due to the full majority support of the Republican-controlled Congress and the conservative SCOTUS.
Democrats forced a 15-day vote on the constitutionality of Trump’s initial purse-control power grab. The Republican majority redefined the entire congressional calendar as a single day, just to a valid holding the vote.
This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.
This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.
How did that happen? Didn’t the dems do something? Wasn’t Biden fighting this super hard for 4 years? \s
LeBron James?
Jeb! is willing to overlook this transgression
Sorry, it’s spelled JEB!
Your lack of enthusiasm has been logged. Please clap.
1! = 1
2! = 2
3! = 6
4! = 24
…
JEB! = +∞
Death to the DNC never forget
sorry LEFTISTS, I will let fascists fuck us all dead before I steer progress away from anything that isn’t Obama-nostalgic capitalism. oh and I’m pretty sure I heard that commie say something about term limits so I’m going to make that all of yous’ problem just for even considering it.
Fucking Texas lmaoooo, O’Rourke??? Hahahahahaha
There’s only two fascist parties. One is slightly less fascist, that’s it.
No matter what you do, you will be pigeonholed into making the wrong choice.
It is not your fault.
Yeah I’m gonna just let the actively 10x as fascist party win because the other is a bad capitalist instead of actually doing anything
Username checks out
why wouldn’t they? Bernie’s interests are aligned completely opposite to the interests of whatever groups that keep at least half of those democrats in their seats. That became much more clear when they happily voted no to Bernie’s “ban weapon sale to Israel” motions.
Good question.
If Democrats were reasonable, objective people (which they are not), they’d probably look at the fact that the state of Missouri passed a $15 minimum wage, required paid sick leave, AND legalized abortion in the same election where they elected Republicans.
And then take that as a lesson of maybe what they should be doing in order to win back red states.
But they won’t.
They’re in the pocket of the rich and couldn’t care less about people who work for a living.
This is so confusing. Which party, if any, was supporting those measures? How’d they get on the ballot?
We are one of the last states that can still do ballot initiatives. That’s how weed happened anyway.
It’s a bit silly sometimes though, the citizens put initiatives on the ballot that Rs hate and then vote in all the Rs expecting them to implement the stuff in good faith.
If you consider the bigger picture it’s not silly at all.
Democrats spent four years, two of them with the same amount of power that Donald Trump has, letting people get significantly poorer and aiding a genocide. Then, they fronted an openly demented candidate who had a meltdown on national TV. Then, they let the brain-dead candidate crown a candidate who couldn’t even beat Tulsi Gabbard in a primary. After that, they spent three months of campaign time offering no policy changes, but just telling people to ‘be joyful’. Then, after that, Harris publicly affirmed she wouldn’t do anything differently than Biden had.
TLDR: Democrats made voters hate them just that much. You can’t tell tens of millions of people working 100 hours a week at three jobs just to afford a roach-infested studio that you’re not going to make their lives better. Sure, Dems say they support better things, but no one believes them anymore.
Yeah, people decided to try something else or more of the same as people do. That intersection was new republicans shouting they could strong arm the world a better place but kissed that it was a better place only for the wealthy.
People need change when the world is changing but their social contracts all stayed the same.
I really don’t get how people don’t see all this as signs that the average American is drowning and desperately need compassion instead of apathy.
I guess that’s what I find confusing. Thanks!
The maps says 2019.
Biden won the primary in 2020 and proceeded to win the presidency.
You should know because you’re been posting anti-Biden content since then.
Everything Biden does is anti-Biden, you dont have to put in any effort to be against him.
deleted by creator
Sanders won the first 3 primaries in a row and then the establishment freaked out and all fell in line behind Biden.
So Biden won. We all agree!
Biden won, humanity lost.
It’s what Americans wanted…
Okay but before the primaries ended Biden had literally double the votes of Bernie, it wasn’t exactly a close race.
deleted by creator
Okay but he didn’t win by Delegates alone he HAD DOUBLE THE VOTES. Real votes, from millions of individual people.
And then he did jack shit but support fascism for 4 years.
So?
Isn’t the point of the primaries to find the candidate most people would want to vote for?
The primary should always be between two candidates or using ranked choice voting. If there are ten candidates in the primary and the winner has 10.1% of the vote you cannot tell whether they are the most popular one.
Sanders lost because he was less popular than Biden. Obama calling all other spoiler candidates to drop out ensured the candidate who most people prefer won. After all, if the candidates who dropped out had policies more similar to Sanders, they would have supported him instead of Biden.
Isn’t the point of the primaries to find the candidate most people would want to vote for?
LMAO no. It’s for “party” insiders to nominate whatever ghoul is at the top of their control pyramid.
if the candidates who dropped out had policies more similar to Sanders, they would have supported him instead of Biden.
Exactly. These ghouls are loyal to their own pyramid, not humanity.
Then why be upset Sanders lost the primary? If he didn’t have a chance in the first place there is no way Biden (or anyone really) could have “stolen” his victory.
Yeah, Sanders lost in 2020 just like he did in 2016
I remember that really pissing Trump off because he was pushing hard to run against him.
I don’t think Trump was pushing for Sanders because Trump thought it’d be a harder fight to win.
You remember it pissing him off? Because I remember him thanking the democrats for ratfucking sanders and handing him the presidency.
I remember him saying that after Sanders lost (both times) so he could make the gullible think the system was rigged.
It is fucking rigged and they rigged it for Biden, we all remember it vividly, nice try though.
lol buddy I remember vividly what happened in that shit show of a primary. You’d have to be absolutely addled with American liberal propaganda to not see that primary for what it was.
We.re seeing it all over again with mamdani
How?
Mandani won the primary now he’s getting support from democrats.
I think in 2016 the right figured out their propaganda works just as well on ‘leftists’.
Pointing to the results of ratfuckery isn’t a great way to prove that ratfuckery didn’t occur. Why do people try to make this argument so often
Do you think Trump would be pushing for a candidate that would make his race harder?
I didn’t think he’s smart enough, nor remotely trustworthy, for his opinion to matter here.
Clinton did it with Trump so… yes? Fascists are notoriously fucking stupid.
Clinton had too much faith in the average voter.
That is the most blatant hypocrisy I’ve seen in ages.
So you agree ratfuckery happened?
Plus I think you’re referring to this poll
A Monmouth University poll released Monday showed Sanders and Warren effectively tied with Biden, but the survey has a large margin of error and is an outlier compared with other recent national polls, which have usually shown Biden with a lead of at least several points.
As someone who’s been here since the beginning of the whole Reddit debacle you are correct. That’s been their posting style from as far as I can remember.
So, a vast collection of people are just one uniform singular entity in your head?
Just wondering if you literally consider these kind of posts to essentially be one “person”?
The berniebro troll has gotten so much mileage.
Biden won and he was a shit president, the world is worse off for his tenure.
Electing Biden didn’t even stop trump
Biden was a continuation of trump and then he passed the baton right back.
that’s how it felt to me
But Biden won lol the 2016 election is a way better example. Sanders did worse in 2019
Biden won, humanity lost.
YES! The 2016 election had like a 3 Million vote difference, Bernie 13M to Hillary 16M.
2020 was 9 to 19, what an absurd hill to die on.
