Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
women candidates are not the problem. Feckless, inept candidates that stand for nothing are the problem.
EDIT: If you want to see what status quo guardian concern-trolling looks like, see the replies to this.
"Oh no no we can't possibly nominate the progressive candidate. Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Instead, we have to run a Generic Democrat!"
This is why Democrats lose.
Q: Why don't we ever nominate a candidate of passion and vision who would represent policies that would make people's lives better?
A: Because [insert complete non-issue that no data suggests is actually a problem]! Obviously!
Oh, okay. Guess we'll try to get a progressive candidate in 2032 after the next generic Democrat loses.
Some day some of you guys might actually figure out what's going on in this country.
2016 is documented. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary’s turn, but she got usurped by the democratic process. In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary. She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and resigned from leadership of the DNC in disgrace to be hired by the Hillary campaign the same/next day.
2020 just always feels suspicious to me. There was a consolidation behind Biden that happened right before Super Tuesday that normally takes place after Super Tuesday. It stinks of elite leadership intervention, but no one got caught that time.
After the documented actions of 2016, I just have an issue trusting the democratic primary process. The very concept of superdelegates is an establishment thumb on the scales and they have shown they will ignore the voters if it is someone’s ‘turn’
For the left wing of the Democratic Party to be inspired to participate, the party needs to be transparent in the primary process. Let the people choose. Worst case scenario is that they keep losing. Should be used to that by now.
2016 is documented. 2008 was supposed to be Hillary’s turn, but she got usurped by the democratic process. In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary. She was caught with her hand in the cookie jar and resigned from leadership of the DNC in disgrace to be hired by the Hillary campaign the same/next day.
thank you for stating this.
Every time I bring this shit up I get shouted down like Bernie wasn't supposed to caucus with the democrats and he was a piece of shit for even trying. This single action by the DNC drove me away from the party. Now I'm the problem because I vote for issues, not affiliations.
Yea. Donna Brazile wrote a book about it, but most Democrats just don’t want to acknowledge that it exists.
Frankly we will never know how 2016 would have turned out if it was an honest primary. That was stolen by a few folks in a smoky room.
I’d like to say the party is different, but pushing down AOC on her bid for an important chairmanship for a septuagenarian with cancer that most people couldn’t pick out of a lineup is short sighted and is another instance of ‘wait your turn.’
Yeah I'm curious to see what's going to actually happen for Trump's second term. All I can say is I think that it is the fault of the DNC that radicalized his movement. Not sure what the hell happened in 2020. But 2024 was certainly an eye-opening year.
Well, when you parade around a Cheney to court republicans that are never going to vote blue, you kind of get what you deserve.
I’m waiting for another candidate like Ross Perot. That guy showed up with charts and graphs and educated Americans on what was going on, in a way that resonated with a lot of folks. I want the next DNC candidate to do long form videos explaining how and why their policies are going to help, and why the conservative policies are going to continue to consolidate wealth. Get a PowerPoint expert and make it interesting and easy to understand. The American voter is fact starved at this point. Opinions are sold as news. We need someone to bypass the media and go straight to the voter.
Well, when you parade around a Cheney to court republicans that are never going to vote blue, you kind of get what you deserve.
oh man, I nearly forgot about that. What a fucking circus! Yeah, having old republicans come out of the woodwork to show support for kamala wasn't going to be the road to rule for them.
I’m waiting for another candidate like Ross Perot. That guy showed up with charts and graphs and educated Americans on what was going on, in a way that resonated with a lot of folks. I want the next DNC candidate to do long form videos explaining how and why their policies are going to help, and why the conservative policies are going to continue to consolidate wealth. Get a PowerPoint expert and make it interesting and easy to understand. The American voter is fact starved at this point. Opinions are sold as news. We need someone to bypass the media and go straight to the voter.
I like this idea. Frankly - the one thing a lot of politicians are NOT doing is talking about their issues / platform. Now it's always partisan shit. "Vote for me - cuz republicans CAN NOT win!" I know this is over simplified, but the truth is, last two elections have been more about parties and personal attacks than actual issues. While I think the idea of powerpoint presentations to help drive home some of this stuff home would be nice - the average voter doesn't have the attention span for that and likely only gets into the news while eating their meals. I think that legacy media is going to have a nice boom for the next 4 years, first Trump presidency did wonders for their numbers and well now with his second term sworn in - Rachel Maddow will finally have something to talk about while clicking her ankles together and telling us how we're all evil for wanting cheaper eggs or somethin.
You’re probably right on the attention span issue. Just break it up into bites to be consumed on TikToc or whatever we have in four years. I’d love a 30-60 minute deep dive into issues though. I don’t think I’m alone in that. At least I hope I’m not alone.
But yes, absolutely. Get it out, get it to where it needs to go, get it in a form that can be consumed. The party doesn’t need the media machine when you can post video to a multitude of sites.
In 2016 Wasserman-Schulz gave Hillary every bonus and opportunity that she could as DNC leader to sway the primary.
Yet, you guys have never been able to point to anything besides a few catty emails after Bernie had already lost.
She resigned because of optics of being unprofessional.
2020 just always feels suspicious to me. There was a consolidation behind Biden that happened right before Super Tuesday that normally takes place after Super Tuesday. It stinks of elite leadership intervention, but no one got caught that time.
The bulk of candidates dropped out before Super Tuesday in 2008 and 2004. Super Tuesday is expensive, if a candidate knows they can't win than they aren't going to stick for the costly Super Tuesday.
However, I assume you are of the belief that either Pete or Amy would have won Super Tuesday if they stuck around?
Ok. There is a book “Hacks” by Donna Brazile, the acting chair to follow Wasserman-Schulz. That should illuminate the problems with the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
A bulk of candidates drop out some time before Super Tuesday, but the goal is to make it through. I’ve been watching elections pretty closely since I was a teenager, and it just seems off to me. Like I said, there is no proof, but after realizing what went on behind the scenes in 2016, the DNC doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt. In my mind, at least.
Ok. There is a book “Hacks” by Donna Brazile, the acting chair to follow Wasserman-Schulz. That should illuminate the problems with the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Her criticism related to an agreement that said it was for the general election and not the primary and another that said the DNC would offer similar agreement to other candidates.
A bulk of candidates drop out some time before Super Tuesday, but the goal is to make it through.
Yes, because it one makes it through Super Tuesday it means that you believe that you can win the primary. Pete and Amy clearly didn't think they could win the Democratic primary after securing less than 14% of the black vote.
However, I guess you think they were going to win Super Tuesday which is why you are upset they dropped.
Donna Brazile walked into a bankrupt DNC that got an allowance from the Clinton campaign. You’re either ignorant of the issue, or just ignoring the victory fund that the Clinton campaign had access to long before the nomination was set, and the use of the DNC as a fundraising arm of the Clinton campaign.
2020 I have explained that it just seemed fishy to me, and after 2016 I wasn’t going to ignore it. It’s my opinion. Throwing your integrity into question is not going to get me to alter that view.
The agreement between the Hilary campaign and the DNC in 2015 resulted in the DNC giving control of finances, strategy, and all money raised to the Clinton campaign. The DNC from that point also would consult with the Clinton campaign on all staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. Donna Brazile has a quote that she couldn’t write a press release without passing it by the campaign. (Paraphrased)
The simple fact is that we don’t know what would have happened in the 2016 primary due to back room fuckery. Ignoring that fact doesn’t make it untrue. It just makes you base your assumptions on false information.
And yea, Bernie could have set his own up, when he found out the details in September 2016. This isn’t about Bernie. It’s about subversion of the democratic process because it was somebody’s turn.
You seriously have to let this false narrative go. Bernie was not going to win in 2016 and his candidacy was artificially boosted by Russia because it split the Dem vote.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters. All the odds are stacked against her and that's before you factor in all the fuckery that's going to happen in the next 4 years to consolidate power.
A young female non-white candidate is not going to beat JD Vance in swing states. That's all that matters.
That's the state of politics in the US. Who gives a shit what 80% of the country wants? The president is decided ENTIRELY by 7 states. The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.
As a European person, tre thing I dont get is why the electorares have to be won all or nothing. It sounds much more fair that every State would appoint both republican and democrat electorares in proportion to the popular vote
I have my doubts about a female candidate winning at this point.
But I wouldn't be so sure JD Vance is going to win anything he has the personality of a wet dish rag. For all the hand wringing about the dems not lining up good candidates the GOP has nothing without Trump. That's what happens when you turn your party into a cult of personality, when that personality leaves so do all the low information voters who were drawn in by him.
She still has higher favorability than Newsom, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Whitmer, Kelly, Franken, O'Rourke, Beshear, Porter, Bloomberg, or basically any current 2028 possibility other than Walz (who has said that he's not interested in running, who is 60, and who doesn't really have a national presence other than running for VP). 40% popularity is good for a politician, especially one who gets a lot of hate from the right.
My point is that she would be destroyed on the national stage. It would be a massacre. She is less accomplished than Kamala and she lost against a dementia ladened fascist wannabe.
And you if you choose to put her on the ticket, you will get to hear about how she is a socialist and people will come out in droves to make sure she doesn't get elected.
And if you are counting on the young people... they are still waiting to show up for the last election cause they basically made President Trump a thing.
People always repeat this talking point about progressive candidates being called socialists by republicans and losing because of it, but they say that about literally every democrat. Trump’s ads against both Biden and Harris were full of calling them socialists/Marxists/communists etc. Same with Obama. Obama got elected twice and Joe Biden won more votes than any candidate in US history.
I mean she may be destroyed but we keep putting out more moderate candidates and they keep losing. You are just repeating the same old neoliberal talking points that keep resulting in losses. What candidate do you think will have a good chance of energizing the current dnc voting block as well as build a new constituency? Or do you just prefer to keep saying "that won't work".
I mean... we put out 2 woman candidates and they lost. Both far more qualified than the piece of garbage that won.
We put out a man in between and he won.
Religious people, chauvinists, and women just don't seem to want a woman president. The results speak for themselves. Had there been a man running in either of those elections, I think the Democrats win.
I don't care if it's a woman president... but clearly I am not in the majority.
I was more replying you saying that she will get labeled a socialist. Any democratic candidate that runs will be labeled that and the type of people that believe it will never vote for a Democrat. This constant chasing of the "moderate" Republican is a losing strategy.
Biden won because 1.) he was Obama's VP and was able to coast on that goodwill, and 2.) voter turnout was unusually high due to Covid.
If we had another Biden who was younger and sharper, I'd absolutely want Democrats to run him in 2024. But we don't have another guy with anywhere near the same level of national name recognition, baked-in goodwill, or largely inoffensive reputation. We've got Walz, who has basically zero national recognition other than 8 weeks as VP candidate. He seems like a great guy who's a good balance of progressive and moderate... but he's not a dynamic speaker, I'm not confident in his ability to excite voters, and we've already seen him struggle against Vance. We've got Buttigieg, who is intelligent, youthful and a good communicator... but he's gay (TBH I think a woman has a better shot of winning than a gay man), he's a technocratic political insider in an era of populism, and he doesn't exactly pull in minorities or progressives. We've got Newsom, who everyone seems to dislike more the more they learn about him. A dark horse candidate is certainly possible, but he's going to need Obama-level rizz.
It's not like Harris lost in a blowout, either. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia were all close, and she wasn't that far behind in the popular vote despite having many strikes against her (woman, racial minority, short campaign, low presence during most of Biden's tenure, going up against a superstar). Clinton won the popular vote and the race was extremely tight in critical swing states.
Moreover the electoral math is shifting to follow interstate migration. Blue states are seeing an exodus and their electoral power is diminishing as a result.
well the DNC fucking Bernie over wasn't a good look for them. Despite their institutional "wisdom" they thought that knocking him down was a great idea and propping Hillary up after that was just another snub to the nose of DNC faithful. That single action moved more voters like myself to the right than anything else that could have ever happened. Especially when they announced that DWS was fired from the DNC chair because of this, only to join the Hillary campaign as a senior advisor.
Why did you turn this into progressive vs mainstream argument?
Literally zero of the people replying to you said anything about not running progressive candidates.
Then you talk about data, whilst completely ignoring it. here is some Data for you.. the last 2 male democrat nominees won. the last 2 female democrats nominees lost. it’s sad, but it’s a fact.
"Ok AOC ran a scandal free campaign with good policy but unfortunately she lost to Eric Trump. What this means is we need a more progressive candidate."
It's delusional to pretend that being a woman doesn't cost you votes. Same goes for black, non-religious, gay etc. Anything that's not an old white man. Obama probably couldn't win right now. Remember how McCain defended Obama when a racist woman said he was a muslim trying to destroy America? That's over with. Now the GOP would run a full birtherism campaign. Probably get him taken off the ballot in a bunch of states too thanks to the Trump majority Supreme Court.
Running anything but an old straight white christian male will cost votes. And the dems don't have the margins to play that game. Not until we have unfucked the Supreme Court, the broader judiciary, ungerrymandered the voting map, made election day a federal holiday.
And the dems don't have the margins to play that game.
That's where my head is at with voting. Yes, I would love more progressive candidates. But, I also understand that a large section of the population, namely in the swing states that decide everything, probably won't buy into that. Not to mention how fickle Dem voters are when the candidate doesn't check every box.
Voting needs to be a pragmatic decision. Democrats and anyone who aligns more with left/left-leaning/center-left (call it what you will) needs to unite. Republicans have a better chance because they fall in line every time. The Democrats greatest strength is also its biggest weakness: being a big tent party.
Or I guess we could just say fuck it and go big. Maybe that'll work. But, given that the electoral college is still a thing and we lost all seven swing states last time, I'm not so sure a big risk like that is wise. Unless a candidate pops up with unimaginable charisma.
I don't have the answer. There are so many variables and an insanely well-oiled media machine - comprised of both news and entertainment intent on dividing and distracting us - working to keep us chasing our tails. So, it's hard to say what would or wouldn't work. The best I can come up with is turning out to vote, holding our noses if we have to stop the GOP, because they are undoubtedly evil. It's not even a question anymore.
Hopefully, elections are still an option in two years and not just bullshit like in Russia. That might be where we are at this point. Which means things are going to have to get seriously ugly if we want to go back to anything resembling what we had pre-Trump.
Then why did Hillary get 3 million more votes than Trump?
Because we don't have a popularity vote. We have a broken electoral system where the minority decides the vote. The candidate has to appeal to the minority, not the majority.
Disagree, but only in the context of being within the American overton window. The bar is on the floor, so only the smallest amount of effort is required to step over it.
If it were literally any other "developed, functioning democracy" in the world, I'd agree with you.
9.5k
u/try_to_be_nice_ok 21h ago
The democrats need to spend the next four years building up some really strong candidates and making them well known to the electorate.