WanderWisleyThe next 24-48hrs is going to be an entertaining meltdown.
KelvarCherry [They/Them]I hope what we take most from this is that 2026, 2028 is NOT “too early” or “too high stakes” for an ACTUAL progressive campaign. The DNC has used that argument 3x with Trump and lost said elections twice (only winning 2020 because Trump bombed w/ Covid-19). I’m certain we’ll hear it again in the next two national elections.
Having a competent populist leftist politician is not a detraction. Quite the opposite. NO to Gruesome Newsom
Just to be very clear, the DNC leadership is antagonistic to our (I assumed) shared goals.
The Democrats are obviously what needs to be supported in a 2 party system, so regardless of the DNC antics, the sacrifice for not choosing them will be more severe, and they know that.
I’m saying this all to say, absolutely support a progressive candidate if you can in the primaries, but when it comes election time, fall in line.
Also, there is a big problem where Mamdani is supremely clever and fast on his feet, having practiced every comeback a million times in the shower, ready to let them rip on command.
At the federal there is no one with that level of natural charisma or wit.
That’s something important to point out.
I’m saying this all to say, absolutely support a progressive candidate if you can in the primaries, but when it comes election time, fall in line.
No.
A candidate campaigns for MY vote.
The Democratic establishment can prove they aren’t an obstacle to progress, me blindly voting for them is no longer a grace I automatically extend to a party hellbent on sabotaging progressives even if it means losing to literal fascists.
Sure, and compromise is inherent to democracy. So go vote for who you want in the primaries, and vote against who you don’t want in the general.
Any/every democracy?
I meant to imply the USA does not have one.
Last time this primary vs general was paid attention to (internationally at least), it was because Bernie was about to out-primary Hillary and then the Democrats figuratively put their thumb on the scale and gave it to Hillary.
I absolutely understand even a dead rat would be better president than the Pedophile in Chief you have now. But the people of the USA barely have a very indirect path to elect their representatives… this is a democracy like Cheetos are “food”
Okay. I meant to imply that any democracy (practically by definition) is based on compromise, which is why I said that straight up instead of snarkily trying to bash the USA.
As for the Hillary-Bernie thing… At then end of the primary, Hillary had like 3 million more votes than Bernie did. Notably, Bernie conceeded to Hillary and even campaigned for her, because he knew that she was much better than trump, and democracy is inherently a compromise.
Okay. I meant to imply that any democracy (practically by definition) is based on compromise, which is why I said that straight up instead of snarkily (and unhelpfully) bashing the USA.
I’m sorry but not recognizing the flavour of democracy the USA has is broken is a problem. It’s like telling starving kids of Gaza that broccoli is a nutritious snack… that may be true but the issue is not they are picky eaters, the problem is that there is no food
As for the Hillary-Bernie thing… At then end of the primary, Hillary had like 3 million more votes than Bernie did. Notably, Bernie conceeded to Hillary and even campaigned for her, because he knew that she was much better than trump, and democracy is inherently a compromise.
Here you go: nbcnews.com/…/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-w…
I’m sorry
No you aren’t, don’t lie.
…not recognizing the flavour of democracy the USA has is broken is a problem.
I never claimed that democracy in the US wasn’t broken. If you think I did, please point specific statements.
Here you go…
How many votes did Bernie get in the primary, and how many did Hillary get? I can understand being upset about the results of the primary if Bernie had received more votes than Hillary, and then the DNC nominated Hillary anyway, but that didn’t happen. He lost the primary, and thus he was not the candidate. He knows that democracy is a compromisea, and he not just voted for, but publicly supported and campaigned for Hillary after he lost the nomination.
I’m sorry
No you aren’t, don’t lie.
It’s an expression… I am not sorry, I have nothing to be sorry for, neither do you, we are just debating
I never claimed that democracy in the US wasn’t broken. If you think I did, please point specific statements.
You offered a solution based on a working democracy which is not the case here… why do you offer one if you know it won’t work? Again, following my analogy… why would you offer broccoli for the kids in Gaza when there is none?
How many votes did Bernie get in the primary, and how many did Hillary get?..
How many votes did Bernie lost when the Democrats said Hillary would be chosen regardless? From the link you did not read:
The Cook Political Report estimated late last month that Clinton’s early advantage with superdelegates meant that she effectively started the race eight points above Sanders in the race to get enough delegates to secure the nomination.
Superdelegate have never swayed a primary. Not once. And since the blowback from the 2016 primary, they have changed the rules to ensure that they will never subvert the will of the voters.
The idea that there was some groundwell of support for Bernie that was discouraged from voting at all because the meanie superdelegates had announced who they supported is baseless. Bernie could have faught it out if he got more votes than Hillary. All those governors and former office holders that had those votes had not cast them yet and pledging to support a candidate is not the same as casting your vote at the convention. They might have thought twice about supporting Hillary if she was only getting 48% to Bernie’s 52. That would have been an actual thumb on the scale.
We will never know, because the primary voters wanted Hillary, just like the general election voters.