Too bad that version of Bernie went into hiding for the last four years.
Don't you think it's more that the media has been corrupted? Since Khashoggi was dismembered?
Media has always been partisan and corrupted.
It is absolutely clear now. The DNC is a private company whose main function is to fund raise, period. If they also win an election then that's great, but if it comes to a choice between winning and raising money, they will choose raising money. They will never move to the left to win voters if it will cost them fund raising opportunities from the center and right.
And the rich.
Imo, you've got all the prices. However, I would put them in a different order.
Short answer: Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.
There's a small group of king-makers in the US and the candidate who offers them the most becomes president. Recently, the people who decide who gets to be president has started to include social media companies and amazon, who hosts half the Internet. Trump also cozied up to the American owner of the company the owns tiktok. Thats how he won. Trumps also great for social media engagement and news channel views.
Even candidates who happen to be better than the republican candidate, no democratic hopeful worth being of "the left" will ever be given enough money to become the president of America. Even if they started from a position that would appeal to them, they would have to compromise on everything that made them that in order to be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse by the American ultra wealthy.
What you're seeing isn't the failure of the Democrats to correctly triangulate but the strength of the American ultra wealthy consent manufacturing machine.
I don't disagree those factors are at play, but they're not as important as you seem to think in this day and age.
Bernie had real grassroots support and the dems stomped it out. The key is populist rhetoric and speaking about change, the DNC has basically been running on "not Trump" and "well things are bad but they would be worse under Trump." while that is true, that's not a winning message, give people something real to fight for and you'll win support.
This honestly makes so much more sense than anything else. I think you nailed it. Republicans are motivated by money and exerting social control so they write up manifestos (p2025), take over the courts, work hard to disenfranchise voters, lie, cheat, anything is on the table. The DNC does indeed seem fairly comfortable with losing by comparison, despite the fact that the leftist ideals they supposedly dabble in create a moral imperative to never lose. I wonder if Republicans fucking pay the DNC money to run these candidates we all know aren't the best. They're just good enough to get votes against mother fucking Trump. But not always good enough to win, barely good enough when they are, typically.
It's downright sad that I can't think of any argument against this.
I'm not thrilled with the DNC either, but I'm not buying this whole idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot on purpose. The DNC does better when they win elections.
In previous elections, the candidate that raised the most money was more likely to win. Also, a moderate Democrat won the last election. They made the decisions they made in this election cycle because they thought it was their best chance of winning.
I don't have access to the data that they have to determine whether the leftist that Lemmy wants on the ticket could actually win the general.
I'd certainly like to believe that it's just that simple and all the DNC needs to do is put up a pro-Palestine Democratic Socialist and the election is in the bag... I just don't know if that's the reality on the ground. If that is not the reality on the ground, are the leftists that stayed home still committed to their protest? Or is there a point at which they would admit that we haven't had a true leftist on the ticket because a true leftist is not viable?
I hope someone can put together some clear data to answer that question soon... I'm afraid that a pro-Palestine Socialist will get crushed by AIPAC funded attack ads about Marxism and supporting terrorism that will really stick with moderates, and that no matter how energized the base is it wouldn't be enough to win the general.
I am not saying that they are losing on purpose. I'm saying that they are making decisions about policies and candidates based on fund raising rather than on attracting voters. On purpose or not, they did shoot themselves in the foot by courting disaffected Republican voters. Everyone knew they were not going to win a lot of those voters, but they sure did rake in a lot of dough. I believe that is their primary motivation.
I mean the Republicans are doing the same. Lining their pockets as they make decisions. Why is it so foreign to do with one costume rather than the other?
Bernie is a leftist politician. The Democrat party is not a liberal leftist party, they're a conservative corporatist party.
Further, Bernie is a progressive whereas Dems are status quo
Dems imbraced the race to the bottom instead of being a true opposition party. I voted for them this time around but never again unless they make a platform surrounding core left prencipals and left leadership. Many within my communities gave up on political means to help their communities and threw themselves into volunteering, activism, and self sustainability. You can't demand bottomless support and obedience from your base while ignoring their cries for help.
Dems said they are the party of science and facts but wouldn't support universal health care or simply stop sending weapons to Isreal. If they were just as ravenous as republican are, can you honestly say we couldn't achieve those good things?
Dems said the Supreme court and justice system was courupt, but never even investigated the court or made cuts to the militarization of the police forces. Police are still killing people at the same rates with no real accountability. If the Supreme Court was left leaning Republicans would have expanded the court to make it right leaning.
Just do what Republicans do to get there way but for good. I honestly can't think of one dem policy that has been as impactful as some of the top Republican changes in the past 50 years.
Ultimately we need to come together and demand better because if the dems don't change it'll be 50 more years of being steamrolled.
Honestly, your democratic party is very right wing to most of European. And you saying people give up on politics and turn to sctivism is so sad.
If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.
The government and the companies in the US work together as legal shields protecting the wealthy and money siphoning systems from the public to the wealthy.
For example: Johnson&Johnson poison babies with asbestos in their talc baby powder. Instead of the Johnson family losing money or facing any consequences, the company and its employees bear the repercussions. The government investigates at its own pace and might be defunded in the areas relating to investigations. The government doesn't guarantee health care so people don't even know they have issues from asbestos because they can't even go in to be diagnosed without significant cost. Accessing legal help for a class action can also be difficult. These large companies also have huge legal teams to defend them. And then the government also gives tax breaks to Johnson and Johnson, and nearly free publicly funded research from university research and students who not only paid to go to school, but don't receive money for these student publications. And then J&J can take that research and profit off it.
America is a giant work camp.
If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.
Facilitating the transfer of wealth to the richest fraction of the population.
If the government doesn't take care of his poor, minorities, what are they doing.
Grifting and insider trading.
Thats what they get for squeezing Bernie out and giving the people garbage candidates. Eat it, you fools.
More voters should have listened to Bernie.
He told people what to do.
In hindsight it seems obvious, but to be honest I really thought Kamala would have fared better.
To me the main takeaway is that I live in a completely separate reality from most voters. I would have voted on a dead dog over Trump. He is mean, narcissistic and never shows any empathy. On top of that he is clearly losing his wits. If a majority of voters prefers a candidate like this, is even enthusiastic to vote for him, what can you do?
I also know that Lemmy skews left, but I think we have to face the fact that most voters have no ability to empathise with those worse off. There is no left wing politics without empathy and solidarity. What most of us here want is dead.
Is the majority enthusiastic to vote for him? His own campaigning rallies were a snorefest, as far as we saw.
For me the main "a-ha" here is that so many people apparently still believe his stupid story that he is a guy who makes deals to fix the economy. Instead of a con-man. I have no idea why democrats were not able to destroy this "economic leader" image that he has built. Or why Harris and Walz did not focus on the issue every poll in the last month did say was the most important one: the economic situation.
We all did, you're not wrong.
It's a sad reality we all woke up to on Wednesday. Learning that the majority of Americans are ignorant, racist, misogynistic, selfish assholes.
When you mean "all", I wonder who you group in that conception.
Not all of us believed Kamala would win. A good group of people were calling out Kamala's shit since the DNC, and everything since. With the direction of the campaign, you had a good chance to predict Kamala's underperformance.
Let's not kid ourselves here.
We all did
No, we did not "all" think so, a lot of us have been saying this for quite a while. In fact since at least the 2016 election cycle started in 2015.
This is what many said in 2016 after Clinton lost but we still did it again in 2020 and yet again in 2024. If I were a betting man I'd say that if there's sill an election worth having in 2028 we'll see another, even further right leaning, centrist Democrat win the nomination.
We tried. Biden's Build Back Better bill had a lot of pro-working class stuff in it. We just couldn't pass it with Manchin and Sinema resisting.
Details are important.
Yeah, and maybe if progressive voters showed up en Masse we wouldn't have had to rely on those two. Imagine that progressives. Imagine that...
This is about messaging, not policy. Most people don't really pay attention to actual policy, so it's more about convincing your average Joe you're working for them. Bernie had that, Biden and Harris didn't.
I think the inherent problem with the build back better deal is it's still framed within the neoliberal trickle down economics of post Regan America.
Would it have increased some workers protections and child care, sure. But it would ultimately be a gift to the shareholders and owners of corporations able to tap into the 3 trillion dollars of funding.
Americans are tired of progressive bills that vicariously improve their lives by further bribing the economic class that actually have their boots on our necks.
People are tired of seeing headlines that the American economy is doing fine while they struggle to put food on the table. Nobody cares if your bosses retirement portfolio is breaking records when they have to pull overtime to maintain the same quality of life they had 20 years ago.
The screams of "Dems need to move right" (not from Bernie, obv) are fucking clown shoes and hilarious. She was running around with Liz and Dick Motherfucking Cheney. There's no more right to move to without literally just embracing Trump.
But here's the thing: libs keep cutting their noses off. Why would the actual left give the DNC the fucking time of day? They raise a billion fucking dollars, light it all on fire and go out to brunch. They co-opt movements like the Floyd uprising and metoo but leave everyone else to do the actual work. When we need bodies in the streets, when we need material support, when we fucking TELL THEM WHAT POLICIES WILL WORK FOR US, they spout some 1950s realpolitik bullshit and have some more wine.
Biden: you're immune. Have some fun with it. Show us you have skin I the game. $100 says he keeps up this "when they go low we go high" bullshit and does somewhere between nothing and the bare minimum.
I mean, why would the DNC give he left the time of day?
Passed biggest climate bill, forgave most student loans in history, rescheduled weed, etc. And yet? It's never good enough nor enough to give them a chance to do more.
All with a threadbare Senate majority with two "independent" dems and only two years of a house majority.
They raise a billion fucking dollars, light it all on fire and go out to brunch.
This is the most infuriating part, and it made me happy I kept replying STOP to all their fucking "ZOMG 10X MATCHING" texts. They blew all that money and their political consultant cronies made out like bandits. They outraised and outspent Trump and have fuck all to show for it.
I recently tried to explain to Lemmy that non-white working class voters see their social program as weird and off putting. I was downvoted to oblivion just for honestly relating an opinion from people these chronically online "allies" would never hear from, because they simply don't associate with seamstresses/fruit packers/construction site crossing guards etc. Not to mention the majority of these folks can't speak any language but English.
Tell my Chilean wife how she is going to make more money tomorrow than she did today and she will listen. Tell her she is a bigot because she believes that it takes more than "feeling like" a women to actually "be" a woman and she will stop listening. That is what just happened here.
I am from a different cultural context than her and I tend to believe what the people who study these issues have to say ie: gender affirming care saves lives. But to say that this one issue determines a persons entry or exclusion from our ever shrinking tent is political suicide, no matter how much we might wish that wasn't the case.
WHAT SOCIAL PROGRAM?? The Democrats didn't run on any of this woke mind virus bullshit you're complaining about. Trans people were the target of choice for the conservatives despite being basically a miniscule sliver of the population and Democrats just mumbled some generic pablum about privacy and compassion before changing the topic as quickly as possible. In no remote sense was "trans rights" a purity test for the Democrats, as clearly evidenced by all the fucking Republicans involved in the campaign.
This is just divorced from reality, and maybe that's the real sentiment you two have landed on, but it's not because the Democrats did anything to foster it.
TIL I'm a fucking historian, apparantly
It's amazing how much shit is obvious if one pays attention to the big picture and follow the current trends towards their natural conclusions
This shit really was obvious all along, and I don't even live in the US
That’s great analysis except for one detail… what progressive policies?! Like ceding the “border issue” to the republicans? Like backpedaling on fracking when they needed votes from PA? I voted for her because she was the only option but in no universe was her campaign progressive.
I think they mean that her running mate did some progressive stuff as governor. Or maybe we're just so far right now that referring to LGBT as if they're human beings counts as being progressive
The build back better bill had Republicans calling fixing roads instead of letting them collapse progressive. The 'middle' point on infrastructure seems to be 'let some roads and buildings collapse' like that apartment building in Florida. Roads are something even libertarians want the government to do. It literally doesn't matter what dems say, Republicans will have the media calling it progressive to demonize it.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News