The DNC hasn't had a real primary since 2008. That's the real problem.
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
134 points (88.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3087 readers
909 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Well of course they didn't, they got their asses kicked. From what I saw they ran the Hillary Clinton 2.0 campaign.
"No primaries until you vote for the candidate on your plate"
[removed by mod]
Frankly, Trump’s policies will have some very strong negative consequences if he follows through on them.
Trump plans to destroy the United States governmental system and become a king, with the power to kill his opponents and remove anyone's ability to ever challenge his hold on power without bringing down the full weight of a multi-trillion-dollar punitive system down upon themselves. Probably he will imprison or kill anyone who tries to disobey him. Also, he's explicitly allied himself with violent foreign adversaries who view us as an enemy that needs to be exterminated.
I would call that negative consequences. It's not guaranteed that he will succeed, but that's what he's planning, and he has some powerful allies who are going to try to help him with it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Every single staffer took their money and failed at delivering what was expected of them. In companies, board of directors would demand clawbacks
How could they try to gaslight people who refused to compromise their ethics into believing that it's their fault without pretending to have run a flawless campaign?
[+]
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
(3 children)
[deleted]
I think far too many people see the price of groceries, fall for the GOP line that it's Biden's fault (and that deporting all illegal immigrants will help) and think Trump will save the day.
Like, yeah, post-covid recovery has been hard. Mostly stagnant wages don't help. People feel that. Unfortunately it's harder to feel the fact that other countries are feeling the exact same things, often worse than we are, so they vote for some weird nostalgia for the days when things were better under Trump.
Sanders said it perfectly in his open letter after the election.
While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they're right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Democrats just didn't do enough to make people believe that their lives would change for the better from them. Continuing the status quo is not something they wanted to hear.
I can agree with that. People are so sick of things they want a disruptor. It's hard to present yourself as that when you're currently in office.
Going to the comment I replied to, most people don't really know or care enough about what's going on in Palestine right now. Not that that shouldn't, just that they don't (but admittedly those who do could be critical in Michigan). Medicare for all is certainly a disruptive idea, but it's only a piece of what makes a person a disruptor. One that I'd bet not everyone fully understands.
I think Palestine was a demotivating factor for a lot of people, Michigan was still a pretty incredible outlier, but Trump picked up Muslim and Arab American voters across the board. A deciding factor? No, but a factor.
Now immigration... I've talked to people who've voted democratic by rote for their entire lives who voted for Trump over immigration. It was an extremely effective talking point that was ignored by Dems early on, then ceded to Republicans.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Only a vocal, very noisy minority care about Palestine. The rest pretend to care to avoid being "cancelled". And the narrow voting marging showed that.
People are hurting, economically, and a lot of those people chose the person who is NOT in office, ie they voted against the incumbent who is telling them everything is fine and to stop whining.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think you overestimate how much Americans care about Palestine or foreign affairs in the wake of post covid inflation.
[+]
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
(1 children)
[deleted]
I disagree. Kamala could have cried 'from the river to the sea' or even 'free Palestine now!' I really don't think it would have made those reluctant democrats get off their couches. The apathy goes beyond foreign affairs and you're overestimating the general populace. Online discussions of geopolitics don't mirror the real conversations Americans are having. So whire IP is big here, I hardly believe my Mom who is a dem is thinking about it much. Its really the grocery bill.
It would have convinced a sizeable [Arab] American citizens to vote, rather than stay home to avoid voting for Genocider A or Genocider B.
If they weren't going to vote for the party focused on brokering a peace deal and instead chose to enable the one that wants to effectively glass all of Palestine, then it wasn't ever going to be an issue regardless of what K said.
Neither party is interested in brokering a y deal that doesn't include Israel genociding Palestinians.
Biden could have ended it by ceasing arms transfers, which he is legally required to do, since it was found the arms were to be used to aid a genocide. That's US law.
We're all familiar with the Leahy law talking point. I get it. Thank God Biden wasn't running for president, and Kamala was on the ticket. I see we are still stuck on equating Kamala with Trump in terms of IP policy. This understanding is juvenile and betrays any chance for moving forward into a meaningful conversation. Have a good one.
Harris said she would let Israel keep doing it's thing, and just talk about it.
That's essentially "funding the genocide", no matter how you split it.
And yes, people decided to NOT choose between two pro-genocide candidates. You are, of course, free to ignore that, and act still confused about why she lost support in cities with large Arab populations.
load more comments
(1 replies)
About 8 million [Arab] Americans cared enough to stay home, from voting.
See: Detroit, Dearborn, and several other Midwest cities with large [Arab] American citizens who stayed home, and depressed the vote there.
Very few votes would be lost by shutting off Israel. Most Americans do not care. But there were votes to be won by supporting Palestine.
, Israel no longer have the right to defend itself. I will immediately call on President Biden to suspend any and all military aid to Israel.
The 2nd thing may or may not have helped. The 1st thing would be an absolutely stupid thing to say that would have been a major win for Treason Trump.
“As president, I ensure every American has access to healthcare by calling on Congress to pass legislation that would make Medicare For All a reality in America.”
This would have been a good idea.
view more: next ›