Maybe... Maaaaaayyyyyyybeeeee the Democrats need to nominate someone who is actually worth getting excited about instead of just being not-Trump.
Because if voters are excited, they may start voting in primaries...
Every since Obama beat Clinton 15 years ago, party leaders seem more motivated to make sure their pick wins the primary than a Democrat winning the general.
"Moderates" seem ineffictive because they're not trying to just win, they're trying to win by as little as possible. Like a corrupt pro athlete who's not throwing the game, but trying to win by less than the spread.
They know the reason most people vote for moderates like Biden, is if they don't, someone like trump would win. It's just the party leaders would rather trade back and forth than let Dems like FDR win every election for decades.
Ever since Obama beat Clinton 15 years ago
Jesus I thought you were exaggerating and then I did the math
If you think that's bad:
Biden's first presidential primary was 35 years ago...
He was the expected front runner due mainly to his (at the time) exceptional public speaking but got caught plagiarizing speeches, lying about his grades in law school, and even people finding out he cheated while in law school by plagiarising papers.
But everyone forgot about all that because he spent 8 years standing next to Obama. And the only reason he got that job was to make old white people less uncomfortable voting for a Black guy.
That's a great way to put it. Both parties are funded by dark money interests, one drives us to the right and the other keeps us in place. This is described as the ratchet effect
Anyone "worth getting excited about" is going to challenge the status quo too much - even nominally - for the DNC to be okay with it. They are conservative in the descriptive sense. "No-one's standard of living will fundamentally change."
Sorry, the do-something machine is broke. Best we can do is partially fossilized C-Suite moderates.
Well, what if we put RFK Jr beside them, does that make them seem any better?
Well, now you're just being unreasonable.
Not being trump is enough for me. Sure, I’d love someone better. But I’d vote for a wooden brick if it meant america wouldn’t turn into a dictatorship.
Biden may not be exciting, but he's had a surprising amount of policy victories given the deadlock in congress. And he hasn't tried to burn our democracy to the ground to satisfy his own ego, so that's always a plus.
From a non-US standpoint this is rather easy:
You have 2 geriatric options. Option 1 would lead to a dictatorship. Option 2 would lead to the - non-ideal - status quo.
How the fuck do you even have to think about which option would be better???
The Dems have ran non ideal status quo candidates for so long it becomes fatiguing so people stay home or write in Snoop Dogg.
non-ideal over violent civil war
this is not a tough decision, my friend
fuckin find a decent nominee then
In 2020 there were double digits dems in the primary...
In 2024 we're expected to believe the only choice is Biden or a Republican.
If you're pissed "there's no other nominee" be mad at the party leaders who aren't allowing a primary. And realize there's 100s of people qualified to run as a Dem
I always viewed Biden as the lemon I suck on to cleanse my palette between courses, now they want the lemon to be the whole damn meal.
You can't run on having people vote for you just to avoid voting in the enemy. You must get people to vote for you because they want you. One day, a broadly populist Reagan-like Republican candidate will re-appear and he will utterly destroy your country.
Then maybe get a better candidate? I'm pretty sure most sane Americans will vote for anyone not Trump. It's not that hard, just use another candidate.....
one of the biggest issues, in my humble and also arrogant opinion, is that no political party in any English-speaking country, represents any interests of anyone earning under 7 figures. Maybe even 8 figures, and they have 0 interest or motivation in changing that — despite the lip-service both main parties make for it.
Are they "loyal" because they have no other choice? There's your problem.
You'd better believe I'll turn out. I don't care if Biden is sometimes a disaster, I vote D to protect my LGBT friends. Accelerationism only hurts people
I'm 40+, but youngsters are probably thinking, 'Vote for old white guy #1 or old white guy #2, who cares, neither can relate.' I voted for Joe last time only because Bernie wasn't running. I'm thinking Marianne Williamson this time, though. I don't know if Joe will make it, and I definitely don't want Kamala as president. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.
Democrats have done a shit job at selling their victories as well as their vision for the country, as always.
Then come election time they are always wondering why aren't Democratic voters more excited to vote for them.
I am so sick of that same cycle repeating over and over again. Republicans voters are so adamant about getting their people in power that they will break the law and vote twice, and Dem voters aren't excited enough to even show up at the polls.
I also have to add that it's infuriating that the Dems are so splintered of a party that they consider black voters are their most loyal demographic. Nothing against them, but for fucks sakes guys at best black folks only represent 13% of the population. You can't win any elections even if you won every single black vote. They aren't even the largest minority group. Latinos represent just under 20% but many of them support the GOP. Dems need to stop turning their backs on some much larger demographic groups out there. Because they focus on just a few smaller groups, that's why they are always scrounging for votes even in elections that they should have in the bag. It is embarrassing how poorly run the Democratic party is, quite frankly.
so while I'm sure this is a factor it really has to be pointed out that the media really wants to play shit up to keep the batshit GOP viable. It sells papers (clicks, whatever). The WaPo is bad, but when you look at NYT columns it really skews right in a weird and alarming way
As someone who voted Barr-Romney-Johnson-Biden I’m gonna be in the booth pissed I’m voting for Biden again considering the libertarians fully lost the plot and Republicans went full fascist with trump
It's pretty obvious who to vote for considering Republicans are actively attacking our country. Sorry, I don't vote for terrorists.
I'm not going to turn out for Biden. Turns out Aussies are not allowed to vote in the U.S. elections. 🦘
not with that attitude
God, they really think the problem is a lack of outreach and communication huh?
How about y'all fuckn listen?
Are you surprised?
Neoliberals want to run the country like a corporation, and they've been running the party like it was for decades. It's why the most important thing they care about is fundraising.
Whether they do anything or not once elected isn't something they're worried about. They just worry about how to keep getting donations.
So yeah. To them the biggest problem is outreach and communication
Well I'll be there, but it's just because I'd vote for a dead cat over anything the GOP will dredge up.
He was too old the first time, I'm surprised he made it this long. I was under the impression that their plan was to have biden die during his term so kamala became the first woman president.
Democrats only lose if the Democrats beat themselves. And they seem to be trying to do that.
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