this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
213 points (94.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2857 readers
1130 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
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 10 points 2 days ago

"Safe" is how we got fucking Trump and the Turdpublicans running amok. How about we try some socialism, instead of unbridled capitalism?

[–] varyingExpertise@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago

I don't think that is going to be necessary any more.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Tbh Idgaf. I really don't. Show up to the primaries, whoever wins gets my full support. I will volunteer and campaign for that person, whoever it is.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 39 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So they're already trying to throw the 2028 election. For fuck's sake

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blinx615@lemmy.ml 42 points 3 days ago (25 children)

AOC/Walz or Walz/AOC. They would make a killer team.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 100 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Democrats are gonna blow it on a fucking centrist again

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (6 children)

They’re trying to avoid centrists, they want right wing

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Godric@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Organize now and win primaries later. Shove a progressive down the DNC's throat like Trump shoved himself down the RNC's throat in 2016.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

2016, 2020, and 2024 made it obvious the Democratic Party will never let a progressive win the election. They will do whatever they need to do to mess with the election to prevent that from happening. 2016 they manipulated the media heavily, used delegates to manipulate numbers early to build support for her, manipulated graphs to make him seem like he was doing badly, constantly misconstrued Bernie's ideas in media interviews, gave her debate questions, and showed empty podiums Trump would sit at instead of Bernie speeches. 2020 they brought in Bloomberg who only entered to make sure Bernie didn't win, also did some media manipulation, kept trying to coopt some of his ideas in a more watered down form, and then called everyone but Warren, who shared the most voters with Bernie, to drop out at the same time after it looked like he could win. In 2024 they basically didn't even have a primary, with no debates, interviews with candidates, or anything, and even skipped it in some states. Once that process was over, he just handed the candidacy over to his VP.

They will always tip the scales and will never let it be fair if there is a danger of an outsider winning. The Democratic Party is a bunch of donors and industry staffers in a trench coat. I've basically given up on having any hope in it, this last election and it's support for "the most lethal army in the world" while we're enabling a genocide was the last straw.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

HR Clinton and Bernie Sanders were actually neck and neck until she pulled out ahead. It was really close. Then in 2020 far less people voted in the primaries, likely due to defeatism like yours.

Also, Every single dem is a Public Option proponent and wants to overturn Citizens United. It just means fuck all without 60 senate seats.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think every election cycle there's probably people who get jaded, hence all the non-voters.

And it's only 60 senate seats because they've decided it needs it. The majority sets the rules like that, they could make it happen if they wanted to and change them if they wanted to. The only time they've ever done it is to approve some Federal judges. Otherwise, they usually let the Republicans overturn norms, which just makes us go further right.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Godric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Average progressive primary voter: see above

Average centrist primary voter: "Boy do I love phonebanking for Average Centrist #39!"

Who the fuck ever told you politics was fair? Who said change is easy? These things didn't happen randomly, they happened because people had their fingers on the scale because they could put their fingers on the scale. Organize, mobilize, and slam your fist so hard on the scale so hard that change becomes inevitable, or don't and moan about the result.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump won because he threatened to run as an independent and spoil the Republicans chances. The DNC would rather let the Republicans win then let a progressive independent win. If we can't get a real progressive on the ballot, we can't wait for election day to do something about it

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

He won because all the carbon copy neocons split their primary votes enough that he had the biggest plurality for months. He had a solid lead by the time the field narrowed enough

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 30 points 3 days ago (17 children)

Democratic voters need to find their balls and brains to deny the establishment their choice instead of reluctantly getting behind the MSNBC boosted candidate. The best thing we can do for the Democratic party at this moment is criticize the fuck our of establishment bullshit.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 119 points 3 days ago (6 children)

I will vote for whoever isn’t the disgusting republican traitor. But give me fucking AOC, ffs.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I said this at the time, why field a chancy candidate in a country of racists and misogynists unless you wanted to lose?

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

They need to energize their base and most people voting for Democrats are not racist or misogynist enough for the colour of a candidate’s skin to be a major issue. That isn’t why Harris lost and that should be obvious enough.

[–] KelvarIW@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Obama won in 2008 and 2012. An establishment candidate of color, or woman candidate, will fare worse than a white equivalent (like Biden). But a strong leader of color, or woman leader, could absolutely win.

Also Bernie was white and a man, but the DNC had very different reasons for not liking him.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think you have to be a much stronger candidate than Harris was to be either of those things, let alone both. Obama was a very strong personality and he only had one strike against him. And he wasn't running against a social media shitstorm because that whole strategy was still very nascent.

We already saw what happened to Bernie in the 2016 DNC nomination race; he wasn't going to get that close again, they had to pull out all the bullshit DNC fuckery to get Hillary in there.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Harris started really strong, too, but then just had to turn the whole campaign into a Liz Cheney slumber party and couldn’t admit that the obvious genocide in Gaza was a bad thing. She literally just had to let Tim Walz do his thing and it would have gone great.

Establishment Democrats love losing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Guillotine for president 2028

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 99 points 3 days ago (15 children)

They don't want a safe candidate. A safe candidate would be someone who takes broadly popular positions, like Medicare for All, a jobs guarantee, or public internet. They want centrist candidates, which the consultant class has convinced them is safe (and, coincidentally, never take positions that upset the donors), but centrism is the least safe position to take at this point. No one who is watching their wages stagnate while the cost of living skyrockets is thinking, "I hope this can be solved through incremental changes that don't disrupt that status-quo too much!"

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They want centrist candidates, which the consultant class has convinced them is safe

They want centrist candidates and don't care if they're safe.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yep. They want another billion in campaign donations, even if it ends in a loss.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›