The democrats haven’t held a legitimate primary since 2008!

In 2008 it was a genuine competition between Obama, Hillary, and a handful of other lesser known politicians. Obama won the general in a landslide.

In 2012 Obama ran unopposed. Obama won the general.

In 2016 the democrats rigged the primary against sanders for Hillary, and to absolutely no one’s surprise who was paying attention, Hillary lost the general. Why? she didn’t genuinely win the primary. Shocking!

In 2020, refusing to learn mistakes from 2016, the democrats once again screwed over bernie and didn’t run a legitimate primary - rigged it so that all the candidates except no-path-to-win Warren exited the race to split the progressive vote away from bernie. Joe biden won by the skin of his teeth, and he would of lost if it weren’t for the country reacting to trumps handling of covid.

In 2024, once again refusing to learn the democrats didn’t even bother with a primary, ran an old demented geezer as a presidential candidate, realized that wasn’t going to work, and then anointed unelected Kamala Harris who didn’t even need to compete in a primary.

And they’re shocked they lost?! These people make way too much money to be this stupid.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    163·
    2 months ago

    He’s obviously not…

    But if the entire existence of American politics hasn’t been enough to show you that “lesser of two evils” is a losing strategy, I’m not sure how I’m gonna manage it.

    Taking the Dem party to the right doesn’t work, we just keep doing it because the DNC only cares about donations raised. They cater the party to billionaires and not voters.

    • OwlPaste@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      2 months ago

      And trump really cares about the voters by passing laws that help them and not the billionairs who financed his campaign?

      I am from UK, don’t really like labour but seriously another conservative government would leave us far, far worse off than plain do nothing shit. It’s not rocket science to figure out who will want to at the least do nothing instead you know sell off your already rubbish worker rights, broken healthcare and now reproductive rights…

      Anyway this is a depressing day

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        2 months ago

        But if the entire existence of American politics hasn’t been enough to show you that “lesser of two evils” is a losing strategy, I’m not sure how I’m gonna manage it.

        It doesn’t work, it’s the definition of insanity to keep trying it knowing it doesn’t work while refusing to run a young charismatic candidate with a progressive campaign when we know that works.

        • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
          3·
          2 months ago

          Running a candidate that genuinely wins a primary! That’s the whole point of my post! If democrats want to win then engage in democracy!

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            43·
            2 months ago

            I’ve noticed…

            The last young charismatic candidate with a progressive platform was 2008 Obama.

            But like I said, if you still don’t understand why “lesser of two evils” isn’t working, there’s nothing I can say here that will magically make it click for you.

            • OwlPaste@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              2 months ago

              So the answer there is to pick the worst initially? Like how would that be helpful?

              But more than that, what annoys me more is that this time around (so far) there were 18 million fewer votes. That hits hard 😭😔

            • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
              32·
              2 months ago

              It’s not about Obama, it’s about the fact that he had to compete in a free and fair primary against numerous competent competitors and came out on top. Sure he was the first black president which helped his numbers but he won 2008 because he had to compete in a competitive primary and won the will of the voters running up to the general.

              We don’t need another Obama, we need a competitive candidate that beats out other competitive candidates.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                It was very much about Obama which was the biggest issue.

                We needed a movement and got a disappointing man.

                And after that man’s 8 years ran up, we had no plan and Hillary filled the void and we still haven’t recovered.

                If Obama had appointed DNC leadership instead of ignoring the party, trump would never have become president the first time.

                • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
                  12·
                  2 months ago

                  Not 2008 Obama who was campaigning on a message. The Obama we ended up with was a nearly immediate disappointment. I think he lost all of his crossover support when he appointed the bankers into his cabinet while they wrecked the economy and destroyed the middle class with their legalized gambling.

                  The point I’m making all along is Obama, along with Hillary and numerous other competent qualified candidates, all had to compete for the nomination, giving us the strongest competitor for the general, which was won in a landslide. Even if Obama were a white man he would of likely won in similar margins because he had a relevant message to voters that didn’t boil down to “I’m not the other guy”.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        32·
        2 months ago

        Lesser of evils is a losing strategy because soon enough you’re asking people to choose the lesser evil between Hilter and Mussolini.