Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members

  • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Jimmy Carter did-- Ted Kennedy challenged him for the 1980 presidential nomination. The result was them doing so much damage to each other that the ultimate winner of the primary (Carter) came out battered and bruised, giving Reagan the edge he needed to win the general. And we all know how well that worked out for the planet. (Spoiler alert: horrifically.)

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was the opposite tho…

      That was “moderate” party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.

      That fucked America up reeeeeeeally badly. But the people who decided to do it got what they wanted: an excuse to tell voters that progressives can’t win.

      • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was “moderate” party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.

        Wait, what? I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time. And Ted Kennedy wasn’t some perfect progressive hero, he had some pretty major blemishes on his record like Chappaquiddik. So I always saw it as more pointless infighting than any kind of centrist-vs-progressive showdown like 2016.

        Then again, my parents were in high school when all this was going down, so my knowledge is obviously pretty limited, lol.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Carter is our most progressive president since FDR…

          The “moderates” were the ones running the party that allowed a primary…

          I thought my comment was pretty clear, but hopefully that’s clearer

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not everyone’s American and not everyone knows history from 42 years ago of foreign countries.

            • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Also, OP’s ignoring that Kennedy was also a progressive hero, too. The primary was progressive vs. progressive-- which is part of the reason it’s remembered today as the poster child of pointless infighting that did nothing but benefit the opposition. I’ve literally never heard anyone here in the States have OP’s take on the primary until this thread.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Reading it again the confusion is in Canada the party leader is basically the PM candidate.

                I guess in the US the president is not the party leader. Without that knowledge, you don’t know what’s going on.

              • toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, things like primary challenger and stuff like that aren’t really terms non-Americans are familiar with. I also wasn’t quite sure which of the two people I didn’t know was the progressive one.

                • Zaktor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The kicker to this is that Kennedy was also super progressive. The whole statement doesn’t really make sense to politically engaged Americans either, it was just a “The Party allowed a progressive to challenge a progressive”. Ted Kennedy was a powerful enough politician that the party didn’t need to allow him to run. He was basically royalty (brother of John F. Kennedy) and an untouchable institution in the state he represented. Carter had really terrible approval ratings (28%) and Kennedy had presidential ambitions.

                  • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This. Look how angry people still are about the DNC’s percieved favoritism towards Hillary in 2016. Imagine the backlash if Bernie had been flat-out barred from running in the primaries against her. Now imagine Bernie’s last name is “Kennedy”, and it’s less than a decade after JFK and RFK were murdered.

                    Yeah, the DNC basically had no choice but to let him challenge Carter.

          • Zaktor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ted Kennedy, champion of the moderates, is very much not a self-obvious implication.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I explicitly said the problem was the party leaders allowing a primary.

              That was “moderate” party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.

              That fucked America up reeeeeeeally badly. But the people who decided to do it got what they wanted: an excuse to tell voters that progressives can’t win.

              Sink two progressives in one blow, and hope you get a moderate in 4 years.

              If Carter did 8, Kennedy would have likely been president next, maybe for another 8 years. Moderates were losing the party. Having a republican beat a weakened Carter let them tell voters that the party had to move right and that progressives couldn’t win.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                In Canada the leader of the party is basically the PM (Prime Minister) candidate. One and the same.

                So reading those words would mean that the PM, who is the party leader, would have had to allow a challenger. (which isn’t how it works here, but anyway.)

      • DreamerOfImprobableDreams@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        hat was “moderate” party leaders trying to sabotage a progressive at any cost.

        Wait, what? I thought Jimmy Carter was considered really progressive for his time. And Ted Kennedy wasn’t some perfect progressive hero, he had some pretty major blemishes on his record like Chappaquiddik. So I always saw it as more pointless infighting than any kind of centrist-vs-progressive showdown like 2016.

        Then again, my parents were in high school when all this was going down, so my knowledge is obviously pretty limited, lol.