They won’t. The party exists to serve the rich.
Yeah, they know, and it scares them.
There’s a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016
This has been on my mind every time the DNC tries to position themselves as a party for the people. As far as I’m concerned, they showed their hand, and apparently they thought no one would notice.
There is nowhere to run.
Democrats = the party of the rich
Republicans = the party of the rich
MAGA = the grift of the richWe’re going to be voting for the lesser evil for at least a few more cycles. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea not to vote though.
We can be so much more creative than that. There are mountains of actions we can take in addition to voting to change things.
Why should we accept that the only people we can vote for are evil? Every US election has been this way for at least 20 years now. One less than the other everytime (depending on perspective) but if the only options are widely seen as evil, we must do something to change this.
We don’t have to accept it—that’s what primaries are for. But there are people out there who lose the primary and then they just don’t vote—that is the time people should choose the lesser of two evils. Simply not voting is just giving up the tiny shred of control you actually have.
Of course, if you feel strongly about a candidate, it is a good idea to make calls, put up signs, or anything else to help them win. But, as we saw with Bernie, even a massive grassroots effort isn’t always enough.
if some people here are any indication, there are a bunch of people who didnt actually notice.
Just remember Bernie’s legacy…
As I see it, he won the nomination. More people voted for him, and the super delegates fucked it all up. The party even admitted this back in 1982 that their intention is to prevent “outlier candidates” from securing a nomination. The Democratic Party is very undemocratic until we can toss superdelegates altogether. I say that, but it doesn’t appear to have worked for the Republican Party either, they just shrug and toss out all the votes regardless of who won in their caucuses. Look at Ron Paul in Iowa 2008, obviously won by a large enough percentage to eliminate the margin for error…but fuck it. Iowa’s Republican chair handed it over anyway and when the news was published he just “resigned” and the damage was already done.
That sentiment that it scares them though, has happened before to BOTH parties. 1890 had both parties on the run as we were embroiled in shooting battles against law enforcement due to working conditions and pay.
1
Almost all of the head to head polls Had Bernie doing better than Hillary
He also won the Wisconsin primary and the Michigan primary in spite of the DNC leadership and propaganda machine being firmly behind Hillary from the beginning.
Hillary lost those states, ultimately costing her the election, and there’s no indication that Bernie would have lost any of the states she won.
I’m pretty sure Bernie won a lot of primaries. He got 72% of the vote in Washington: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/primaries/washington
Edit: Yeah he won quite a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Yup, he did, and he would have won the general.
They singled out those two states because they were ones Hillary lost in the general
I agree. If a democrat ran up and garroted Jeff Bezos, or went all Tanya Harding on Elon Musk’s knees, I would vote for them.
Literally, if a politician was imprisoned for firebombing a billionaires house I would be intrigued by their campaign.
nah, they’re gonna make fun of Trump for being broke with childish nicknames instead. sink down to his level while making him sound more relatable to all the broke people they want to vote for them. sometimes i think they’re trying to lose.
Anyone from poor decaying rural America has had enough conversations with republicans with oddly class related philosophies to feel this comment hard
Generally speaking, they do want to lose. If they actually ran on their universally popular policies, they’d win majorities large enough to where they wouldn’t have excuses to not enact their legislative mandate, which is at odds with what their corporate donors want.
This is exactly it. The only thing they truly run on is vote for us or it’ll be even worse. They say nice things, but they have no intention of enacting most of them.
Their campaign is literally “It’ll be worse under the other guy.”
Losing now is the best way for them to win in four years. It is how it has been for decades. When’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates? It’s a neverending metronome, except the needle moves more to the right each time.
Assuming that we’ll have fair elections in 4 years if Trump wins may prove to be one of the worst mistakes this country’s voters have ever made.
When was the last time there was a fair election? Both parties conventions cram the most unpopular candidates down your throats, and always slowly sliding to the right.
Just because something is bad doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse. Look at elections in Russia and China if you need inspiration.
You think it can get worse than an 80 year old Zionist vs an 80 year old fascist?
Yes, I literally gave you 2 glaring examples that you blatantly ignored. Since you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith at this point ill proceed to ignore you.
Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Dude we’re unprecedented territory and that is basically a gambler’s fallacy. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the patterns of the past will continue. For example, Biden already disrupted the power of the Incumbent president and ousted Donald short of 2 terms, which itself is a rarity not seen since Carter.
“Worse than the other guy” is basically all that people can take at this point, and I think the best argument going into the election. It works because it’s one of the only arguments against valid criticisms of Biden. “Yes, he is old; but he is better than the other guy for x, y, and z.” Nothing wrong with this strategy.
I do agree that Democrats need to punch back harder, though.
I do agree that Democrats need to punch back harder, though
Specifically, they desperately need to punch Netanyahu in the face and cut off arms shipments, because polling shows that people in the US are pissed as hell that we are enabling genocide and Netanyahu repeatedly publicly humiliates Biden in a way that could not be a more obvious sign that Netanyahu is banking on Trump winning.
I honestly hope you’re right, so would you mind linking me to that polling?
My concern is this: Last I checked a majority of Jewish Americans are still pretty sympathetic to Israel, and the Biden administration must toe the line between pissing off Palestinian Americans and Progressives, and a large traditionally-loyal voting bloc that is Jewish Americans.
If Democrats pivot hard against Netanyahu, they run the risk of Republican ads appealing to low-education voters that, “Biden is sympathetic to Hamas and has no sympathy for October 7th, undermining the defense of Israel and risking another terrorist attack! iS BiDen an aNtiSeMiTe!?”
So from a strategic standpoint, I completely understand the predicament the Biden strategists are in. Obviously you can tell they want to distance themselves from Israel and Netanyahu but not without undermining an essential voting bloc and letting the literal fascist in office who DEFINITELY does not care remotely about being complicit in genocide.
More than one in three Americans believe Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians, a poll published on Wednesday has found.
According to the Economist/YouGov poll, roughly equal numbers of adults believe Israel’s military campaign against Palestinians, which is estimated to have killed more than 25,000 people since 7 October, amounts to genocide: 35% say it is, 36% say it isn’t, with 29% undecided.
Let me be clear, the undecided respondents weren’t sure if they should call what Israel is doing genocide not that they agree with it (which means if they are undecided about using such a strong word, they definitely don’t agree with it). This was from a poll more than a month old, the amount of evidence of Israel committing genocide on Palestinians has only been tragically mounting everyday, that poll taken in the US today in all likelihood would show even less support for children being slaughtered on mass.
Biden is making a massive failure by standing behind Israel because while the mainstream media in the US is in lockstep behind Israel, in general USians aren’t fooled about what is happening here. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for voters in Israel, while Netanyahu isn’t necessarily well loved his policies are popular in the polling within Israel (which is something Israeli Jews are going to have to grapple with for decades to come, how could they have done something so awful in the name of swearing the holocaust would never happen again?).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/24/americans-believe-israel-committing-genocide-poll
If Democrats pivot hard against Netanyahu, they run the risk of Republican ads appealing to low-education voters that, “Biden is sympathetic to Hamas and has no sympathy for October 7th, undermining the defense of Israel and risking another terrorist attack! iS BiDen an aNtiSeMiTe!?”
No, Biden is convinced he lives in this reality but the polling in the US establishes quite firmly that this is a fantasy, Israel is speedrunning becoming a pariah state internationally and in the US and Biden refusing to reign in the genocide happening in Israel could very well cost him the election (and if it does, well maybe it should have).
I feel that’s pretty concerning that the plurality says it’s not committing genocide and another 1/3 is unsure. It doesn’t seem that article identified independents or swing-voters. One calculus Biden admin must make is: since the majority of those who claim Israel is committing genocide are Democrats, are said voters really going to stand by and not vote for Biden and let the guy who is objectively worse and will most certainly not just indirectly but directly engage in genocide? Considering these are the better educated voters, I’d hope not and Biden strategists may call their bluff. At least that’s what I’d be discussing on the oval office meeting for reelection.
Ultimately the public needs informed of the atrocities of Israel and Biden should probably try to distinguish Netanyahu’s far-right administration and overstep in response to October 7th from support of Israeli citizens themselves. That’s the needle that needs threaded.
I feel that’s pretty concerning that the plurality says it’s not committing genocide and another 1/3 is unsure.
2/3rds of people in the US think Israel is either committing genocide or they are unwilling to say Israel is definitively NOT committing genocide (which, if you didn’t care or thought what they were doing was fine you wouldn’t say you were undecided on whether Israel is committing genocide, people don’t just throw that word around lightly).
There are very few issues in the US that are a safer bet and besides Netanyahu is quite openly signaling that he hopes Trump wins the election, and yet Biden keeps trying to sidle up to this guy like he is his ally. It isn’t just ethically wrong, it is an incredible unforced political blunder.
edit y’all wanna still argue that Biden is making a good choice here? Biden is stuck in the past and the US populous is screaming for Biden to stop directly enabling genocide. Biden is heading for disaster by being so incredibly out of touch on this issue, and I am really fucking tired of people saying “oh well, when we examine this much later then we will have a serious discussion about it” which is conveniently having the discussion after every single damn Palestinian is either killed or displaced from their homes in Gaza.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
When’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates?
Obama? Then immediately before that W? Then immediately before that Clinton?
In the last 50 years only Bush Sr and Trump have served single terms.
Two consecutive candidates. As in two different people, who run under the same party. Not two terms.
2 term presidents: Obama 2009-2017, G.W. Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 1993-2009. so every president for 3 decades except Bush and Trump.
They said two candidates, not two terms.
They also said 4 years.
It’s not that they are just doing childish nicknames, they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better, it’s just that the only things you notice are things like the childish nicknames because… that’s the sort of thing that grabs people’s attention which is the reason they are trying out that tactic as well!
You yourself probably don’t slog through the boring articles, interviews, press statements, and so on, where they just present plans and ideas rather than headline grabbers. If you did, you wouldn’t paint such a simplistic picture, or wonder if it must be some conspiracy involving thousands of people to purposely lose.
they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better
We all saw how that worked out with BBB. No plan survives contact with
the enemyfriendly fire.
I love how the post I saw immediately before this was about Biden’s new Trump insult, ‘Broke Don’. So insult your rivals by calling them poor, definitely a good way to relate to struggling voters.
Yeah well Biden doesn’t really need to appeal to liberals and progressives when it comes to Trump. However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump’s position.
For 8 years now his base has been firmly convinced that the mainstream establishment is an enemy of Trump and ‘the people’. From what I’ve seen any words against Trump coming from establishment liberals is more likely to entrench Trumps support than weaken it.
It’s pointing out that he is weak. Literally one of the main reasons people liked him was that he “couldn’t be bought” and he was going to “self fund his campaign”
Remember, before this they were just saying how scary Trump was. I think mocking him is far more effective
Trumpers are defective high schoolers, winning the name calling game. Is the key for Biden defeating Trump.
No it’s not normal or intelligent, but it is Trump’s supporters…
However making his idiotic base doubt him by calling me poor little bitch will definitely weaken Trump’s position.
Thanks for taking one for the team, poor little bitch.
deleted by creator
“Broke Don” is a masterpiece.
deleted by creator
Consume the wealthy.
Eat the rich.
I keep seeing the press wheeling out example of “the rich” like somebody on £100k who can barely afford their mortgage, like it’s my fucking fault they can’t live within their means.
Do what the rest of us do, tighten our belts and deal with it. Don’t come to me with a sob story about your mortgage on a 4 bedroom detached Surrey house when there’s people who can barely afford rent to live in what was once somebody’s kitchen.
Middle class is not the same as the rich. Trying to get various groups of not rich people against each other has been a time tested tactic to keep everyone from acting against the rich. First it was race but now it’s trying to put the rural vs urban, the less fortunate vs the slightly less fortunate, union vs non union, etc.
Totally agree. Somebody who makes 100k aren’t the problem at all, its the people who make salaries with at least a couple of more zeros added to the end. The people that OP should be mad at aren’t ever struggling to pay a bill.
deleted by creator
£100k per year is not middle class, it’s the top 3% of the country.
I grew up middle class, my family are lawyers, high level civil servants, software engineers. I don’t know anyone who earns £100k.
occupy-wallstreet-vs-race-war-graph.jpg
This is a composition effect. Democratic candidates who run for safer, more left-wing constituencies feel free to propose more radical left-wing policies, especially if their main threats are other democrats during primaries. They then go on to win because they’re not running in competitive elections. You can use the same reasoning to conclude that Republicans who attack abortion and socialism do better in elections.
I don’t buy it. Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states. Centrist Democrats have nothing to offer to Republican voters to change their minds. Progressives speak directly to the economic issues that plague red states.
I mean, red states elected a billionaire because he was a billionaire.
But Centrist Democrats think that if they just kick progressives harder, they’ll gain the favor of the three remaining moderate Republicans.
They elected a billionaire because he attacked other billionaires. He voices their rage at the “elitists” in Washington, and he pretends to be one of them.
Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states
(citation needed)
They often just call them elitists, bankers, or “Jews”.
That’s not supporting evidence.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
Where is the evidence to the contrary? That was the original assertion.
No, it wasn’t.
I asked for evidence for a claim. You didn’t give one.
That only proves that they hate Jews more than blue states.
Republicans equating “elite bankers” with Jews, and then you equating that to billionaires, doesn’t actually make them the same thing you know…
I think they hate the “generic billionaire”, but are they any actual billionaires they hate?
Bill Gates and George Soros are a pretty obvious examples.
The only notable counter-examples are rich celebrities that give them permission to be shitty, like Trump and Elon.
And they love oil barons, and bankers are their heroes, and Jeff bezos is soooo cool with his penis rockets.
They really love billionaires more than they hate them. They just don’t like the charity ones.
Doesn’t matter if they don’t actually do anything though…
But they won’t, because once they get into Congress they get just as tied to big money as any other politician. Plus, there all too busy trying to chase after Republican voters, even though they’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat.
Why multiple mics from the same station?
A few things, more exposure/advertising space, and redundancy, especially in a time where mics were really inconsistent, if one mic goes down, you have another still recording.
So they can broadcast *in stereo*
I need my binaural audio of a political speech so I can hear them lying in dolby 7.1
Same reason they have multiple camera crews these days, I would think? 🤔
also, what’s an MBS. I guess I could google it but I’m on mobile and lazy.
Til
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Broadcasting_System
The Mutual Broadcasting System (commonly referred to simply as Mutual; sometimes referred to as MBS, Mutual Radio or the Mutual Radio Network) was an American commercial radio network in operation from 1934 to 1999. In the golden age of U.S. radio drama, Mutual was best known as the original network home of The Lone Ranger and The Adventures of Superman and as the long-time radio residence of The Shadow. For many years, it was a national broadcaster for Major League Baseball (including the All-Star Game and World Series), the National Football League, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. From the mid-1930s and until the retirement of the network in 1999, Mutual ran a highly respected news service accompanied by a variety of popular commentary shows. In the late 1970s, Mutual pioneered the nationwide late night call-in talk radio program, introducing the country to Larry King and later, Jim Bohannon.
What’s up with the thread? An I the only one seeing almost every comment at 0 net votes?
Actually it seems to be every thread on lemmy.world. Hmm.
Not seeing it on my end. I am using Voyager on a sh.it just.works account.
deleted by creator
rip mbs
