When the DNC runs candidates who’s campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It’s a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a “democracy” which is no longer functioning.
Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.
Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.
But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right… it depends whether the vaguely inoffensive option results in the largest number of votes overall or whether a boldly progressive candidate with strong support of fewer voters gives them the better result. Dems always go with the safe option.
Edit: why are so many people downvoting this ? I really don’t understand ?
But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right…
How many more times does this strategy need to fail for you to stop saying “they may be right”. At what point do you say progressives and leftists “may be right”?
I said they may be right because we’ve not seen them take any other option. In other words, we lack the data to know if their ‘play it safe’ strategy is the one that results in the most votes, or not.
Perhaps you and others are reading too much into my post and think that I was supporting the safe option. I was not, I was merely noting what they continue to do. Perhaps this explains why I initially got upvotes for a few days and then got downvoted below freezing?
Well yeah, last time Americans elected a socialist they kept electing him til he died. Can’t have that happen again. They aren’t going with safe they are going with what they are financially incentivised to do. Look at the funding for democratic candidates, that’s their constituency. You’re projecting your own morals on them, they don’t actually care about what’s good for the country
FDR wasn’t a socialist, he was a man who understood that if he didn’t offer the people a better deal then they’d look to revolution to get it. It pissed off the rich and powerful, but ultimately he was doing what he believed necessary to preserve capitalism.
When the DNC runs candidates who’s campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It’s a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a “democracy” which is no longer functioning.
Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.
Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.
But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right… it depends whether the vaguely inoffensive option results in the largest number of votes overall or whether a boldly progressive candidate with strong support of fewer voters gives them the better result. Dems always go with the safe option.
Edit: why are so many people downvoting this ? I really don’t understand ?
How many more times does this strategy need to fail for you to stop saying “they may be right”. At what point do you say progressives and leftists “may be right”?
I said they may be right because we’ve not seen them take any other option. In other words, we lack the data to know if their ‘play it safe’ strategy is the one that results in the most votes, or not.
Perhaps you and others are reading too much into my post and think that I was supporting the safe option. I was not, I was merely noting what they continue to do. Perhaps this explains why I initially got upvotes for a few days and then got downvoted below freezing?
Zohran and Obama had ridiculously high turnouts. You’re giving establishment Democratic politicians a benefit of the doubt they do not deserve.
Well yeah, last time Americans elected a socialist they kept electing him til he died. Can’t have that happen again. They aren’t going with safe they are going with what they are financially incentivised to do. Look at the funding for democratic candidates, that’s their constituency. You’re projecting your own morals on them, they don’t actually care about what’s good for the country
FDR wasn’t a socialist, he was a man who understood that if he didn’t offer the people a better deal then they’d look to revolution to get it. It pissed off the rich and powerful, but ultimately he was doing what he believed necessary to preserve capitalism.
How could you possibly call this “right” after this strategy lost to an orange blob twice?