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.

  • pigup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    The billionaires, who already owned the whole thing, did not want it. We got what we got. This downfall started long before 2008.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      15 days ago

      You act like they’d have “lost” if Kamala won…

      They win either way, just different amounts.

      Meanwhile the average American always loses, just different amounts.

      It doesn’t have to be like this, we don’t need to run shitty conservative Dems that billionaires like, because then we won’t need to spend a billion on ads that don’t even change anyone’s minds.

      We ran a Dem candidate that wants a border wall, doesn’t want universal healthcare, and is pro-genocide…

      Because that’s what the billionaires wanted. And because we listed to donors over voters, we lost an election

      • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        Got a serious question re genocide angle, how is trump well known for being anti-genocide?

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                15 days 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.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  15 days 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.

                  • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    15 days 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.

                  • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    15 days 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 😭😔

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 days ago

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

        • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          He’s not. He’s arguably worse. I proudly voted third party (socialist).

          Cue the liberal tears. You lose the electoral college and the popular vote by a margin far greater than third party voters. Cry about it.

    • inv3r510n@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      No matter who wins the election we all lose and the capitalists win, they own both parties. It’s a billionaire pissing contest.

      Also I agree about the downfall being far before 2008, but my point is about primaries and earning the popular will of the voters, something the democrat party could care less about. They would rather the country fall to fascism than allow any kind of progressive let alone leftist leadership come to power.