The problem is that the ‘Not Perfect’ party refuses to actually fight or advocate for universal, popular policies. Instead, the "Not Perfect’ party sits on their hands, bullies their base, and waits for everything to collapse so that they are the default option.
So vote in the “Not Perfect” parties primaries to get better candidates nominated, and at the same time work on getting a ballot initiative for ranked choice voting.
They railroaded Clinton into being the 2016 candidate and appointed Harris as the 2024 one. The DNC leadership doesn’t care what their constituents actually want.
Uncoincidentally, that’s why said leadership needs to be replaced.
Right, and we get around it by showing up in numbers to vote. But of course people need to actually step up and run for the nominations, too. I’m eager to see how David Hogg’s funding efforts pan out.
They railroaded Clinton into being the 2016 candidate and appointed Harris as the 2024 one.
Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primaries. Nonratfuckety was needed. No superdelegates needed to cast a single vote at the convention because she had enough pledged elected delegates. The party even changed the rules starting in 2018 so that superdelegates don’t even get a vote in the convention unless the pledged delegates can’t elect a nominee in the first round of voting.
The DNC leadership doesn’t care what their constituents actually want.
Which is why we have to actually show up and out-vote them instead of losing elections to “teach them a lesson” which hurts us more than it does them.
Uncoincidentally, that’s why said leadership needs to be replaced.
Yes indeed. And the DNC leadership elections after the last election have finally started that shift towards more progressive leadership (notice that the leaders are voted into office, that and people had to participate in that vote, it’s kind of a theme here 😋).
When the DNC uses their media connections to push the narrative that Clinton was ahead by hundreds of delegate votes before the primaries have even started… Don’t you think that’s going to have some affect on how/if people vote in the primaries?
Using the end result of ratfuckery to try to disprove that ratfuckery occurred is a shit argument.
Don’t you think that’s going to have some affect on how/if people vote in the primaries?
Of course it does, I’ve never intended to convey believing otherwise. The ownership class is never going to say “I feel bad about having won this way because people aread.about it so next time I’ll put my resources towards electing someone who check my privilege.” We have to focus on the things we can actually do, and voting is the absolute minimum. And when I look at the history and present electability math of 3rd parties vs the major parties, I’m left with the conclusion that at the state and federal level, the only thing I can do to effect change is voting in the primaries. That doesn’t mean I think the DNC is looking out for me or sitting back to let then system work. It just means I don’t think any other option has any possible chance of working. And pretty much everybody who doesn’t already agree just gets incensed at the idea without having any practical alternative. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
It hasn’t because most people haven’t been voting in primaries, which is why they’re saying to do it. It’s almost always old people voting in primaries and they choose their familiar name old person candidate and then we’re stuck with them.
The other half of it that everyone ignores is there actually has to be a better candidate campaigning for the nomination. Bernie lost the popular vote in the primaries, but inspired more progressives to campaign, and we got the squad out of it. People need to run, and people need to vote, or you get the status quo with donor-preferred candidates.
Allegation: the DNC exhibited overt favoritism in the primary process to ensure Hillary won the primary.
Your response: but Hillary won the primary, therefore she won the primary!
No one is disputing that she won the primary. The problem was the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the entire process. Hillary was the presumptive nominee from the beginning. People voting for Bernie on day one had to vote against headlines that said, “Hillary is already 1/3 of the way to getting the nomination!” The DNC also collaborated very closely with the Hillary campaign, and they did not do so with Bernie’s campaign. They even went so far as feeding her debate questions ahead of time.
Yes, obviously Hillary actually won the primary even without the superdelegates. Any brain-dead moron can consult wikipedia and see that. There’s no need to parrot the obvious. But you’re completely missing the core of the issue - that Hillary only won the majority of non-superdelegates and only won the primary popular vote because the DNC threw the weight of the entire party behind her nomination at the exclusion of all other candidates.
Allegation: the DNC exhibited overt favoritism in the primary process to ensure Hillary won the primary.
Your response: but Hillary won the primary, therefore she won the primary!
I’ve never argued that the DNC hasn’t played favorites or that the primaries are all totally fair and equitable. My point is always that the only way to get the nomination is by winning the popular vote, because a lot of people seem to think that it wouldn’t matter and someone else would be nominated anyway. We certainly won’t win by sitting out the vote, because all they’ve learned from that is they don’t have to campaign for your vote to win. Third party and Independent legislators hold fewer than 1% of the legislative seats at the state and federal level, so that’s not a viable option. The only thing we have is to all just fucking show up and vote.
We had primaries and nobody serious wanted to run against the incumbent president. Biden won the primary. Then he dropped out due and the delegates pledged to Biden (and elected by the primary voters) elected Harris as the nominee in the convention. Maybe you can show me when in the history of the USA a running incumbent president lost the primary, or even when any serious challenger campaigned against them in the primary.
So we didn’t have a primary because Biden was the presumptive nominee
The hyperbole does you no favors here. Every state held a primary. Two did not have the presidential race on their ballots (I think Florida and Delaware). In Texas there we 9 presidential candidates on the Democratic primary ballot. I know you really really really want that to be the same as not having a primary, but it isn’t (except for the one race in those two states). Blame the fact that most of them were a joke on the better candidates who chose not to run.
Why would anyone have bothered to waste money running against the presumptive nominee? Especially when the party went out of its way to conceal Biden’s unsuitability for the position until the first debate of the general election made the illusion impossible to maintain.
No, the non-primary was on purpose. Biden didn’t want to have to pass the torch at the end of a single term and the party let him have the nom because he was president.
How do you propose getting better candidates with a chance of winning* on general election ballot?
* Fewer than 1% of legislative offices at the state and federal level are held by independent or third party candidates. Zero 3rd parties were on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024 (only three were in more than 10 states). There have been zero Electoral College votes to third party candidates since 1968 (including when Perot won almost 20% of the national popular vote). So if your suggestion is 3rd parties then you’re going to have to show your work on how to make any of them viable before the 2026 primaries.
I’m not proposing anything because there’s nothing to propose.
Either party leadership will realize the error of its ways or it won’t. Maybe they’ll listen to the folks flooding their phone lines and town halls and maybe they won’t. Maybe some of those folks will run for office and try to change the system from the inside, maybe they’ll just become another part of it.
In any case, the next election is a long way off. So long as the only acceptable opposition to the Republicans has to be mediated by Democrats, then we don’t get don’t get to have any real input 'til voting day.
The problem is that the ‘Not Perfect’ party refuses to actually fight or advocate for universal, popular policies. Instead, the "Not Perfect’ party sits on their hands, bullies their base, and waits for everything to collapse so that they are the default option.
So vote in the “Not Perfect” parties primaries to get better candidates nominated, and at the same time work on getting a ballot initiative for ranked choice voting.
They railroaded Clinton into being the 2016 candidate and appointed Harris as the 2024 one. The DNC leadership doesn’t care what their constituents actually want.
Uncoincidentally, that’s why said leadership needs to be replaced.
And said leadership is not EVER going to cede their power, which is one of the core issues in play.
Right, and we get around it by showing up in numbers to vote. But of course people need to actually step up and run for the nominations, too. I’m eager to see how David Hogg’s funding efforts pan out.
Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primaries. Nonratfuckety was needed. No superdelegates needed to cast a single vote at the convention because she had enough pledged elected delegates. The party even changed the rules starting in 2018 so that superdelegates don’t even get a vote in the convention unless the pledged delegates can’t elect a nominee in the first round of voting.
Which is why we have to actually show up and out-vote them instead of losing elections to “teach them a lesson” which hurts us more than it does them.
Yes indeed. And the DNC leadership elections after the last election have finally started that shift towards more progressive leadership (notice that the leaders are voted into office, that and people had to participate in that vote, it’s kind of a theme here 😋).
When the DNC uses their media connections to push the narrative that Clinton was ahead by hundreds of delegate votes before the primaries have even started… Don’t you think that’s going to have some affect on how/if people vote in the primaries?
Using the end result of ratfuckery to try to disprove that ratfuckery occurred is a shit argument.
Of course it does, I’ve never intended to convey believing otherwise. The ownership class is never going to say “I feel bad about having won this way because people aread.about it so next time I’ll put my resources towards electing someone who check my privilege.” We have to focus on the things we can actually do, and voting is the absolute minimum. And when I look at the history and present electability math of 3rd parties vs the major parties, I’m left with the conclusion that at the state and federal level, the only thing I can do to effect change is voting in the primaries. That doesn’t mean I think the DNC is looking out for me or sitting back to let then system work. It just means I don’t think any other option has any possible chance of working. And pretty much everybody who doesn’t already agree just gets incensed at the idea without having any practical alternative. Do you have an alternative suggestion?
How’s that been working out over the last 40+ years?
It hasn’t because most people haven’t been voting in primaries, which is why they’re saying to do it. It’s almost always old people voting in primaries and they choose their familiar name old person candidate and then we’re stuck with them.
The other half of it that everyone ignores is there actually has to be a better candidate campaigning for the nomination. Bernie lost the popular vote in the primaries, but inspired more progressives to campaign, and we got the squad out of it. People need to run, and people need to vote, or you get the status quo with donor-preferred candidates.
Show me when a primary candidate won the popular vote and then wasn’t nominated.
Just because you don’t like the outcome, doesn’t mean the process wasn’t followed.
Allegation: the DNC exhibited overt favoritism in the primary process to ensure Hillary won the primary.
Your response: but Hillary won the primary, therefore she won the primary!
No one is disputing that she won the primary. The problem was the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the entire process. Hillary was the presumptive nominee from the beginning. People voting for Bernie on day one had to vote against headlines that said, “Hillary is already 1/3 of the way to getting the nomination!” The DNC also collaborated very closely with the Hillary campaign, and they did not do so with Bernie’s campaign. They even went so far as feeding her debate questions ahead of time.
Yes, obviously Hillary actually won the primary even without the superdelegates. Any brain-dead moron can consult wikipedia and see that. There’s no need to parrot the obvious. But you’re completely missing the core of the issue - that Hillary only won the majority of non-superdelegates and only won the primary popular vote because the DNC threw the weight of the entire party behind her nomination at the exclusion of all other candidates.
I’ve never argued that the DNC hasn’t played favorites or that the primaries are all totally fair and equitable. My point is always that the only way to get the nomination is by winning the popular vote, because a lot of people seem to think that it wouldn’t matter and someone else would be nominated anyway. We certainly won’t win by sitting out the vote, because all they’ve learned from that is they don’t have to campaign for your vote to win. Third party and Independent legislators hold fewer than 1% of the legislative seats at the state and federal level, so that’s not a viable option. The only thing we have is to all just fucking show up and vote.
Is the “Not Perfect” party even going to hold a primary this time or does Harris get it by default like Biden last year?
We had primaries and nobody serious wanted to run against the incumbent president. Biden won the primary. Then he dropped out due and the delegates pledged to Biden (and elected by the primary voters) elected Harris as the nominee in the convention. Maybe you can show me when in the history of the USA a running incumbent president lost the primary, or even when any serious challenger campaigned against them in the primary.
So we didn’t have a primary because Biden was the presumptive nominee… who was later removed long after it was obvious he had no chance.
Sounds very Democratic.
The hyperbole does you no favors here. Every state held a primary. Two did not have the presidential race on their ballots (I think Florida and Delaware). In Texas there we 9 presidential candidates on the Democratic primary ballot. I know you really really really want that to be the same as not having a primary, but it isn’t (except for the one race in those two states). Blame the fact that most of them were a joke on the better candidates who chose not to run.
Why would anyone have bothered to waste money running against the presumptive nominee? Especially when the party went out of its way to conceal Biden’s unsuitability for the position until the first debate of the general election made the illusion impossible to maintain.
No, the non-primary was on purpose. Biden didn’t want to have to pass the torch at the end of a single term and the party let him have the nom because he was president.
Also the dnc was saying they’d excommunicate anyone who ran against biden in the primary
How do you propose getting better candidates with a chance of winning* on general election ballot?
* Fewer than 1% of legislative offices at the state and federal level are held by independent or third party candidates. Zero 3rd parties were on the ballot in all 50 states in 2024 (only three were in more than 10 states). There have been zero Electoral College votes to third party candidates since 1968 (including when Perot won almost 20% of the national popular vote). So if your suggestion is 3rd parties then you’re going to have to show your work on how to make any of them viable before the 2026 primaries.
I’m not proposing anything because there’s nothing to propose.
Either party leadership will realize the error of its ways or it won’t. Maybe they’ll listen to the folks flooding their phone lines and town halls and maybe they won’t. Maybe some of those folks will run for office and try to change the system from the inside, maybe they’ll just become another part of it.
In any case, the next election is a long way off. So long as the only acceptable opposition to the Republicans has to be mediated by Democrats, then we don’t get don’t get to have any real input 'til voting day.
The “not perfect” party got us gay marriage, the affordable care act, and the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell. The response was Trump’s first term.
Actually that was the Supreme Court not dems. Plus even around Obama it was a questionable subject for dems
And The Republican supermajority on the new SCOTUS is looking to rollback gay marriage.