Democrats who attack the rich do better in elections. The party should take notice - eviltoast
    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          There is nowhere to run.

          Democrats = the party of the rich
          Republicans = the party of the rich
          MAGA = the grift of the rich

          We’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.

          • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                No. They should not. Stop lecturing people who are fighting something better and start lecturing the people voting for absolute trash in the primaries.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          if some people here are any indication, there are a bunch of people who didnt actually notice.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.