Biden stayed too long. Dems needed an open primary. The MAGA propaganda machine was too powerful. Not enough people liked Kamala. Too many people stayed home and didn't vote. Eggs.
To be fair, there was an open primary but like only 3 people ran against Biden and they all sucked. That said, Biden still shouldn't have pursued a 2nd term, his and his family's ego got the better of him.
it's a simple fact of how the voting worked. people were voting for a specific ticket in the extremely limited primary, and harris got every vote biden got. if biden had been struck by lightning nobody would have questioned her taking over
although is a second primary had been attempted, it would be delayed or even blocked by red states; forcing the party to select harris as the candidate months later.
after biden decided to run, there was no offramp from what happened.
That’s the fault of the party for closing ranks and hiding Biden’s condition. Dean Phillips ran against Biden as too old as was thrown out of politics forever when he should be leading the DNC.
Biden screwed up a bunch, beginning in 2016. Yeah, I know he was mourning. After he won in 2020, he soft-shoed his way throughout the presidency. Then, when it was most crucial, he chose to run again. Talk about tone deaf. Nobody wanted that. When he bowed out, it was too late for anyone but Kamala, who had big hills to climb. A black woman? Progressives saw it, but not the masses. Here we are.
This is the biggest failure of the Democrat party and as a Democrat - this is one of the reasons I'm among the 70% of Democrats who disapprove of the party.
Democrat this. Republican that. We all just need a government that controls the horrors of capitalism. To solve problems capitalism can’t, or shouldn’t solve. I spent most of my life believing the democrats ARE that party. I still do, but holy fuck do we need an FDR moment right now.
It’s not so much that Dems know what they did wrong, it’s that the fuckwit of a DNC chair ran on doing the autopsy, passed it off to his incompetent friend who then wasted who-knows-how many thousands of dollars on a factually incorrect mess of a high school book report and then the chair tried to mock and gaslight the public into thinking the report wasn’t necessary. The incompetence in DNC leadership is staggering
Gaza. Not making material improvements in people's lives. Running a corpse when anyone looking knew he was dead. Running a charisma black hole with no spine. Thinking lesser of 2 evils quandary would deliver victory. Being the tool to control opposition
I disagree. Even if that ends up bring good policy, which I wouldn't necessarily argue with, it isn't likely to have got them a net increase in voters.
One Google search says that paper linked is funded by private insurance orgs. Not surprising they’d be fearful of m4a when it consistently gets approval ratings between 55-65% of constitents
I don't know what you are referring to by "the paper linked". The page I linked to doesn't cite any research articles. It cites news and opinion pieces as well as polls. Unfortunately, all the links seem to be broken currently.
It's ridiculous how often these types of conversations happen on social media. I linked to a website that cited evidence about a particular argument. Of course, they are coming from a particular point of view in this argument, just like you and I and everyone else are. That should have nothing to do with whether it's argument is or isn't persuasive and whether the evidence it cited is strong. If you think that it isn't then make that argument. I don't see how pointing out what it's point of view is accomplishes.
I didn't link to them for the purpose of sharing their point of view. Do you see me say anywhere anything like "hey, look at this organization's opinion about whether Medicare for All would be electorally beneficial to Democrats in the general election"? No. I linked to them because they cited evidence about what voters believed once they were told details, which would they woukd have had more knowledge of if the Democrat in the general election were running on the issue. Soneone's point of view is irrelevant to whether they have a good argument. It may cause them to have a good or bad argument but it's not relevant to whether it ends up being persuasive. To do that, you look at whether their assumptions stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the evidence. You have not done that.
Persuasion does not rest upon scrutiny and supported evidence. We know that now, and we knew that with the rise of ancient sophism. It should be apparent to you that persuasion is completely independent from reality or factually based information. It's all around us, causing people to support causes that are not in their best interests. For instance, like an organization who is determined to not have Medicare for all while being funded by health insurance companies.
Unfortunately, your argument is not sound. Truthfully, because of this, no one should continue any further discussion with you.
That's like holding up a lung cancer study published by big tobacco, and asking people to take the paper on its merits. The conflict of interest is so laughable that it's not worth spending any time on.
I'm not saying the conflict of interest isn't notable and that it's not worth mentioning. But I do think that if the tobacco industry makes arguments, or puts out some study, trying to make the case that tobacco isn't harmful (or causes very little harm) it makes sense for those that disagree with this to attack this argument or study and point out where it is going wrong and what it's flaws are. If those criticizing the tobacco industry have the better argument, as I suspect they would, then that's how it will come across. You say this shouldn't be done because "it's not worth spending any time on". The other poster said the same thing about everything cited in the link about voters' opinions single payer when they are told the details of it. I disagree. I think discussions of what is or isn't persuasive is how we learn things and move forward as a society.
No, the autopsy is important. It shows what the DNC believes what went wrong. If you disagree, call or email your democratic representatives and let them know what you think went wrong.
Who's "they"? Obviously, in the 2016 primary campaign, like every significant primary campaign, there were Democrats, including Democrat professional political types, who supported different candidates. And obviously, some of them discussed how to support their preferred candidate and get them to win. If that's your definition of 'scheme", OK. But that's really just the basic definition of political advocacy. Or are you suggesting something bigger than that?
Bernie was not robbed. I supported and voted for Bernie twice. Progressives, DemSoc, and leftist voters didn’t show up in the numbers necessary for Bernie to win in 2016 or in 2020. We are not the majority some apparently think we are. Some also seem to think superdelegates changed the outcome of the 2016 Democratic primary results. They did not.
”Superdelegates have never determined the nominee, and they’re unlikely ever to do so.”
The rules for superdelegates were changed in 2018 to help eliminate this misperception. They can only vote if no candidate gets 50% of the votes in the first round of voting at the convention.
They assume that by 1) appealing to voters’ better natures, that 2) “of course” they want to see progress in our society toward a “better future” for all, 3) paying more/getting less personally if you are better off in order to help those that aren’t is widely desired, 4) are accepting that people who aren’t like them are still worthy of inclusion, opportunity, freedom of expression and equal rights, and 5) that learning a new skill/trade/profession of the 21st century along with being willing to take the required education and training along with it is something they are enthusiastic about, since nobody should want to be a farmer/plumber/coal miner anymore…right?
I am saying that Democrats carry on as if the country is entering into a “renaissance” period to a great degree. An era of enlightenment. Racism, tribalism, religious intolerance, economic divides? Those are fading away.
That the growing younger, more educated, racially and culturally diverse population is energized, and now invested in the political process. They are showing up in droves to ensure their voice is heard. Over 18 and not in line on election day? Not cool.
That the middle-aged/older generations are by and large “getting with the program.” The ways of the past have led them (us) to this painful crossroads, and going backwards/standing still is just not realistic in the 21st century. The future is only possible together. United we stand, divided we fall.
Put plainly, they underestimate the tenacity of those that lean conservative, and the indifference of those that lean liberal.
MKEJOE52 | 20 hours ago
Biden stayed too long. Dems needed an open primary. The MAGA propaganda machine was too powerful. Not enough people liked Kamala. Too many people stayed home and didn't vote. Eggs.
atreeismissing | 19 hours ago
To be fair, there was an open primary but like only 3 people ran against Biden and they all sucked. That said, Biden still shouldn't have pursued a 2nd term, his and his family's ego got the better of him.
un_internaute | 16 hours ago
To be fair, Harris has never received even ONE primary vote.
roastbeeftacohat | 10 hours ago
Every vote was for the biden Harris ticket.
ImNotAWhaleBiologist | 3 hours ago
That’s so disingenuous, and if you can’t even admit that to yourself, you are a huge part of the reason.
roastbeeftacohat | 2 hours ago
it's a simple fact of how the voting worked. people were voting for a specific ticket in the extremely limited primary, and harris got every vote biden got. if biden had been struck by lightning nobody would have questioned her taking over
although is a second primary had been attempted, it would be delayed or even blocked by red states; forcing the party to select harris as the candidate months later.
after biden decided to run, there was no offramp from what happened.
JaredRules | 3 hours ago
Yes technically there was a primary. And NOBODY with any real juice ran against Biden. Weird.
Cats_Cameras | 2 hours ago
That’s the fault of the party for closing ranks and hiding Biden’s condition. Dean Phillips ran against Biden as too old as was thrown out of politics forever when he should be leading the DNC.
councilmember | 17 hours ago
Also didn’t actually use the video of Jan 6th with the true freaks like the QAnon shaman, the black satin pirate and other losers for commercials.
Batman_Shirt | 16 hours ago
Biden screwed up a bunch, beginning in 2016. Yeah, I know he was mourning. After he won in 2020, he soft-shoed his way throughout the presidency. Then, when it was most crucial, he chose to run again. Talk about tone deaf. Nobody wanted that. When he bowed out, it was too late for anyone but Kamala, who had big hills to climb. A black woman? Progressives saw it, but not the masses. Here we are.
c13w | 6 hours ago
And Elon rigged machines
InterPunct | 18 hours ago
This is the biggest failure of the Democrat party and as a Democrat - this is one of the reasons I'm among the 70% of Democrats who disapprove of the party.
haribobosses | 19 hours ago
They ran an ostensibly pro establishment candidate against an ostensibly anti establishment candidate in an anti establishment moment.
Also Kamala is a dud who if primaries were held would likely not have won even her home state.
Phill_Cyberman | 17 hours ago
>They ran an ostensibly pro establishment candidate against an ostensibly anti establishment candidate in an anti establishment moment.
I'd agree this was all it wasn't if it hadn't been for Trump's first term and all it's corruption and criminality.
haribobosses | 17 hours ago
If it looks like a wrecking ball, people will vote for it when the alternative is entrenchment of the unpopular status quo.
justicebiever | 18 hours ago
Democrat this. Republican that. We all just need a government that controls the horrors of capitalism. To solve problems capitalism can’t, or shouldn’t solve. I spent most of my life believing the democrats ARE that party. I still do, but holy fuck do we need an FDR moment right now.
jesus_____christ | 7 hours ago
Or we could just 86 the capitalism
Fuzzy_Dunlop_00 | 2 hours ago
86?!!! I'm reporting you to the FBI /s
TheHamAndTheGuap | 45 minutes ago
How?
TopRamen713 | 3 hours ago
There are a few rising stars that give me hope for a new New deal in the future - AOC, Platner and Mandami.
They seem to get it, at least. We need like 100 more of them, though
sumaCamus | 15 hours ago
In b4 they prove that they still don’t want to win
2drums1cymbal | 2 hours ago
It’s not so much that Dems know what they did wrong, it’s that the fuckwit of a DNC chair ran on doing the autopsy, passed it off to his incompetent friend who then wasted who-knows-how many thousands of dollars on a factually incorrect mess of a high school book report and then the chair tried to mock and gaslight the public into thinking the report wasn’t necessary. The incompetence in DNC leadership is staggering
Background-Wolf-9380 | 14 hours ago
Gaza. Not making material improvements in people's lives. Running a corpse when anyone looking knew he was dead. Running a charisma black hole with no spine. Thinking lesser of 2 evils quandary would deliver victory. Being the tool to control opposition
They're going to try to do it all again.
SupremelyUneducated | 19 hours ago
The fact they didn't run on Medicare for all, is adhorrant. Also we shouldn't be subsidizing of ethno states.
[OP] tpic485 | 19 hours ago
I disagree. Even if that ends up bring good policy, which I wouldn't necessarily argue with, it isn't likely to have got them a net increase in voters.
QuackButter | 19 hours ago
One Google search says that paper linked is funded by private insurance orgs. Not surprising they’d be fearful of m4a when it consistently gets approval ratings between 55-65% of constitents
[OP] tpic485 | 18 hours ago
I don't know what you are referring to by "the paper linked". The page I linked to doesn't cite any research articles. It cites news and opinion pieces as well as polls. Unfortunately, all the links seem to be broken currently.
pandemicpunk | 18 hours ago
Primarily funded by member trade associations, national health insurers, hospital systems, and pharmaceutical/biotech companies through member dues and corporate contributions to the coalition and its affiliated 501(c)(4)/action entities.
Bye.
[OP] tpic485 | 18 hours ago
It's ridiculous how often these types of conversations happen on social media. I linked to a website that cited evidence about a particular argument. Of course, they are coming from a particular point of view in this argument, just like you and I and everyone else are. That should have nothing to do with whether it's argument is or isn't persuasive and whether the evidence it cited is strong. If you think that it isn't then make that argument. I don't see how pointing out what it's point of view is accomplishes.
Vanedi291 | 18 hours ago
Nobody cares what the private insurance industry’s view of Medicare for all or single payer or a public option is.
You went from not knowing who funded this to “who cares, everyone has a point of view.” It’s hard to take your arguments as anything but disingenuous.
[OP] tpic485 | 18 hours ago
I didn't link to them for the purpose of sharing their point of view. Do you see me say anywhere anything like "hey, look at this organization's opinion about whether Medicare for All would be electorally beneficial to Democrats in the general election"? No. I linked to them because they cited evidence about what voters believed once they were told details, which would they woukd have had more knowledge of if the Democrat in the general election were running on the issue. Soneone's point of view is irrelevant to whether they have a good argument. It may cause them to have a good or bad argument but it's not relevant to whether it ends up being persuasive. To do that, you look at whether their assumptions stand up to scrutiny and are supported by the evidence. You have not done that.
pandemicpunk | 17 hours ago
Persuasion does not rest upon scrutiny and supported evidence. We know that now, and we knew that with the rise of ancient sophism. It should be apparent to you that persuasion is completely independent from reality or factually based information. It's all around us, causing people to support causes that are not in their best interests. For instance, like an organization who is determined to not have Medicare for all while being funded by health insurance companies.
Unfortunately, your argument is not sound. Truthfully, because of this, no one should continue any further discussion with you.
Xanian123 | 15 hours ago
That's like holding up a lung cancer study published by big tobacco, and asking people to take the paper on its merits. The conflict of interest is so laughable that it's not worth spending any time on.
[OP] tpic485 | 14 hours ago
I'm not saying the conflict of interest isn't notable and that it's not worth mentioning. But I do think that if the tobacco industry makes arguments, or puts out some study, trying to make the case that tobacco isn't harmful (or causes very little harm) it makes sense for those that disagree with this to attack this argument or study and point out where it is going wrong and what it's flaws are. If those criticizing the tobacco industry have the better argument, as I suspect they would, then that's how it will come across. You say this shouldn't be done because "it's not worth spending any time on". The other poster said the same thing about everything cited in the link about voters' opinions single payer when they are told the details of it. I disagree. I think discussions of what is or isn't persuasive is how we learn things and move forward as a society.
Dromedary_Freight | 12 hours ago
People were so sick of controlled opposition, they were willing to rock the boat again.
From what I see, it is just getting started. Read history.
Nerdsofafeather | 18 hours ago
No, the autopsy is important. It shows what the DNC believes what went wrong. If you disagree, call or email your democratic representatives and let them know what you think went wrong.
maximusheaviosity | 20 hours ago
Out of touch with average Americans.
Laura9624 | 19 hours ago
Too much learnin' for people. Third party voters in swing states got us trump.
Beanyurza | 14 hours ago
They let LGBTQIA+ group take over the party. Backed Biden too long. Railroaded Bernie out in favor of Hillary.
I can no longer support either national party. Both have left the "average American" behind and yet claim to speak for the "average American."
Well, main reason is both parties bow to big money(yet deny it) but the above is the not-so-obvious reasons.
TheHamAndTheGuap | 46 minutes ago
And they'll never learn 😂
Msink | 20 hours ago
They were on the wrong side when they schemed to choose hillary over Bernie.
[OP] tpic485 | 20 hours ago
Nobody schemed to choose Hillary over Bernie. She received far more votes in the primaries than he did.
Sad_Mushroom_9725 | 20 hours ago
The #&$^ they didnt.
https://youtu.be/jNomNG7WsWA?si=KEsShobw8P-cruUS
[OP] tpic485 | 19 hours ago
Who's "they"? Obviously, in the 2016 primary campaign, like every significant primary campaign, there were Democrats, including Democrat professional political types, who supported different candidates. And obviously, some of them discussed how to support their preferred candidate and get them to win. If that's your definition of 'scheme", OK. But that's really just the basic definition of political advocacy. Or are you suggesting something bigger than that?
Late-Arrival-8669 | 19 hours ago
Yes, I think the state West Virginia was one all counties voted for Bernie and at the DNC convention they switched it to Hilary.
Bernie was fucking robbed. Let me give a glimpse of this 2028. You dont get a progressive running, trump gets his 3rd, 4th, 5th term.
_RyanLarkin | 4 hours ago
Bernie was not robbed. I supported and voted for Bernie twice. Progressives, DemSoc, and leftist voters didn’t show up in the numbers necessary for Bernie to win in 2016 or in 2020. We are not the majority some apparently think we are. Some also seem to think superdelegates changed the outcome of the 2016 Democratic primary results. They did not.
”Superdelegates have never determined the nominee, and they’re unlikely ever to do so.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/superdelegates-don-t-determine-democratic-nominee-n587386
The rules for superdelegates were changed in 2018 to help eliminate this misperception. They can only vote if no candidate gets 50% of the votes in the first round of voting at the convention.
WileyCoyote7 | 20 hours ago
They assume that by 1) appealing to voters’ better natures, that 2) “of course” they want to see progress in our society toward a “better future” for all, 3) paying more/getting less personally if you are better off in order to help those that aren’t is widely desired, 4) are accepting that people who aren’t like them are still worthy of inclusion, opportunity, freedom of expression and equal rights, and 5) that learning a new skill/trade/profession of the 21st century along with being willing to take the required education and training along with it is something they are enthusiastic about, since nobody should want to be a farmer/plumber/coal miner anymore…right?
I think that about sums up their assumptions?
HumanBarbarian | 19 hours ago
What are you trying to say, exactly?
WileyCoyote7 | 14 hours ago
I am saying that Democrats carry on as if the country is entering into a “renaissance” period to a great degree. An era of enlightenment. Racism, tribalism, religious intolerance, economic divides? Those are fading away.
That the growing younger, more educated, racially and culturally diverse population is energized, and now invested in the political process. They are showing up in droves to ensure their voice is heard. Over 18 and not in line on election day? Not cool.
That the middle-aged/older generations are by and large “getting with the program.” The ways of the past have led them (us) to this painful crossroads, and going backwards/standing still is just not realistic in the 21st century. The future is only possible together. United we stand, divided we fall.
Put plainly, they underestimate the tenacity of those that lean conservative, and the indifference of those that lean liberal.
Democrats hope. Republicans plan.
HumanBarbarian | 4 hours ago
I am still not sure I understand. Are you blaming Democrats here or Republicans or both?