this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
1678 points (98.1% liked)
The Onion
4565 readers
361 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They ran Harris thinking she would win based on her demographics. The DNC needs to learn that not everyone wants a black/LGBTQ/woman/etc candidate that just runs on their race/gender/sexuality.
They want someone that's competent that will campaign on policies that will make their lives better. The DNC has moved so far away from the working class that the RNC, the party of wealthy creeps, has them.
They ran Harris because she was the only candidate they could justify shoehorning in without a primary, since she's VP.
Why they didn't want to run a primary is a great question. Probably cost and time, and name recognition. Studies show that often the candidate with the most name recognition wins. There's wasn't enough time to tell every person in America a brand new person's name.
But usually VPs don't do well when they run as president. Imo Dems are just trying to avoid another Bernie Sanders situation - a leftist with an authentic campaign and people who genuinely like them. More than anything, they gotta stop real progress in this country.
100% this is why. They didn't want any internal pressure for progressive policies or a public platform to voice them.
They lost the general because they refused to hold a legitimate primary. This wouldn’t of happened. They haven’t run a real primary since 2008 and look at how hard Obama won in a landslide after competing in a deep field of qualified and competent candidates.
Even in 2008, it was obvious Clinton was the DNC's preferred candidate and DNC still had their thumb on the scale. Despite this, Obama still managed to come out ahead. And with a base that was actually excited about their chosen candidate, they turned out to vote and Obama won.
The only lesson the DNC learned from this is that they needed to push their thumb harder on the scales the next time around.
They learned two things: identity politics and weigh the scale down as hard as possible.
They obsessed over identity, to their long term detriment as some of the minority identities they fawned over are shifting their support towards trump.
They had no platform other than fear mongering about Trump.
The difference between Harris and Obama was that while Obama was biracial that wasn't the focus of his campaign, his platform was, and he articulated it well. That's the real lesson to take away from Obama's success at the polls not let's run a black person and hope we win.
Obama also competed against a deep field of qualified candidates in 2008. He went into the general with momentum of a popular mandate and then won in a landslide.
He would of done nearly as good if he was a white man.
On the flip side, when the republicans lost with Romney in 2012 they did a whole lot of soul searching (rather than blaming the electorate and moving closer to the center to court mythical ‘moderates’ which is the ongoing failed strategy of the democrats), and in 2016 they had an extremely competitive primary where trump came out on top with a mandate as popular with the base as Obama in 2008.
Primaries also benefit from the same effect that makes every movie and TV show a reboot: Name recognition. The long primary cycle keeps their name in the news so people get familiar with it so they're more likely to vote for them.
Normally I’d agree with you because you’re not wrong, but who at this point doesn’t know who trump or Harris are? And where can I find that rock they are hiding under so I can get some quiet time?
IKR I'd kill to not know who that asshole is
I can’t wait for trump to drop dead of natural causes only so I don’t have to hear his voice ever again
Bigly mood
Looking back at 2016 I think Trump won exactly because he went for the middle: middle working class. I know we all thought he was going hard right (and he did appeal to them for certain reasons), but he campaigned to the middle class and won them.
That's bot the middle we're talking about. Trump ran on right policy (and "policy) both elections and won.
Do you meant that's not the middle?
That's what I thought for a long time. But when I look back at 2016 and I look at this one, I think he appealed to the center voter with promises of jobs and income. They liked that so much they keep saying/thinking/hoping that Trump won't do all the nutso right wing stuff he says he will. Go listen to voter interviews, they all say "nah he won't do mass deportation, it's all bluster.", or "He only means the criminals." It's unreal but that's what they think.
Oh yeah.
I mean everyone, no matter their political views, cares about jobs and income. Being left or right wing is more about the way you believe that should be achieved (and how much you hate minorities). Trump didn't appeal to center voters with promises of jobs and income; he appealed to right wing voters with their version of jobs and income and other policies right wing voters support. Obama promised left wing voters their version of jobs and income. Hillary and Harris promised nobody's version of jobs and income.
You know there is this big fat juicy, undecided, independent, center, whatever you want to call it, group that yes Trump did appeal to. You say, right wing version, left wing version, well those are eclipsed by the humongous center of the bell curve.
I don't think we're going to agree. I say center, you say right, I say center, you say right.
that's more accurate, yeah. definitely in 2016 he ran as a moderate, and with this more recent campaign, it's not so much that he ran a great campaign (lost 2 million voters), but more that I think he just had enough raw momentum and low information, working class voters wanted to manifest him into being the "make the economy good" guy, that they really didn't give a shit about whatever he was doing up in the news cycle. At the most, they can just dismiss that as something he's saying to get elected because "he's smart", or something he's doing to make the democrats mad, which is funny. beyond that, it doesn't matter so much for them what his specific platform is.
They ran Harris because she was the only viable option when it was clear that Biden was not. They did not run Harris thinking she would win at all, they ran her out of desperation because the incumbent was flatlining. It was not a choice, and it certainly was not one based on demographics. It was a “Hail Mary” and it failed as it was likely to do from the outset, and everyone who was paying attention knew that, yet had no choice but to hope for the best.
lol, you believe this? I don’t find it hard to believe that they put Biden though a primary, just to have him drop out…
IMO running Harris was the plan from the beginning. You know, which was kind of the problem, hijacking the primary.
To use your own words, you believe that?
This was not a grand conspiracy geez. Biden's "primary" was perfunctory because we learned you never primary the incumbent. If he didn't perform badly at the debate he probably wouldn't have dropped out.
Do I believe that about four months ago the Democratic Party made a desperate move to replace the incumbent candidate and there were very few viable options at the time? Yes, I believe that, because we just went through it about four months ago. It’s pretty much political suicide to withdraw an incumbent candidate. You don’t plan that from the beginning, because that would be a stupid plan. It was very likely “planned” as in “plan B,” but it’s kind of idiotic to think that it was plan A. The primary was not hijacked, the incumbent is always the candidate. Primaries are always a formality for the incumbent party.
lol. And the DNC didn’t shill for Hilary Clinton in 2016 over Bernie Sanders
Nope, that DID happen. But you are ignoring the obvious reality in this case.
Please, you’re ignoring that the very obvious deduction that DNC didn’t want an open primary.
And you’re ignoring history and the way the parties have always worked when they have the incumbent
She quite specifically DIDNT run on those things, like Hillary did...so....
So every racist and misogynist will say she did anyways.
Including the ones on Lemmy.
I think she, and to a greater extent the policies of the Democratic Party since Carter just cost America the Republic but there is literally nothing a black woman could do to convince some people she's competent in her own right.
Competent at neoliberal corporate cronyism, mind you. But Harris's qualifications by herself are rock solid.
If this election cost America the Republic then I would argue the voters cost it.
If you can't be bothered to vote to save the Republic then it was lost already anyhow.
running token candidates beholden to them is very shady but brilliant strategy by the superpacs :
if they loose: blame it on sexism, racism bigotry to divert the attention from reforms in dnc for progressive leadership. and even if they pretend to be sad about it, the megarich elites and donors get taxcuts and endless price gouging from republicans.
if they win: token candidate passes some token laws which gets either blocked in senate or so poorly implemented that they actually end up giving billions to megacorps for no visible benefit to people. case in point: https://www.atr.org/kamalas-broadband-bust-42-billion-996-days-zero-homes-connected/
She quite specifically DIDNT run on those things, like Hillary did...so....