Democrats have all the spontaneity of the House of Windsor. Or, closer to home, they’re closer to what Republicans once were, a party that falls in line not in love.

  • Diotima@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    It shows nothing of the sort.

    There was approximately a zero percent chance, statistically, that the superdelegates would vote for anyone beyond Biden. There was nearly no chance that a challenger would have been received with anything but contempt. This “logic” is the same logic both Reps and Dems use to gaslight third party challengers, too. “If you try real hard you can overcome our utter control of the debates and privileged position to win! We promise!”

    Alternately, there WAS a choice and the vast majority of Democrats are okay with a candidate who is 100% okay cutting off aid to the victims of ethnic cleansing. I prefer to hope that that isn’t the case.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      I still say that if you don’t work for change and just complain after the possibility of change has passed, you’re being ridiculous.

      Bernie was willing to run despite the DNC establishment. He knew what he was going up against. He did it more than once even. Maybe he thinks that if you don’t at least make an effort to change things and just complain about them afterward, you’re being ridiculous too?

      • Diotima@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        And he was vilified and his supporters were blamed for Clinton’s loss, as I recall. The party elite are on record noting that they would be comfortable bypassing the party’s choice. There was no real chance that Sanders would get the nomination. Regardless, your assumption that anyone displeased with Biden just sat on their hands is… somewhat ridicluous. Given that they were going up against one of the most powerful political machines in the world, the chance of them making a dent in the establishment, even if they were activists full-time, would be low.

        And if you think running within the party is difficult, hoo boy. You don’t even want to talk about the anti-democratic fuckery that the GOP and DNC collude to impose on third part hopefuls.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I know it’s difficult. And I know not doing it is very easy.

          Maybe the difficult thing is necessary, if for no other reason than to try to push the eventual primary winner to the left.

          I really do not understand this utter defeatist attitude that primaries are pointless.

          • Diotima@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            This smells an awful lot like the “poor people just need to try harder” nonsense conservatives hit people with when low income people complain about being low income.

            I have campaigned for alternate candidates for many years. Unfortunately, it’s a battle that I’m meant to lose, every time. Contrast with the average party line voter, whose effort is often showing up for an hour to vote as they’re told.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      There was nearly no chance that a challenger would have been received with anything but contempt

      And that’s why President Hillary Clinton won her 2008 primary