|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 18, 2024 11:50:03 GMT -8
I don't think it's hard for the dems to come back. -Get away from the woke racism/sexism/fillintheblank-ism victim mentality at every turn. -Quit encouraging kids to be trans, since a male can't become a female no matter what anyway - even if they take pills and cut their genitals off (Wild I need to even say this) -Have a strong border - like the way dems used to feel about the border before they had to be against it in order to go against Trump's stance since 2016 -Come up with an actually decent candidate -Quit printing money (both sides) - reel in spending. We don't have a tax revenue problem, we have a SPENDING problem There's plenty more I'd like to change but if they just do those things I bet they would've won this election no problem No, they're too obsessed with their own party hubris: identity politics, pushing away outsiders and progressives, controlling the presidential pick via the mainstream media and superdelegate system. They probably aren't going to win in 2028. The reality truly evades here. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 18:11:22 GMT -8
No, they're too obsessed with their own party hubris: identity politics, pushing away outsiders and progressives, controlling the presidential pick via the mainstream media and superdelegate system. They probably aren't going to win in 2028. The reality truly evades here. Like I said when I picked Trump to win, I hope I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 18, 2024 19:48:18 GMT -8
The reality truly evades here. Like I said when I picked Trump to win, I hope I'm wrong. The premise is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 20:06:36 GMT -8
Like I said when I picked Trump to win, I hope I'm wrong. The premise is wrong. No, the premise is right. That's the sad part. The Democratic party is hostile to outsiders and is un-democratic. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 18, 2024 20:57:29 GMT -8
No, the premise is right. That's the sad part. The Democratic party is hostile to outsiders and is un-democratic. Why? Because they wouldn't welcome the fraud that you're enamored with? You think the Republican Party is about inclusion? Diversity? Acceptance? That's really funny. It's complete nonsense, but it's funny. The country has been fundamentally shifting right for close to a decade and it has nothing to do with hubris. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 21:52:35 GMT -8
No, the premise is right. That's the sad part. The Democratic party is hostile to outsiders and is un-democratic. Why? Because they wouldn't welcome the fraud that you're enamored with? You think the Republican Party is about inclusion? Diversity? Acceptance? That's really funny. It's complete nonsense, but it's funny. The country has been fundamentally shifting right for close to a decade and it has nothing to do with hubris. No, the country hasn't been shifting to the right. That's complete nonsense. You only have two parties in America - the centrist, un-democratic Democrats, and the rightist Republicans. Get rid of the superdelegate system and I guarantee you will get more progressive candidates that actually have a chance of winning. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 18, 2024 22:08:20 GMT -8
Why? Because they wouldn't welcome the fraud that you're enamored with? You think the Republican Party is about inclusion? Diversity? Acceptance? That's really funny. It's complete nonsense, but it's funny. The country has been fundamentally shifting right for close to a decade and it has nothing to do with hubris. No, the country hasn't been shifting to the right. That's complete nonsense. You only have two parties in America - the centrist, un-democratic Democrats, and the rightist Republicans. Get rid of the superdelegate system and I guarantee you will get more progressive candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Look at the data. It's not difficult to discern. The superdelegate system has been around for 40 years. Once again, I don't know why you focus on things that simply don't matter. We are experiencing a fundamental shift in the electorate. New York and New Jersey shifted more than 10% to the right. Harris overperformed in the swing states, she lost ground virtually everywhere else. That's not an accident, it's a shift. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 22:13:33 GMT -8
No, the country hasn't been shifting to the right. That's complete nonsense. You only have two parties in America - the centrist, un-democratic Democrats, and the rightist Republicans. Get rid of the superdelegate system and I guarantee you will get more progressive candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Look at the data. It's not difficult to discern. The superdelegate system has been around for 40 years. Once again, I don't know why you focus on things that simply don't matter. We are experiencing a fundamental shift in the electorate. New York and New Jersey shifted more than 10% to the right. Harris overperformed in the swing states, she lost ground virtually everywhere else. That's not an accident, it's a shift. No, it's because Harris was a mediocre candidate that ran a bad campaign. If you polled voters on the issues, there is no shift between 2020 and 2024 on anything except immigration. If Bernie was on the ballot he would have won. If Andrew Yang was on the ballot he would have won. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 22:18:45 GMT -8
No, the country hasn't been shifting to the right. That's complete nonsense. You only have two parties in America - the centrist, un-democratic Democrats, and the rightist Republicans. Get rid of the superdelegate system and I guarantee you will get more progressive candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Look at the data. It's not difficult to discern. The superdelegate system has been around for 40 years. Once again, I don't know why you focus on things that simply don't matter.
We are experiencing a fundamental shift in the electorate. New York and New Jersey shifted more than 10% to the right. Harris overperformed in the swing states, she lost ground virtually everywhere else. That's not an accident, it's a shift. ... so around the same amount of time that the tax code has shifted significantly to the right... lower taxes on wealthy people (highest tax bracket) since 1982. You don't see any connection between the superdelegate system, and all of the centrist candidates that the Democrats have trotted out for president since then? You don't see that Bernie lost in 2016 because of that system? You don't see that there are a lot of young white men who were pissed about 2016 that voted for Trump in 2024? The Wealthy Democratic Superdelegates control the Democratic party, and keep it centrist, so that all the wealthy Democratic Senators don't get taxed as highly. How do you not see the timeline and get it? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Nov 18, 2024 22:30:40 GMT -8
Look at the data. It's not difficult to discern. The superdelegate system has been around for 40 years. Once again, I don't know why you focus on things that simply don't matter.
We are experiencing a fundamental shift in the electorate. New York and New Jersey shifted more than 10% to the right. Harris overperformed in the swing states, she lost ground virtually everywhere else. That's not an accident, it's a shift. ... so around the same amount of time that the tax code has shifted significantly to the right... lower taxes on wealthy people (highest tax bracket) since 1982. You don't see any connection between the superdelegate system, and all of the centrist candidates that the Democrats have trotted out for president since then? You don't see that Bernie lost in 2016 because of that system? You don't see that there are a lot of young white men who were pissed about 2016 that voted for Trump in 2024? The Wealthy Democratic Superdelegates control the Democratic party, and keep it centrist, so that all the wealthy Democratic Senators don't get taxed as highly. How do you not see the timeline and get it? You think people were upset that Sanders didn't win in 2016 and therefore voted for Trump nearly a decade later? You're giving people way too much credit. I don't know what you're rambling about with the superdelegates - There are hundreds of individuals nominated in every cycle - Not all of them are wealthy elites, there's a good deal of diversity and they pledge to whatever candidate they choose. The Republicans nominated Trump three times in a row....and nominated him after he incited an insurrection. I'm not sure the Dems should be the focus point here. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 18, 2024 22:33:06 GMT -8
No, the country hasn't been shifting to the right. That's complete nonsense. You only have two parties in America - the centrist, un-democratic Democrats, and the rightist Republicans. Get rid of the superdelegate system and I guarantee you will get more progressive candidates that actually have a chance of winning. The superdelegate system has been around for 40 years. Once again, I don't know why you focus on things that simply don't matter. We are experiencing a fundamental shift in the electorate. New York and New Jersey shifted more than 10% to the right. Harris overperformed in the swing states, she lost ground virtually everywhere else. That's not an accident, it's a shift. "In the aftermath of the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party sought to shift the balance of power in the selection of the party's presidential candidate to primary elections and caucuses, mandating that all delegates be chosen via mechanisms open to all party members; these rules were implemented following the recommendations of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. This increased grassroots control of Democratic conventions. However, after Democratic nominee George McGovern lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon in 1972, and after a decisive fight over the rules at the 1980 convention between supporters of Jimmy Carter and supporters of Edward M. Kennedy, followed by Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980, the party changed its nominating rules again.A commission headed by North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt issued a report in 1982, on a 47–6 vote, to set aside 550 unpledged delegate seats held by party officials, to vote alongside the 3,300 Democratic pledged votes. This partial reversal of the trend toward grassroots control was supported by mainstream party leaders in Congress, as well as organized labor. It increases the power of the institutional party "regulars" against insurgent "outsider" maverick candidates. Their initial proposal to have superdelegates represent 30% of all delegates to the national convention was defeated in favor of a compromise proposal by Geraldine A. Ferraro, in which superdelegates made up about 14% of delegates. The proportion of superdelegates eventually expanded over time, reaching about 20% at the 2008 convention." Basically the Democratic party lost to a conservative wave, and then the Democrats established the superdelegate system to permanently shift the party to the right. That's literally what happened. |
|
