Because the Atlantic is an elite worshipping moderate rag of a publication these days (which is depressing because from 1857 through at least 1964 they were badasses who argued against slavery and Republicans' Southern Strategy)
Why do articles keep pointing the blame "at democrats" like we in the party have some kind of magical control over this?
We can only vote for the motherfuckers that run. If you run, we can vote for you. If you don't run, we can't vote for you. So, who are we supposed to pick?
Dean Philips, the guy that talks about appeasing republicans? No. Just, fuck no.
You, you on the other side of the screen, you should run for office. Then we might have more options.
Eh, that's conspiracy theory nonsense. If Bernie wanted to run, he could run. He just doesn't want to. There's no behind-the-scenes political party machine that is forcing him not to run. Nor did they prevent him from running in the past, they just tried to hurt his chances.
My family was heavily involved with the DNC from the 60’s to the 90’s. What you’re saying is sort of true and sort of not true. They don’t force people to run or not to, but they are very adept at strongly suggesting what their people should do for the “good of the party”.
If you run when they don’t want you to, they won’t help you in your next lesser election, and then you have no power at all. Bernie was an extreme anomaly to overcome the pressure to step aside, and even then, he didn’t win. If it weren’t for his ability to motivate the far left, a skill that moderate democrats don’t have, they would have found a seemingly polite way to put him out to pasture already.
I’ve seen it and heard it from the inside, and those were descriptions of the years when things were a lot more civil. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they control the candidates any less these days.
I agree, we generally do try to look at the bigger political picture, and especially since Citizens United, money is a very, very major consideration. Politics is an inherently ugly practice that involves a great deal of compromise, just to function in a complex world with large numbers of different interests in it.
Though I'd say the modern day is a more mixed bag, it's easier now for a more independent politician to rise with grassroots support than it was pre-internet. This was a major factor in Bernie's success, and we have people like Katie Porter proving it wasn't actually just some fluke. Even Obama did well, mainly with grassroots support against Hilary.
The big conspiracy theory that these considerations amount to some shadowy suppression is bullshit though. All the interests are pretty out-in-the-open with what they want. People who did not like him were not hiding their distaste for Bernie, or reasons for not supporting him.
One thing I think gets underestimated by younger progressives is just how many educated, middle-aged soccer moms with two and a half kids that we have.
I definitely agree there. There are a hell of a lot of middle class Americans who talk the progressive talk, but when it’s time to vote, they walk a moderately conservative walk. They always have a reason like “so and so has the best chance of winning” and “the newcomer won’t be able to get anything done”, but those are self fulfilling prophecies.
Until Americans who are succeeding in the current status quo decide that change is possible and desirable, we’re going to keep getting alternations of the same old same old or alt-right dark horses.
Don't underestimate the number of registered dems that simply aren't very progressive, and have zero interest in talking a progressive talk. We're a coalition party, after all. The fix for that is voting reform, ranked choice, something like that, so we don't all have to cram into one party just to survive.
Some people are just pro-choice and want some more business regulation, but that's it. They can be dems too. I'm personally not in favor of any kind of ideological purity, I think they should be allowed within our ranks.
edit: underestimate, not overestimate, which made no sense.
I don't get why this post is down voted. Are people making the mistake of down voting based on whether they agree with the article rather than whether it is good/bad quality?
I think it's a reasonable quality article and it could prompt good discussion. Shame it's being downvoted.
I don't disagree with the premise, but who would it be? Kamala? I don't see it. Liz? The Senate is already going to be a mess, plus superdelegates. Bernie? Ditto. Gretchen? Could only see it if Biden totally stopped functioning. In my perfect world, they'd call Russ Feingold back up to the Majors, but since that didn't happen 20 years ago, it sounds like a much more remote possibility today.
Newsom can't win middle America. He's seen as "Arrogant California Elite" outside the coasts. He's a great candidate on paper and did amazing things for Cali even if there's this he did I was infuriated by. But outside the coasts his image is sullied by his political history as a California governor.
Additionally, Newsom is not running and wouldn't even think of running unless Biden dropped out, which isn't going to happen unless he has a tragic health event.
The people who think things like 'arrogant california elite' are probably never voting for a Democrat anyway. Newsom is well spoken, sharp, and fairly young. He can defend his positions quite well, and for better or worse is pretty slick. But yes, he's not willing to challenge Biden. I thought the pretext here was who would run if Biden did drop out or couldn't run for whatever reason.
Uh... Biden has been going above and beyond what's "required" for Israel. Even if we assume he can't change his geopolitical strategy because of actual genocide, he's been going so far as to bypass congress to give Israel weapons. People were found guilty for less at the Numenberg trials.
The State Department said Friday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had told Congress that he had made a second emergency determination covering a $147.5 million sale for equipment, including fuses, chargers and primers, that is needed to make the 155 mm shells that Israel has already purchased function.
Just completely unrealistic. The time for this type of talk was a year ago. Two years ago. There isn't even time to get new names qualified for primaries now. This is who it is. We're going to vote for him.
If the threat of a fascist dictator who’s currently liable for half a billion dollars of damages from his defamation (of his rape victim) and his decades of real estate fraud (not to mention his homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, xenophobia, insurrection and arguably straight up treason, Christ the list goes on) doesn’t get people voting then honestly, your vaunted republic deserves to fall.
Or you could vote for “literally none of that” Biden.
Prediction: people are also tired of Biden; and Trump has had 4 years to retcon his bullshit and get less-psychotic republicans inline with shit like “Jan 6 wasn’t an insurrection”
Biden is going to have an extremely tough fight on his hands.
People have been saying this for years, too. The DNC doesn’t care.
People can scream and howl at the moon all they want. I’ll be voting for Biden even if I resent him… won’t change that he’s loosing votes fast.
People SAY they aren't voting Biden now, but when it comes down to the election and Trump still hasn't faced a criminal charge and the only person blocking him from office is Biden? They'll vote.
All the Muslims in Michigan doing protest voting, you really think they want this guy back in office?
It’s straight up supporting the massacre and ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people, as well as the destruction of hundreds of thousands of homes, tons of schools and hospitals, the BELGIAN office in Gaza, the mosques.
And Biden supports every bit of that, he says he doesn’t, but actions speak louder than words
He's either going to order us to drop bombs ourselves to wipe out Gaza or demand Israel given everything we've got so Israel can drop all the bombs.
All while pulling out of NATO and embracing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, before assisting in the push to Finland, Estonia, and Latvia, with Belarus droppong the charade and publicly passing sovereignty back over to Russia.
That doesn't even mention what's going to happen here. The RNC is publicly saying they're going to end democracy to a hall full of cheers. The "day one dictator" is going to try and fucking do it. And his sycophants will allow him. Followed by mass deportationss and concentration camps of "illegals". Then declarations of naturalization of certain people to have been illegal (DREAMERs beware) to be in the next wave. Simultaneously our trans friends will be picked up. Every gay man and women will have to tread carefully or be declared a pedophile and rounded up too, and it'll only be a matter of time before they round up every outed gay person that doesn't provide them some leverage over some group.
I dont think Biden is great by any standard. And his continued support of Israel's actions in Gaza are no different than any president since Israel was forcefully taken away and given to them post WW2.
Let's remember what's at stake here. We either defeat Trump and fight for Biden to implement incremental progress and push away from Israel. Or Trump wins and the USA becomes a fascist Russian puppet state and the world is going to descend into another war.
Progress is incremental until there's a wave of change. History has repeatedly shown this. And we've seen what that wave of change is when the fascist wave comes. And the world vowed to never let it happen again. Let's not forget what our grandfather's and great grandfather's fought for.
So why does it matter who the Dems pull out of their asses to run against Trump? You could make the same argument for voting for literally any of them instead of Biden.
I maintain that in 2016, Hillary Clinton was probably the only candidate who could've lost to Trump. So who gets picked matters. This "Biden crime family" bullshit isn't sticking the way it did with Bill and Hillary.
No, but the age thing certainly is sticking. An overwhelming majority of Americans ate concerned about his age.
Like, Taylor Swift only has 60% or so approval in America whereas I think it was some 70 or 80% of Americans are concerned about Biden's age/mental acuity.
Incorrect, there is plenty of time. I highly recommend listening to Ezra Klein’s podcast about discussing he and why it can happen at the Democratic convention, and how it used to be normal.
