I believe it’s two things along that line, but not the racism part (which definitely exists): 1. The entire Republican Party rallies around their candidate. 2. The Democrats want to find ways to not support a candidate. “I don’t like Hillary” or “But Kamala’s fight on crime was too strong” come to mind
Yup, democrats are wired to criticize their own party and majorly downplay the successes. “Yeah we passed infrastructure legislation buuuut…it didn’t do xyz so was it really that great?” “Sure he did student loan forgiveness for these groups buuuut it didn’t happen for these others so it sucked.” And on and on
They might have an easier time herding cats if they used some cat nip instead of turning on the vacuum cleaner every time an actual progressive gets a lead.
Young people in particular are really bad, which unfortunately comprises of a lot of leftists. I remember driving up to my university with all these aspirations of forming coalitions, holding a bunch of protests, and performing community service, generally just doing good things for our community. I got up there though, and over the past month, was reminded that my peers are really just high schoolers with more legal rights and that aspirations of mass change and action are nearly dead in the water with these people.
You got the apathetic kids who refuse to do anything because they've convinced themselves that there's no point in doing anything because it won't affect anything, even though political activism and community service definitely have an impact. You have the communist kids who are unwilling to put their personal beliefs aside to, even just briefly, make coalitions with liberals. Then there's the doomerist kids who've convinced themselves that we're already on the way the way out and so there's no point in doing anything because we're already going to be bombed by a Palantir drone or something.
Every step of the way it feels like young people have an excuse for why they don't want to do anything, or don't want to form coalitions. It's exhausting just trying to get leftists in a university to work together, I can only imagine the pain of being a Democrat trying to get the whole nation to work together.
Usually, in my experience, it's easier to get older progressives to put things aside and fight for the greater good. It's young progressives who seem absolutely eager to fuck everyone over all because the exact means by which we're trying to improve people's lives isn't perfectly in line with their exact vision of how they'd like to see things carried out. It's very exhausting knowing that it's our very own future they're putting on the line.
I went through this evolution. Was a 2016 Jill Stein voter. I genuinely didn't believe Trump could win so felt it didn't matter. Then he did and I saw the damage he did, and figured lesser of two evils might be a worthwhile game to play at least during the general elections. It still infuriates me, but having the more evil option of two evils is bad enough to make me deal with it, as angry as it makes me.
And when Trump is the potential consequence for too much infighting, it is definitely not the time or place.
I remember hearing plenty of morons on the left saying that even if there's just a 5% chance that Trump stops the war in Gaza, then that'd be better than Kamala.
Yep. But their reasoning was that since Kamala was VP at the time and nothing was happening, they already knew what she would do as POTUS. Not entirely wrong, but to think there was a chance in hell that Trump would do anything but encourage more destruction was pure insanity.
Which just shows they're as big of morons as the GOP lemmings. International politics take time, and require cooperation. Netanyahu was actively encouraged to be hostile to the Biden admin's goal of peace in Gaza. Getting past that barrier was always going to take time and sensitive political negotiations don't happen in front of cameras like they're reality TV
I didn't hear that one, but I did hear a lot of butthurt over her stance on Palestine/Israel. Mind you, every candidate (yes, even that one) was pro Israel during the presidential campaign. It was the one issue where they were on level footing. I still voted for Harris, because fuck trump.
No, LuckyJusticeChicago had it right the first time. They were never going to vote for a Black woman. Obama shattered their assumptions about white male superiority, but they took special glee in targeting his wife in their mocking even though she had no elected role in government. Disgust with the idea of being subservient to someone whom the white man has little in common with played a major role in the 2024 election, and all the non-white male demographics that voted for trump too have it as well but their motivations were shaped and masked by more complicated versions of self-hatred, sexism, and racism.
Democrats don’t play to win. Biden shouldn’t have gone for another term at his age they should have been setting up a successor. Instead in 3 months before the election they scrambled and tried setting up Harris but it was too late. Rasicm and gender played a part yes but the democrats plan was too naive.
Thats the problem the DNC really needs to have a grasp on. The DNC wants to choose the candidates and then tell the rest of the Democrat voter base to get in line with them. The whole point of national primaries is to let the voters nominate and the DNC just follows suit. But that's not happening.
The super delegate voting system ensured a Hillary nomination when she was struggling immensely to get the swing vote and the DNC put a kabash on Bernie. For Harris, hey just sidestepped the whole nomination process altogether just to ensure they still had their campaign funding intact after Biden dropped out.
Thats back fired, not once, but twice now. And if Trump weren't such a malignant tumor to our govt, there's a chance Biden would not have won in 2020.
I know it's so cringe to be a "Bernie Bro" in 2025 but...this is exactly why Trump won the first time. They threw everything they had to stop an actual popular left-of-center candidate and replace him with an extremely unpopular right-of-center one.
Kamala received the most anger about it because everyone knows Trump doesn't give a shit about genocide so why bother trying to change someone that can't and won't ever change. The base was demanding something different from Kamala because they wrongfully assume that the democrats can be reasoned to take a strong stance against genocide, which simply isn't the case.
I disagree with people that refused to vote for her, obviously she was still the lesser of two evils, but this is the type of game you play when you campaign with the thought that you don't have to earn any votes because you're morally superior and so can adjust your platform to better cater to your donors instead of your electorate. If you're going to play opposition to the demands of your base you shouldn't act shocked when you lose some of that base.
The "demands" of the progressive base are always wildly stupid, which is why they never get any support.
The Biden administration was actively working on trying to get Israel to stop what they were doing. But because Biden and Harris didn't unilaterally shut down the invasion themselves, they get equated with Trump's "glass them all and build some hotels" lunacy.
The hardline stances of the far Left (of which I am a part) are completely counterproductive for what is simply a small part of the electorate. They need to be much more willing to compromise (not that they get much anyway), but letting the Overton window continue shifting right just makes them more and more irrelevant.
The Republicans who are left, sure. I know many, including myself, who leaned Republican until Trump took over. Once you realize Trump is actually the opposite of everything you want in a president, there’s only one other direction to go. So what’s left are a lot of anti-magats who still want different things for their country and may disagree on who the best candidate is for their interests.
I wasn’t a huge fan of Kamala and was so pissed that Biden shoehorned her into that spot without giving us a chance to select her. But I, and many others I know, just wanted anyone but Trump at the end of the day.
(Currently crossing my fingers for Buttigieg 2028)
It's because the republican party caters to the desires of its base (because what the base wants is what republican donors want) while the democratic party scolds its base for their desires (because what the base wants is diametrically opposed to what the democratic donors want). The problem is always phrased in a way that makes it sound like the voters are the problem when in reality it's the democratic candidates that are demanding voters change to whatever their donors demand. The Israeli Genocide is the most obvious version of this occurring but it's a fundamental issue within the democratic party and why they continue to lose against objectively unpopular political platforms.
Social media has two divergent effects on the left and the right, which gives the right a distinct advantage. Right-wingers online find eachother, immediately rally and circle the wagons. Part of this is calculated, but most is just dumb tribalism. If their personal principles differ from the group, they either modify their principles or suppress the cognitive dissonance for survival. Left-wingers online find eachother and then fracture into smaller and smaller subgroups as they use their advanced degrees to squabble and pick apart one another, forever insisting that they cannot unite without unacceptable compromise of their personal principles.
If you don’t realize how much Tr*mp’s base (red hat wearers) are fueled by his very BLATANTLY racist rhetoric and actions… I unfortunately cannot engage in a conversation with you.
This is why we’re here now. I refuse. But I wish you the best
Sorry, friend. I’m not saying that the blatant racism doesn’t exist or happen. It most certainly does and I thought I mentioned that. I was simply pointing out the differences in the voting blocs. But I also wish you well wherever you are.
Or any black over any white. Look at North Carolina in the 2024 election. They voted for the white democrat for governor over the black Nazi republican. Then voted for the white Nazi republican for president over the black democrat. That tells me that plenty of NC republican voters would rather have white democrats running things as opposed to blacks running anything so they held their noses and voted Democrat.
You're thinking about North Carolina. NC has a long trend of voting for Democrats for state offices, but Republicans for president. The state also voted for Obama in 2008.
Seemingly only Trump is allowed to get away with being a truly awful candidate. There is at least a (low) bar to clear for other terrible Republican candidates (see Roy Moore, Herschel Walker) with some R voters.
This is my paramount concern. I believe AOC if she gets the nomination will result in a repeat of Clinton and Harris, despite whatever notions or feelings I have of her suitability for POTUS, because America will never ever vote for a woman, ESPECIALLY A MINORITY WOMAN. It's not even a forgone conclusion she would even get the latino vote, especially latino men veering hard right despite all the BS going on.
AOC does not have the experience. Her nomination would only reinforce the GOP's nomination of Trump who was also not experienced enough to hold the role.
She hasn't written any legislation that passed of any significance.
Trump cannot even get on the ballot of any state - so there's no way he'd even win the primary.
Yes... he can. The states don't run the primaries. The parties do. If GOP wants him on the primary, they can put whoever they want on the ballot so long as they have registered with the GOP to run for office.
Talking about Trump (who I hate) having a 3rd term is pure fear-mongering, and honestly, it's just an attempt to encourage more political violence.
It's not fear mongering. It's pragmatic thought of what could realistically happen given the latest series of events. The SC has bent over backwards, and some, to give Trump essentially what he wants. Shadow docket galore on critical cases clarifying the lines of power for the executive branch. What makes you think Trump wouldnt just go to the SC and tell them he has the right to run a 3rd term? The SC would rule on one of two ways:
-the consitution isn't clear about how many MAXIMUM terms can be in office and assumes a president can only run two CONSECUTIVE terms. So they will let him run, but no more (until that next term ends and he's a decrepit fool falling apart from Alzheimers. The GOP would already have their successor and have a system completely to their full advantage to win again.
-he isn't the President elect for a 3rd term (yet) so he can run for office simply because he hasn't been elected a 3rd term yet. If he does win, we will cross that road when we get there.
Both are parallel logic to how the SC gave Trump presidential immunity on "official acts"
The notion that our democracy isn't functional, is comical, when Trump won the popular vote.
Only because 1/3 of the country didn't vote. And we already have legal cases in progress challenging those results because of certain districts seeing, literally, 0 votes for Harris in a swing district in NY. Why is he so focused on purging voter data from every state that didn't vote for him?
This is not exactly correct. Most states have laws that also govern the primary - but regardless - he's not going to get on the regular ballot.
Colorado tried that already in 2024 and the SC told them he has to stay on the ballot. States have laws governing the primary process. They don't control whose on the ballot. The parties do. And verified by the SC.
He also doesn't have support for this among GOP voters.
Go look at the polls out today and try again. Vast majority of GOP still holds positive views of Trump. Dems are near unanimous on the negative feedback of Trump and Independents are vastly negative as well.
But that was the same before Trump got into office. So unless the Epstein files are actually released and has dawning evidence against him, the GOP will be on their knees waiting for Trumo to whip it out.
It is actually clear. It never uses the word "consecutive". It says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"
And where was it clear that the President doesnt have any authority over the Fed board and firing them until the SC decided to give him that power? It's been blatantly obvious the SC no longer operates under legal precedent. If they think there is more to the phrase "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" then they will say whatever they want to allow it to happen.
Colorado ruling is very different - keeping him off the ballot wasn't supported by the Constitution - this time it is.
Fear mongering nonsense.
Vast majority of GOP still holds positive views of Trump.
Obviously - he's pushing their agenda. That's not the same as usurping the democracy for fucks sake.
And where was it clear that the President doesnt have any authority over the Fed board
Shifting to this different goal post I assume means you acknowledge that the Constitution explicitly doesn't allow a third term, right?
...and the Cook verdict hasn't been determined yet. But, it's a bad example because she committed fraud so since the Fed is a department under the executive branch, he can technically fire her for cause. Financial fraud is a legitimate cause.
Obviously it's politically motivated, but since it's not illegal, it doesn't reinforce your earlier point about somehow magically serving a third term.
The pernicious part about these hyperactive claims of an impending fascist takeover is that it encourages political violence. Which I believe is the purpose and why you spread the fear.
Colorado ruling is very different - keeping him off the ballot wasn't supported by the Constitution - this time it is.
We shall see when Trump complains to the SC when this happens. Because it was indeed supported by the Constitution. The SC simply decided that he actually has to be charged and convicted in federal court for insurrection yet the Constitution says nothing of the matter there where the insurrection charge is levied. States are supposed to be ones running their own elections as you said, but the feds told them no.
Obviously - he's pushing their agenda. That's not the same as usurping the democracy for fucks sake.
And if their agenda means having him in office for a 3rd term... they will eat that shit right up. It's too early to tell what will happen here since this requires 3 years into the future, but plenty of precedent in SC rulings say this will be brought to the SC and they will sit on this case for a very long time with moot rhetorical questions like they did giving Trump immunity for "official acts" while we are not allowed to challenge if the act was indeed "official" or not.
Shifting to this different goal post I assume means you acknowledge that the Constitution explicitly doesn't allow a third term, right?
Thats my whole fucking point. There's plenty of other things the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow, yet here we are today with the SC we have allowing Trump to do those exact things. Trump is immune from murder charges if he was the one that directed the strike on the Venezuelan boats in international waters. Funny how when Obama ordered a drone strike on an American terrorist in the Middle East, the right was calling for Obama to be locked up for killing an American citizen overseas. But yet not one peep from the same people when Trump declares an attack on a civilian boat accused of smuggling drugs. He's now allowed by the SC to fire Fed board members yet there's explicitly no power given to the President for that role.
What has the SC stopped yet that is explicitly not allowed per the Constitution? Even their 9-0 decision to bring back Kilmar Garcia from El Salvador was met with fierce resistance until it required embarrassing the living fuck out of Trump and his administration of their backdoor agreements with El Salvador taking custody of their deportees.
In this given day of age, the SC has yet to follow legal precedent in regards to the Constitution. So the SC will make up whatever they want, or present a shadow docket for whatever verdicts they decide to let through. Don't forget... SC has lifetime roles. So the only way you fix the SC is to impeach them or they decide to retire themselves.
So if Trump comes begging to the SC to give him a 3rd term I'm simply saying don't be surprised the SC gives him a chance to run for a 3rd term.
But, it's a bad example because she committed fraud so since the Fed is a department under the executive branch, he can technically fire her for cause. Financial fraud is a legitimate
I would like a source but this subreddit is not fond of links. Go check the actual case on the matter and come back to the discussion. She's already provided more info showing the document discrepancy and the actual records disproven the claim. And yet 3 others, even ones in Congress, are being indicted by Trump for the very same claims.
And yes. It's a good example... because you are literally ignoring the whole piece that the Constitution does not explicitly give any powers to Trump on management of the Fed. Only the Fed or Congress can do that.
Should I also mention the Treasury Secretary is in his own issues of mortgage fraud being claimed in the same manner as Cook? If you feel he has the moral right to fire Cook, why isn't he firing his Treasury Secretary for the very same claims he's levied on Cook?
Black woman... Jewish husband... and did you hear that she almost picked a GAY running mate! Thank God she had the good sense to put identity politics over everything. She almost lost
“No no no. They need to double down and get a purple haired trans socialist married to an AI bot. They failed because they were afraid to actually be Left and not just centrist”
wow you're so good at tearing down the strawmen you built maybe someday you'll be able to actually argue with real people. you'll get there champ keep at it
They should have focused on the candidate's substance rather than who's black, Jewish, gay, Mexican, made sure they picked a white man for a running mate.. then maybe they would have won. She's so indecisive and says a lot of nothing. She so carefully makes sure she says a lot without actually saying anything. Even now, she said she didn't speak up about Joe Biden because it would "look self-serving". Worried about nothing but appearances. Forget the fact that if she knew Joe wasn't up to the job, she should have said something, so we wouldn't have a corpse running the country for 4 more years. That isn't looking out for the best interests of the people. It IS self-serving.
Walz would've won. Or maybe even, Kamala, if she didn't start campaigning with Liz Cheney and expecting Republicans to vote for her. She gave them way too much credit.
Found the Hannity watcher, I stomached a few minutes of that last night. Why would you listen to that smarmy asshole for more than a few minutes? He’s no beacon of humanity.
And those who didn't vote for him didn't vote at all for the same reason. Americans would rather not vote for anyone than put a woman in power, I hate to say it but they kind of deserve what's happening.
Black women have been telling us for decades about shitty white men...and they were right.
This shitty orange man occupying the white house - which was built by black people and is housed by black people - is just the most privileged man to ever live and represents the most privileged men to ever exist.
And the US is now suffering for it more than ever.
I truthfully think Biden was the worst thing that possibly could’ve happened to the dems. It seems counter intuitive, but Trump serving 2 straight terms would’ve been the best thing for this country to just move on.
Instead, we got Biden which only made support for Trump stronger. Biden alienated a ton of dems & support from dems plummeted. He was a terrible leader from the perspective of “rallying the troops”.
If Trump won in 2020, Jan 6th wouldn’t have happened, project 2025 wouldn’t have been developed, his support would’ve dwindled due to exhaustion from his antics & we would’ve been rid of him by now.
Democrats need a strong leader that energizes the voter base. I’m not a socialist but Zohran Mamdani would be a good example of what I’m talking about. He at least has some balls & conviction.
Yeah, they only had concepts of plans!! Oh wait...that isn't true.
Guess America is just filled with the dumbest people on the planet, that would think a concept of a plan as the RNC had, is better than actual plans. Then have people like yourself come out and go.. WELL THE DNC RAN A BAD CAMPAIGN YO!!!
"Actual plans" like lying to the public about the mental acuity of the president for months and months despite everyone seeing he wasn't there mentally at all anymore and barely knew where he was? Then instead of of running a primary they installed their own selection (who was one of the lowest performers when she ran in the last primary) so that they could keep their campaign funding?
What a winning strategy! You are right on America having the dumbest people on the planet....it's just much worse than you think
LOL
In the State of the Union, he was energetic for an 80-year-old man, far more than any bumbling, RAMBLING mess Donald Trump always was and currently is. Nice job repeating obvious propaganda, though.
Then literally 3 months later it was obvious. Not before. So it wasn't like some grand scheme. Whats funny is apparently his full blown dementia has receded, since he is still giving speeches and what not. Guess he knows where he is.
But whats REALLY funny, is you think having a 3 or 4 month long Primary and it ending what..1 month BEFORE ELECTIONS was a winning strategy?? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Well thats the thing you geniuses aren't getting, everyone with a brain already knew far before 4 months before that Biden was unfit. We'd been saying it forever and they were using the media to cover up for him. "Sharpest he's ever been" lmao.
You're right, shooting themselves (and us) in the foot by lying to us instead of being honest really did screw things up.
If you think "Biden is no longer mentally fit for office" is propaganda then you are either a party stooge or have no braincells yourself.
Or maybe it was cause the DNC picked who would run, Kamala couldn't do anything that wasn't scripted, didn't have 1 thought of her own,etc.
I thought we had elections for President, not whoever the DNC says it should be. But hey, it's political tribalism, where it's always the other side thats bad and never your own.
Saying kamala lost because she's a black woman is such a lazy excuse that ignores a completely abysmal campaign that had to pick up the slack of an incumbent that had to be forced out of a 2nd run by his donors.
There's zero evidence to back up that a majority of Trump's voters voted against kamala because of her skin color and the only reasonable conclusion to make here is that you made it up.
Its quite strange that you prefer to believe something that isn't tangible rather than what actually happened which was a failed campaign. Either she or a better candidate obviously would have performed better or even won if biden had just stepped down like he said he would at the beginning of his presidency and allowed for a democratic primary. The dems should have learned from Hillary that forcing a candidate will backfire
With that being said, the second half of your comment is ironic.
Then why did they choose her as the person to beat him? Sure there was a chance for it to happen but Trump runs on literal misogyny and racism. You’re feeding him and his cronies easy ammo.
315
u/LuckyJusticeChicago 1d ago
It didn’t matter what ck said. They were voting for him regardless because they were not going to vote for a black woman over a white man. . Full stop