I am impressed that the Democrat party managed to present not one, but two outstandingly incompetent candidates. In a row. That's some bottom of the barrel advanced scraping techniques right there. They even managed to get a representation of both sexes.

I'm sure Mr. Biden will be terribly distraught, as soon as he is able to understand what's happening around him at the moment.

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 57 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The Democrats are still stuck in this post-Clinton seniority mindset where they unofficially pick a candidate before primaries even begin, based on who has been around the longest and who has held the highest position. Remember "it's her turn"? Yes, yes, I know it didn't work against Obama, but heading into the debates everyone assumed Hillary would be the candidate until Obama put on the better show. More to the point, I think Obama breaking through scared the establishment Dems into doubling down on primary fuckery. See what happened to Bernie, twice. So now we have a president who knows all the right people but plays politics with the 1990s rulebook and has a terminal case of crusty old man voice.

Still better than Trump.

[–] MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works 22 points 4 months ago

Obama has absolutely absurd charisma. He's the Democrat version of Trump - knows exactly what to say to his base and knows how to convince moderates he's not insane.

Clinton and Biden have the charisma of a limp noodle. Sanders has absurd charisma, but he's seen as too big of a threat to Democrat lobbyists and big corporations.

Sanders would've mopped the floor with Trump because he would've actually been able to grab the 18-44 demographic (which last saw peaks in 1992 Clinton/Gore and 2008 Obama/Biden, both to unseat a Republican and, coincidentally, a Bush).

Sanders would have been able to avoid the collapse in turnout from working-class Black people in 2016.

Sanders would've stopped the increasing right-wing radicalization of the youth of America, or provided a counterweight for left-wing economic radicalization.

The US federal elections are basically a pony show and the DNC doesn't know how to play the game without throwing out their playbook.

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

This is about a succinct of a deconstruction of the DNCs hand in this cycle as I’ve seen. They’re effectively Ned Stark

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

He literally is an old man. Which is the core issue.

[–] Cube6392@beehaw.org 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I do not understand how Elizabeth Warren didn't get more interest 4 years ago. She was clearly the best candidate and one who has the kind of broad appeal Bernie Sanders does. I think I'm at a point where my belief is that the bankers who are probably gonna vote Republican anyway who fund campaigns very explicitly don't want someone like Sanders or Warren to be president

[–] jprice@kbin.run 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Democratic establishment doesn’t want people who go after their donors. Mainly big banks, but also pharmaceutical and insurance companies which if you ask me all need to be reformed and heavily regulated and a lot of people need to go to prison for what they’ve done to the country over the past 24 years. But hey, who am I, just somebody who wants better for the country that doesn’t have to do with sucking rich cocks.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Corpo's lapdogs are on both sides but some how GOP ends appealing to the masses.

Some fucking warped reality.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 months ago

It is easy to understand. The people who the Republican party appeals to are unlikely to vote Democratic, the Democratic Party by trying to appeal to them it is losing its base while not winning any Republican voters. The people who are likely to vote Democratic are more idealistic and will hold the Democratic Party to a high standard. The promised "push to the left" never came, and so the people are looking at two right wing candidates, the Republicans already got their guy in Trump and anyone even slightly left of center has no one to represent them.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago

One-fucking-hundred percent.

Warren was my choice over Bernie for strategic value even though I like Bernie more. If we didn't have explicitly Republican propaganda outlets I think conservatives would have been more comfortable with her too as she was once a Republican and understands business law.

Hell she literally wrote the book on my, and others, biggest issue "the two income trap" where society has defined economic success by "family income" instead of individual incomes. People like myself suffer because we're perpetually single so we only have one income. Family income says everything is rosy because it's now 2 incomes. :(

[–] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Seriously though, I don't follow American electoral politics much, but why didn't they swap him out for someone else? It's a country of ~330m people. Like even the likes of Blinken would have been acceptable to them surely? What's the actual reasoning?

[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 8 points 4 months ago

An old American tradition to not run a primary during a President's second term who is running for office. I guess it's supposed to help unify the party behind a proven winner or something. That's mostly it. Liberals love traditions, guidelines, and rules more than anyone.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 4 months ago

There's some stupid adherence to precedent where we don't primary an encumbant because in the past it didn't work out well. So now we shut our eyes and pretend he isn't absolutely one of the worst candidates ever because we refuse to primary him.