• Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I’m once again reminded of the secret attack plan from Blackadder 4.

    Capt. Blackadder: We all climb out of our trenches and march slowly across no man’s land?

    Capt. Darling: How do you know that Blackadder? It’s classified information.

    Capt. Blackadder: It’s what we did the last time, the time before that and the previous fifteen before that.

    General Melchit: Precisely! The absolute last thing the watchful Hun will expect is for us to do the exact same thing as the past seventeen times thus catching him entirely by surprise!

  • InvalidName2@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    54 minutes ago

    Please do! But, let’s have a completely fair primary with lots of other great candidates to choose amongst as well.

  • switcheroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Please no. I was excited for her last election but that failed and now I don’t wanna hear from her ever again.

    Are you shitting me that the dnc (or should I say the billionaires backing the dnc) can’t find someone else???

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I mean, she’d be better than Trump. But that’s such a ridiculously low bar.

    Surely the Dems can come up with a better candidate that her, Gavin Newsom, or some similarly uninspiring/greasy candidate. Right? Right???

    • KaChilde@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 minutes ago

      But Harris is the best candidate… For the interests of the wealthy members of the DNC.

      She will keep things exactly how they are, but act like they have changed for the better. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get assaulted by police.

      Why would the DNC give a single fuck about the desires of anyone but themselves? They suffer no consequences for their actions.

    • Wilco@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      A chimpanzee with a switchblade would be better than Trump. At least it wouldnt start a war in Iran … or participate in a child sex trafficking ring.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      That isn’t the question, the question is over whether the DNC and the ruling class allow any other candidate to run against Trump.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Well, we’re in luck, the new chair of the DNC (Ken Martin) wants more candidates like Zohran Mamdani, and he has complete control over the DNC until August 2029.

        He’s also pouring money into local races, supporting the local democratic parties the previous few DNC chairs mostly ignored.

        • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Bernie Sanders

          WTF is this US fetish for old people. Saunders will be 86 by 2028, if he gets to that age.

          America will not elect a woman. Not a young woman, and not a young, latina woman. Pale, Male and Stale or its another 4 years of the GOP. Stop pretending you are some progressive European country.

  • Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    So sick of the US’s neo liberals masquerading as left. A lot can change in a few years hopefully there will be enough change. In the end all that matters is if people wake up to the lies before it too late. It’s incredible how bad it has to get before people wake up.

    The MAGA movement is crumbling but only time will tell if it’s enough. A lot of delusional neo liberals think things will just go back to normal if they get in office next term

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The MAGA movement is crumbling but only time will tell if it’s enough. A lot of delusional neo liberals think things will just go back to normal if they get in office next term

      Yes, it is terrifying to see, like watching the tide recede before a tsunami and being helpless to convince people to stop wandering out onto the exposed seafloor… while being condescended by those same people.

  • Capable_Coping@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If the Democratics run Harris or New some I might actually lose my mind. have we learned nothing from the past decade?

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    So long as there’s a proper primary I don’t see the harm in this, not really. I can’t see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton

      It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.

      I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.

      • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

        First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.

        More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.

          that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.

          my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.

          • 13igTyme@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            I’ve been voting since I was 18 and I’ve never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.

              i have been voting since 1997.

              • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I agree with you, but as devil’s advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent’s name. Take Biden for example: either he’s doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he’s not doing a good enough job.

                • flandish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  why? because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.

        • butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          That’s absolutely not true. I’ve been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I’ve voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That’s the only one.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          6 hours ago
          1. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.
            • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              6 hours ago

              As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Cynthia McKinney was elected as a Democrat in Georgia around that time. iirc she was looking at a presidential run. You might have seen her on here yesterday for her latest tweet. (Spoiler: super bigot)

                Which is to say, if you open the field to everyone in the country you will spend a certain amount of time winnowing the contenders from the stunt candidates. Republicans don’t do that because they’re all the same candidate. So they spend almost zero time (since Perot) dealing with that.

                Superdelegates aren’t great, but an alternative to achieve that aim of not having to platform every trust fund kid with a boot on their head might be good.

                • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  She ran as a Green Party candidate, not a Democratic one. I’m not sure how she’s relevant?

                  She was pretty suspect even in 2008, so I’m not sure I buy that if we don’t have superdelegates and let voters decide who the candidates are, then the stupid masses will just pick whoever.

        • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.

            • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Ah yes, super delegate shenanigans like the majority going to the candidate who had over 3 million more votes than the other. The only way Bernie could have won with super delegates is if he got almost all of them. And if he did then the candidate who got 3 million less votes would have won the nomination and we would still be facing people saying the democratic primaries aren’t “fair”.

              Now don’t get me wrong, DWS was biased as fuck. But if the voters simply turned out and voted for Bernie then bias wouldn’t have mattered. The RNC was biased towards Jeb bush and Ted Cruz but you know how that turned out.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.

            Uh oh

            (I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)

            • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn’t happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it’s their sole fault because they couldn’t convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn’t apply to Bernie.

              Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn’t have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.

    • Eldritch@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.

      The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.

    • ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we’re going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general

    • expatriado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 hours ago

      a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        How about a primary where superdelegates get no more/better votes than anyone else?

        What am I thinking? That might result in someone who isn’t on the corporate teat!

        • billwashere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours ago

          All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.

          If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?

        They’re going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.

        Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.

    • HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      If there is a primary hopefully she will perform the public service of prompting the others to distance themselves from Bidens handling of Gaza