Off topic, by why in god do people refer to the democrats as the DNC as if it's the acronym for the democratic party?
It's a bit like someone calling every piece in chess a "pawn". It's not right technically, and it sounds dumb.
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
1614 points (98.2% liked)
The Onion
4435 readers
1505 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Democratic National Committee. It's a good shorthand for the establishment fucks who run everything.
Also, I recently learned that the Democratic party was founded before the Grand Old Party. That annoys me more.
Does make you wonder how different America's political system is to Russia's if a little more subtle about it
saw someone on Lemmy say late stage capitalism is exactly like the propaganda they taught you about communism where the rich and important people live in luxury and the working people are essentially slaves, only this time they have cars.
Bernie has it right. The DNC represents the rich left leaning right.
Aren't most of DNC rich AF? I can only see them benefiting from Trump.
Now they can just sit and do fuck all, because they lost everything. I'd say that makes their dayjob easier.
Oddly enough, Biden, Harris, and especially Walz are among the least rich politicians in DC. They are still way better off than middle class Americans though.
They still address Republicans as their friends and collages. Once that work shift is over, they don't care. They will run someone like Pete and have the same issues next election.
They will run whoever wins in the primaries, which means that voting in the primaries is where you have much more power. Start early on supporting candidates who you think can win and help them win the primaries.
This works much better in down-ballot races than at the POTUS-level, but even there if you get a big enough movement going it can work. That's how Trump got the R nomination in 2016 after all--the R establishment hated him and didn't want him to win but he got the votes.
On the DNC side, after outcry about what happened with Bernie in 2016, they changed the rules to limit the power of the superdelegates to rig things like they did it 2016, by preventing them from voting on the first ballot and other rules on what they can do. Whether those reforms are enough has not yet been tested.
One reason it hasn't been tested is that we didn't hold primaries this year.
Sure, it's not (very) illegal to offer the rest of the candidates cabinet positions to drop out, so that you can 1v1 the progressive and prevent the him from winning the way Trump did. But "we're a private entity and can pick the nominee however we want" will not exactly endear you to your base, or give them very much respect for the primary process.
I assume you mean you have more power if you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. If your state votes after "super Tuesday" things will be pretty decided before you have a chance to weigh in.
As a leftist, I feel pretty unrepresented by the Democrats. "Vote in the primaries then support whoever is the nominee" would feel a lot more palatable if I wasn't so sure the DNC will do everything they can to prevent a progressive from getting nominated.
I literally see voters saying the Democrats were too left leaning, jfc.
With parties like this, painful collapse is the only way to avoid multigenerational destitution.
There is no saving the United States as a framework. It is far too compromised, with too many methods installed to keep the people willfully ignorant and infighting as the owners suck their life forces dry for profit.
We can limp along and pretend that isn't the case, but climate change, aka the reality that doesn't give a shit about our self-delusion and greed worship, will force that collapse sooner rather than later. Reality can't be bribed, deluded, disappeared, or discredited.
Enjoy living in delusion that a society can function in capitalist competition against itself, the ability to do so is coming to an end.
I literally see voters saying the Democrats were too left leaning
Could you elaborate on this? I'm confused as to what those voters mean. Polling suggests that actual left wing ideas (universal health cares, higher minimum wage, etc etc) enjoy broad popular support. For example, Missouri (a deeply red state) passed a higher minimum wage and paid sick leave by ballot measure. Are these voters unaware of what "left wing" means, or are they unaware of public opinion?
I've seen a couple of things in this direction as well. Joe Scarborough was complaining that the democrats are too woke, and that that's why they lost the election. He was clearly advocating for throwing trans people under the bus next cycle. I've also heard a liberal buddy of mine say that democrats are moving with the American public, i.e., their right wing policies are a reflection of what the American public wants.
Here on lemmy.world I see it more indirectly. The predominant sentiment is to blame the voters ("you didn't show up", "oh you just had to care about the genocide", "look what you've done"). This operates on the false assumption that if the party changes their position to be more left wing (pro-peace, pro-healthcare, whatever) to woo the lost voters, they'd lose even more votes because the American public is so right wing.
Where are you seeing it?
I think they're making a distinction between policy issues and social issues. The policy issues are popular but the social issues not so much. I read that R's ran a huge ad buy with an anti-trans ad that was very effective in swinging lots of male voters over to them. That's one example of what they mean by the "woke" stuff. It scares conservatives and moderate dems--not the objective reality of the policies as much as messaging spin they put on it, designed to create fear and loathing. Like it or not, it's effective.
"BE A BETTER CANDIDATE" - Jonathan Pie
I literally see voters saying the Democrats were too left leaning, jfc.
I think its important to ask the people saying that to name specific examples of HOW they were too left leaning. People just want to hurt someone now because they are hurt - it doesn't matter if they are punching left or right, if they perceive something as landing, it makes them feel better.
I am seeing Liberals online blaming minorities for not showing up when the reality is, across the board Dem voters didn't show up.
I think its important to ask the people saying that to name specific examples of HOW they were too left leaning.
They'll usually blame one of those marginalized groups they claim you hate if you don't support them. Joe Scarborough blamed Democrats' support of trans rights. After months of being told that I needed to back the Democrats for the safety of LGBTQ+ community, it was amazing to see how quickly he threw them under the bus.
Nobody who calls themselves a Democrat or leftist or whatever label you want to apply to yourself other than “right wing dipshit” should EVER listen to anything Joe Scarborough has to say. He is a right wing grifter just like Ben Shapiro, he just happens to have the support of MSNBC or whatever network he is on now.
You understand that's Biden's favorite morning show host, right? I don't disagree with your assessment of him, but you might want to consider that his opinions may be much more aligned with the Democratic leadership than you think.
The most I've seen anyone able to manifest is that she wasn't an old white man, and instead, she was too radical, because she was black, indian, and a woman. I have seen milquetoast liberals saying this, black people saying this, indians saying this, and women saying this. I don't really know how true it is, and I guess I never will know because she really didn't run a good enough campaign for me to actually run any sort of postmortem analysis relative to someone else's real turnout, because she wasn't even a baseline democrat, she ran below the baseline in terms of promises. She campaigned with dick "killed a million people" cheney and his wife. I dunno. somehow I don't believe that it's because democrat voters are just super racist or sexist or whatever.
In hindsight, I think the big issue with her campaign was simply how little time they had. We should have done an actual fucking primary, or Biden should have bowed out sooner, or at bare minimum she should have simply been as inescapably in the headlines as humanly possible because apparently there's a contingent of dense enough motherfuckers out there that people were searching who was running on election day.
I dunno, I think it was mostly that they wanted joe to step down later on in order to justify not having a primary, and dispelling a populist candidate, like tim walz may have been, a populist candidate which goes against the interests of the donors, and could've still probably gone through with a ton of funding and a groundswell of support regardless (see: kamala getting 1 billion dollars), from the running. Then, they can run kamala by default, and it doesn't matter whether or not she really wins or loses, as she's still campaigning on basically the platform that the republicans of 2016 were running on. I dunno so much if the time was the problem, other countries have full elections in as much time, I think the real problem was the electoral calculus that runs everything the scenes, as it has always been, and I think a lot of people got their brain cooked by brat summer and coconut memes into believing this was somehow going to be any better than 2016.
contingent of dense enough motherfuckers
I believe you could have shortened this to "America".
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
“To all those growing skeptical of this party’s strategies and overall agenda, let me just say we hear you loud and clear. Rest assured we will be doing everything short of interpreting that sound into words and responding to those words in any way shape or form.”
This is an all-timer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›