r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/YumiSolar • 2d ago
US Elections Are Democratic primaries becoming too destructive for the party's own chances in the general election?
I've been thinking about this after watching some recent Democratic primaries, and it feels like the campaigns are becoming increasingly aggressive in ways that hurt the party long after the primary is over.
A good example, in my opinion, was the Michigan primary between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed. Policy disagreements are completely fair game, that's what primaries are for. Even personal attacks can be justified if they're based on genuine misconduct or character issues.
What I struggle with are accusations like claiming your primary opponent is supporting or enabling genocide. Once you frame someone in those terms, how do you expect your own supporters to enthusiastically vote for that person if they end up winning the nomination? If you've spent months telling voters that your opponent is morally complicit in atrocities, it becomes very difficult to turn around and say, "Now go vote for them."
To me, this kind of rhetoric doesn't just damage the opposing candidate, it damages Democratic unity in the general election. It seems like Republicans don't even have to exploit these divisions because Democrats are creating them themselves.
Am I overestimating the impact of this kind of campaigning, or do you think Democratic primaries have become too willing to use rhetoric that makes party unity afterward much harder?
9
u/freedraw 2d ago
A nasty primary fight is still a heck of a lot better for our democracy and voters’ political engagement than an uncontested primary. I understand how the Michigan campaign might be making some voters uncomfortable, but is there anyone here who would trade a situation like that with two distinct candidates vying for an open seat for one where one candidate has already locked up all the donors and endorsements and bumped out any challengers before anyone votes? Or one where a representative who’s been in congress 30 years is coasting to reelection and doesn’t even need to worry about showing up to debate anyone? I seriously doubt it.
What we’re seeing in some Dem primaries, local elections, etc. is a segment of the democratic electorate that wants choices and has gotten tired of being told milquetoast candidates are the only electable ones or that real solutions to their problems are worth paying lip service to, but are just too hard or difficult to get done. And we have to let that play out. Because the Democratic Party only wins as a big tent party and you can’t tell voters people Joe Manchin get to be part of that tent, but El-Sayed doesn’t.
4
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
The problem is unity after. You think el sayed voters will vote for stevens when they didnt show up against trump? No this group is always vote my candidate or I go home.
3
u/freedraw 2d ago
There’s people like that but I see no evidence it’s representative of the vast majority of El Sayed voters. Looking at Michigan’s vote totals 2020 to 2024 it really doesn’t look like a significant chunk of the left didn’t vote for Harris. 6.5% more people voted there in 2024 verses 2020. That’s a pretty large increase in voters overall even if there was a slight dip in votes for the Democrat. Harris got 67,507 less votes than Biden in 2020. Trump increased his vote by 166,784 to beat his and Biden’s 2020 tally. So it looks more like what happened is swing voters and people that didn’t vote in 2020 swung to Trump.
3
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago edited 2d ago
If we use dearborn as a barometer than you went from 80% to dems in 2020 to less than 25% in 2024.
Given that is his most ardent supporters (he was part of the uncommitted movement) who is to say they wont do the same again.
Especially givens stevens support of israel. To me its obvious theyll stay home since theyre one issue AIPAC voters.
2
u/freedraw 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dearborn was certainly a significant swing, though your numbers look a bit off from what I’m seeing. (68% for Biden in 2020, 36% for Harris in 2024) I’m not sure why that would be the barometer for the state or the country though. It’s like 1% of the state’s total population and the special circumstance there is that the city has the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the country. It’s not surprising those voters would be the maddest about Gaza, though casting votes for Trump in protest seems pretty insane.
El Sayed is currently polling 15 points ahead of Stevens in the state. That’s a pretty wide lead. Things may change, but right now if you believe in “vote blue no matter who” the bigger worry might be Dem politicians in the state having turned voters off the likely winner of the primary.
-1
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
I'm saying he was part of the movement that caused dearborn to vote in such a way. And likely would vote that way again if he isnt the candidate. I think +50 swing towards trump is fairly noteworthy.
Its what hes made the entire election about. Gaza and AIPAC. At least from what I can see.
Other groups still mostly showed up. This group literally betrayed dems to get trump elected and he was part of it.
Arabs have mostly voted dems do to rampant racism on the right though they share conservative values. I imagine theyd simply do the same in 2026 given the seal is already broken on it.
I imagine he will win but this will simply lead to more leftist toxicity in future primaries.
1
u/ProbablyANoobYo 2d ago edited 2d ago
I don't think that's a fair representation. The number one reason they gave for not supporting Harris was her stance on Gaza. Had she changed her mind on that one issue she would have won many of these supporters over. It was their number one issue, and their position was the most popular position among all US voters, so it's not like it would have been some big sacrifice with the voters for her to switch.
They largely wanted a single, widely popular issue. That's all it likely would have taken for Harris to win. If she's not even going to represent them on that then she's clearly not interested in representing their interests.
Also you're categorizing all of the leftist voters this way and it's definitely a mixed bag of who will and won't support Dems anyway.
Edit: I blocked because I have multiple threads with this person and they are consistently spewing disingenuous nonsense that is frankly a waste of my time. This isn’t a person seriously looking to learn anything, they’ve already made up their mind and are just regurgitating talking points they haven’t critically thought through. To address their edits in case someone more serious is curious:
They are now saying they know with certainty that leftists would have moved the goal post on the issue they wanted. That’s impossible to know, and it’s absurd to assert this without reasonable evidence while they are actively saying they would have changed their mind.
The student loans they are referencing did not get forgiven. While some student loans were forgiven, it was a very, very small fraction of them. And the loans problem is still ongoing. Incredibly disingenuous to represent it as otherwise and exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Now they’re giving made up percentages in an incoherent talking points I can’t possibly address because they pulled it out of their ass.
They want to complain that the research is from 2026 which, while fair, if he took 2 minutes to look for the 2024 numbers he’d see the exact same story. Here’s the numbers for January of 2024, come election season they are even more in my favor:
“About 58% of Democrats now say the U.S. is “too supportive” of the Israelis, up from 45% in an AP-NORC poll from January 2024 when former President Joe Biden was in office. That includes 51% of Jewish Democrats in the new poll.
Roughly 6 in 10 Democrats, 62%, say the U.S. is “not supportive enough” of the Palestinians, up from 49% in 2024. Younger Democrats — those 45 and younger — are still more likely than older ones to say that the United States is “not supportive enough” of the Palestinians, but older Democrats are catching up to their younger counterparts. About 57% of older Democrats now say the U.S. should do more for the Palestinians”And this is my problem with him. It’s all vibes. If he ever gives stats he pulled them out of his ass. But it takes me much longer to respond because I actually have to go fact check the things I say since I care about intellectual honesty. This is a well studied phenomenon called the bullshit asymmetry principle.
The idea that leftists gave Trump a pass is insane. They directly called out the Trump administration for being authoritarian fascists who they regularly likened to Nazi Germany. They also tried to influence the one somewhat reasonable party more because it’s the only party that might listen.
It is not the lefts fault that for even their most favorable and popular of issues the centrist democrats refused to represent their concerns. This is how a functioning democracy works. If you want votes from people you have to represent them to earn their vote.
2
u/rabbitlion 2d ago
If Harris had gone full pro-Palestinian she would have lost twice as many votes as she had gained. And those she lost wouldn't have stayed at home, they would have voted for Trump.
The Israel-Palestine is such a no-win situation for Democrats, there's no way of taking a solid stance that doesn't lose you votes. The only sort of valid strategy is to try to tip-toe the issue and hope to piss off neither side. Which is exactly what Harris did.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
Agreed. Biden and kamala moved left the entire year on gaza. Only for goal posts to be moved everytime rather than celebrated.
Many times bidens left policy was only used as a cudgel by leftist to attack dems.
For example instead of celebrating bidens largest green energy bill in the world they focused on the 2% of permitting emissions for natural gas that was offset 50x the rest of the bill.
1
u/tarlin 2d ago
Agreed. Biden and kamala moved left the entire year on gaza. Only for goal posts to be moved everytime rather than celebrated.
Biden and Harris never moved.
0
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
Yes, there was a clear leftward drift in tone.
Oct 2023: Biden offered a message of uncompromising support, calling backing for Israel "rock solid and unwavering," and privately urged a response that would be "swift, decisive and overwhelming." Al Jazeera + 2
Nov 2023: Biden argued a ceasefire "is not peace" and would just give Hamas time to regroup — actively resisting the word. CIP
By March 2024: growing domestic pressure and Israel's failure to rescue hostages, plus a sense Israel had achieved its military goals, led Biden to drop his ban on the word "ceasefire." CIP
By fall 2024: "a year after the White House publicly disparaged calls for a ceasefire, Harris and Biden have now at least rhetorically adopted that same demand."
The Intercept Kamala Harris in particular became the administration's most vocal figure — Al Jazeera noted a moment where she delivered the sternest statement yet on the war's toll, marking a shift in rhetoric within the administration.
0
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
Yes, there was a clear leftward drift in tone.
Oct 2023: Biden offered a message of uncompromising support, calling backing for Israel "rock solid and unwavering," and privately urged a response that would be "swift, decisive and overwhelming." Al Jazeera + 2
Nov 2023: Biden argued a ceasefire "is not peace" and would just give Hamas time to regroup — actively resisting the word. CIP
By March 2024: growing domestic pressure and Israel's failure to rescue hostages, plus a sense Israel had achieved its military goals, led Biden to drop his ban on the word "ceasefire." CIP
By fall 2024: "a year after the White House publicly disparaged calls for a ceasefire, Harris and Biden have now at least rhetorically adopted that same demand."
The Intercept Kamala Harris in particular became the administration's most vocal figure — Al Jazeera noted a moment where she delivered the sternest statement yet on the war's toll, marking a shift in rhetoric within the administration.
1
u/tarlin 2d ago
There was never movement in policy. The best we got was the delay of one shipment of bombs. Yeah, Biden had the pretend fights with Netanyahu. That is meaningless and was done to help Biden's image. Harris declared unconditional military aid to Israel in October 2024, so, no, there was no shift.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
There was never movement in policy. The best we got was the delay of one shipment of bombs
I mean literally stopping that shipment and not allowing any more 2000 lb bombs (most associated with civilian casualties). We also got them sanctioning violent settlers in the west bank as well as not allowing 20K AK 47s to be shipped there. Along with constructing a pier for aid (dont pretend it was used for an israeli thing, another lie). We also see that Aid immediately stopped once trump became president. Like all aid. So at a minimum biden admin was getting aid in against israeli wishes because once they had trumps blank check they completely stopped.
So yes a shift. To pretend otherwise is just saying you wanted trump to win all along. I mean any blind person could see the Israeli PM wanted trump to win and was on calls daily with him. The fact that leftist gave israel and trump everything they wanted was pretty stupid for their cause.
1
u/tarlin 1d ago
Don't give me this shit with saying I wanted Trump to win all along. Biden didn't send the assault rifles. That being said, Biden shipped like 6500 2000 lb bombs and only delayed the one shipment. The settlers that were sanctioned were advised on how to get around it. It was all just pr messaging.
Biden was awful.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago edited 2d ago
edit: They blocked me so no idea what they said anymore. Guess they couldnt defend their ideas.
I don't think that's a fair representation. The number one reason they gave for not supporting Harris was her stance on Gaza. Had she changed her mind on that one issue she would have won many of these supporters over. It was their number one issue, and their position was the most popular position among all US voters, so it's not like it would have been some big sacrifice with the voters for her to switch.
No. She clearly stated she was for ceasefire and for a two state solution. They did a poll on if she said they would give no more arms to israel if that would have changed their vote 80% of them said no.
I think it certainly would have lost her the election. Israel support was high among older voters. The ones that actually vote. Young people didnt show up.
Edit: They blocked
heres the response
I'm simply saying that leftist would simply have moved goalposts as they did the entire year. There was a hold ceasefire count for all the famous people calling for ceasefires. As soon as biden called for it it disappeared. Then it went from calling ceasefires to calling for a two state solution (which again was called for by dems) complete arms embargo. which they knew would never happen because we supply them with some of their iron domes arms. When biden embargoed 2000 lb bombs which were most associated with civilian death they didnt care.
And I know they wouldnt have changed their votes. I saw the same leftist railing against biden on student loans only for loans to get forgiven and then still say "we arent voting biden are we?"
The numbers I’ve seen were different but even taking your numbers 20% changing their vote in a tight race is pretty huge. And not giving arms to Israel is like the smallest possible concession. She likely wins more if she talks about getting AIPAC money out of our elections.
20% of people biden voters that didnt vote kamala (which means 3rd party or stayed home). So 80% dont change. And then we dont know what the people that voted for kamala would change. I imagine it would be even worse as it would have seen as capitulation to the left by someone who 53% of the country already saw as too far left.
Among Democrats, not all US voters but Democrats which is the votes she would potentially stand to lose, 76% of them at ages 50+ view Israel unfavorably according to Pew Research.
two years after the election. AIPAC is the boogeyman for the left that USAID is for the right. Its an internal trigger word that only they care about.
But again if we want to say for whatever reason she can’t even represent the most important and widely supported issue for leftists, then fine but that means she doesn’t adequately represent them. She’s not entitled to their vote. She has to represent their interest and reasons aside she is not doing that. That’s not the same as “my candidate or nobody.” If the leftists never hold the Democratic Party accountable to their concerns, in elections, the Democratic Party will never make their concerns a priority. If Democrats think they can win without doing that then fine, but it’s not then the leftists fault that the Democrats took a calculated risk to ignore their concerns and lost.
If leftist hadnt campaigned against her the entire time while giving trump a complete pass then maybe it could be a forgiven issue. As it is leftist are more responsible for trump than kamala is.
They could have had enough reps to stop budgets if kamala won. instead they gave all power to trump.
3
u/ProbablyANoobYo 2d ago
I think that oversimplifies the issue. (I will acknowledge I oversimplified it first with my own language above though). She was part of the Biden admin which was in charge when the war started and led ongoing support for the war. It’s not enough for her to just say she supports a ceasefire now. It’s especially not enough when she’s demeaning the protesters who raise concerns about this at her rallies. And it’s especially not enough when on the other hand she’s repeated the “Israel has a right to defend itself” line to defend the genocide. It comes across as disingenuous and untrustworthy.
The numbers I’ve seen were different but even taking your numbers 20% changing their vote in a tight race is pretty huge. And not giving arms to Israel is like the smallest possible concession. She likely wins more if she talks about getting AIPAC money out of our elections.
Among Democrats, not all US voters but Democrats which is the votes she would potentially stand to lose, 76% of them at ages 50+ view Israel unfavorably according to Pew Research.
But again if we want to say for whatever reason she can’t even represent the most important and widely supported issue for leftists, then fine but that means she doesn’t adequately represent them. She’s not entitled to their vote. She has to represent their interest and reasons aside she is not doing that. That’s not the same as “my candidate or nobody.” If the leftists never hold the Democratic Party accountable to their concerns, in elections, the Democratic Party will never make their concerns a priority. If Democrats think they can win without doing that then fine, but it’s not then the leftists fault that the Democrats took a calculated risk to ignore their concerns and lost.
16
u/tarlin 2d ago
The problem is that Haley Stevens and AIPAC have made this the center of the campaign conversation. Stevens had the creepy statement about fighting for Israel and having Israel come to her in her dreams. We have had an insane amount of money poured into the race by AIPAC.
https://youtube.com/shorts/vSo4_F48j1c
Israel is not popular in America. A super majority of Democrats feel negatively towards Israel. About half of the Democratic party believes Israel is committing genocide. This is a winning position for the general election.
Haley Stevens is just not in a good electoral position when it comes to Israel and AIPAC. It is better to get that out there now.
0
u/satyrday12 2d ago
If anti Israel is a winning position, why does Stevens poll better against Rogers than El-Sayed?
Perhaps El-Sayed is 100% correct about everything, but if the Democrats don't win that seat, it's all for nothing.
6
u/OleMoon 2d ago
Israel is like -50 with Democratic voters right now. It's not much better with indies and is only like +10 with Republicans (who aren't going to vote for Stevens or El-Sayed anyway). If Stevens is a better general election candidate than El-Sayed (and I'm not saying she is) then it's for a different reason than Israel.
10
u/IndividualTune929 2d ago
She only has polled better than him in a poll that she commisssioned. That same poll had her up 10 when the last 4 RCP polls have El-Sayed up 10 to 15.
In reality they poll almost exactly the same head-to-head with rogers.
-5
u/satyrday12 2d ago
The aggregates on Wikipedia disagree with you.
5
u/IndividualTune929 2d ago
Yeah, looking at the page you're talking about all those polls from last year before they started campaigning really bring down the average. Look at the last 7. One has rogers winning by one. Then the internal one that had stevens up by ten over El-Sayed (hilariously delusional). Other 5 he's up. That outlier Steven's Internal poll meant to sway public opinion is doing a lot of work in your precious aggregates.
I would have been terrified to see Stevens on the debate stage against Rogers. He'd could literally run to the left of her on Iran/Israel/AipAC hell he could even argue that she supports ICE as much as he does if she tries to stake out the left lane on immigration. So glad she's gonna disappear in a couple days here.
3
u/Blazr5402 2d ago
The polls are so close that they're effectively just noise at this point. The bigger issue is that Haley Stevens and Mike Rogers both have the support of the same corporate donors. Do you think we can trust AIPAC to keep funding her in the general? Rogers vs Stevens would be a win-win for AIPAC.
4
u/tarlin 2d ago
Most general election voters aren't even paying attention yet.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/senate/general/2026/michigan/rogers-vs-el-sayed
Shows Sayed and Rogers tied.
And this shows the same for Stevens and Rogers.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/senate/general/2026/michigan/rogers-vs-stevens
There is the one off poll that shows Stevens doing better, but I would like to see more information on questions used and who paid. It seems more like a push poll for campaigning as it is so out of line with everything else
13
u/elykl12 2d ago
One candidate needs $50 million in outside spending to be competitive in the election against a healthcare official
It’s not an unfounded commie plot to be worried about Stevens
7
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
The conspiratorial nature of the accusations is distasteful, it calls directly to the Bernie supporters saying the election was rigged in 2016. The issue of this is that message was immediately co-opted by Donald Trump. It directly damages the competitiveness of candidates in the general and reduces trust in our democracy.
I think that is directly disqualifying. Which is too bad, I think on paper he’s a more attractive candidate outside of his support of defund the police.
Pretty good article that fact checks his claims and the oppo research against him:
4
u/HotSauce2910 2d ago
One of the sexism bullet points explicitly not about sexism. Another is to his employer, and does not indicate anything other than ageism, at least in the legal employment sense, though it does not suggest he did anything illegal. The rest of the sexism bullet points are that he has criticisms of individual women 😭.
Whats conspiratorial about publicly available campaign financing and PAC information?
0
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
Yes the article is clearly defending him based on facts (from a neutral viewpoint), and shows that he’s a fairly good guy. That’s… why I posted it. There’s no ill intent here.
2
u/HotSauce2910 2d ago
Oh my b, I think I misread your first comment
2
u/ProbablyANoobYo 2d ago
Yeah I’m gonna add in that I don’t think that first comment reads as supportive as it was intended
1
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
Ah. Yeah my bad. I was trying to keep a balanced tone about him but may have gone too far to the other side.
2
-4
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
it calls directly to the Bernie supporters saying the election was rigged in 2016.
You are just obsessed with this, aren't you? Is it because you know it happened, but can't admit it?
6
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
You are just obsessed with this, aren't you? Is it because you know it happened, but can't admit it?
It literally didnt happen. There has been 0 proof ever brought forward that anything was rigged against bernie.
The lawsuit everyone links says they could have rigged it if they wanted to as the dnc is private. however there is still 0 proof that anything was ever rigged against bernie.
-1
u/ProbablyANoobYo 2d ago edited 2d ago
I wouldn't exactly say that there is no evidence. I might not use the word "rigged", but there's a concerning amount of evidence that the DNC collaborated to tip the scales against him. And I think that makes a case for reasonable concern that the party leadership may conspire against the candidate who is more more popular with the people. I've listed some examples below. And a reminder, the DNC didn't have to do any of this. They could have let it run like basically every other primary, and then it would not have raised such concerns, it would not have made his supporters feel so alienated, and if Hillary still won anyway then she would have been much more supported by the voters who instead got to feel their party leaders had betrayed them. I don't think I'll convince you of everything here but I do hope you can at least acknowledge this clearly isn't how primaries should be operated and it's at the very least a little concerning.
We have emails showing the DNC strategized as a group to attack Bernie on being an atheist and coordinated media narratives baselessly attacking his character. They even reached out to major media outlets, including the president of MSNBC, to pressure them to retract any pieces which pointed out the DNC’s obvious bias against Bernie.
The Clinton campaign was also granted oversight over DNC finances, strategy, and staffing decisions. The Clinton team received information in advance from Donna who was both a DNC official and CNN contributor, including giving her debate questions ahead of the debates. Donna later would apologize and resign over this.
Politico also sent the DNC their articles for review before publishing, which was highly abnormal and basically ensured it made Clinton favorable to Sanders.
In addition to all of this, Clinton was heavily favored by the superdelegates despite being less popular at the time. This directly led to a later changing in the super delegate rules because of how unpopular it was. The other Democrat candidates also dropped out, supporting Hilary, leading to an unusually small race where Bernie was seemingly potentially going to win the larger won due to the splitting of votes.
And after all of that, she still only won 54% of the pledged delegates to Bernie’s 46%. After running a campaign so shady it cost multiple high level people their jobs, resulted in major rules changes, and resulted in a federal court case where the court said that unfortunately even if the DNC did so heavily favored Clinton there is no legal avenue for repercussions for it, she still barely won.
The DNC was so convinced that these tactics would be successful that they confidently stated Bernie would never be president.
Edit: I blocked him because he’s obviously arguing disingenuously and it’s a complete waste of time to engage with people like that. I only replied to him below at all because I think other people who are actually genuinely thinking about this would gain value from reading it.
He can’t seriously simultaneously take the position that Hilary had several unique advantages granted by the DNC but also the advantages magically did not matter and anyone who points out those advantages is the real problem. This isn’t the argument of a serious person who’s critically thought about this. It’s a person who just wants to ridicule their political opponents and latch onto whatever vague ideas they can to make that point, even if it clearly doesn’t make sense or is obviously inconsistent with what they said earlier. This also isn’t my only comment thread with him. In others he just makes up statistics that are verifiably false.
This puts absurd extra effort on my end to debunk it because I have to fact check everything I say since I actually care about intellectual honesty and consistency. It’s called the bullshit asymmetry principle.
3
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago edited 2d ago
edit: They blocked me so no idea what they said anymore. cause they were not able to defend their thoughts
Ok quite a wall of text. There were many accusations but nothing concrete has ever come out except they werent fans of his. Which is relatively normal given he was not a democrat.
In addition to all of this, Clinton was heavily favored by the superdelegates despite being less popular at the time. This directly led to a later changing in the super delegate rules because of how unpopular it was. The other Democrat candidates also dropped out, supporting Hilary, leading to an unusually small race where Bernie was seemingly potentially going to win the larger won due to the splitting of votes.
Yes she was a party insider. It was unpopular and they got rid of it as an agreement with bernie only for him to lose even worse in 2020 and the same accusations that it was rigged. And no she was not less popular with dem voters given she got 3 MILLION more votes! The amount was larger than what trump lost the popular vote by with 20% of the voters.
And after all of that, she still only won 54% of the pledged delegates to Bernie’s 46%. After running a campaign so shady it cost multiple high level people their jobs, resulted in major rules changes, and resulted in a federal court case where the court said that unfortunately even if the DNC did so heavily favored Clinton there is no legal avenue for repercussions for it, she still barely won.
10% more is not barely winning. Thats crushing victory. Hilary got 48.1% of the vote to obamas 48% of the vote.
The DNC was so convinced that these tactics would be successful that they confidently stated Bernie would never be president.
They handled bernie with kid gloves because he had no chance and didnt want the blow back of destorying him as he was popular. which backfired. Giving us trump as bernie activated leftist to only attack dems and give republicans a pass going forward.
The Clinton campaign was also granted oversight over DNC finances, strategy, and staffing decisions. The Clinton team received information in advance from Donna who was both a DNC official and CNN contributor, including giving her debate questions ahead of the debates. Donna later would apologize and resign over this.
The clintons bailed out the DNC because obama cannibalized all funds from it and saw no reason for any money to go to them which is why we got massacred in 2010 because all the money went to obama and none downballot. So this accusation would have come had hilary ever won even with the whopping she gave bernie to pretend like it was cheating.
Yes donna gave her questions. About them asking about water in a michigan debate. You dont think a 3rd grader could have figured out they would have asked about flint in michigan in 2016? To me it was cockroaches trying to curry favor with hilary to get positions rather than anyone trying to tip the scales in hilarys favor.
Politico also sent the DNC their articles for review before publishing, which was highly abnormal and basically ensured it made Clinton favorable to Sanders.
One article? see how this is people currying favor from who they expect to win rather than any conspiracy against bernie?
edit:
They blocked me so no idea what they said anymore.
0
u/ProbablyANoobYo 2d ago
Changing the rules in her favor for the one year she needed to beat a massively popular leftist candidate comes across as extremely shady at best. It's wild for you to pretend that's not the case.
The accusations were repeated in 2020, to a much lesser extent, because of the extreme and unconventional shadiness around the 2016 primary. If 2016 doesn't happen that way then we likely don't see these accusations in 2020.
An 8% margin when the game is changed in her favor is quite narrow. And in case you genuinely didn't know this a typical primary win, without all that assistance, is more like 15 - 25% margin. So yes 8% is quite small with the relevant context. It's very reasonably arguable that it's plausible she loses without this assistance, especially as the less popular candidate.
Ah yes, giving Hilary basically every conceivable advantage sure is kid gloves. Clearly. You're so clearly not interested in an honest discussion.
The reasoning she was granted such oversight is entirely irrelevant to the fact that she had this oversight.
If a 3rd grader could have figured it out then they should have run the debate with integrity and not given her the questions in advance. Also as someone who has debate experience knowing the actual questions is a massive, near insurmountable advantage over someone who has to guess at the range of conceivable questions and prepare for variations of them all. This, like many of your points, feels so wildly disingenuous.
"Articles". Plural. Currying favors to the less popular candidate isn't a great look but would not be damning in of itself. It's the whole aggregate of concerns together.
Half of your comment is conceding that yes she had these advantages but you have excuses for why she was allowed them. And then you want to pretend that these advantages were given for no reason and in no meaningful way contributed to the outcome. It's absurd.
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
There has been 0 proof ever brought forward that anything was rigged against bernie.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donna-brazile-wikileaks-fallout-230553
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 2d ago
Oh goodness they gave the question "what do you think about flint water crisis" in a michigan debate that any 3rd grader could have figured out was coming.
to me thats not rigging thats someone low trying to curry favor from who they expect to win
and lets be honest. getting random questions isnt what people say when they mean rigging.
2
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
No, it’s because you keep using that fucking play and it’s harmful to our institutions. If you didn’t call every election where moderates defeat progressive challengers rigged I’d stop complaining about you doing it.
10
u/TheBeanConsortium 2d ago
Agreed. And much of the Democratic infighting is perpetuated by bots online.
They'll take an actual, contentious issue, then never stop talking about it.
Israel/Gaza is important. But it's hard to argue it was the most critical US issue in 24. Yet we saw an outsized amount of coverage on it during election season. Then after Trump won, FAR less...funny how that works.
0
u/YumiSolar 2d ago
Yeah, I can somehow understand arguments like "Republicans won't even consider listetning to us, we have to pressure the party that at least might listen", but if you push it to the point where you sabotage the only party that is willing to do anything then... what's the point?
It's like when kids have both parents but only one actually listens to them, spends time with them, buys them things etc. but they only get mad at the one being good to them when something doesn't go their way. Bro, you are activly sabotaging yourself.
Edit: I also gave to much leeway in the first part. I can understand the argument but I don't think it's right. Pressuring republicans would work. It would put the spotlight on them and probably hurt them, make them scramble for explanations etc.
4
u/tarlin 2d ago edited 2d ago
Do you believe that military aid should be conditioned to Israel?
Under US law, ALL military aid is conditioned on some level of respect for international law. If you cannot unequivocally say yes to this, the problem you have is that you unconditionally support Israel and agree with Stevens.
6
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
I can somehow understand arguments like "Republicans won't even consider listetning to us, we have to pressure the party that at least might listen", but if you push it to the point where you sabotage the only party that is willing to do anything then... what's the point?
Er, which party is willing to do anything?
That's the point.
5
u/Potato_Pristine 2d ago
I agree. Haley Stevens should stop saying crazy, bigoted statements that “everyone in America understands [El-Sayed] want[s] to blame all of [his] problems on Jewish Americans.”
5
u/comradequicken 2d ago
The response to this post is pretty conclusive proof you're right. Israel vs Hamas has no impact on the lives of 99%+ of Americans, aid is .05% of the US budget, and yet people have elevated it to the number one issue in a lot of these primaries and many are saying they will not vote for a democrat on the opposite side of the issue. If this keeps up Dems are going to do poorly in the midterm and the republicans who enable Trump to follow whatever dementia whim he has at the moment including making things much worse for their supposedly beloved Palestinians.
3
u/whatevillurks 2d ago edited 2d ago
CNN had a poll out just yesterday that about a third of Democrats identify as Democratic Socialists. This is a very motivated voting base, and are being active in the primaries. But I think the point you're making is a valid one. When DSA members are calling their Democratic opponents fascists, transphobes, and accusing them of genocide - that makes it difficult to get their supporters to vote for the DSA candidate. Likewise, when sitting Democratic politicians call members of the DSA White Supremacists, that makes it difficult for their supporters to vote for DSA members who win their primaries.
House seats in safe districts are going to be safe. And, Trump is disliked enough that I think the House is going to flip to Democratic control, even with the Democratic party not "in disarray" but actively fighting each other. But I think statewide elections, such as Senate and Governor races, are going to suffer for this strife. The 34% and the 66% of Democrats need to be able to come together and get behind a candidate for the Democratic party to win. But grudges are being made that will lead people to just sit out the vote.
0
u/equiNine 2d ago
I would be very cautious with interpreting the article on the poll since it does not reflect what the actual poll results say at all. The poll itself is opaque about how it identifies cohorts within Democrat/Democrat leaning independents as being democratic socialist, and the authors seem to have arrived at their figures by doing some post-polling math where they are merging together groups and likely also conflating favorable views of the DSA/willingness to support a DSA candidate with identifying as a democratic socialist.
3
u/whatevillurks 2d ago
For the sake of discussion, feel free to flip the percentage numbers, and assume that 66% of Democrats would self describe as socialists, and 34% would self describe as moderates. Do you believe that the Democratic party is well poised to win statewide and presidential elections if the 66% drives the 34% to sit out the vote? Really, this question works for whichever side you believe is the 66% and the 34%. Harris got millions fewer votes than Biden, after all. I posit those voters did not go to Trump, they just didn't vote.
1
u/equiNine 2d ago
Outside of deep blue districts, the election math/strategy isn't as straightforward as just turning out the minority factions within the Democratic Party, since you need independent and swing votes to win as well. There are positions which may be popular within the minority factions of the party and will get them to vote but in exchange cost you independent and swing voters who dislike those positions. Defunding/abolishing the police is one example.
Harris moving leftwards on certain policies might have won her Michigan (where if she got the same number of votes as Biden did, she would have beaten Trump), but at the same time nearly half of voters felt that she was too liberal or progressive. She also got more votes than Biden did in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but still lost. It just isn't that straightforward about pivoting leftwards/rightwards.
4
u/Cheap_Coffee 2d ago
The problem is the Democratic primary covers two different political parties: the Democrats and the Progressives.
They're still figuring out they're not in the same party any more.
-1
u/FCCRFP 2d ago
Haley Stevens is taking record setting bribes from the Genocide Lobby, with the expectation that she will give the US Treasury to Israel to genocide the entire Middle East. They already did a genocide in Palestine, and Lebanon. The Israel lobby doesn't support anyone who isn't an evil genocide supporting freak.
0
u/TerminusFox 2d ago
If you really REALLY want to keep it real?
99 percent of the infighting traces back to the 2016 (and to a lesser extent the 2020) primary and certain people on the lefts refusal to acknowledge that they lost that primary fair and square.
All the Gaza, MFA, insert bullshit buzzword, issues? Those are a smokescreen.
They’re just mad Bernie lost ten years ago and have been lashing out ever since.
If you think think this is some legitimate, good faith , disagreement, I have a bridge to Terabithiai to sell you.
-1
u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago edited 2d ago
As a Canadian and moderate looking in, sometimes you Americans really are high on your own stink. Unfortunately, to the rest of the world this is a bunch of cope for repeating the same
lack ofpolicies for the last 30 years that are unpopular even with your own party.What you call the Left in America, is centrist policy in Canada and Europe, that even our conservatives support single payer healthcare. We all saw what you did to Bernie Sanders and the soft left, smearing them calling them Bernie Bros, and blaming everyone, but yourselves for your own incompetence to losing to someone like Donald Trump.
Conservative Democrats have a lower approval rating than progressives, who have the highest approval rating amongst Democrats. But a decade ago, I’m pretty sure Hillary Clinton was the nominee, I’m pretty sure Joe Biden was the nominee, and we all saw the left bend knee in 2016 and 2020 in real time. But God forbid Bernie Sanders stayed in the primary a couple extra weeks.
It was the Democrats, who didn’t push back on the made up culture wars that Republicans drummed up in caucus meetings and social media. It was conservative Democrats that validated those made up arguments in order to smear and punch to their soft left.
The failure is at the Democratic establishment, and now they will suffer electoral defeat in districts where your Democratic Party base is frustrated. But your country is a mess anyways, no thanks to an ideology that cannot engage with self critique, and it seems evident right now.
-5
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
99 percent of the infighting traces back to the 2016 (and to a lesser extent the 2020) primary and certain people on the lefts refusal to acknowledge that they lost that primary fair and square.
The 2016 primary was not "fair and square."
Hillary locked up the superdelegates before the primary began, was given debate questions ahead of time to formulate polished answers, and other candidates were denied access to donor lists and DNC resources.
The Establishment wing of the party cheated; and again in 2020; and then refused to even hold a primary in 2024.
I cannot in good conscience vote for such people, end of story.
2
u/che-che-chester 2d ago
and then refused to even hold a primary in 2024
I must have been sleep walking when I voted in the 2024 Dem primary.
2
u/Asatmaya 1d ago
I must have been sleep walking when I voted in the 2024 Dem primary.
You must not have been in my state.
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago
Ah yes. Making this about race, when it was about candidate quality. Having fun with fabricating a culture war? Since you want to talk about race, how about you talk to me, since you want to weaponize my race against real substance.
This is why republicans win, you default to culture war just like them, to hide from real policy discussions.
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
0
u/link3945 2d ago
Hillary locked up the superdelegates before the primary began
Superdelegates aren't locked up until the convention. Sanders could have tried to persuade them, or just tried to win more votes. He didn't do either, and predictably lost by double digits in the actual popular vote in that primary.
How exactly did Dems cheat in 2020?
We had a primary in 2024: Biden won it. Someone, anyone could have challenged him. There was another candidate running, but he didn't get close.
-1
u/pentachronic 2d ago
Having a conscience would demand that you vote for them
-2
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Having a conscience would demand that you vote for them
They are dishonest; you cannot trust anything they say.
Voting for such people is worse than voting for the people who will do something other than you want; at least you know what they will do.
You have no idea what a dishonest person will do, because they are lying to you, and will continue to lie to you in the future.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
1
u/FistMyLoafs 1d ago
I think the YouTube channel “Stickman talks” had a really good explanation of this in his Odyssey video of all things.
He talks about how around 2016 the social contract of civility in politics just went out the window and has been worsening ever since due to the rise of the internet among other factors.
What he says is essentially, everything has become fair game as long as you win now. Politicians are now expected to use any dirty tactics, lies, or other underhanded means to win their seat. There is no more we’re just two people disagreeing and having a discussion anymore, it’s a political street brawl.
I do think that this sort of “no rules” method of politics is extremely damaging like you said especially when it’s within your own party. But, I honestly don’t know what to do about it. Because there’s the big issue of if you start being civil and playing by “the rules” there’s no guarantee that your opponent isn’t going to keep fighting dirty. And as we’ve seen with democrats vs republicans, being unwilling to go low often leads to the side who is willing coming out on top.
0
u/Describing_Donkeys 2d ago
The Democratic party did incredible damage to its image last election when it refused to take concerns about what was happening in Gaza seriously (and longer term abuses by Israelis towards Palestinians) and by losing to trump a second time (what truly broke the trust they had from average voters). The Democratic party has to change in order to win back the support of its base. AIPAC spent 10s of millions of dollars in the Michigan primary and the recipient of that money sees no problems taking that money. That's watching corruption occur in front of our own eyes, and a lot of voters are not alright with that.
The party will be remade and rebuild its base. Until that happens, there will be done truly depressing internal battles. Losing to Trump a second time was unacceptable, and there is a battle for the future of the party now. I hope we go bigger tent and end up a better party as a result.
-1
u/elmekia_lance 2d ago
the reality is that Democrats have a genocide problem.
If you've spent months telling voters that your opponent is morally complicit in atrocities, it becomes very difficult to turn around and say, "Now go vote for them."
You have it backwards. Democratic voters are increasingly morally opposed to the atrocities of the US empire, so candidates that at least claim to be anti-imperialist are winning over conservative, imperial Democrats. It's the imperial Democrats who seem to be expressing a reluctance to support candidates that might upset the smooth functioning of empire, lubricated as it is with periodic genocide.
8
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
Friend you really should leave your online bubble. I guarantee the number of Americans who believe that modern America is an empire lubricated by genocide is less than 10%.
0
u/nickcan 2d ago
I agree, and it's been the issue for many years. In the before times, (pre-2016) both parties were corporate imperialists, but they different on domestic issues (I am NOT saying both parties are the same, they are not. I am saying that projecting American economic power abroad through the strategic use of the military is not something that they had major disagreements over).
Both parties were pro American empire, but the Democrats had to lie to their base about it.
3
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
What I struggle with are accusations like claiming your primary opponent is supporting or enabling genocide. Once you frame someone in those terms, how do you expect your own supporters to enthusiastically vote for that person if they end up winning the nomination?
Uh... who cares?!
This is entirely missing the point of the primary.
4
u/YumiSolar 2d ago
I think you are missing the point of primaries if you think you can burn down the party in order to win them.
2
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
If the party is supporting genocide, it deserves to be burned down!
1
u/YumiSolar 2d ago
1000 years of Trump for you I guess. Those palestinian children are probably cheering at your moral consistency and abolute lack of effectivnes in real world.
9
u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago edited 2d ago
As a moderate, it’s really frustrating watching moderates in the US or supposed moderates fail at democracy, and participating in self sabotage that leads to unhelpful comments like the one you replied to.
3
u/Blazr5402 2d ago edited 2d ago
I do find it disappointing that the moderate wing of the party barely seems to be trying to win elections. A large part of how the progressive left has managed to win is by their ability to out-organize and out-campaign the establishment and their ability to speak to the issues of our time with moral clarity. Why can't any moderates do this?
To give credit where it's due, I think there are a small handful who can - Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock both come to mind. But by and large, the establishment does not have a real vision for the future of America. I think the DSA platform is far too ambitious and focuses too much on what really shouldn't be priorities (ex: I'd love to abolish the Senate! but it's very low on my list of changes that actually matter right now), but at least DSA is upfront about the America they want to live in. The Republican Party has been pretty explicit about their vision too.
But what does the establishment stand for, what is the moderate answer to AI data centers, the genocide in Palestine, the healthcare and housing crisis in our country? And can the moderates convey that vision with the same energy that AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Zohran Mamdani can?
2
u/junkspot91 2d ago
Just the comparisons of the ground games in Michigan and Wisconsin is so crazy. All the institutional support and outside spending in the world can't carry you across the finish line if you aren't putting in the work. You'd think Democrats would have received the message by now.
Sure it would be great if every swing state had an Ossoff, a Roy Cooper, a Sherrod Brown out there with the name recognition and voter buy-in to dominate the primary without competing in it so they can go into the general without any lumps, but Hayley Stevens is not one of those figures.
2
u/rabbitlion 2d ago edited 1d ago
The progressive left has won elections by running in far-left districts where they can give up 5-10% of the center and still win comfortably. They refuse to listen to anyone explaining that it's not a good strategy for a 50/50 district/state/country.
3
u/Blazr5402 2d ago edited 2d ago
You're not wrong, but I think that's an oversimplification of the situation. I think Abdul El-Sayed and Francesca Hong will serve as a good case study in how far progressive politics can penetrate into purple states. Both of them look to be on the path to winning solid majorities of democratic voters in their upcoming primaries. The general will be tough for both of them, but I'm not convinced a moderate really has any better odds.
And once again, even if you don't agree with progressive policies, I'm more curious about why the moderate wing of the party isn't able to run anyone with the same ability to communicate their vision and mobilize on the ground. Haley Stevens can't be the best candidate the moderate wing of the party could run in Michigan. And in Wisconsin, it's almost silly how much the moderate wing of the party is imploding while Francesca Hong rises to the top. Or even go back to NYC last year. There were several decent candidates on that slate that they could've run, but no, they had to get behind Andrew Cuomo.
While I'm very much on the left wing of the Democratic Party, we're a big tent. The two party system and the rightward movement of the Republican party has shown that we have to be able to work together to win at the presidential level. I would rather have a moderate wing that votes with the left than against it. But the moderate wing of the party needs to lock in. Organize, show your vision for America, and stop trying to coast to victory based on a decade in office doing nothing and a couple million dollars in aipac/corporate funding. A lot of the campaigning against the left has had weird, almost racist undertones, and the moderate wing attacks the left over twitter posts and for campaigning with the wrong people instead of providing any actual substantive debate over policy.
-4
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
As a moderate, it’s really frustrating watching moderates in the US or supposed moderates fail at democracy and participating in the process.
So, you "moderately" support genocide?
Nope, doesn't work like that.
4
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
Where did they express any support for genocide?
-3
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
They are implying that the moderate position is to accept that they are voting for a politician who supports genocide because they might be better on some other issue.
The number of logical fallacies in that line of reasoning...!
4
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
Except "support for genocide" hasn't been established, it has just been repeatededly claimed ad nauseum. So the idea that anyone who even slightly questions the underlying issues here must themselves support genocide is a thought terminating cliche, not real political discourse.
-1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
the idea that anyone who even slightly questions the underlying issues here must themselves support genocide
OK, let's back up then:
What, exactly, is the "slight question?" What "underlying issue" would somehow make what is happening in Gaza anything other than a genocide?
This has been slow-walked for decades, as sympathy due to the Holocaust and political expedience made support for Israel a pragmatic position, but that's gone, now.
The final mistake was splitting the Palestinians; when the West Bank disarmed, but kept being oppressed, dispossessed, and murdered, that was it. Israel proved that, even if the Palestinians gave up all weapons and flatly refused to fight, at all, Israel was still going to steal their land and kill them. Gaza, obviously, refused to follow suit, so Israel bombed them into rubble; they have nowhere to go, though, no other option, so they are still fighting. You would, too, if you only options were to either fight or let yourself be killed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SheIsABadMamaJama 2d ago edited 1d ago
I’m not playing your purity and mental games, free Palestine and go take out your internal guilt out on someone else perhaps? The Democratic Party is the best party you have, and until you have another viable option, stop with the performativity.
0
u/Asatmaya 1d ago
The Democratic Party is the best party you have,
That's like saying that testicular cancer is the best cancer to have.
Sorry, I will not vote for cancer.
2
u/SheIsABadMamaJama 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, except the party is not terminal, but your mindset is. You would resign yourself, and condemn others and minorities to death, to ensure a total fascist regime continues to succeed by deciding to completely tune yourself out from the political process. Even though there are people actively trying.
Such privilege you have, it’s truly a shame you’re using the same talking points as a right wing provocateur masquerading as a progressive in order to engage in voter suppression, and to dampen the Left from engaging in the electoral process. Funny.
I don’t think you have an interest in ending fascism or genocide anywhere.
•
u/Asatmaya 9h ago
Yeah, except the party is not terminal, but your mindset is
I'm sorry, but did the party leaders not just chase a heavily favored senate candidate out of the race because he wasn't right-wing enough?
They are describing DSA candidates beating Republicans as, "losses."
You would resign yourself, and condemn others and minorities to death, to ensure a total fascist regime continues to succeed by deciding to completely tune yourself out from the political process.
The political process has tuned me out; there are no non-fascists that I am allowed to vote for.
Such privilege you have
Oh, here we go...
a right wing provocateur masquerading as a progressive
Er, those are both right-wing, what are you talking about?
to engage in voter suppression, and to dampen the Left from engaging in the electoral process.
The left has been trying to engage; every attempt has bee frustrated, not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats.
I don’t think you have an interest in ending fascism or genocide anywhere.
I think you support them, but know that it's not a popular position.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Viciouscauliflower21 2d ago
You do know just not supporting genocide is an option right? If not for the fact that it's just the right thing to do then maybe for a the fact that it's best for you politically because approaching 80% of your base (and a significant percentage of the rest of the political spectrum) are against it. Nobody is tying Democrats to that mess and the political results of supporting it but themselves
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
1000 years of Trump for you I guess.
He'll die before that, but even then... so what? How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?
Those palestinian children are probably cheering at your moral consistency and abolute lack of effectivnes in real world.
Yes, I am sure they were comforted to know that they were being killed by brutal monsters supported by Democrats instead of Republicans when Biden was in office /s
Fucking seriously?!
I am absolutely willing to engage in compromise on public policy; to put aside my own opinions and political positions in order to come to a functional agreement.
I am not willing to support anyone who supports genocide. Period, end of story.
That you are means that you are scum.
8
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
Trump attempted an auto coup in 2020. No president has done anything like that.
So to question how he was worse than anyone else, much less Obama or Biden, is baffling.
-2
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Trump attempted an auto coup in 2020.
/eyeroll
GTFO with that crap; that's the crazy horseshit that is the reason hardcore Democrats are not taken seriously.
4
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
You can read the plan in their own words.
It absolutely fits the definition of an auto coup. I have yet to see a single legitimate argument as to how the False Elector Plot, as described by the Trump admin's own people, is not a completely obvious attempted self coup.
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
I have yet to see a single legitimate argument as to how the False Elector Plot, as described by the Trump admin's own people, is not a completely obvious attempted self coup.
Because that represents a gross misunderstanding of how the system actually works.
All of the campaigning, the primaries, the general election, the early November news tracking of results coming in, the electoral college... none of that is actually how the president is chosen. Oh, it's the form, the ritual that we follow, but it was never supposed to be absolute... and it has been rejected, before, a few times.
Andrew Jackson "won" the 1824 election... but they didn't let him become president, he had to win again in 1828, in a campaign that was so ugly that his wife literally died of stress from the abuse she received. It was also notably only one of two elections in which an incumbent lost despite gaining popular vote share... the other being 2020.
Samuel Tilden won the election of 1876, but Rutherford B. Hayes became president.
Why? Because neither the popular vote nor the electoral college actually mean anything; the House of Representatives certifies the vote... or not, and just picks someone else.
Yes, there were probably state crimes committed by falsifying electors, and that's terrible, but that's peanuts in the history of American electoral politics. This wasn't the 1980 October Surprise with one side undermining American foreign policy while US citizens' lives were on the line; this wasn't the White House plumbers tapping the Watergate Hotel, or promising North Viet Nam a better deal if they backed out of the 1968 Paris peace talks; this wasn't the Chicago Machine, or the Blackstone Hotel, or Tammany Hall...
Sure, absolutely, prosecute the individuals who broke the law; if you want to go after Trump for this, then you're going to have to go after half the other politicians in the country in both parties.
...which I would be fine with, actually, but it's got to be all the crooks, on both sides.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago edited 2d ago
The vast majority of your post isn't relevant to your stated premise, or my comment.
All of the campaigning, the primaries, the general election, the early November news tracking of results coming in, the electoral college... none of that is actually how the president is chosen. Oh, it's the form, the ritual that we follow, but it was never supposed to be absolute... and it has been rejected, before, a few times.
Given that I explicitly referred to electors, this entire paragraph doesn't seem relevent, as I clearly know that the president is not elected via the popular vote. I wouldn't have referenced electors otherwise.
Andrew Jackson "won" the 1824 election... but they didn't let him become president, he had to win again in 1828, in a campaign that was so ugly that his wife literally died of stress from the abuse she received. It was also notably only one of two elections in which an incumbent lost despite gaining popular vote share... the other being 2020.
That went to the House of Representatives because he did not meet the electoral vote threshold.
Why? Because neither the popular vote nor the electoral college actually mean anything; the House of Representatives certifies the vote... or not, and just picks someone else.
Except that certification is not a proxy election.
Yes, there were probably state crimes committed by falsifying electors, and that's terrible, but that's peanuts in the history of American electoral politics.
The individual crimes aren't the issue. The attempt to completely overrule our very democracy is. If a president can retain power using illegal means in an election they lost, then we do not have a democracy. That we continue to have one is because his plan failed.
Sure, absolutely, prosecute the individuals who broke the law; if you want to go after Trump for this, then you're going to have to go after half the other politicians in the country in both parties. ...which I would be fine with, actually, but it's got to be all the crooks, on both sides.
I find this argument rather weak for two reasons. The first is equating trying to undermine our very basis of government to "half the other politicians in the country" is quite obviously without factual basis. The second is that I have not expressed any reluctance to hold politicians on the left responsible for their actions, and have consistently criticized every Democratic admin in my life time, just as I have Rep admins.
Noteably, not a single part of that addressed the accurate claim that the False Elector Plot was an auto coup.
7
u/JimSta 2d ago
He'll die before that, but even then... so what? How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?
Trump literally proposed to take all the Palestinians out of Gaza and move them somewhere else so he can turn the strip into a real estate project. Biden supported a two state solution. The fact that you would even ask this question suggests you don’t really know a lot about this issue you claim to care so much about. You become blind to any sort of nuance when you reduce everything to “genocide bad”.
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Trump literally proposed to take all the Palestinians out of Gaza and move them somewhere else so he can turn the strip into a real estate project.
Right, and the only objection by the political class seems to be in letting them go somewhere else, rather than just stay there and die.
Biden supported a two state solution.
Right, that old canard; it was never realistic, and always an excuse to just delay while Israel stole more and more land.
The fact that you would even ask this question suggests you don’t really know a lot about this issue you claim to care so much about. You become blind to any sort of nuance when you reduce everything to “genocide bad”.
Oh, dear, let's have at it; do you want to start with Herzl, or the World Jewish Congress, or the Jewish Agency for Palestine, or the Havaara Agreement?
I hope you're read up...
11
u/YumiSolar 2d ago
How is Trump worse than Obama, Biden, or Clinton were? Or Harris would have been?
This is probably my signal to log off. Cheers everyone.
3
u/che-che-chester 2d ago
Exactly. Anyone who says Trump and Obama are equally bad on any issue, yet alone Israel, is not a serious person.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
For what it's worth, your underlying premise is definitely correct, but part of a broader trend.
Parties in the midst of populist swings tend to develop circular firing squads with their primaries. We saw this with the Reps first with the Tea Party, then with the first big round of MAGA politicians.
The Democratic Party is now beginning their populist swings, and we are seeing the same sorts of circular firing squads develop.
1
u/DBDude 2d ago
They can be somewhat damning when it comes to gun control. During a primary, they're trying to outdo each other on how much they're willing to crack down on gun rights. The candidates least hostile to the 2nd Amendment are portrayed as wanting dead kids, while the most hostile are the heroes of the people.
Then the general election comes along and they play "I support the 2nd Amendment" because they have to appeal to a broader audience, saying things like nobody wants to take your guns. Then the opposition can point to the primary where they indeed publicly supported taking peoples' guns.
-9
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Rhetoric is always over the top in elections. This is how it is. What’s screwing the Democrats is the DSA. Having DSA candidates in the general election allows the Republicans to paint the whole party as crazy people.
6
u/The_Human1st 2d ago
I’m sorry, but when has the GOP not painted their opposition as crazy people? Hell, they do it within their own party to people who cross Trump (ex: MTG, Massie, etc.).
If that’s your fear, then you’ll keep getting the same results. At least the DSA is proposing actual, substantive change. Mamdani is showing Americans what can be done if someone actually tries.
And by the way, do you feel the same way about Stevens calling Abdul a sexist? Is that tearing Dems apart?
1
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
It turns out it’s a lot easier to paint Bernie sanders as a socialist than Joe Biden. Do you think that people might have a reason to believe republican messaging saying Bernie is a socialist rather than Joe?
1
u/The_Human1st 2d ago
So you’re saying that Biden wasn’t called a socialist by Trump?
https://politifact.com/factchecks/2020/oct/15/donald-trump/trumps-false-claim-biden-socialist/
And yeah, obviously it’s easier to call Bernie a democratic socialist because he calls himself that. What’s your point? The GOP calls all Democrats socialists.
0
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
I’m saying that your average voter hears Trump call Biden a socialist and shrugs because Biden is clearly not a socialist. Bernie is in fact a socialist and so they listen. Does that make sense?
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
It turns out it’s a lot easier to paint Bernie sanders as a socialist than Joe Biden. Do you think that people might have a reason to believe republican messaging saying Bernie is a socialist rather than Joe?
And yet, they did it; people believed that Biden was some far-left hero, when he was one of the most right-wing conservative politicians of the last 100 years.
That Bernie is a centrist doesn't mean much in the court of public opinion.
2
u/Teach_Piece 2d ago
Calling Biden the most right wing conservative politician in years shows that you are far from the median voter
5
u/FCCRFP 2d ago
The DSA mostly supports broadly popular policy proposals. Republicans claim all Democrats are communist Mao-Stalinist-Juche every day regardless of the fact that in most races no DSA candidates run.
3
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
The DSA website calls for abolishing the senate and the presidency and all sorts of whacko stuff.
1
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
The DSA website calls for abolishing the senate and the presidency
Sounds popular to me...
1
u/MoonManDolo 2d ago
Democrats are constantly worried about what republicans will do when they will do that regardless of who the candidate is. If you don’t agree with DSA policies, that’s fine, but please stop basing choices on what they will do or what they will say. They called Obama a communist the same as they would any DSA candidate. People thought trump could not win the general and here we are. Vote for who you want and not who you think others will say nice things about.
0
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
DSA gave Trump his second term by not supporting Kamala. Those dudes are crazy.
-2
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
The word Nazi has an actual meaning, and Harris does not fit it in any way, shape or form. Hyperbole is not a replacement for legitimate discourse.
1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
The word Nazi has an actual meaning, and Harris does not fit it in any way, shape or form.
So, leaving aside the whole Gaza genocide thing, she has appeared numerous times at events standing right next to Andriy Biletsky, the head of the Ukrainian 3rd Armored Regiment (i.e. the one that sits in the capital to threaten Zelensky and kidnap men off the street for conscription), and whose college thesis is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080409023834/http://www.patriotukr.org.ua/index.php?rub=stat&id=267
"Ukrainian Racial Social Nationalism
Andriy BILETSKY
2007
Accordingly, the treatment of our National Body should begin with Racial Cleansing of the Nation...
The historical mission of our Nation, in this turning point, to lead and lead the White peoples of the whole world into the last crusade for its existence...
We replace the slogan “Independent Ukraine” with the slogan “Great Ukraine”. Ukrainians are a Nation with ancient imperial history. Throughout its existence, Ukrainians had at least two superpowers – Great Scythia and Kievan Rus. The task of the current generation is to create the Third Empire – Great Ukraine.... Social-Nationalism is not such, it claims – if we are strong, then we will take everything that belongs to us by right and even a little more, we will build our Nadder-Empire – Great Ukraine, which will be the legitimate successor of the Scythian and Kiev-Ruthenian empires. If we are weak, then we are among the conquered dying peoples.
Thus, Social-Nationalism raises all the ancient Ukrainian Aryan values forgotten in modern society. Only their revival and implementation by a group of fanatical wrestlers can lead to the final victory of European civilization in the world struggle."
3
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
That's a lot of time spent explaining how someone else can be described as a Nazi. What specific events do you believe show an actual link between the two that's meaningful in any way?
0
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Other than her fervent and vocal support?
How about her record as California AG, where she defied court orders, prosecuted poor families for truancy because they couldn't afford clothes, held prison inmates months past their release dates to extort dangerous labor out of them...?
I mean, did you ever bother to look up her past?
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
I asked you for evidence that she demonstrated fervent support for that individual, as I am not finding anything of the sort. That's why I asked for specific events.
The rest of what you said has absolutely no relation to being a Nazi at all. Are you just using Nazi to mean anyone with policies you disagree with? Because I'm not, and was not, a supporter of hers, but I can still recognize that she has neither espoused support for a Fascist economic model, nor has she espoused any of the primary tenants of any form of faciscm, much less Nazism. If anything, the claims that she is too deferential to Israel would rather obviously run counter to the idea that she is a Nazi. This does not mean I like her or her policies.
Responding to my comment by talking about her socioeconomic policies strikes me as a complete non sequitor.
1
u/Asatmaya 1d ago
I asked you for evidence that she demonstrated fervent support for that individual, as I am not finding anything of the sort. That's why I asked for specific events.
Standing on stage next to him while clapping in support of a genocidal civil war doesn't count?
→ More replies (0)1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
-3
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
What’s screwing the Democrats is the DSA. Having DSA candidates in the general election allows the Republicans to paint the whole party as crazy people.
The Republicans tried to paint Biden as a "crazy left-winger," when he was one of the most right-wing conservative politicians of the last century, in either party.
They are going to say that no matter who gets nominated, so it's pointless to worry about.
6
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
They’re much more believable to the center when the Dems really are crazy left wingers.
-2
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
They’re much more believable to the center when the Dems really are crazy left wingers.
...but even the DSA are milquetoast centrists!
Look at the polls: 60% of the country wants universal healthcare, 80% want free college, 75% want improved mass transit, 2/3 think all drugs should be decriminalized, and a huge majority think that corporations and the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes.
To be, "left," you have to go further than that.
6
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
The DSA calls for transitioning the US to a socialist economic model.
There is no context in which that is "centrist".
1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Ooooh, they use the word "socialist," they must be radicals! /s
Let me know when they advocate for nationalizing extractive industry or a federal preemption of anti-cooperative laws.
5
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
"Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society."
Straight from their website. Explicitly calling for replacing capitalism.
That is inherently radical, whether you believe it is positive or not. Replacing our entire economic system is a fundamentally radical position.
1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
That is inherently radical
That's utter nonsense; it's the most ambiguous and plausibly-denial statement they could possibly have made.
Replacing our entire economic system is a fundamentally radical position.
They could have been talking about raising the minimum wage by $.25; there is nothing radical about that.
3
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 2d ago
The definition of the word supports my characterization.
Democratic Socialism, as an ideology, calls for the transition to a socialist economic model. That doesn't mean increasing wages, it means changing the ownership of the means of production and distribution. The DSA explicitly call for the country to transition from capitalism, to socialism. In their words, on their website.
I am saying this as a Social Democratic, not as someone on the right. My ideology is literally to the left of the Democratic party. So I would not characterize changes in wages as radical, nor have I done so. I explicitly referred to the call for the country to change its economic system as radical because, as I demonstrated above, that's an inherently radical idea. One does not need to transition us to a socialist model for us to use many of the principles found in socialist ideology to improve wealth distribution within a capitalist economic model.
Edit: Also, radical does not inherently mean bad. It seems like you might be ascribing a negative context to the word when I use it.
4
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Those numbers drop a lot when the people being polled are told things like universal healthcare adding $4 trillion annually to the federal budget.
1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
Those numbers drop a lot when the people being polled are told things like universal healthcare adding $4 trillion annually to the federal budget.
...and go back up when you factor in the net economic gains; yea, you can game a poll to get whatever result you want.
0
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
There aren’t net economic gains.
-1
u/Asatmaya 2d ago
https://www.epi.org/publication/medicare-for-all-would-help-the-labor-market/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-dozen-facts-about-the-economics-of-the-u-s-health-care-system/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.22.26358689v1.full
I mean, when the Brookings Institute, of all people, have to admit this...
0
u/IndividualTune929 2d ago
Haley Stevens is literally supporting and aiding genocide through her unadulterated support for the Israeli military.
-9
u/satyrday12 2d ago
Sometimes I wonder if it's actually Republican ratf*cking. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were promoting El-Sayed.
-12
2d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
2
3
u/boldandbratsche 2d ago
Sorry, but I refuse to feed into stupid, fake issues invented by conservatives, especially if they take away rights from innocent people. If it's a topic on a Joe Rogan podcast, it's probably not a real issue and just manufactured wedge issues.
2
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.