• WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Harris spent like the last 6 weeks of the campaign slowly losing ground and Trump spent it slowly gaining. It’s just as likely Harris would have lost by more if she’d had more time.

    Like it or not, the more time Harris spent doing interviews and getting out on the campaign trail, the less people liked her.

    A primary might have helped insofar as she would have lost it like last time.

  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I think the dems have been losing for decades in essentially every political arena because the repubs have cartoon villain mastermind Mitch McConnell pulling the strings and the dems have fucking Nancy Pelosi behind the curtain fixing races against Bernie, etc.

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days ago

      This is the same woman who told her constituents to “go back to China” after they so selfishly demanded a ceasfire in Gaza.

  • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    A lot of people are playing the blame game right now. I haven’t seen much planning for how to do better going forward. Maybe that’s part of the problem.

  • ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    DNC ran right wing wedge issues, not trusted on economy. A vote for Trump gets a new try at the economy and the wedge issues for a moderate. like it seems pretty fucking obvious to me but maybe I’m just some peon sycophant I dunno.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Oh what could have been.

    If only they’d had one, it’d be Hilary losing again and not Kamala.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Democrats have to get a hold on the immigration issue. The only countries in this world where progressive policies actually thrive is where leftwing parties have adopted stricter immigration stances (e.g. Denmark).

    • sibachian@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days ago

      it’s funny how here in Sweden the left has historically always been against immigration because of fear of breaking labour balance. the right won the race under the “new right” slogan among young voters; immediately invited millions of immigrants - there are literal interviews where the left still says they are against immigration while the right says they are pro immigration, as well as the right-wing economist saying in an interview that immigration will help higher competition among workers which will let employers lower wages and strain the welfare system so it can be dismabtled. immigration in turn had all the effects expected plus a huge upswing in crime, and the right then went out in media saying it’s the left who brought all the immigrants here while the left is defending themselves by saying the immigrants are here now and we have to take care of them; which just reinforces the lie that the left invited all immigrants - and all this has accumulated to the nazi party getting a shit ton of votes and are now kicking out essential workers en masse who are all the immigrants they can touch (aka. non-problem immigrants, because the problematic immigrants can’t be touched), and just talking statistics about their success of booting people out of the country while our healthcare and service field collapses. which i no doubt they will somehow blame on the left even if the left currently has no power.

      it’s just funny how the left is always to blame for rightwing shenanigans.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Isn’t the right-wing Sweden Democratic party continuing its ascension and partially through its hard-line anti-immigrant stance? It seems they’ve held that stance for some time.

        Sweden strikes me as sitting at the top of a long slide looking down.

  • doctorskull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    With all due respect to her history and career, I don’t give a fuck what Nancy Pelosi thinks about any of this. I don’t want to see her or hear about her or any other 80+ year old establishment liberal for the rest of their lives. They did their time. Now it’s time to retire from public service and live a cushy life with the grandkids and let the next generation take over.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        6 days ago

        Bernie has been registered Independent until 2015 when he started his campaign for pres. He’s not part of the Democrat establishment (as evidenced by the way they deliberately dismanted his campaign to favor Hillary).

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Now Nancy wants open primaries at the DNC? Unlike the last 20 years when she was one of the kingmakers in the party?

    This fucking party needs to push these fuckers into their graves and get on with preparing for the nightmare they will be contending with over the next 4+ years.

    Nancy can fuck right off until she can’t fuck off anymore. She got hers.

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      She only says this because she’s probably going to die in office from old age or some dipshit republican trying to harm her.

      She had no intentions of saying/advocating any of this before 2024. 2016 would have been the time to restructure it fully to get more opinions on how to beat Trump, but the DNC argued in court “We have the right to ratfuck our primaries, we’re not under any legal obligation to let the public decide.”

  • BertramDitore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    I think she’s partly right, but also, if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier? Which would make it her fault. Fuck, I don’t even know anymore. I don’t have a lot of confidence that the Democratic party will learn the right lessons from this loss.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 days ago

      if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier?

      No. His debate performance is what pushed it over the edge. That’s when a concerted effort began to get him out.

      • pewter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You’re right, but I think it was a combo.

        October 7th spilled a bunch of gasoline on the ground. (Almost immediately after that day his polling trailed Trump’s.)

        His debate performance dropped a lit cigarette.

        In my opinion, you really needed both of those things for him to drop out. A physically struggling Biden that’s polling at 60% would’ve stayed in the race. A Biden with an excellent debate performance that was polling at 45% would’ve stayed in the race.

        EDIT: typo

    • watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Whatever they think they need to do, they need to do it or get the fuck out of the way and let someone else in there. Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden were not exciting candidates. Too many Democrats didn’t like Hilary Clinton from the get-go. Joe Biden won because he wasn’t the previous buffoon. Then was repeatedly slandered for 4 years by said buffoon over the economy, which was/is mainly suffering because of the way it was handled previously by said buffoon. When corporations can buy candidates and blatant lies are okay to broadcast because of “free speech” this was always going to be the inevitable outcome.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        We need more political parties, especially ones that aren’t political extensions of the wealthy elite.

        • seaQueue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 days ago

          Or we could just get the neolibs out of the core of the Democratic party. They’ve been more concerned with corporate donor profits than the welfare of the working class since the 90s.

          • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            I don’t really see that happening, since you’re essentially divorcing wealth from power, and you have a better chance at abolishing capitalism. Ultimately we need a shift of consciousness in this country, but I ain’t holding my breath.

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Start at the local level and build up. It’s a lot easier to have strong progressives run in races that might not really be all that contested in the first place. And make even small primaries count

              That kind of power starts to add up. The local politicians tend to flow up the party. Obama first rose from the Illinois state senate. Tim Walz first rose from an unexpected flip in a deep red house district in Minnesota

              Power doesn’t always flow top down. It also flow from the bottom up

              • the_artic_one@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                Power primarily flows from the bottom up. The top just tries really hard to make sure we don’t know that so we aren’t able to organize and wield it. If power really came from the top then dictators wouldn’t bother to hold sham elections.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 days ago

    Pelosi pushed Biden out of office, and now believes he didn’t submit fast enough. She takes no responsibility for anything. If Harris only had a few more weeks…right Nancy?

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      She’s not saying Harris needed a few more weeks. She’s saying Biden never should have gone for a second term, and they should have had a real primary process to choose a better candate. Which was a mistake I pointed out when Biden announced his second run.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        Any Democrat can run in a primary. Hell, Democrats even let Independants run. There was nothing stopping Pelosi or her chosen candidate to begin a run. What did she want Biden to do? Write speeches for them? These campaign runs start years in advance, does Nancy expect Joe to know what she’s thinking in the future?

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          This is naive. A Democrat isn’t going to challenge a sitting president for the nomination. Pelosi is absolutely right about this. Biden never should have run for reelection.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            So you want a free primary, but but nobody will challenge the incumbent? Seems like Pelosi wanted him to resign before he took the oath.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Biden never should have run a second time at all. His running scared away any other candates. If he clearly said he wouldn’t run for a second term, they could’ve had a full open primary with a dozen candates or more.

          As it was, they did everything they could to discourage a real, full primary process.

          Even after he was forced out, he could’ve not handed he’s entire campaign war chest and staff to Harris. And instead had a contested convention where candates lobbied attendees for their votes. Like used be done a century ago. Then given all his campaign resources to that nominee.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Supposedly he couldn’t give the resources to anyone else as they were gathered for a biden/Harris campaign.

            Since Harris was part of that there was no problems with her taking it over

            Probably some kind of fraud otherwise. Collecting funds for a different purpose.

              • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                no it doesn’t harris raised almost a billion in 3 days. that billion was not committed to biden. not even 200 million of it was before he dropped out. trump won on 400 million.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 days ago

                  I’m not sure how any that matters to any campaign finance rules that might prevent Biden from giving his war chest to another candate?

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            That’s ridiculous. No canadates steped forward.

            It’s a circular firing squad. I choose not to participate. You can if you want.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              No candidates stepped forward.

              Because Biden ran.
              I said that.
              That was the whole point of what I said.

              You don’t seem to be participating anyway.

                • Steve@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  It’s not an argument. It’s an excuse.
                  A post-hoc justification, given as a robotic response to my explaining how it’s false.
                  In this exchange it’s literal nonsense.