Good for him.
He doesn’t owe them shit
Ask AOC how that plays out
Jon carries a lot of water for the idea that the Democratic Party leadership are inept.
They are not. They accomplish every task they set out to.
The problem is that they don’t want the same things the voters in the party want.
They don’t want to “win”. The only thing they want is to maintain their proximity to wealth and power, and so they have cast their lot with the oligarchy, the same as Republicans.
The Democratic Party ”runs cover” (“block tackle” for you Europeans) for the Republicans while the Republicans overtly dismantle democracy. There is always a parliamentarian or a “blue slip rule” to help the Dems steal defeat from the jaws of victory. How many times do they need to strain credulity and invent some new excuse or mechanism for their failure for it to form a composite image of collaboration?
The Democratic Party is a honeypot used to attract and neutralize progressive policies and politicians, and prevent the “Overton Window” of American politics from moving left.
At every crucial moment they have supported the privatization and financialization of the commons, the wars of aggression, the surveillance & police state, and they will continue to do so until Palantir storm troopers are dragging people from their Blackrock housing to Amazon work camps to fulfill their mandated techno feudal district conscription period.
All of this is true, but by saying it you might somehow influence the outcome of an election in a manner that favors Republicans.
Therefore I hate you with every fiber of my being and denounce you as a Sockpuppet of an Enemy Nation.
I just haven’t decided if you’re a Russian Bot, a Chinese Wumao, or an Ayatollah Accomplice. Perhaps all three.
Thank you. I’m tired of people thinking the neo-liberals of the Democrats are their friends. They point toward the few pieces of legislation they pass that’s positive when they ignore all the needed legislation they never even give lip service to. In all the time since its inception payments for disabilities and similar have not risen to meet inflation, the amount they can keep in a bank account hasn’t changed since like the 1970s. There’s SO much wrong that the Dems could platform on and spend so much time doing if they win but they don’t want to.
I think you’re wrong. Or rather, I think you’re mostly wrong.
Like, in no way do I think they are extremely good at what they do, unless your argument is that they don’t give a shit, which I also think is wrong. They definitely want to win. They definitely want to control things. They literally make more money (not the organization, mind you, the people who run the organization) when they are in control. It is silly to think otherwise. Heck, it is safer, too!
But, I think they are quite dumb, or maybe it’s better to think of them as out of touch. They rely on political calculus, but they’re using some pretty bad variables. Because otherwise, there wouldn’t be any progressive Democrats at all. Like, that is inherently detrimental to their centrism. Giving crumbs isn’t as useful to them as people say because it let’s others know how hungry they are for more of that. Hope is contagious.
I think they work with what they got, and what they got is so rapidly changing that they freak out and pick what they think is the safest option over and over again. And their base hates it, but they’ll deal with that part later, there’s just too many fires for them!
Like, sure, there’s a little bit of trying to control how progressive they can be, but they just… Suck at that, too. I dunno, man. A lot of people can skate by on incompetency, and that just feels more likely.
Folks like you being unrealistic about what we can all see happening is a huge part of their enablement.
“Gosh, golly, we blew it again, so sorry everyone! Being the good guys, we have a harder challenge, we have to fight for change the right way. Sometimes we lose by sticking to our principles 😞”
Yeah fucking right. Of course they’d prefer themselves be the current half dominating the other, but not so they can make any kind of sweeping changes. Just because it’s cushier on top. And yes, the DNC is where the folks who sincerely do want to fix things end up. And just look how they’re prevented from ever getting anything done. They get co-opted and sidelined, another major function of the party. Absorb the true believers and thereby dull and mute their influence.
The moment Dems have actual control and power - even for a moment - as soon as it’s theirs they roll over. Recent shutdown capitulation was a perfect example, but it’s just over and over and over. I’m not claiming every rank and file Democrat politician is “in on it”, I’m claiming it doesn’t matter, if the party structure and behavior is obviously corrupt and strictly self-serving as the commenter you’re replying to laid out.
It’s rich people against us, Dem leadership is against us. Please stop being so naive. Your naivete is a literal weapon they wield to abuse us all.
I don’t believe I disagreed with the assertion that the DNC leadership wants to make sweeping changes. I said that they are NOT some type of controlled opposition. If they were, they wouldn’t be fucking up as hard as they do at every aspect you stated. They are a combination of inefficient, out-of-touch, greedy, and… Lazy, but like they want everyone to like them which makes them inauthentic?
I think it’s unrealistic to think the DNC is smart enough to undermine everything but somehow not smart enough to just… Lie better? You know? Why bother being so fucking pathetic when it is easier, cheaper, and faster to just lie? Why make an autopsy on why you lost the election and burying it because of your Israeli money ties if you were a genius and could just make a fake report that blames progressive policies real fucking easily.
Like, sure, call them sociopaths and everything because the DNC is having to defend legitimately bad positions in spite of its supporters opposition because money, but don’t pretend that is out of some masterminded technique. They are not that smart.
Sometimes I wonder if they don’t have a monthly secret meeting where they look at which issues appear to be up and coming and then flip a coin for which party takes which side of it. Kinda like debate club.
It often looks more like performance art. The dems pretend to take one side of an issue, and then rally their base about how the GOP want to stop the solution or tear down current protections. And of course the GOP takes the other side and rallys their base against what the “lunatic” dems want to do (which of course the dems would never do because then the issue would be gone), and they start proposing ways to tear down whatever law already favor the democrats side.
When the dems get in power, somehow very few of the things they proposed before actually happen. And the ones that do are so soft an executive order can undo them.
It’s just a shell game. Perception manipulation.
I’m not an american, but it seems like the only way americans will be represented by their government is if they out the 2 party system.
There’s this vibe of self-destruction in american society that is rooted in the 2 party system: one party is your mortal enemy and another doesn’t quite represent you - so everyone just low key feels like destroying the whole thing rather than working on making it better.
the only way americans will be represented by their government is if they out the 2 party system.
Have you seen the other options? Libertarians are a NAMBLA fueled trainwreck. Greens are… not great for a lot of reasons. Third Way is just fascism in a three piece suit. Reform is six oil companies in a trench coat.
You can’t multi-party your way out of this one.
Money In Politics
Two Party System
Gerrymandering
Electoral College
The four horsemen of a Democratic apocalypse.
If we could fix just one of those four issues, things would gradually start to get better. But the politicians in Washington don’t have the political will or desire to do so, because removing any one of them naturally limits their power and authority.
America is a one-party state, of course. But in typical American extravagance they have two of them.
OK guys, I have the greatest idea! July 4, 2026 will be the country’s 250th birthday! Let’s have a fireworks show the world will never forget! Let’s make this a global celebration! To do so, we’re going to connect our nuclear weapons to a random number generator. A hundred nukes will be launched to random coordinates on the Earth’s surface. Who knows where they’ll end up?!
If we organize we could seize control of the democratic party, and the Democratic establishment has been scared shitless of that since 2016, but they managed to play us off each other like chumps. And they still are. Because we have no organization. Turning us against each other.
The Democratic Party is a private institution. They are not scared of anything their voters do, because in the end they can simply control who gets money, who gets nominated, committee assignments, etc.
Yes, but they don’t control who YOU vote for
They do control who votes on our behalf though. Citizens vote through a proxy, not directly for any given candidate. And our representatives can technically vote however they want.
That’s why people like Talarico and Platner matter. Platner just beat out Mills, the establishment pick for the seat. He shows that democracy works when people are engaged and organized.
In a hypothetical world where extremely unlikely things could happen for the sake of experiment, what would happen… if we all just said “fuck you” to the establishment? We all stopped going to jury duty, we stopped voting, we stopped working, … then we organized and created our own jury, elections, and essential work? Like, if we somehow seized the process of capital punishment, capital gains, capital everything… by just deciding to do it for ourselves, not for modern capitalist organizations. Why would happen? Would the government see its own society as a kind of militia and attempt to recapture control? How might they when no citizen is cooperating?
They’ll shoot at you
We only have a 2 party system on paper. Behind closed doors, they are working for the same goals. Make the rich people happy so they can be rich people with influence. The general population is just something that they have to manage on their way to their goals. Adding more parties will help, but it will eventually end up the same. As long as you need money to get elected, then money will control those who get elected.
This guy is from Maine, and they do have ranked choice voting for federal elections, one of the steps on the way to breaking the two-party stranglehold.
Of course the Republicans fought it tooth and nail, because they will never win another race with a system like this, and exploited a loophole in the state constitution to keep ranked choice out of state races.
Back that up with a proportional representation system.
Any party with full control will become a tyrant.
If the constitution and the political dynamics are designed for bi-partisan system it’s pretty hard to evolve out of it. A third party can also play as the king maker and have an unfair influence compared to its size. Some countries have a more dynamic coalition system but that has biases as well.
America will never be fixed because that would require all anericans to look inward and accept their shortcomings. Americans are incapable of doing that
Ah yes, it’s not a train of systemic issues compounding over 250 years combined with weaponized wealth disparity to keep everyone sick, isolated and tired. It’s because they won’t pull up their moral bootstraps.
Give me a fucking break.
Rofl, not quite. There are plenty of Americans who think it’s fucked up, but thank you for generalizing.
Reading through his wikipedia article I am not surprised that he is not endorsed by the dnc. He is (was?) a shithead regarding so many things and is literally a political minefield.
That being said … Anything is better than the alternative.
This guy seems ok now, but for all I know he could end up like Fetterman. He is risky, but if he is what he says he is now, it could be ok.
I view Platner as a sort of political Pascal’s wager. Let’s say there’s a 10% chance of him being a secret Nazi or the next Fetterman. Hell, let’s say it’s 50%. The alternative was Mills, a centrist hand-picked by fascist collaborator Chuck Schumer, and Collins, a member of fhe fascist party. The loss of electing a secret fascist over a fascist collaborator or different fascist is minimal, while the gain of electing a genuine progressive is massive. You might as well make the bet that he’s genuine.
yes, i agree that he is risky and i understand that you probably need to take that risk since the alternative is even worse. but still i dont want to absolve him just because of that. he has a skull tattoo and he is lying about not knowing about the meaning. to me that is unaccetable and he needs to be replaced as soon as possible.
If Schmuck & Jeffries are typical of their preferred brand of Democrat, then I’ll take more of this guy please.
two wrongs dont make a right. but i agree how he needs to win NOW and get support.
Is he willing to fight? If so, then welcome aboard. If we make it through, and he handled himself well, we can accept that he’s a new man. If not, we’ll get rid of him then. But if he’s willing to fight now, I want him.
Bad reasons, he’s addressed all of his controversies and the vast majority of Maine Dems accept him. Same reason they refuse to back most progressives, they exist to maintain (or return us to) the status quo. Progressives want to change and as long as establishment Dems hold a majority in the party nothing will change
That was my thing, if he has talked and disavowed himself of those views. Given the shit show the Dems are now, give him a shot, worst case, throw him out later if he turns into a shit heel.
Addressing a controversy doesn’t make it go away necessarily. I get that he is the only alternative right now but he is in no way “the solution”.
And going “at least he is anti establishmrnt” Is the most populist stance ever. Nothing good comes from being against something. Be for something and fight for that.
Have you watched any of his campaign events? He talks about making change not about being anti Trump or establishment. The does talk about his stances and what he wants to fight for. Beating Collins is obviously a huge part of his campaign because he’s got to beat her but he’s definitely “for something”.
It’s easy to fall into reporting that paints certain candidates a certain way, it’s worth going out to a campaign event (if you’re local) or watching one to form your own opinion. The Internet is a biased place, some places aren’t outright smearing him but they try to discredit him by saying repeating stuff like you are. Everything I’ve seen and heard from him is that he is more than just an “anti establishment” guy and wants to build a progressive populist movement for the people.
i havent seen him or payed much attention to him. still i trust certain sources (and i know that i will be getting a lot of hate for that opinion, but i like wikipedia) about stuff unless other evidence presents. you are saying he is more than that / different than that. good! i will have to pay more attention to him in the future. i am not local or even from the US but i am still interested.
regarding populism: the core component of it is that you need to be in the victim role as in “us small people against them” which is by definition anti establishment.
dont get me wrong, i agree that the democratic party is bad as in established and lazy and too close to the corporations. i am just very careful when it comes to populism because it can allow a person to change course very quickly based on that stance.
We’ve had the opposite of populism for a very long time. It’s time to start balancing it out and fighting back against the ultra wealthy and corps that own our country through lobbying and cronyism.
What fucking controversy?
A single colleague said he yelled fuck off during an argument, a single person in a decades long career. He told Tucker Carlson that his show was “hurting America” and was “pro wrestling” rather than news, this is very literally not a controversy. Epstein file mention? Also not a controversy, his name was in an email suggesting he could be a host for a Woody Allen standup special which never happened. He made jokes about masking, he’s a comedian. People don’t like that he is a comedian that does serious political interviews and lastly, recently, he said it was a good thing the Trump administration was fast tracking psychedelic research, which it is.
There are no actual controversies here, your comments are made up nonsense comments about made up nonsense.
People are taking about graham and not Stewart.
For graham, I’m going to choose to answer this like you’re actually not aware, but he has a history of having had a Nazi totenkopf tattoo that he said he covered up as soon as he realized it was a Nazi tattoo. Except his Reddit history and two acquaintances indicate that he knew for quite a while, for years even, that he had a Nazi tattoobefore covering it up. which also means he has probably lied about it.
Additionally, he willingly, after being a part of the military and being part of an invasion in the Middle East, chose to join Constellis (formerly blackwater). He was not in combat but still supporting a military mercenary group like this is super sketch.
Additionally, he has on his Reddit handle had comments in which he is very dismissive of rape and victim blamed quite heavily.
This is all quite a few years ago and he claims that he’s changed a lot as a person, but he has a lot of controversy and a lot of red flags in his past.
I’ve seen no evidence of his reddit comments either acknowledging his tattoo as a hate symbol or victim blaming rape survivors. I have however seen people bring up a comment he made to a rape survivor which was in no way blaming her for what happened to her, instead he was trying to dispel any internal negative thoughts she might be having about her value as a person being diminished now… Seemed like a heartfelt genuine message, albeit risky. Almost like he was a dude who never expected to run for office.
I feel like we’re just taking the Blackwater bit and extrapolating that he has to be a bad person for life now and reading between all the other lines to secure that conclusion. I don’t buy it.
The interpretations of his reddit threads feel… Very generous.
Here is this thread as p-hustle about the totenkopf. He responds directly to a thread discussing the totenkopf as a Nazi symbol, but he does not mention it directly but instead talks about the punisher skull. But also he has an acquaintance who said he used to jokingly call the tatoo “my Totenkopf” over a decade ago and who had text receipts of talking about platners Nazi tattoo. plus planters political director, Genevieve McDonald, resigned and said that the campaign had been aware of the tattoo since she joined, and that Platner himself acknowledged it “could be problematic.”
Then the rape threads. How does this sound like someone trying to “dispel any negative internal thoughts?”
And since were doing reddit threads, here’s a bonus where he talks about urinating on dead bodies as only bad due to the current state of media??
Look, if I lived in Maine, which I don’t so it doesn’t really matter, I’d vote platner (even if what’s her face democrat was still running in the primaries) because fuck the establishment dems and fuck Susan Collins. But I’m sick of pretending he has no red flags. Let’s vote for him, but let’s watch him like a hawk after.
Gotcha, I haven’t seen the rape one you mentioned yet. That’s a pretty dogshit take from him obviously. The one I saw was less than 13 years old and was as I described it. The other examples don’t seem that smoking gun to me, but clearly 13 years ago he was a very different person.
deleted by creator
The tattoo is a no go for me. He said he didn’t know the meaning but he referred to it in the German word for skull. He is lying about that and I don’t think its acceptable.
No one is perfect, and they have endorsed FAR LESS perfect individuals in the past.
two wrongs dont make a right. but i agree that he needs to be supported now.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Fuck the DNC.
The DNC is an open enemy of the left. They’re explicitly paid by the oligarchy to oppose leftist candidates.
The DNC, more than any other organization in existence, is responsible for Trump’s presidency. They did more than anyone else to ensure - not once but twice - that he would win. The voters made it very clear that they wanted a leftist, and the DNC effectively said, “Fuck you - you’re going to get a pro-corporate, pro-zionist, neoliberal piece of shit and if you don’t like it, that’s your fucking problem.”
And they’re already laying the groundwork to do it again in 2028.
If the dnc and not Trump or nonvoters are the reason Trump won, that’s an absolutely damning condemnation of the entirety of American culture and people. You’re saying the entire culture is so myopic selfish and self destructive that we’ll gladly burn our house down because our gilded shit wasn’t also diamond encrusted. Like do you even understand how absolutely fucked and warped your perspective is to legitimately blame literally the only vehicle for progress in America for the lack of progress instead of the entities actively attacking and dismantling the fucking country, pretending like a third of the population isn’t openly supremacist and actively wants the death of another third. Just be honest that you’re an accelerationist or straight up republican because that’s all you’re helping.
Weird that looking back through your profile, you only show up every month or two, in the wake of one specific event, then make a flurry of posts angrily pimping the oligarch line, then vanish again.
And doubly weird that so many of your posts accuse other posters of working for, or at least carrying water for, some group or another, almost as if that whole notion of deceptively posting for the benefit of some specific group has a permanent place right at the forefront of your mind.
The DNC, more than any other organization in existence, is responsible for Trump’s presidency.
Yeah, I’m gonna hard NOPE right out of that assertion. The republicans are not virgins at a debutante’s ball, they’ve been working directly toward this goal for at least forty years, and the ones that are up there now, including the house speaker and corrupt SCOTUS, are doing everything in their power to keep him there, marching in lockstep as they go.
Where is your broad censure for them, the ones actively planning and carrying out Project 2025, the ones robbing the country blind, the ones doing everything they can right now to ensure we lose our democracy? Because it’s sure as fuck nowhere in your comment.
The DNC is an open enemy of the left. They’re explicitly paid by the oligarchy to oppose leftist candidates.
This is true, and by far not the DNC’s only crime.
But when you give the actual perps a complete, total, 100% pass in favor of attacking the only people still trying to stop them (even though some of them are only vaguely gesturing in that direction, to be sure) you’re batting for the wrong team.
That said, I’ll never vote for a non-progressive over a progressive again as long as I live. If by that time I still have a vote that matters, of course.
The DNC’s role in the rightward push is obviously less straightforward than the RNC’s push, but it’s at least as important. The DNC’s job is to ensure that Republicans retain all of their wins moving right while Democrats make none that move left.
The URL made me skeptical, but that was an excellent read - thanks for sharing.
It was originally posted on someone’s blog a long time ago and has since been reposted elsewhere.
Do you simply not grasp the concept of writing on topic?
My post was about the DNC and the Dem leadership. Why in the wallowing fuck would I spend half of it talking about the Republicans?
If you’re too fucking stupid to grasp the very simple fact that criticizing one group is not by any stretch of the imagination giving a “complete, total, 100% pass” to an entirely separate group, then that’s very much your problem - not mine.
I blame Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton for not letting Bernie battle Trump in 2016. Trump didn’t win that election, Hillary lost it.
Bernie would have shone a light on their corruption, and they can’t have that.
Bernie overwhelmingly lost against Hillary, he was really only popular on the internet with people that don’t vote in the first place, he never stood a fucking chance.
Yes.
Aside from Trump himself, I would go so far as to say that the one single person in the entire world who bears more responsibility for Trump’s presidency than anyone else is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The voters clearly expressed their preference for Sanders and Sanders easily led both Clinton and Trump in polling, and then the DNC effectively fraudulently nominated Clinton anyway (with their technically valid but obviously corrupt defense being that they weren’t required to accept the voters’ preference).
They set the stage for Trump and the oligarchs to just walk right in, and then tried to blame everybody but themselves when they walked right in.
Nailed it. The Republicans tried to throw the election in 2016, and the DNC was all like “Hold my beer, let me show you how it’s done”.
Yes in 2016 the RNC wanted Jeb. They tried to stop Trump taking over their party.
I recall no indications that the RNC preferred Jeb. In fact, after 4 mediocre years with George HW, and the 8 disastrous years in which the negligence, incompetence, and corruption of the George W Bush Administration was responsible for the avoidable deaths of well over 10,000 American citizens, countless foreign nationals, and the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression, I don’t remember ANYONE looking forward to another Bush administration.
Even though he was the one Bush who wasn’t a self serving dipshit, and probably would have made a decent president (he had done a great job as governor of Florida) his political viability on the National stage was destroyed after his father’s, and especially his brother’s, failures as president. I don’t recall him winning a single primary race, or even finishing in the top 3.
They had plenty of candidates that year, but none of them could get any traction because the media only had eyes for the trainwreck that is Donald Trump, and combined with Russian propaganda and manipulation of social media, he was kept at the forefront at all times. In America, especially back then, just being familiar is good enough to be politically viable, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons.
What happened, the alternate reality they created to seize absolute power was itself seized by the now president that could talk shit better than they could. It was inevitable. He seized control of the party in the process of overthrowing the Republic. He mucked it up too, yet because the Democrats are so weak and worthless he won anyway. Or less charitably because the Democrats are the controlled opposition which is the truth.
I agree with your take, but I had insider knowledge I didn’t disclose. They were trying for Jeb in 2015
Well, maybe they should have spoken up. I know they had issues with running another Bush, but Hillary was carrying similar baggage, and they would have cancelled each other out, for the most part. How could they possibly think Trump would be better?
What Dems can’t seem to understand is that Bernie was NEVER going to get the Democratic Nomination because he’s NOT A DEMOCRAT.
The Presidential Nomination is the biggest award a party can give to a candidate. It essentially puts them at the head of the party. Bernie is a card-carrying Independent. He is NOT a member of the Democratic party. The party (The DNC) wants reward their own members, and give the nomination to a party member who has been supportive of the party over the years, and gathered the support of most of the country.
But Bernie has never been a Democrat, and is often nearly as critical of the Dems as he is of MAGA. He might caucus with the Dems, but he doesn’t raise money for them, his agenda is entirely different, and his successes are not their successes. The DNC feels about him almost the same as they feel about a MAGA candidate, or any candidate from any other party.
How would you feel if a Libertarian hijacked the DNC’s infrastructure and forced the party to support him, just because he got a bunch votes under their banner? He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t hang out with you, he doesn’t help you, he just called himself one of you so he could run, and he has no intention of following any of your policies. He’s just using your party to get what he wants, without regard to what the party wants.
Now, when it comes to the corrupt DNC, ALL of that sounds great to me, but it’s terrifying to the DNC. At the time, it came down to having two candidates - one who has dedicated their life to the party, and who has an excellent resume, including 8 years in the White House already, or a popular outside interloper who is trying to exploit the system for their own personal gain.
Take out the emotion of Bernie getting screwed, and you can understand why the DNC made that decision, even though we hate it. And guess what? They’d make that same decision 10 out of 10 times. They simply won’t give their precious nomination to an outsider.
Edit: Yeah, I get downvoted for this opinion every time I express it, but it’s true, and we all know it.
Bullshit. I do not find this to be an insightful take.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith and not the controlled opposition of fascists which they are. The leadership is, whether they know it or not and they should know it.
I do not find this to be an insightful take.
Perhaps YOU don’t, but if someone has never considered this idea, then it IS insightful, even if they don’t like it. But that doesn’t make it wrong, just unsavory. That’s the way MAGA thinks: I don’t like it, therefore it’s wrong.
You speak as if the Democrats are acting in good faith
Not at all. I don’t think either party exists in good faith. In fact, I think the point of political parties is to take “good faith” out of the equation, and make decisions based on cold political calculations, and money, of course. You can’t allow nebulous concepts like good faith, morals, fairness, truth, etc. muddy the waters. Let’s just boil it down to inhuman Math.
I’m a lifelong Independent, since I first registered to vote 50 years ago this year. I declined to declare a party then, and I haven’t since, with the only exception being in 2016, when I switched my registration so I could vote for Bernie in the primary, and then changed my registration right back.
I was one of you people, angry that Bernie never got a fair shot, but then I started thinking about it, and realized that he suffered the biggest problem with a two party system - even though the Independents are a larger share than either the Dems or the MAGAs, they don’t have ANY power in a 2 party system, because the two parties make sure to ice out any third party, as they should. Nominating a non-party member is a huge betrayal to party members who would have liked to have that nomination. Besides, the president is essentially the leader of the party. A party can’t have a leader that isn’t a member of their party, and has an agenda that is at odds with the party’s agenda. Otherwise, why have parties at all?
Frankly, that’s what happened to the Republicans. They allowed a really bad candidate to hijack their party, simply because he had popularity, and they were so desperate and pusillanimous, they made a deal with the Devil. I’m not saying that Bernie would have been as bad as Trump, but it shows how allowing an outsider to lead your party, can end in disaster. The Republicans let in the disease, while the Dems vaxxed themselves against the threat, and Bernie got caught in it.
Running as an Independent is a complex and dangerous calculation, and looking back, I wish he had. In a 3 way race between Bernie, Hillary, and Trump, Bernie might actually have won it, especially since a significant chunk of Trump’s support were originally Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary after the DNC edged him out. If he had gone Independent, he might have beaten Trump. That’s on Bernie.
The president wasn’t given the Republican party, he took it from the party.
You are a spousing a defeatism that is just not accurate. We can seize control of the Democratic Party, we came close to doing so without any real leadership, they’re weak they’re unpopular and they’re doomed to fail.
It’s not “Defeatism,” it’s the simple truth. The DNC was NEVER going to give an Independent candidate their nomination, and they never will. That is the NATURE of a political party. If any outsider can come along and claim a party’s nomination, what’s the point of a party?
What if a Republican decides that his primary is too crowded, so he declares as a Democrat, but still runs as a Republican, and Republicans vote for him in huge numbers? Is the DNC obligated to give that disengenuous candidate their nomination? If they can be forced to give it to a good candidate like Bernie, then they can be forced to give it to a terrible one like a MAGA.
The truth may hurt, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Parties have rules, and votes decide leadership. They barely held on to it the preceding two elections before the last one where they just anointed the most unpopular candidate they could find.
The DNC, more than any other organization in existence, is responsible for Trump’s presidency
Man…
The craziest part is the ~400 some people that get to vote when a Dem doesn’t win agreed with you a year ago when they voted for someone that wasn’t a neoliberal.
Like, if it was 15 months ago, you’d be 100% correct.
The main problem, is you think “the DNC” is a monolith, and not just the chair getting a four year term to do anything they want.
Obama ignored the DNC because they worked with Hillary in the primary and went bankrupt.
So neoliberals kept going into 2016, rigged it against Bernie, and when Hillary lost and all the money had been siphoned off to the first Victory Fund, they had no choice to pick a neoliberal in 2017 to have access to the VF or the party would have died. Maybe it should have a decade ago, but it didn’t.
That chair rigged it for Biden, and Biden put another neoliberal in charge of the DNC, and in return Kamala got the VF and the nomination with no primary.
Which takes us to 2025, and the ~400 voting members got a chance again.
And they picked the guy who ran Minnesota for a decade and has an incredibly strong track record anyone can easily look up.
We fucking won…
We got the party back.
The literal.only way we can lose it is if people check out of the Dem presidential and a neoliberal like Newsome gets the nomination and wins the general, that hands the keys of the party back and neoliberals will never let them go again.
No matter what happens, in the next Dem presidential primary vote for whoever is furtherest left, if nothing else to spite what you think the DNC still is.
Anything else and you might fuck us all
Edit:
I didn’t mention what happened with the Victory Fund, after Kamala the DNC got the keys to it.
For the last year we’ve had the largest reinvesture of funds from the DNC to state parties…
All that money back to states that need it to win these races, instead of sitting in a bank account until it’s time to throw another meaningless dinner with George Clooney.
We don’t want a large powerful national organization… Like, we want bottom-up power structure and that’s what we’re going back to…
The stuff people want to happen is happening, it’s been happening.
They just still suck at messaging, partly because they don’t think the party should be driving the bus.
I don’t know, I’ve heard that, that this is a new DNC, but I’m still waiting for more proof. I just remember David Hogg getting into the DNC last year, and declaring that he was going to overhaul it, and they kicked him right out.
Is this “new” DNC before or after they proved where they stand about a supporting a REAL gun control advocate?
If you have faith in DNC chair Ken Martin then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
He’s the guy who promised to realease the autopsy of the 2024 election, and is now refusing to release it. You really think he’s going to reform the DNC?
He’s the guy who promised to realease the autopsy of the 2024 election
When?
Seriously, when did he ever say he’d be the first DNC chair to publicly release that standard internal document?
We don’t even need to get into why publicly releasing war plans is bad strategy…
Or even why billionaire owned media wants him to release it…
You really think he’s going to reform the DNC?
All you gotta do is vote in the primary…
Logically, if you think you might be right, you should also be pushing people to vote in the Dem primary to stop it…
What is the benefit to telling progressives not to vote in the primary?
It comes with zero strings or obligations in the general…
But if you can’t predict what I’ll be saying if a neoliberal somehow grabs the nom, you might want to read again:
The literal.only way we can lose it is if people check out of the Dem presidential and a neoliberal like Newsome gets the nomination and wins the general, that hands the keys of the party back and neoliberals will never let them go again.
No matter what happens, in the next Dem presidential primary vote for whoever is furtherest left, if nothing else to spite what you think the DNC still is.
Anything else and you might fuck us all
Literally anything is better than repeating Biden in 2020, because then they get the DNC back.
I guarantee I won’t be telling people to vote for a neoliberal in 2028, because I plan more than a single election ahead
Sure, I’ll Google that for you
Specifically, Martin stressed that he was not coming to Washington to placate the political consultant class. His allies said that underneath his Minnesota nice exterior, he could be cutthroat. They promised he would be. And that the getting down to brass tacks would start with a rigorous analysis of where the party went wrong in the 2024 election, written up in a report that Martin committed to release publicly.
“Of course it will be released,” Martin said after winning the chairmanship. “There has to be some lessons that we glean.”
Buddy…
“DNC members” means the ~400 voting members…
Not the public…
https://x.com/HunterMw/status/2001732081374941209
I can’t quote it because it’s a screenshot, but bro…
You read that and thought it meant to the public?
Edit:
To clarify, that tweet is what your article uses as a source, and the article and person who posted that’s creenshot seem to be willfully misrepresenting it…
Journalists should know better, regular Americans, it’s understandable not everyone digs deep these days, doesn’t mean we can’t do better or that we don’t need to do better tho
Now we’re fighting about sources? This is tiresome.
How do you explain Ken Martin’s recent interview with Pod Save America?
The host asks
When you won the chairmanship in Feb of 25, you criticized the DNC’s refusal to release their 2016 autopsy as exactly what not to do. You asked “was there any utility in doing that?” and then promised your 2024 autopsy would be different. Your exact quote was “of course it would be released”. Why did you change your mind on that?
Ken Martin does not push back against this quotation. He responds by saying he’s “focusing on the lessons that can actually help us win”. He goes on to say it’s “not completely accurate to say we didn’t release [the autopsy] because we are focused on the lessons that can actually help us win”.
Youtube - Jon Favreau interviews DNC Chair Ken Martin in a heated exchange over Democratic strategy.
Now we’re fighting about sources?
No…
I’m literally still trying to explain to you what the DNC is…
And who “DNC members are”.
Like, are you saying the DNC members picked Martin…
And that Martin lied to them, and is now breaking his promise to him…
Which means if the DNC is still shit like you think, that’s a good thing? Like, logically you’re points aren’t adding up, except you’re really motivated to turn people against the party without even trying to answer:
Why don’t you want progressives to vote in the Dem primary?
So I’ll ask again:
Why don’t you want progressivesnto vote in the Dem primary?
Seriously, when did he ever say he’d be the first DNC chair to publicly release that standard internal document?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/dnc-kills-its-own-public-2024-autopsy-00697403
Martin’s decision to withhold the report doubles back on a pledge he made just hours after he was elected to be the DNC’s chair in February. In comments to reporters, Martin committed to the public release of the 2024 report.
At the time, he also questioned why the DNC hadn’t released its 2016 autopsy, when he questioned, “what happened with that … was there any utility in doing that?”
“Of course it will be released,” Martin said in February, referring to a future review on the 2024 election.
Yeah, but if you were here 6 months ago, Lemmy had pitchforks out for this guy.
Voters have made it very clear they do not want leftists. Leftist win the fewest elections out of all ideologies across the whole spectrum.
Blaming the DNC for the actions of voters is ignorant.
Leftist have the fewest voters and candidates out of all the ideologies across the spectrum due to their own lack of popularity.
Bernie won the primaries against Hillary if the DNC hadn’t ignored the will of the people with superdelegates. And he had a 10% greater lead against Trump than she did. So that’s clearly untrue. All polls indicated that he would have easily won against Trump.
I posted a lot about this on my blog back then if you are interested. Scroll down a bit . Many of the links no longer work but you will get the idea.
What about the polls that said Hilary was going to win? They were wrong so couldn’t your polls be wrong also?
Seems like you’re giving those polls merit based on who you want to win.
I personally know 2 conservatives that switched to democrat to vote for Bernie in the 2016 primary because they were so confident he would lose but they weren’t sure they could beat Hilary. They laughed at the idea of Bernie winning.
The polls weren’t really saying that on any regular basis. A few said she’d squeak by, some said she’d lose, but she never really had a 10 point lead like Bernie.
The rest of your statements and link are anecdotal nonsense hit pieces of the type that was very commonly posted in the corporate media back then to dissuade the easily fooled into not taking Sanders seriously.
The polls weren’t really saying that on any regular basis. A few said she’d squeak by, some said she’d lose,
The exact same is true for Bernie. That’s the fact that I am pointing out while reminding you of your bias.
Your argument is ‘the polls are wrong when they say what I don’t want to hear but they are accurate when they say what I want to hear’
Look at the link I sent. Pretty much all the polls showed him 5-12% ahead of Trump. None showed Hillary ahead by that much. The DNC made an own goal and it was obvious that it would play out that way.
Your sources are your own blog. Hopefully I don’t need to explain why that isn’t a credible source. Especially when they start off with this red flag: “First off, Jill Stein and the Green Party were not a spoiler in this election”
If the polls are inaccurate then it doesn’t matter what the polls say…
The DNC has failed the voter base. People got excited when Obama first ran. No one wanted Clinton or Biden, but the DNC forced them through, which certainly showed with voter turnout.
They could use this moment we are in right now to win some of the base back. Hold town halls, where all they do is listen to communities. Use all of that to develop a platform people actually get excited for. Put forth candidates who reflect those values. ??? Potentially get the ship pointed in the general direction that might lead us to something better than what we have now.
No one wanted Clinton or Biden, but the DNC forced them through, which certainly showed with voter turnout.
They both did better than leftist. Which is expected because centrist are the largest voting demographic.
They could use this moment we are in right now to win some of the base back. Hold town halls, where all they do is listen to communities. Use all of that to develop a platform people actually get excited for. Put forth candidates who reflect those values. ??? Potentially get the ship pointed in the general direction that might lead us to something better than what we have now.
Leftists could do this also but I’ve seen more liberals doing it this election season than leftists. Which is expected because leftist have so few voters.
I think the people here have a massively skewed idea as to how many leftist voters are in the US. Bernie literally lost the primary, and they still act like Kamala would have won if she had pandered more to the left.
You’re right and if no one steps in and tries to bring them back to reality they will try to run a campaign without the support of the voters and America with slide further right as a result of their delusional thinking.
Happy cake day! Do we say that on Lemmy?
I agree. I doubt that leftist candidates would be popular in the context of what I said. I see it realistically as short of revolution, the dems are not going anywhere. If they actually listened to America, they might hear our voices too. This would help get our proverbial foot in the door, where we could actually push the party from center-right to at least left adjacent. I’d also support us simply experiencing a paradigm shift spontaneously, but I get the feeling that won’t happen…yet.
“Vote Blue, unless they’re trying to work for you”
Looking forwards to that Schumer congratulations call.
I’ll be waiting…
fuck graham
If you want to get votes from both the left and the right, just campaign on being against the DNC.
I doubt you’d get votes from the right, they fear socialism and other left-wing policy much more than they fear the Democrats.
And yet specific points of leftist policy poll well across the board
The fucking primary hasn’t happened yet…
His opponent suspended her campaign, he will make it to the general…
But Jesus Fucking Christ, we’ve been fighting since before Jimmy Carter to get a DNC that will leave downballot primaries alone and run fair presidential ones.
The current DNC won’t say shit about any candidate till after they win a primary.
Which is something Jon Stewart of all people should understand is a good thing. And I feel like neither him or Graham was as harsh on the podcast as the article makes it out to be.
The current DNC won’t say shit about any candidate till after they win a primary.
Just to be clear, that’s not true.
Maine’s primary is the most unusual of the three — and may be causing the most intraparty heartburn — because it is the only one where Democratic leadership has itself picked a candidate. Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the party’s official arm for Senate races, are backing Mills.
Per the Boston Globe on January 17th 2026.
And of course after this interview Mills dropped out and,
Meanwhile, Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, said they would work with Platner to defeat Collins.
So the DNC and DSCC endorsed Mills before the primary. After Mills dropped out, they endorsed Platner. And while I’m glad they did, technically there is still another candidate and a write in candidate also running in the upcoming primary. It is not likely they’ll win, but they absolutely are endorsing before the primary.
This fucking guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8IwrO-03WU&t=976s
Listening to this guy made me genuinely angry, it was just so many non answers and “the lessons are the report” and being convinced for some reason that Jon kept asking for a smoking gun when he never said those words. It’s shit like that that shows why the DNC is the way it is
