US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[Steel]

So why not skip the middleman and push for an one-party state and disenfranchising all the Republican voters en masse as the goal?

I don't know how you could possibly get that impression when I literally said that the Republican voters are always going to vote and suggested accepting this fact and not trying to change it.

It might have been possible to conclude that Republicans would vote for anything with an R next to it after the 2000 election, it was clear after the 2016 election but people misattributed it to other causes, it was hidden in the 2020 election (as despite it happening the higher D turnout meant the standard R turnout wasn't enough for a win). but after the 2024 election it is absolutely impossible to deny that Republican voters will always turn out in the same numbers no matter how terrible the candidate or policies.

The US has an electorate of about 240 million. There are 70 million R voters the Democratic party are never going to get no matter what they do. Their goal has to be to get the highest proportion possible of the remaining 170 million or so eligible voters to vote for them. Of these, 80 million don't vote regularly and up to 90 million sometimes vote Democrat. The Democrats job is to take whatever actions necessary to maximise the proportion of those 170 million who turn up and vote for them on election day. Any action that attempts to get one of the 70 million R voters is a waste of effort, and anything that tries to take R voters at the cost of any of the other potential voters is actively harmful because it can only net lose votes as the Rs will never switch.

Of course this only matters if fair elections continue.

[Elfdart]

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

Clinton won the primaries in 2016. Then she won the popular vote. Clearly someone liked her.

Clinton won the primaries because they railroaded Bernie, many of the folks who voted for her in the presidential election only did so because the alternative was Trump. Unlike her husband or Obama she wasn't exactly loved, in fact there was a lot of resentment towards her from others in the Democratic party along with their voters. If you want to put it bluntly, Clinton was the candidate of the DC lobbyist & corporate donor class, lots of people voted for her because she had a shitload of money & power behind her and the alternative was Trump. It's not because they liked her or think she's a great candidate.

Gore Vidal used to say that the four most beautiful words in the English language are "I told you so". Now the four most beautiful words are:

Bernie would have won!

[Soontir C'boath]

Gore Vidal used to say that the four most beautiful words in the English language are "I told you so". Now the four most beautiful words are:

Bernie would have won!

You know, I'm not going to say Bernie would have won against Trump back in 2016 because we'll never know for sure, but how anyone can see Bernie's gigantic grassroots support and enthusiasm that people were pouring into his campaign only for the typical Democrat to go, "nah, could never work cause populism" is still absolutely mind blowing to me.

All those people who said populism doesn't work and yet we have Trump twice now can go fuck themselves. We could've gone the other way. We could have gone the motherfucking other way, but Dems had to drink their own damn Kool-Aid.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Bernie Sanders blasts Democratic Party following Kamala Harris loss

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a scathing statement on what he called the Democratic Party's "disastrous" campaign after Vice President Kamala Harris lost the presidential election to former President Donald Trump.

The independent, who caucuses with Democrats, said it "should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them."

"First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well," Sanders continued in his statement. "While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they're right."

The longtime progressive champion, who ran for president in 2016 and 2020, reflected on the ways Americans continue to experience economic instability, from income and wealth inequality to a lack of guaranteed paid family and medical leave.

Sanders also criticized continued spending on military aid to Israel.

"Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government's all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children," Sanders said.

Sanders, who won reelection Tuesday to a fourth six-year term in the U.S. Senate, cast doubt about the party's ability to learn its lesson.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not," Sanders said.

Sanders said "very serious political discussions" are now merited about the path forward for "those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice," before ending his statement with, "Stay tuned."

Harris conceded the election in a speech on Wednesday at her alma mater, Howard University, in Washington, D.C.

"While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign," she said. "The fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and the dignity of all people -- a fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation -- the ideals that reflect America at our best."

Harris' concession speech came after Trump was projected to win the swing states of Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

[Dominus Atheos]

What Bernie said, but as a meme:

[Zaune]

They were always going to have to reckon with the voter disillusionment issue, but I really thought there was a couple more election cycles to go before it blew up this badly.

Probably because I'd reckoned without the other side resorting to outright cheating.

[Ralin]

If Sanders couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him why the fuck do you think he would have won the general election?

[Elfdart]

You know, I'm not going to say Bernie would have won against Trump back in 2016 because we'll never know for sure, but how anyone can see Bernie's gigantic grassroots support and enthusiasm that people were pouring into his campaign only for the typical Democrat to go, "nah, could never work cause populism" is still absolutely mind blowing to me.

All those people who said populism doesn't work and yet we have Trump twice now can go fuck themselves. We could've gone the other way. We could have gone the motherfucking other way, but Dems had to drink their own damn Kool-Aid.

Two questions:

If not for a million Americans dying of Covid-19, does anyone really think Biden would have beaten Trump?

Did getting Biden elected accomplish much of anything, other than delaying Trump's second term?

[Elfdart]

If Sanders couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him why the fuck do you think he would have won the general election?

Almost every poll showed Bernie not only beating Trump but beating him handily. The problem is that between the super-delegates, party bosses and consultants, there was no way they were going allow him to get the nomination. He should have run third party. Which leads to....

Since the above-mentioned hacks who have given us eight years of Trump aren't about to fire themselves, commit political seppuku or just shut the fuck up for a while*, the only realistic alternative is to form a second party and let the Democratic Party go the way of the Whigs after they proved to be not only corrupt but even worse, useless.

* As of now, the scapegoats are:

Hispanic and Black men
Muslims/Arabs
College Kids

I guess their hearts just aren't in it anymore. Remember back in 2016 when Hillary's dead-enders came up with scapegoats and excuses that were so deranged and moronic as to be unintentionally hilarious? This is just sad. One glimmer through the clouds is that they're not even trying to blame Susan Sarandon this time, and she still looks fucking fabulous!

[Zaune]

A third party isn't happening without election reform at the national level. In fact, I'd argue that the US needs a fourth party as well, because it's not like American voters who lean right-of-centre but atre still committed to democracy and the rule of law can be feeling very heard or represented right now.

And maybe if we get through the next four years without Trump doing away with elections entirely (and he's going to have trouble bringing that off without the Army on his side) there'll be a semblance of bipartisan consensus that said reform needs to happen.

[Soontir C'boath]

If Sanders couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him why the fuck do you think he would have won the general election?

Again, I don't think you realized how much the Democratic party wanted Hillary to be the de facto nominee back then. Obama wasn't suppose to win back in 2008 and the party learned their lesson and wasn't going to let it happen again to Hillary for the second time. Not to mention that at the end of the day, it isn't in the party's interest to have someone like Sanders in office and it didn't help that the sentiment was that the party knew best and Sanders needed to fuck off.

[Ralin]

If Sanders couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him why the fuck do you think he would have won the general election?

Again, I don't think you realized how much the Democratic party wanted Hillary to be the de facto nominee back then. Obama wasn't suppose to win back in 2008 and the party learned their lesson and wasn't going to let it happen again to Hillary for the second time. Not to mention that at the end of the day, it isn't in the party's interest to have someone like Sanders in office and it didn't help that the sentiment was that the party knew best and Sanders needed to fuck off.

And what, did they ban him from the primaries? Toss out votes cast for him? I've a lot of talk about how 'they' wouldn't let him win but the specifics always seem to boil down to insisting Sanders lost because party members did politics against him and that's cheating somehow.

[Soontir C'boath]

If Sanders couldn't get a majority of Democrats to vote for him why the fuck do you think he would have won the general election?

I suppose I should have actually answered this question, but also ask, why do you think Hillary lost?

Back then, Hillary basically said we had 8 years of Obama and we're just going to continue that. She kept saying the economy was doing great and the haters needed to stfu. Obama at some point chimed in and said America was already great. They were tone deaf and her campaign should have had a clue that something was fundamentally different when Republicans started gravitating towards Trump and pretty much disowned the typical career Republicans. No one wanted an establishment candidate. Harris despite bringing Walz on board, basically did the same thing and promised four more years of Biden's work under her watch. No one wanted that. Everybody wanted something different.

And that's what Obama won on back in '08. "Change we can believe in" and people are still waiting for that to actually be true. So that's why I think Bernie would have won, because he was Obama 2.0 and would've galvanized many people including those who leaned Republican in which he did polled more favorably than Clinton. And at the end of the day, vote blue no matter who right?

[Crazedwraith]

Hillary lost for lots of fucking reasons. Pointing at one thing and saying 'this is why' is always an oversimplification.

Yeah, status quo messaging probably didn't help. Neither did being a woman. Or you know, the FBI announcing they were investigating her a month before polling.

Likewise Kamala's message, being a mixed race woman, the whole gaza thing making her having to either piss off pro-gaza or pro-israelli voters probably didn't help either.

How much any of those factors mattered compared to any other one is hard to say.


It's fucking astounding to me personally then when faced with a choice of 'not promising radical change but keep steady in a good direction' and 'radical change the wrong way' people will just sit out. But they do.

eta: That said it's true that basically the Primaries and the General Election are very different beasts and success at one is not success at the other. It's why the american system of there must be elections for everything at every stage is so stupid. They have to make promises to win off an all Dem audience at first and then try and pivot to wide appeal afterwards.

I will also say like Ralin I think, even at the time I don't know what the DMC is supposed to have done to "Rob" Sanders in the first place.

[Soontir C'boath]

Hillary lost for lots of fucking reasons. Pointing at one thing and saying 'this is why' is always an oversimplification.

Ok, well thanks for helping my case. I mean I didn't want to elaborate too much, but thanks for doing the work for me.

It's fucking astounding to me personally then when faced with a choice of 'not promising radical change but keep steady in a good direction' and 'radical change the wrong way' people will just sit out. But they do.

Well, on the part of steady in a good direction.... for whom? Feels like a great deal of survivorship bias here.

I'm making high five figures and I can maybe comfortably rent a studio apartment in a shitty neighborhood if I decided to go that way. Standard expense for housing is 30% of one's income which for me is impossible to do in a decent neighborhood. People in California who make $100k+ might as well be making minimum wage, which begs the question on how the hell people on minimum wage are surviving. So it's not all rosy depending on who you are.

I will also say like Ralin I think, even at the time I don't know what the DMC is supposed to have done to "Rob" Sanders in the first place.

It's interesting, that that is your focus of the discussion and not you know, maybe more on the focus on the needs of what the people want. This is the party of FDR after all, and it is not acting like it's working towards FDR's ideals as it should. Cause you know, this is the party that lost to Trump twice now.

[Soontir C'boath]

I will also say like Ralin I think, even at the time I don't know what the DMC is supposed to have done to "Rob" Sanders in the first place.

To stay on the matter maybe I need to offer a better comparison. If it was between Hillary and Trump in the primary, are you seriously going to tell me that it was fair and square that Trump beat Hillary in the primary or are you going to freak out that Trump fucking won against Hillary in the primary and the party let it happen?

[Crazedwraith]

premature post. oops.

[Crazedwraith]

I will also say like Ralin I think, even at the time I don't know what the DMC is supposed to have done to "Rob" Sanders in the first place.

It's interesting, that that is your focus of the discussion and not you know, maybe more on the focus on the needs of what the people want. This is the party of FDR after all, and it is not acting like it's working towards FDR's ideals as it should. Cause you know, this is the party that lost to Trump twice now.

Seriously? What kind of morally holier than thou bullshit is this? I can discuss anything I goddamn want here and it won't make a blind bit of difference. Even if I wasn't a Brit, this forum of like a dozen posters at best has no impact on the american political system.

I don't give a shit about the DMC as whole, I'm not up on some hill trying to defend them.

There's one specific claim people have made they fiddled the primaries and robbed Bernie. I just want to see this claim backed up. Why do you keep dodging it?

I will also say like Ralin I think, even at the time I don't know what the DMC is supposed to have done to "Rob" Sanders in the first place.

I mean, if you want to continue in this direction. Should I remind you that the Republican had a more democratic election this cycle when they actually held a primary unlike the Democrats which decided to uphold Harris as the de facto nominee which is highly hypocritical for a party claiming to be fighting for democracy.

What does this have to do with anything I said? What do you think we're talking about here?

I think the American idea of primaries is fucking stupid. As I've already said.

[Soontir C'boath]

There's one specific claim people have made they fiddled the primaries and robbed Bernie. I just want to see this claim backed up. Why do you keep dodging it?

I'll present it again, because it seems we're talking past each other:
If it was between Hillary and Trump in the primary, are you seriously going to tell me that it was fair and square that Trump beat Hillary in the primary or are you going to freak out that Trump fucking won against Hillary in the primary and the party wanted that to happen?

[Crazedwraith]

There's one specific claim people have made they fiddled the primaries and robbed Bernie. I just want to see this claim backed up. Why do you keep dodging it?

I'll present it again:
If it was between Hillary and Trump in the primary, are you seriously going to tell me that it was fair and square that Trump beat Hillary in the primary or are you going to freak out that Trump fucking won against Hillary in the primary and the party wanted that to happen?

We're talking about Hillary and Sanders right? What does this mean?

So, is there any hard evidence? Or is it just 'they must have done because I don't believe Sanders lost fair and square'? The most I saw at time was an email confirming the establishment didn't much like Sanders, nothing that proved they rigged the primaries.

[Soontir C'boath]

There's one specific claim people have made they fiddled the primaries and robbed Bernie. I just want to see this claim backed up. Why do you keep dodging it?

I'll present it again:
If it was between Hillary and Trump in the primary, are you seriously going to tell me that it was fair and square that Trump beat Hillary in the primary or are you going to freak out that Trump fucking won against Hillary in the primary and the party wanted that to happen?

We're talking about Hillary and Sanders right? What does this mean?

So, is there any hard evidence? Or is it just 'they must have done because I don't believe Sanders lost fair and square'? The most I saw at time was an email confirming the establishment didn't much like Sanders, nothing that proved they rigged the primaries.

It's a pretty simple question. If the primary was between Trump and Hillary and Trump won. Would you be fine with that result because it was fair and square?

[Crazedwraith]

I'll present it again:
If it was between Hillary and Trump in the primary, are you seriously going to tell me that it was fair and square that Trump beat Hillary in the primary or are you going to freak out that Trump fucking won against Hillary in the primary and the party wanted that to happen?

We're talking about Hillary and Sanders right? What does this mean?

So, is there any hard evidence? Or is it just 'they must have done because I don't believe Sanders lost fair and square'? The most I saw at time was an email confirming the establishment didn't much like Sanders, nothing that proved they rigged the primaries.

It's a pretty simple question. If the primary was between Trump and Hillary and Trump won. Would you be fine with that result because it was fair and square?

Yes? What kind of stupid question is that?

In the sense that if the contest was fair and square than the result is fair and accurate. I wouldn't like Trump winning but I wouldn't say there was anything underhanded or that Hillary was robbed or anything without evidence indicating it.


eta: Re-reading the thread, I apologise I think we may really be talking across purposes because I'm not sure anyone actually argued the DMC fixed it, except maybe Aerius but that's what I've consistently talked about by saying "rob".

[Soontir C'boath]

If you want to go down the route that politics is dirty and you gotta suck it up, fine whatever.

But in the end, presumably the same people who are feeling like shit because Trump beat Hillary/Harris even if its "fair and square", would still feel it to be an absolutely horrendous outcome. Imagine having someone like Trump representing you instead of Hillary in the general, you should be sick to your stomach and you should still feel robbed.

[Crazedwraith]

... I honestly do not know what you're trying to say? Did you read my post? Including the eta?

Obviously you don't have to like the results of an election or the candidate picked by the system. But if no rules were broken and the election was won fair and square, well that's the results isn't it?

Again, I've been arguing about something that maybe no-one raised, so I apologise for that, that the primary was rigged by the DMC to get Hillary Clinton in at the expense of Bernie Sanders. If your position is "Clinton won fair and square, I just don't like it" as opposed to "DMC Cheated to put Hillary in" then fine. That's a perfectly reasonable position to be taking. Knock yourself out. That's not what I've been talking about nor do I have a problem with it.

[Soontir C'boath]

... I honestly do not know what you're trying to say? Did you read my post? Including the eta?

Obviously you don't have to like the results of an election or the candidate picked by the system. But if no rules were broken and the election was won fair and square, well that's the results isn't it?

Again, I've been arguing about something that maybe no-one raised, so I apologise for that, that the primary was rigged by the DMC to get Hillary Clinton in at the expense of Bernie Sanders. If your answer is "Clinton won fair and square, I just don't like it" then fine. That's a perfectly fine position to be taking. Knock yourself out. That's not what I've been talking about nor do I have a problem with it.

It's DNC by the way.

There was a conflict of interest wherein Hillary would fund the DNC in matters regarding the general election and her campaign can decide who the communications director would be even before the primary, and strategy that the DNC would partake. She was suppose to run relatively unopposed with full support from most of the heavy hitters in the party, but Sanders and a couple other candidates stepped in. In the end, it was in the DNC's interest for Hillary to win to receive the funds they had agreed upon years before. DNC Chair Donna Brazile have stated that previous DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz made the agreement and later on Elizabeth Warren had made public statements that the DNC was rigged for Hillary.

Snopes

In a lawsuit against the DNC a year after the election, DNC lawyers argued that the position of impartiality by the DNC was just a promise that could be broken.

Newsweek