Coulda had a bad bitch...

/u/ZombiFrancis can correct me if I'm wrong but I think what they're saying is that the DNC was unable to redefine what is perceived as electable; tha tis, the stale notion that progressivism is not palatable to rural working class voters despite evidence to the contrary. Instead, we fall for the same old trope of watering down OUR vision and OUR policy platform that we KNOW must be done (e.g., climate change as just one), and end up just looking bland to these voters. We don't stand for anything, except for the progressive caucus of this party.

So in short, we need a 50 state strategy; but a national vision that brings that all together and is adapted to modern times. Not this incessant pivot to the "center" that is arbitrarily defined by Republican lines in the sand.

Finish the sentence and close the loop: "and then refer to Sanders support as 'empty land.'" The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.

...and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.

And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don't dismiss the support as empty land.

What was the point of that?

Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean's strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.

But I'm here less to disagree than I am to witness in awe how you dived into that user's history to dredge up something they said a full year ago, within 3 minutes of them posting their comment. I'm going to be very nice to you cause you fumkin scary lol

Yeah so Biden did an executive order to forgive student debt, it got challenged in the courts and so it didn't happen.

People saying "Democrats should just do executive orders like Trump does" need to look into who's on the Supreme Court.

The "do everything by EO" strat only works for a party that has had a loyal voting base for decades so they have control of the courts.

Sorry to interrupt the "both sides" narrative leftists/MAGAs love so much.

we had better damn well put in a president who's gonna EO everything to the far left

They have the house, senate, the courts and are all yes man followers.

Yeah, elder statesmen like Biden still believed in things like exercising power responsibly within the balance of power like many presidents before them.

That wasn't good enough, too many people took the "lesser evil" quote to heart. So now we have a dipshit writing EOs faster than the court system moves, and I hope there's a god to help the country get out of this.

That’s still completely true. Not only that, Congress and SCOTUS can nullify any executive order.

Let’s not forget they’ve spent the past 4-8 years putting their people into the right places to allow them to start doing whatever they want.

God forbid someone want to keep some semblance of democracy without completely giving up hope in a race to the bottom.

None of these things can be performed by executive order. A big reason that bill just had to be passed was his deportations and detainings couldn't be performed without money from Congress

Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified.

If they'd run Sanders, they've had ended up with a Democratic supermajority. SCOTUS would have been largely irrelevant.

But it doesn't change facts. The powers of the presidency in the hands of an actual reformer, not a performative one like Biden or Obama, would have entailed true, fundamental change.

This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.

How did that happen? Didn't the dems do something? Wasn't Biden fighting this super hard for 4 years? \s

i honestly am skeptical of western media’s narrative that everyone is complacent and doesn’t give a fuck. i’ve met a lot of people. every single one of them gives some sort of a shit about politics. it feels like homegrown astroturfing to keep anything from ever actually coming to a head. keep people feeling alone and isolated, hopeless. if 60-80% of americans are complacent, don’t participate civically, and are actively disengaged from the political process… then where are these people? i should be seeing them in droves right? but i’m not, and neither is anyone i know. my network isn’t really geographically limited either. anecdotal evidence regardless, sure, but still suss imo.

i’ve seen the statistics and polls, the election results and non-participant ratio, you don’t need to share those sources with me.

idk, maybe i’m fucking crazy and a conspiracy theorist. a wise man once said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Be a lot easier to participate if anybody's vote actually mattered. Literally worthless vote where I live.

I "wasted" my vote on Cornell West in the presidential category. Doesn't matter at all.

🐍

The dems are doing a great job of convincing people not to vote. There's really no better method than constantly nominating garbage candidates.

1! = 1
2! = 2
3! = 6
4! = 24
...
JEB! = +∞

1. Cali in this picture is quite distinctly pale and white in densely populated regions. Compare.
2. The message of the map is quite clearly not "Cali is voting for Bernie, look at how overwhelming that is!", but using the physical size of the country and Bernie's support in low-density states to portray him as winning an overwhelming victory, when Bernie's frontrunner status at this point was a fairly slim plurality.

They’re talking about traitor lunatics who complain that a mostly red map (traitor lunatic counties) doesn’t result in a traitor lunatic victory. It’s the whole “people live in cities” joke.

Okay but:

1. Bernie was never going to win the deep-red states on the strength of his primary polling.
2. Land doesn't vote in the Dem primaries.
3. The implication of these maps is to present one candidate or party or idea as overwhelmingly popular, when it's just color-by-the-numbers for largely empty space.

It's tracing where candidates predominate, with blue and deep blue being Sanders - the impression is given, by the presence of blue across a large swathe of the country, that Sanders is winning an overwhelming victory. However, much of the area that is blue is not considerably populated; while Sanders enjoyed plurality support at this point in the primary (I remember it well, because I was so fucking excited and hopeful), it's not even vaguely close to the implication of overwhelming support that the map gives off.

No, the vast majority of the map is empty land.

So, a vast collection of people are just one uniform singular entity in your head?

Just wondering if you literally consider these kind of posts to essentially be one "person"?

Electing Biden didn't even stop trump

This is so confusing. Which party, if any, was supporting those measures? How'd they get on the ballot?

Oh so you're saying more people voted for Biden because Biden convinced more people to vote for him?

What a travesty! Its too bad we didn't...

What is it you're suggesting...

Utilize Spoiler Candidates to shift the election in your favor?

Because Biden and Obama convinced more people to check his name on the ballots.

Biden literally won the 2020 General Election by one of the largest margins ever.

Great, then mirror some of his policies. However were I a democratic politician, I simply would not reward a politician who has been outside the party structure for decades with endorsement for presidency. For me it would effectively be like skipping the queue.