Obama is one of the most popular presidents in my lifetime. Hillary won the popular vote. The problem wasn't being a woman or a person of color, their problem was being shitty candidates that the public doesn't like, running terrible campaigns.
Yeah, and I didn't vote for him either, so I don't see what's so absurd about that. It's possible to be against the Democrats for supporting genocide, while also being against Trump for supporting genocide. In fact, I've found it easier to just be against genocide no matter who is supporting it.
Is there any polling indication that showed to show drumpf winning?
Yeah, I kept hearing it a lot before the election. It was roughly ~51-49 in favor of Trump.
I'm not sure how the rest of your comment is related? Can you explain?
How is accurately describing what happened "deflection"?
But the Democrats aren't going to start fighting for what the people want if voters keep voting Blue No Matter Who. We've seen them continuously run to the right, because they don't feel like they have to earn votes.
I get what your saying, and I think there's some truth to it, but I've also seen the Democrats in action, and I can't say that I have any hope that they are going to suddenly change their ways. If they really don't want the 3rd parties to split the vote, then they should try adopting the policies that the 3rd parties are running on.
I totally agree, and I never understood how adding a parasitic middle-man is supposed to make things cheaper.
"without it, we would have to pay out of pocket for ad supported services!"
Actually, I don't think we would for a lot of things. The internet existed long before it was advertising funded. Web-pages used to be things that people made because they were passionate about what they put on those pages. Advertising only came later.
Hell, there are still plenty of things that people build and maintain because they like it, not because they make money from it. How many people work for free on things like Wikipedia, FOSS, Fediverse, etc. just because they want to see it succeed?
I'm not familiar with the history of Porgual. Can you explain why that's relevant to this? or possibly link to something that would help explain?
I don't know enough about her campaigns to say why she didn't win. Is there any indication that Americans thought she was going to fight for what they want?
Nope. I voted 3rd party because I didn't want Trump, and I also didn't want Harris. Maybe if Harris had tried campaining on what Americans wanted, rather than trying to win over people who were obviously not going to vote for her, we wouldn't be here.
But she chose genocide, money, and the Cheneys over winning an election against one of the least popular presidents we've ever had.
Nah, I'm not giving her a break. She handed the elction to Trump on a silver platter. It should have been a slam dunk election, but she chose genocide, money, and the Cheney's over winning.
Are they? I remember the polls saying it was about 51-49 in favor of Trump
There was time for a primary, but the DNC wanted to be sure and clamp down on any possible dissent. They wanted to make it clear that they get to pick the candidates, and the voters have to deal with it.
Hillary won the popular vote. While America does have a sexism problem, I don't think being a woman is why they lost. They lost because they were terrible candidates who were completely out of touch with what Americans want.
Obama was one of our most popular presidents in my lifetime. Hillary won the popular vote.
Yes, American clearly has racism and sexism, but I don't think those have been the problem. The problem is running terrible candidates that ignore what Americans are looking for.
And how has running the DNC picks been working out?
If the Democrats aren't going to give the people what they want, it's time to give a 3rd party a shot.
No, the pain, suffering loss of rights and death were because the DNC decided that continuing a genocide was more important than winning an election against one of the least popular presidents we've ever had.
Maybe next time they should pick a candidate that the people actually want.
It's working out about as well as we expected it would. The Democrats were loudly told that running a terrible candidate, who supported genocide was a bad idea. They didn't listen, and here we are.
I feel like getting made at the people who couldn't stomach voting for a genocidist is the wrong strategy. Getting mad at the people who ran on a platform of genocide seems like a better strategy.
It's still amazing to me that people blame the voters who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, rather than getting mad at the people in charge who chose genocide over winning
Hillary won the popular vote. While yes, America does have a sexism problem, I don't think being a woman is that big of a problem for the candidates.
Being a terrible candidate who is insanely out of touch with Americans is the problem. They just need to run women who are willing to fight for what Americans want.