Jesus Christ, we don’t need Hillary 3.0.
We need someone who can say something and it’s like…actual fucking words that normal people can relate to. Not something that was written in committee by some consultants working off polling.
“Don’t rape kids. Don’t violate the Constitution. Everyone gets to vote.”
None of this is complicated.
I’ll vote blue, no matter who, but I will vote for everyone else before Harris in the primaries.
Democratic leaders are just some of the stupidest cunts imaginable.
Oh hell naw
So long as there is a real primary, then let them try to shove her down our throats.
can we just start chanting “fuck off” every time she appears in public?
I do need capital. And votes. Wanna know why? “I have a dream.” That one day, NO person in this nation will control their OWN destiny. A land of the TRULY controlled, dammit. A nation of FORCE, not words. Ruled by STRENGTH, not committee. Where the law changes to suit the PAC, not the citizen. Where power and justice are still where they belong: in the hands of the billionaires!
Where no man is free to think – to act – for himself! Praise all these limp-dick lawyers and chicken-shit bureaucrats. Praise this 24/7 Internet spew of trivia and celebrity bullshit. Praise “American pride”. Praise the media! Praise all of it! America is diseased. Rotten to the core. There’s no saving it – we need to preserve it as it is.
Keep the slate as it. PRESERVE IT! And with the rot, old America will stay. Unevolved, and tamed! The weak will be purged, and the richest will thrive – free to live as they see fit, they will make America GREAT AGAIN!
What the hell are you talking about?
You still don’t get it. I’m using war as a business to get elected… so I can do war as a business! In my old America, people will die and kill for what PACs BELIEVE! For money, for oil! For what they’re told is right. Every man will be forced to fight PAC wars!
She needs to course correct a tad to capture the swing voter and sleepers.
deleted by creator
Democrats need someone who isn’t going to raise taxes on the wealthy.
So long as there’s a proper primary I don’t see the harm in this, not really. I can’t see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.
the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.
2024 was the only year recently we didn’t have a primary.
Nope. Bernie should have won the primary but the dems decided it was “Hillary’s turn” so they fucked Bernie.
Bernie didn’t have the votes. Period.
I voted for Bernie, but most people I knew at the time voted for Hillary because of the name recognition.
Argue all you want, but facts are facts.
[Citation Needed]
2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
On July 22, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives seemed to deride Bernie Sanders’ campaign[12] and discuss ways to advance Clinton’s nomination,[13] leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. The leak was allegedly part of an operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton.[14][15] Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was already close to securing the nomination,[13] the emails cast doubt on the DNC’s neutrality and, according to Sanders operatives and multiple media commentators, showed that the DNC had favored Clinton since early on.
The Dems fucked Bernie. From your own sources.
All I was talking about was 2016.
neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.
that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.
my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.
I’ve been voting since I was 18 and I’ve never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.
yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.
i have been voting since 1997.
I agree with you, but as devil’s advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent’s name. Take Biden for example: either he’s doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he’s not doing a good enough job.
So primaries are only so politicians can choose their voters, and not the other way around? I was told only MAGAts are the cultist?
Parties shouldn’t have that kind of operational control over our elections.
why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.
From what I’ve read the reason primaries aren’t done on incumbents is because every single time it’s been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.
? If incumbent wins the primary its the same as if they didn’t have one but at least the party members chose.
primaries are separate by party.
Sure, but a proper one? 2020 and 2016 were both ratfucked. 2012 was an incumbent year. So we’ll be at 2 decades since the last time we had a proper primary.
What was ratfucked about 2020? 2020 didn’t feel that different from 2008 or 2004.
In 2020 Bernie and Biden were the front-runners, and then all the other candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden. So it wasn’t ratfucked in an illegal way, but in a “torpedo a popular leftist in favor of a right-of-center establishment neolib” way.
Biden wasn’t even in the top 5 for the first like 4-5 races. He did ok in one, then the whole orchestrated dropout occured to manufacture consent
That’s absolutely not true. I’ve been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I’ve voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That’s the only one.
It absolutely is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
In 2012 Obama was the incumbent, which again as I mentioned, incumbents typically aren’t primaried if they are doing a decent job and up for re-election.
Since then there was 2016, 2020, where both years had a primary for the DNC. 2024 was just a fluke because Biden should have dropped out. Or even stuck with his original campaign promise of not running for re-election. You’re young and your sample size is 4. My sample size is 5, but it’s been consistent in years prior.
Depending on your state. In mine, there was a single candidate. That’s a primary in the same way the USSR had elections. If you lived in one of the states that had two candidates in 2020 then good for you. I didn’t.
1992? 2000? 2004? 2008? 2020?
2008. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.
They orchestrated Obama’s upset, that was Schumer and Pelosi’s plan they went behind Hillary’s back and got the party to back Obama.
What about 2008? It wasn’t fair?
As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.
Cynthia McKinney was elected as a Democrat in Georgia around that time. iirc she was looking at a presidential run. You might have seen her on here yesterday for her latest tweet. (Spoiler: super bigot)
Which is to say, if you open the field to everyone in the country you will spend a certain amount of time winnowing the contenders from the stunt candidates. Republicans don’t do that because they’re all the same candidate. So they spend almost zero time (since Perot) dealing with that.
Superdelegates aren’t great, but an alternative to achieve that aim of not having to platform every trust fund kid with a boot on their head might be good.
She ran as a Green Party candidate, not a Democratic one. I’m not sure how she’s relevant?
She was pretty suspect even in 2008, so I’m not sure I buy that if we don’t have superdelegates and let voters decide who the candidates are, then the stupid masses will just pick whoever.
They can’t remember.
Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.
No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.
Agreed 100%.
Source: I was there. Bernie got screwed because the dems through it was “Hillary’s turn”.
Fuck that.
Ah yes, super delegate shenanigans like the majority going to the candidate who had over 3 million more votes than the other. The only way Bernie could have won with super delegates is if he got almost all of them. And if he did then the candidate who got 3 million less votes would have won the nomination and we would still be facing people saying the democratic primaries aren’t “fair”.
Now don’t get me wrong, DWS was biased as fuck. But if the voters simply turned out and voted for Bernie then bias wouldn’t have mattered. The RNC was biased towards Jeb bush and Ted Cruz but you know how that turned out.
In the 2016 WV Democrat Primary, Bernie won every single county, 40k more votes than Clinton, but Clinton won the state. Your math isn’t mathing.
Nope Bernie won the state. He won and got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. But then at the convention Clinton got the 8 super delegates from the state which put her at 19 delegates to Bernie’s 18 but Bernie still won the state. Here’s my source.
You can’t use the result of the ratfucking to explain that there wasn’t ratfucking…
She couldn’t have cheated, she had more points
Clinton literally controlled the DNC treasury during that election. The party was low on funding due to mismanagement during the Obama years, she lent it money in return for control, next thing you know, media is flooded with articles talking up Clinton having all the superdelegate votes so being so far ahead before any real votes were cast…even when Bernie won states, it was all “doesn’t matter he still can’t make up for the SDs”
Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.
Uh oh
(I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)
Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn’t happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it’s their sole fault because they couldn’t convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn’t apply to Bernie.
Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn’t have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.
Bernie lost fair and square…
[Citation needed]
I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there’s no way of knowing at this point, but it’s not as if these claims have no basis in reality.
See now that’s an actual conversation to have! Not saying that Clinton cheated and/or was always going to be the candidate but that how the media represented the race depressed turnout. That’s a thing that continues to happen from the media trying to suppress progressive turnout and it often works. But those things still don’t change that if those progressives hadn’t been so easily suppressed and had continued to go out and fight and vote regardless of what the media said, just like trump voters did, then Bernie would have won the primary and the super delegates wouldn’t have mattered. And then likely would have won versus Trump, in my opinion.
If you call wall to wall Propaganda about how it doesn’t matter how Bernie is winning all these states, all the superdelegates are going to Clinton and she wins basically by default?
Like that wasn’t designed to dissuade voters?
Does this mean if Trump enforces voting via Real ID, and millions of people get removed from their right to vote, and Trump wins in '28, that more people should have voted for Democrats or that Trump shouldn’t have purged the voter rolls of as many people as possible that wouldn’t vote for him?
It’s so nice to see a sane take on that. Thank you.
Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.
The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.
Remember when the media decided that Biden winning the south Carolina primary was basically a coronation.
Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton
It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.
I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.
If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.
First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.
More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.
Which is why several states are banning ranked choice voting…
Notably all red states as well. There’s other voting systems I’d suggest but I believe it’s worth waiting till they can’t ban them first.
If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.
Shame the fascist GOP is making RCV illegal wherever they can.
The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we’re going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general
a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum
How about just no super delegates and the people decide.
How about a primary where superdelegates get no more/better votes than anyone else?
What am I thinking? That might result in someone who isn’t on the corporate teat!
Super delegates need to go
All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.
If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.
Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?
They’re going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.
Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.
If the dnc had proper primaries we would have had Bernie.
So long as there’s a proper primary
Hahahaha. Good one. That’ll totally happen.
If there is a primary hopefully she will perform the public service of prompting the others to distance themselves from Bidens handling of Gaza
Are you fucking stupid? You lost to Donald Fucking Trump—you know, the racist, fascist pedophile rapist? You lost to that guy, and you’d be running against his specter and his legacy, the racist and xenophobic sentiments that still run deep in this country.
What is uniting the American people, however, is a rising class consciousness, not establishment Dems like you. We already tried voting for “not-Trump,” and y’all squandered the opportunity to appease the wealthy, expand the police state, send more bombs to Israel, and treat all the people shouting “Danger!” like children, rather than securing our democracy and standing against genocide.
Fuck. Right. Off.
As long as we have a primary, I don’t care who runs. The more the better in fact.
I mean, she’d be better than Trump. But that’s such a ridiculously low bar.
Surely the Dems can come up with a better candidate that her, Gavin Newsom, or some similarly uninspiring/greasy candidate. Right? Right???
That isn’t the question, the question is over whether the DNC and the ruling class allow any other candidate to run against Trump.
Well, we’re in luck, the new chair of the DNC (Ken Martin) wants more candidates like Zohran Mamdani, and he has complete control over the DNC until August 2029.
He’s also pouring money into local races, supporting the local democratic parties the previous few DNC chairs mostly ignored.
He does???
He’s backed progressives in the recent state elections. I don’t know if he actually cares or not, but he seems to want to win, and that’s how you win these days.
There’s this interview;
I was going him saying he wanted more zohrans rather than him smartly endorsing him.
Oct. 11, 2025, 11:05 AM CDT / Updated Oct. 11, 2025, 2:53 PM CDT
Or something more recent from Ken. Couldn’t find anything other than his campaign slogans for why he should be next dnc chair
Fair point.
But Harris is the best candidate… For the interests of the wealthy members of the DNC.
She will keep things exactly how they are, but act like they have changed for the better. The rich will get richer, and the poor will get assaulted by police.
Why would the DNC give a single fuck about the desires of anyone but themselves? They suffer no consequences for their actions.
A chimpanzee with a switchblade would be better than Trump. At least it wouldnt start a war in Iran … or participate in a child sex trafficking ring.
Your opponent being ass is no excuse to slack off.
The trafficking ring are the ones sending the monkeys into the fight.
Yeah but can you name Any One Candidate who’s better and would win?
Bernie Sanders or AOC, for a start.
Bernie Sanders
WTF is this US fetish for old people. Saunders will be 86 by 2028, if he gets to that age.
America will not elect a woman. Not a young woman, and not a young, latina woman. Pale, Male and Stale or its another 4 years of the GOP. Stop pretending you are some progressive European country.
Even so, he would be better. Also shut up with your sexist racism.
Cool well I guess we will just stay in our lane then.
Your argument against Bernie is that he’s an old white man, so no AOC? Are the Trans-investigators getting to you?
Jesus Christ woman, get a fucking clue. You lost the presidency to the worst piece of shit on the face of the planet. Why in the fuck do you think you have any chance against anyone else?
