• Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I said that with replacing Biden, we’d lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones,

    Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

    This absolute baldfaced refusal to accept reality from Democrat loyalists up and down the party structure, makes the whole party look unserious. Team sports, ‘my guy can do no wrong’ horseshit that they also see from the MAGAs, but team red talks game about inflation and the economy - and isn’t the incumbent seen as responsible for it.

    • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.

      What? No, not even slightly. I’m saying that the people who are extensively hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork, the media pretending that Trump was a controversial but ultimately capable businessman who would fix the economy that was hurting them so badly, and any particular thing the Democrats did wrong was justification for having a multi-week freakout, and also the fact that most Americans get their political news from TikTok and Facebook if they get it at all.

      Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I’m saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look… they didn’t.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork

        I agree (and did), but posting that context often was dismissed with “it’s election season, quit posting FUD if you’re not a troll/bad-faith”. Y’all weren’t there for the discussion even - as was shown with Gaza.

        But the basic fact is that the candidate(s) and party apparatus either: A) Fundamentally failed to read the room and see the obvious discontent and voter backlash over several policy stances and material realities, or B) Knew all that and still decided to run the campaign they wanted to, whilst cynically wielding the Republicans as a worse option to impel democrat voters on the left, so they could run to the center and abandon the working class to the Republicans

        Nobody forced them or their staffers to pick option B, even as their own internal polling showed their defeat was all but assured under option B. And here we are.

        Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I’m saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look… they didn’t.

        So when do I get to play the ‘Quit spreading FUD’ card then? Because as you said, if nothing was going to fundamentally change re:platform, why not present a new and younger candidate after Biden’s cognitive meltdown, and claw back some of the party’s reputation with the electorate? Why not hold a ‘speed primary’? Why let cynicism win out and accept Biden drowning the party with him, because ‘nobody else can do better’ while he’s an elder lich that refuses to let go of power?

        • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Honestly, I’m just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.

          I’ll keep it short: No one from the DNC is on Lemmy. When you post on Lemmy, you’re not successfully talking any sense into the Democrats. You’re speaking to people who are deciding how to vote, whether to vote, how to get involved with activist organizations, and also just in a truth telling sense helping all of us make sense of what’s going on. The problems in American politics go way deeper than one candidate or one party. You are not saving the Democrats by making these recommendations, although they’re not really wrong, but you are attempting to take 100% of the oxygen away from other problems (which are also very real) which we are all similarly mostly-powerless to fix but which are also significant problems.

          You’re also arguing against a bunch of stuff that I, at least, never said, which I understand is fun to do but it’s not real productive for us making sense to one another. I’m happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first: Find 5-10 different examples of me talking about Gaza, what a problem it was, and how Biden was complicit in it. Once you’ve done that (it should take literally one text search, use the @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat account since this one is new), we can chat.

          • Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Honestly, I’m just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.

            …then stop posting/lurking in .world then? Or accept that it’s not your backyard, and you have different views?

            The DNC is not on Lemmy

            Doubtful, though I’d still hold out for some Linux-hatted staffer Venn intersection. But I’m sure that web crawlers and API scrapers are, which do feed into data sets used to judge people’s opinions. And there’s definitely a lot of neoliberals who lurk and comment, amongst other political stripes.

            I’m happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first

            Lmao if you actually want to genuinely talk to some, that line is condescending as fuck and you should never use it. And re: Gaza? Just scroll up, you brought up Gaza in your first reply in this comment thread - unprompted. Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?

            • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?

              I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.

              Sounds like you’re not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I’m not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.

              • Milk_Sheikh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate

                You read my exasperation as hostility, because my initial reply was to a lot of your hand waving that ‘anyone would have been as bad as Biden’ completely sidesteps his obvious cognitive state, and the withering voter enthusiasm he carried both in and out of the party.

                Sounds like you’re not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive.

                Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?

                You got challenged on a massive point of context, confirmed your actual position, to which I agreed and then pivoted to their doomed strategy of ‘I wouldn’t do anything differently’ was a failure from the jump, and your response is cynical elitism? Good luck convincing others dude

                Like I said, I’m not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.

                👋

                • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?

                  Lol I mean being straight with you and responding factually to what you were saying, responding substantively and clarifying, definitely didn’t work. Oh well. Also, “cynical” at least in the original meaning doesn’t mean what you think it means.