Presidents are selected, not elected - FDR
4mon 9d ago by lemmy.world/u/K1nsey6 in latestagecapitalism
Lol wtf is Harris doing here?
Representing the planned opposition that is nearly the entirety of the Democratic party.
No she has to loose to Trump again. It's the only way to be sure. Never be different, let's just try it again
Let's get Clinton back. It's her turn!
Gross
We forgetting something? Doesn’t matter who the Dems shove out there, Trump can’t run again.
Should I draft up a list of all of the Amendments of the US Constitution that have been ignored over the past 13 months?
Don’t concede any ground. There’s no need to make it any easier on them.
Saying that he may (probably will) illegally run is not conceding ground. It's preparing for the future. If you nievely assume he's just going to follow the law then you will be unprepared for when he doesn't.
Old man time will veto it, there will be a succession sooner or later, that is our shot to take it back in the infighting if we can get a real candidate, a popular aggressive one because they will be cheating every way they can, which is a lot.
You're right. Acting like him trying for 3rd term is an inevitability is how his dumb fuck ideas get normalized.
At this point I can only conclude that the dnc want a third trump. Though, I guess that tracks, they can continue plundering and getting aipac money and doing fuck all while saying ‘eeeehhhhh we’re soooooo powerless what are we suppppoooosedddd to dooooo!?’
Dems may as well run Satan, at least he has a chance to win unlike harris.
Polls like this look are based on name-recognition. Harris is the first (and only) name a lot of people will come up with when asked "who should be the Democratic candidate?"
She doesn't seem interested (she hasn't been working on keeping her name in the news like Newsom has), so she'll fall off the polls as other people climb.
Please don’t run Harris again.
They will, then blame everyone else again when she loses
She will get destroyed in the primaries. She has zero chance of winning once people are paying attention. These results in the tweet are meaningless because unless you're a politics Andy like you and I you have no idea who any of these people are besides Harris. Honestly, I hope she runs. She'll split the vote with other corporate owned Democrats like Newsom.
Realistically, all the corpo owned dems will consolidate power behind their frontrunner and drop out if there is a genuine chance of an outsider winning. No?
They will. And they'll try to run a spoiler progressive candidate like Elizabeth Warren was in 2020. But they'll still lose.
Looking forward to seeing it happen. :)
Accuse them all of bigotry. As if that would justify it. We nominated a minority we knew couldn't win but it's ok because the voters are bigoted therefore it's justified throwing the election.
The voters are rejecting these candidates for their own qualities, I'm just saying if it was bigotry it wouldn't justify them nominating a doomed to fail candidate in the slightest, and in no way should enable them to stay in power in the party to force another one on us. As super delegates remain in the party.
Hillary 2028
Hilary/Cheney 2028, we heard your issues and complaints so we removed everything that could possibly be considered left
Dont you put that evil on us Ricky Bobby!
AOC is the only viable option.
She's the best candidate on that list by far, and she's got what it takes to do the job. I don't think she can win the 2028 election given what's going on right now, though. We've gotta do some stuff to clear the way for her to run later I think. A real winner candidate isn't on this list. And that's fine, we've got awhile yet.
I think she can win. People said the same about Obama.
She's already known. And that's a big deal.
I'm in Illinois and all my friends know who she is.
Her association with Bernie is a big selling point for a lot of people.
I think she can win. I think she can get people passionate like Obama did. And she's good on TV.
I don't think she can win YET. But as I said, it's early and that may change. She's my pick, certainly of people who are known to be in politics right now. If not now, later. That woman is going to become president. And America will be better off for it.
The only options for candidates aren't on this poll. This is a dumbass poll to begin with, listing harris at all. As if these were our choices. None of these people can reliably win with the republicans cheating as they are.
AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don’t see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.
Wish she would be more popular than she is.
After the last two doddering geriatrics I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum swings in the opposite direction.
She's young enough to become hud or secretary of something, then be vp for 8 years then be prez for 8 years and still be under 65 leaving office. There's no hurry.
AOC ain't winning. It would be nice though.
AOC is literally the only person on that list that even has a shot of winning in the general. Half those people are genocide supporters. If you think AOC has no shot at winning then you haven't been paying attention to the massive left shift happening in this country.
That shift isn't even mainly happening among the loyal Democrat voters either. It's happening among independent and non cult Republican voters.
Woke 2.0 is spreading. The main opposition to leftist momentum in this country is literally the Democratic party. If it runs anyone to the right of AOC it will lose to the couch again.
The main opposition to leftist momentum in this country is literally the Democratic party.
And has been since 2008. Democrats don't want to win if that means stepping left.
They don't like her. They wouldnt support mamdani.
We need to get rid of the corrupt Dems. AOC is the right choice to help do that.
They don’t like her. They wouldnt support mamdani.
Didn't stop Mamdani. Wont stop us. Just need to understand youre not running one of their campaigns. We can't use their approaches and shouldn't evaluate ourselves by their metrics.
They didn't support Mamdani, until he won anyway. Then they ALL showed up at his inauguration, and acted like they were behind him all along.
I'm pretty sure the corp Dems still do not support mamdani
And yet they all showed up on HIS Inauguration Day to bask in HIS reflected glow. Politicians are all the same at their core.
Well good thing is we know who the blue maga is.
The bad news is that too many Democratic voters aren't paying enough attention to that part.
So we have to be loud and consistent in educating those around us. Comments online but even more important, inform people in person.
We are up against the Republicans, Israel, and corp Dems. They will do anything they can to stay in power.
But we've beaten them before and we can do it again. But it's going to require a lot of effort and persistence on us who have critical thinking. Point out the blue maga when you see them. And inform people why. Aipac and pac donations is the most obvious one. But if you know of bills they supported you can throw some of those facts out too.
Provide easy concrete examples.
There is a human bias where when examples are simple and easy to recall, we actually give them more weight.
Work with that. Don't bring up complex examples. Reduce them to simple ones if needed.
Good advice. I'm trying to think propagandistic with my posts, using tools, techniques, strategies, etc. but in a positive way, to spread truth instead of MAGA lies. We should be hijacking their successful strategies wherever possible, and turning them to offensive use against them.
Generally I don't like manipulating people. But I am knowledgeable about how it's done. And I guess if the opposition is going to do it, we are going to have to use some strategies.
In psychology they are called "persuasive techniques". But I've always considered them manipulative.
I think some knowledge of this might be of aid to you as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaboration_likelihood_model
Most leftist like to think that the left are smart and intelligent but it's not true. A large chunk of liberals/leftist are just as hindered in their critical thinking as rights. (Though there are more on the right to be sure).
So these people are more easily manipulated by surface shallow arguments.
Like Gavin newsome being attractive and getting in laughs at trump.
This is not something that should matter for elections but it does.
Way too many people are won over by this kind of thing but . We can still combat it. We just have to appeal to both types of people.
I'm a sales guy, and I see politics and political campaigns as simple marketing, and MAGA does it extremely well, and Democrats are terrible at it.
It's not really manipulation if you are dishing out the truth to people who have been brainwashed in the worst sorts of ways. I'm more interested in using effective, truthful messaging, and I am concerned with the addictive outrage techniques that the Conservative Propaganda Machine employs to trigger constant surges of dopamine in their victims.
I want to persuade, teach, and wake up dormant Critical Thinking Skills, while MAGA wants manipulate and addict. Just because they use a strategy in an evil way, doesn't make it off limits for us to use it in for Good.
Well unfortunately most people are more susceptible to the shallow tactics.
Most people don't actually want to be educated or informed.
The only way to get them to want that is to make it hip or cool to be informed.
I have another persuasion method to mention.
This method can work very well, but it's tricky because it can also create opposition. When people think they are being lectured or some pretentious know- it-all is telling them how stupid they are. People sure don't like feeling stupid. They also don't like being guilt tripped. Let me explain the technique:
Sometimes called the "labeling technique". It's actually not that different from self affirmation techniques. I have a theory it's the same mechanism. But I digress.
This works very well but you will see why it takes a smooth person to pull it off.
Okay here is the scenario.
I come to your house and knock on your door and ask for a donation to a charity.
It's for the local animal shelter.
Now you don't like being pestered for money. And just earlier the store you were at was trying to get you to donate. So you are already like "piss off "
So your first emotion when I knock on the door is: , "I wish these people would fuck off and stop bothering me".
Here is how I would get you to give me money.
First an "in". Do I notice you have a pet. Or some indication you like animals ? A bird house hanging from your porch? A dog trying to get out the front door as you talk to me?
Any indication of animal-love is enough for me to use.
"Aw look at that sweety. What's her name. Such a cutie. My mom has a dog just like her, how old is she? What's her name ?".
Gets them to relax. And people love to talk about themselves. This is how you get people to initially be receptive to the manipulation.
Ask them questions about themselves. That's it. What's the dogs name. How did they get her. Make it all sound natural. Not like you are asking polling questions.
Now for the real manipulation.
This is called labeling technique because you essentially give someone a label or ascribe a trait to them that they want to believe they have. And then you ask them to behave in a way that is consistent with the label. This also plays on cognitive dissonance in humans.
If they don't go along with what you ask, . They are then challenging the label and proving they aren't that (which they don't want).
So I say something like "I can see that she (the dog) really trusts you and I've always believed that animals have that sense. You know, they can tell when someone is a good person. And they are so loyal to good owners. "
Follow up with the labeling.
"I can tell that animals' lives are important to you. You sure have given (dogs name) a great home and I'm sure she appreciates it every day. I'm also here today to help out an animal in need. Even a small donation could help an animal in need. Helping out displaced pets is something dear and near to my heart and I hope it is to yours too. Any help is very much appreciated. Whatever you can spare. No amount too small".
The most important line here is the challenge "Near to my heart and I hope it is yours too".
I'm saying."prove you care about animals".
Bam.
If the person refuses after I just said what a great ally they are to animals in need, then they have to admit to themselves they are a POS. And not an ally. Really bro , you hate dogs ? What kind of person wouldn't help out a dog?
However. If they give me the money they get bonus altruism feel good benefits. They are validated as an ally. A good person in general and a good person who cares about animals.
They are also more likely to donate easier next time if they felt super good about the donation rather than guilt tripped. Guilt tripped will make them avoid answering the door when they see me through the windows.
It's important that they get the big compliment every time they donate. And it should vary and try to ramp up.
It will help condition them to continue donating.
The verbal compliment is important for repeat interactions.
They need to like me because i make them feel good about themselves. My presence makes them feel good because I compliment them on a genuine behavior. (Not shallow flattery) And I show genuine gratitude. Its about making yourself a bringer of validation.
They will be more receptive to other requests once you establish this relationship.
The labeling technique is often used in group and cults as well to keep members in line.
It can be modified to work in almost any social interactions, including online but it's better with articulated verbal communication. So videos are stronger. Images with text can also work.
It's also still possible to use it in raw text. Just a bit more challenging.
Now in cult settings in can work like this :
"You won't go to heaven with the rest of us Christians if you don't donate to my mega church. Because a real Christian would always donate all their earnings. Says so in the Bible. Are you actually a real Christian or just faking it. ? Give me all your money. "
I'm being pendantic here but you get what I'm saying.
This technique is incredibly effective if used properly and can be used to essentially groom someone.
I mean. It is very much a technique used in grooming. One of the pillar techniques I would say. Next to the "no one else will love you except me".
Forgot to mention. The traits of the label.
"Animal ally" won't work on someone who genuinely doesn't like animals and doesn't care if you know.
Generally "social desirability" traits work well. Like being charitable. Helping others out. Being unbiased. Being fair. Being honest. Being informed/knowledgeable (though this last one is tricky).
But some people value different things more and some less.
Someone who doesn't value "intelligence" isn't going to respond well to you basically saying "smart people would do this ".
Someone who genuinely doesn't care about charity (has strong bootstrap beliefs) won't respond well to the charitable -label.
So you may need to adjust your strategy on an individual basis.
And as always, make the arguments as individualized as possible. (Such as my example about bringing the person's dog into the conversation).
The art of manipulation persuasion actually takes some practice and social skills with reading people. Being articulate is also a necessity.
What are the chances of the right having a scism and spoiling their own ballot (split MAGA and GOP)? If that were to look likely that would be the best time to have an independent progressive run. Would spoil the dems ballot too, but so long as we are stuck in the cycle of "I dont care who wins, so long as they lose" system, I dont see any way to break out of the two-party gridlock.
Obama would have moved to the left if he gained seats in the first midterm.
This is pure hopium.
Running mate for someone who can. But I don't think that person is on that list. Someone else suggested Kelly or Pritzker as middle of the road people with wider appeal who might be able to pull it off. I think it's too early to pick a candidate.
Shes a party sheepdog
I have many criticisms of AOC but if we're talking about electoral politics I literally can't point to anyone with a known name that could be better on policy and actually win.
I would love other names though if you have suggestions.
Which party?
The corp Dems don't like her. Which should tell you she is actually doing right.
Their controlled opposition is internal too.
Harris needs to retire. You don’t lose to Trump and get to run again.
Just watch them put in Hillary for round two
She honestly feels like she deserves the presidency. The Clintons were pissed when people they knew supported Obama over Hilary because Obama was relatively new to politics and Hilary had "paid her dues". That those people genuinely believed Obama was the better candidate did not matter at all to them. Most Democrats view elected office as a career rather than a calling.
She acted like she was entitled to it, something that was owed to her. That's not how it works.
She just needs one more try and she'll surely win
She's pro Israel. Fuck Kamala.
Please don't give them any ideas.
She lost to Trump AND Biden.
the house limit is TWO do-overs.
She's actually a two time loser already because of the primaries. Not everyone is allowed to fail 3 times like Beto O'Rourke.
If she was ever able to win a Democratic primary they wouldn't have gone through so much trouble to avoid having one in the last election.
There is no way they run her again fuck they can't actually be that inept. If they do it again I will genuinely take it as evidence that their goal is to lose.
Ha, you know they are. But not inept, you see their mission isn't to win, it's to prevent popular reformists from getting control of the party. Keeping control of the party in their corporate donor connected club. But the factions within the establishment that want her will be drown out by Newsome, and they figure it's his "turn," since he waited patiently and did not challenge Kamala when her guarenteed loss was ratified by them all.
As if republicans weren't planning on cheating and a milquetoast status quo campaign could overcome it, as if 2020 was an outlier, where the stealing was punished and discouraged from future attempts, and every elected official's faith in being backed up doing the right thing and honoring their duty and defying the gangster king was affirmed after they distributed justice following 2020. As if.
Newsome is guarenteed loss, unless he embraces popular reform in a new aggressive persona, and he was chosen to not be that, they all were. That is the one requisite for higher office for the donors, being weak and not liable to upsetting the license the rich have stolen.
Their goal is to lose. Liberals are fascists who are very committed to their own brand of theater.
The masses are kind of dumb. Since she ran against trump the first time, they might be inclined to vote for her just to paycologically undo their first vote.
Polls are not the mechanism parties use to “pick” candidates. That’s just not how the process works. Pollsters aren’t arms of the DNC or the RNC. They’re independent firms measuring name recognition and voter preference at a given moment, and the only way to do that is by giving respondents a fixed list of relevant, high visibility figures. It’s a methodological constraint, not a political command.
The real issue is subtler. Media ecosystems amplify a handful of names, donors flock to whoever looks viable, and voters often gravitate toward whoever they’ve heard of. That creates a feedback loop where the visible become even more visible. But polls are downstream from that loop, not upstream. They reflect the landscape; they don’t choose it.
If you want to critique the system, aim at the actual gatekeepers. Ballot access rules, debate thresholds, fundraising networks, and media exposure do far more to narrow the field than a Rasmussen questionnaire ever will. Blaming the poll is mistaking the thermometer for the weather.
Those same 'independent firms' do manipulate data for the parties. This was a poll from 2016, the only way they could show Hillary beating Bernie is if they only polled her demographic. And any voter not looking at the methodology would be convinced that Hillary was truly beating Bernie and in turn vote for her. 
I'm not sure what you're trying to show here? That younger voters preferred Sanders? That's on there, but your red circle is mostly covering it.
To get the numbers they wanted, showing Hillary beating Bernie, they only polled Hillary's demographic. They completely omitted polling the 18-49yo demographic to gaslight that the public wanted Hillary.
They polled them. I can make out under your line that "Under ?5" (presumably "55") is 53-45 in favor of Sanders. But the smaller age breakdowns were too small.
Is this a deliberate avoidance of polling younger voters in order to boost Clinton? Or did they try polling evenly but their methodology is outdated and skewed older? Or are they getting an accurate sample of voters and the boomers are just vastly outnumbering everyone else? I don't think the answer is clear.
But I feel like drawing your circle in a way that obscures the "Under ?5" demographic which did favor Sanders and then saying that they didn't poll the demographic that favors Sanders comes off as shady. Like the pollsters, it's not clear whether it's deliberately misleading or a simple accident.
That was just how my finger traced it. Other polling from CNN before the primary season showed numbers for all age ranges with Bernie beating the hell out of Hillary. It wasn't until after super Tuesday that the demographics polled start skewing towards Hillary. The part I was highlighting was no data polled from 18-49
Edit sp
I'd assume that somewhere later it explains what "N/A" and "*" mean here, but you can see that "Under 55" picks Sanders while "50-64" picks Clinton. So my guess is that "N/A" means that the size of that group is too small for them to have confidence in it. When they combine the two columns together, there's enough (that's why there's data show in "Under 55").
Like (I'm just making up numbers), maybe they determine that they need 100 respondents to have any statistical power. And they got 70 in the 18-34 group and 87 in the 35-49 group, but 103 in the 50-64 and 450 in the 65+.
You can see a hint of this in the sampling error, also: the larger number on 50-64 means that was the smallest of the groups shown. Meanwhile "55 and Older" is clearly a larger group than "Under 55".
Probably, "*" means "no responses". They don't want to say "0%" because they know it's not true that there are literally zero younger voters who had no opinion, but none of the people they surveyed answered that way. That's another hint that the group is small.
Yes the devil's in the detail, but there is no such thing as a survey without methods; and every method has its constants and assumptions. Yes, sometimes there are ulterior motives - but frequently it's just lack of time, money, thematic tradeoffs, methodological complexity, etc.
This is why it's good to have different mutually independent polling companies asking the same questions. They won't perfectly align, but they will give a corridor of reasonable expectation.
This was only one example. If they were constraints like time or money there would still be some results from the 18-49 demographic. I had other samples from other polls during this time frame that used similar methodology to manipulate perception.
You're probably right in this specific case; this seems suspiciously one-sided. Do you have a link to the source where they explain their methods?
Generally something like this can happen though, especially if you do e.g. random dialing on the landline to survey people; mostly older people still use landlines and mostly retired people actually pick up during office hours. A good social scientist would obviously try to measure and control for those sampling errors though, not make them on purpose to get pre-determined results.
I have the methods for this poll buried somewhere. I do remember it was a mix of landline/cell, in person, and mail.
IF this is the slate, Democrats have already lost.
AOC might be able to do it. She'd need to start now, and its going to need to be a people powered campaign. They work fundamentally differently than corporate donation powered campaigns. Any other form of candidate or campaign will be to submit to fascism entirely.
Advocating for any of the other names is about as much as advocating for Republicans directly. They wont win.
Some alternatives:
-
Ro Khanna
-
Graham Platner (he'd be have been only been in the senate for 2yrs, but he's got the potential)
-
Chris Van Hollen
-
Abdul El-Sayed
-
Dean Phillips
-
John Conyers
-
Jon Stewart
-
Shri Thanedar
The next president will be both M4A and Abolish ICE or they'll be a Republican.
Agree with your message, but keep in mind that 2028 is in 3 years, no one is running at this moment or declared they will be running.
This is corporate media just setting candidates for us.
This is corporate media just setting candidates for us.
I agree with this evaluation.
but keep in mind that 2028 is in 3 years, no one is running at this moment or declared
I'm aware and I think this is already a strategic mis-step. They needed to begin campaigning the day that Trump won. This is how Mamdani won. Its how Bernie came within a hogs breath of toppling the Clinton dynasty from within their own party. They didn't wait, they went to work. People powered campaigns operate in a fundamentally different manner and need more time to get going. However, they have the advantage that they exponentiate in how they scale. While they simultaneously take longer to get going, they're practically impossible to stop once they do. If Bernie had even one more month, maybe two more months to campaign in the run up to the 2016 primary, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Right now no progressive/ grass-roots populist has thrown their had in the ring and I think this is a mistake.
Right on!
Dean Phillips needs to be forgotten. I’m from his state, I know and have run a business for one of his closest friends; these are NOT people who should have power over anyone. Beyond being HUGE supporters of the Palestinian genocide, their interest is in money. That’s it. Dean Phillips is shallow, stupid, and vain. Nice of him to call out Biden, but I cannot fathom how he is on any kind of list for the actual President. I guess because he’s not known in other places? People in Minnesota do not take him seriously, there are reasons for that - we know him.
I like John Stewart way too much to ever want him to be a politician.
I would sacrifice Jon's pleasure for the sake of the country. He's a good person and believe in him. If he announced, everyone who knows up from down wouldn't bother competing, outside of the Democratic primary where people might try to move him in some positions. But it would be a fools errand and a waste of political capitol to try and beat them, for either Republicans or Democrats.
I had this perspective until I started watching him again recently. I know my politics have moved left since I grew up listening to him. But he's stood still. It's kind of painful to watch how much he loses the forest for the trees on every single issue. Feels like he's a gatekeeper at this point. Basically keeping a large portion of millennials from being moved further left.
He'd be the best president in my lifetime if he won. But, that bar is in the dirt.
Ehhh... Not every single issue. He's always trying to do the right thing, and sometimes he lets his biases creep in (like his work with first responders coloring how he views the police in general).
But I think it's clear that his heart is always in the right place, and he's always interested in discussing things with people who know what they're talking about to get to the truth, even if that truth isn't what he originally thought it may have been.
And yeah, that would be better than anything else we've ever had. Obama tried to portray himself as being this way, but it was mostly just advertising. Jon is the real deal.
AOC has started. I just donated to her last week.
Consider planning ahead to campaign/ volunteer for them. Also, plan the uncomfortable work of converting your friends, family, strange cousins, neighbors, people at the bus stop, everyone you can to vote for AOC.
Donations are great and important, but at the end of the day, its people power that wins elections. Actual humans contacting other humans they know and explaining why they should support the candidate.
Definitely. I could probably help with graphic design of materials if that kind of thing is required.
Stewart would not run, and perhaps for the best. Whoever holds that position will have to be disappointing in some regards due to reality, and Stewart may be better only soeaking to the aspects he excels at without owning the stuff that would tarnish his image and legacy.
Stewart would not run,
Stewart might run. They're closer to running than they've ever been before.
I think it would be hard to talk Stewart into running but only because an election and presidency would be so draining for him.
Not with that attitude. Stewart will run if we need him, and we might.
Jon Stewart might be both capable and electable but you'd have to talk the DNC into it which would be a tough sell and you'd have to talk Jon Stewart into it which would be a tougher sell.
but you’d have to talk the DNC into it
I don't think they could stop Jon Stewart. Not even close. And the lesson on why they can't stop him is something ANY progressive looking to challenge to the DNC would need to keep in mind. The DNC seems to only be able to shut down threats from within the DNC. Jon would be operating outside of their power structure.
Didn't stop them from side lining Bernie. He was the most popular presidential candidate for two elections in a row and didn't appear on the Ballot either time.
Didn’t stop them from side lining Bernie. He was the most popular presidential candidate for two elections in a row and didn’t appear on the Ballot either time.
Still fucking hurts. We didn't have to experience ANYTHING like we have in the previous 10 years. It was literally all optional and the DNC chose to expose us to this.
There is another one that would be even better, than Jon, whom can win. I fear he's too accomodating, too trusting, of the establishment however. I think Jon lacks the cut throat desire to build and run a political machine that can dominate politics. I think I know someone that can though.
So who is it you think would outperform Stewart?
I don't want to say as of yet. Stewart could win though, at least legitimately, I don't know if he would let the republicans just take it from him, that's partly on us too, we have to make it so they can't just steal it anyway.
So you think you know someone even more capable of winning than Stewart, but you want to keep it a secret?
Yes. Presidential announcements are fragile affairs, candidates are attacked early, and for other reasons, it's bad luck to jump the gun, not the least before that person is planning on running.
Not as dumb as nominating hillary, biden, then kamala I would argue.
And only assholes post moving pictures in response, have a little respect for yourself. I also point to your moving picture in your name. You should be ashamed of yourself do better.
No you misunderstand me.
You stating that "you know who should be nominated, someone even more likely to win than JS" but then not saying whom, is quite literally, the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. You are being an idiot.
I am saying it's bad luck and bad manners to give that away, not the least to some rando online that posts moving pictures along with insults to people that don't share their sensitive information with them.
I don't trust you, and if I did it would not be my place to tell you either.
I am saying it’s bad luck and bad manners to give that away
And that makes you an idiot. Literally, figuratively, actually.
You don't want your claim to be evaluated so you keep it "secret"?
All that means is you don't have a claim worth defending or, even if you weren't such an idiot and capable of making the claim, you are to stupid to be able to defend it. Claiming of secret knowledge while not holding their claims to account is something conspiratorial MAGAts do. The lowest of the low.
Ah yes, well people that use moving pictures and call people names on the internets are such a good source for whom is intelligent or not, so that means a lot. I really missed out sharing my name with you, not putting that great intellect to work on it!
This is why I mock you. You are too much of an idiot to even recognize how much of an idiot you are being. Being too stupid to make a claim or support it, the only value you represent is as an object for mockery.
No one cares what you think. As I said, the moving picture in your name removes any credibility to start with, even before you share that amazing wit with us.
No one cares what you think.
What because you said so? The one who claims to have some secret knowledge of who the perfect candidate is but wont hold that information up to scrutiny?
You just a clown and grasping for anything. You want to actually prove you know your ass from a hole in the ground?
Make your actual claim, and defend it with evidence.
Outside of that there is nothing you can do to recover.
Hard to believe no one shares anything with you, with that wit! Such prose! Stunning truly. Such a great mind!
I'm not the one pretending I know something I don't.
you are.
That's interesting mr moving banana. Keep us all updated on those great insights we have come to rely on.
Keep us all updated on those great insights we have come to rely on.
Always do, and consistently get reliable feedback saying that this is the case.
Also, you are showing your whole ass by not engaging with the points I've made and focusing on trivial things like the avatar I chose for an online pseudonym. You couldn't engage with the points I've made even if you tried.
Yes not engaging with the troll is a major regret of mine! I could tell when you started lobbing personal insults what a mistake it was not to share with you all the informations! So true.
Your the troll here buddy. You make up some nonsense about knowing something and when called out just spee this mindless drivel.
Resident troll tropicaldingdong has a lot to say, one wonders if he is on his own or if he's grinding someone's axe over there. You should check out his account to see if he's even authentic. I bet he's not, probably a conservative pretending.
What am trolling them?
People who disagree with you aren't necessarily trolls.
They'll run Weekend at Biden's before they let AOC have a go.
LOL AOC.
Same corporate dem, groomed since high school with a carefully crafted image.
Ready to replace Bernie the sheepdog as token 'left'.
It was my understanding that she doesn't take corporate donations. Neither does Jasmine Crockett. I looked previously. They have very few high name supporters. Bernie can't be trusted though. Dude got bought a long time ago.
I'm out of the loop here boss. Can you explain what's going on with Bernie?
The donations are public. Last I checked he's eaten up with big corporations. AOC and Jasmine Crockett were not. It wasn't too long ago, and it explained why some people represent citizens while others don't. Notice Crockett busts their asses constantly.
IDC about corporate donations.
She was groomed from higfh school age as part of a hispanic democratic program.
They can't shut up about how she was a simple waitress while at the time she ran an israeli start up.
She hasn't been artound for as long as Bernie the snake but it's clear from her corporate votes (and accompanying crocodile tears and excuses) she does the same thing.
There are already plenty plenty of examples.
I wish the mods would give us a YouTube to alt bot. Maybe I can fix that in my side by fiddling with a resolver some place.
Google were awful US regime scum decades ago, now everyone feels the need to do something about them.
I hate to tell you, but a hardcore progressive will not be nominated. As they always do, the party leadership will decide that the way to beat MAGA is to be MAGA.
Stop obsessing over the presidency. You want revolution? All politics is local. Start by putting younger progressives on planning commissions, school boards. Move up to city councils, county supervisor. Then start taking state offices. You have to elect progressives to local offices for name recognition.
Fortunately this is happening, and has been for a decade now. We need to keep it up.
People are irredeemable idiots if AOC is that low. Shapiro is literally IDF. Newsom and Harris are pro genocide. Booker is another pro genocide traitor
AOC is 36. The last 23 presidents were all at least 42 (and that was Theodore Roosevelt: 1901-1909). I don't see her winning, due to her being as young as she is. Maybe next run or the one after that.
Wish she would be more popular than she is.
Billionaires have paid a lot of money to control the narrative on her
They could have some minimum requirement that you have to register to be in the running so that you can’t just vote for your friends for the hell of it. I’m guessing this process was originally omitted to avoid that registration process being weaponized, but it doesn’t seem like this result is much better.
These rules already exist for many or all state elections, it's entirely feasible.
And a STAR Vote would even allow for these requirements to be quite lax, and you would still always elect a highly preferred candidate every time. Parties aren't needed, they just need our complacence.
Honestly every single day the idea of sortition seems a little bit more reasonable.
The illusion of choice.
Can we not pick another boomer for president? I'm very much done with that whole generation.
I don't think we should vote for anyone who's gonna be over 65 when their term ends.
Don't worry because as we know Kamala is brat
This plan didn't work with Trump in 2016. Republicans rammed him in where he wasn't (shouldn't have been) welcome because they refused to allow any other candidate. In the same election, Democrats let their party officials to ram Hillary through because the party wouldn't accept Bernie.
Suggest we find someone WE like and do what Republicans did. It doesn't matter if it's an "outsider" or not, but I'd appreciate it if we could not pick a child rapist and sex trafficker, kthx!
I genuinely think our candidate hasn't really made themselves known to be willing to run yet. I don't think it's AOC this time, though I think she's got what it takes to do the job. I don't think it's Harris, people still feel burned by 2020. I hope we can do better than Newsom.
Kinda still want to draft Jon Stewart because he genuinely gives a fuck, can communicate like few others, knows how to be damned serious when he needs to be, and if he were on that list today he'd be near the top if not at it, just like that. And when asked, he didn't say no. We could do far worse and still be okay.
But yeah, I'm waiting to see what happens. I don't think the candidate I want that I'm sure will win is on the field yet. But I hope AOC is the running mate, whoever that person winds up being.
Jon Stewart admitted he was in the Epstien Files. He was mentioned by Epstein as the type of person they needed to "properly present" one of their stories/ lies.
He didn't have to admit anything. He just wants to be as honest and transparent with people as he can be.
Some of his recent interviews have given me the tiniest shred of hope that he may run. He isn't flatly shutting down the idea any more. He isn't saying he will run, but he used to be vehemently against the idea.
It's depressing that a fucking comedian is legitimately one of the better options for a presidential candidate.
Yeah, maybe they should find someone more qualified like a banker or a lawyer.
On the other hand, a comedian has been thwarting one of the richest, most powerful men in the world for the last 4 years.
As opposed to the usual economic parasite from the owner class?
The things a person does for a living or a hobby do not make someone more or less fit for an elected position. Their character, intelligence, and ideals do. Jon Stewart has all of those qualities.
There is only one name on the above list that shouldn’t be repeatedly kicked in the face and barred from any position of authority, and that’s AOC. Everyone else is corrupt as hell.
I wasn't shitting on him or saying he wasn't qualified. Just saying it's sad that none of the actual civil servants who have presumably dedicated their lives to it are good candidates. The guy who's primary goal has been to entertain people for most of his life just fucking fell into it and is better than all of them. It's depressing.
He definitely didn't say no. And I think he'd be a hell of a candidate if he did. He gets it, he's bright enough to do the job, and he's got the connections without the social indebtedness of the average politician. And he'd pick an AOC as a running mate in a heartbeat. Plus, if someone's worried that white men won't elect a brown woman, Jon Stewart is about as white as I am (albino).
I don't count him as "in the running" because he's not said he's willing to be in the running. But he's also not saying no very loudly.
The reason republicnas in 2016 were able to get trump is partly because the primary field was so saturated with milquetost candidates. The party apparatus was kind of behind Jeb Bush, but Jeb cluld not stand up against the abuse Trump threw at hime and the others. This was the good times, before trump actually won, but was totally abusing these generic polititians. Its really where the cult around him started.
For the dems though, it really was just Bernie vs Hillary. The party machine coalesced around her years before the primaries even began, and despite what we think about her she was more capable than Jeb Bush. Bernie dis not undress her like Trump did to Jeb, but rank and file Dem voters were different at that time. Still fear driven. Still full of "its time for a woman!" Energy. Not that there is anything wrong with a female president, but that identity was about as deep as it got for some people.
In many ways, the dem party rank and file is more united now than it was in 2016. We couldnt have rammed Bernie through (believe me we tried) because there were enough people who truely wanted Hillary, or were too afraid to "risk it" on Bernie.
If the party really wanted to stop Trump, they would've done what the democrats did to Bernie. Hell, the democrats themselves helped Trump: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
You can see with how quickly all the oligarchs lined up to kiss Trump's ass that they're perfectly happy with him being in power.
Democrats spent years neglecting State and County elections to focus their main attention on flashy National races that could bring in big donors. Coupled with how Democrats with name recognition like to park their asses in Congress until they're frail and elderly, never making way for the next generation, there's just not a deep pool of talent to draw on for the Presidency.
AOC is the candidate I see available who would be the best suited for the actual White House but I have doubts she could win the Primary or the General. Gavin might be electable but his problems are deep enough they might discourage folks Left of Center from backing him and I really wouldn't want him in the White House anyways. Mark Kelly is getting his name tossed around. I don't know enough about him to know how I'd feel about electing him. He might be electable though. He's getting National name recognition with his battle against Hegseth. He's a moderate and a military veteran with appeal among Independents. He doesn't seem to have any real controversies and he's new enough to politics to not have alot of baggage or strong negative opinions attached to him (though that could change in 3 years). JB Pritzker being a billionaire would hurt him among Leftists but he could win both the Primaries and General I think. His wealth could help him rally support from both the Upper Classes and Democratic party insiders. His relative lack of controversy or strong negative opinions about him would help him in the General as would his growing name recognition on the National stage. Plus he's isn't afraid to go for the political jugular when he needs too. Personally don't want a Billionaire as president but I would prefer him over Newsom. And Kamala is a joke. She'll have even less support this time then last time. If super delegates start to rally around her, you'll know for a fact she's the controlled opposition candidate.
Mark Kelly is a pretty respectable dude who should have wide appeal, even if he's not super progressive. Pritzker could do it, you're right. Either one of these two saying they want AOC as a running mate (and actually listening to her) elevates them on my list of candidates immediately.
He's simultaneously pretty moderate and rabidly anti-gun, he seems unelectable to me.
He's been moving rather leftward. He is anti-gun, which does bother me. But I was once a gun-lovin' libertarian-Republican. I learned a lot about the lies behind the entire right wing … but nobody's convinced me yet that the people owning firearms is a bad thing. If anything, if more left-wing folks owned them, the fascist party would be a little less eager to threaten violence. After all, an armed society is indeed a polite one.
Yeah I recognize that mass shootings are a problem and that we could be doing a whole hell of a lot more to prevent those from happening. Disarming the population to make a "Republican" fascist coup to be more likely to be successful is not how we should be addressing the problem, though. Maybe I'm crazy there? Oregon is still working to ban private gun owernship in the midst of Trump's literal fascist coup. What The Actual Fuck, Oregon?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we live in the same city, and yes, wtf Oregon.
If Harris wanted to be a viable nominee, she'd be out there making waves and making news, instead of making some bullshit website "to appeal to the next generation of voters". Newsom is gunning for the nomination, but he's a bullshit corporatist putting on a thin veneer. Shapiro is Jewish and there are too many concerns about Israel's genocide for him to win the left and too many conspiracies about Jewish space lasers for him to appeal across party lines.
I'd love AOC, tbh; I just fear the racism and sexism that lost earlier elections would lose here as well.
Shapiro isn’t bad because he’s Jewish. Lots of good people are Jewish like Bernie for example. He’s bad because he literally served in the IDF. He’s bad because he’s a corrupt Israel first pro genocide loser.
I need to create a bot that adds "... in the US" to every post of US Americans.
i mean its not political parties picking it's a right wing polling outlet pushing a push poll
The AOC at 7% is sort of confusing.
Personally I don't think the establishment would acknowledge her candidacy. And the maga terrorists would lose their collective minds if she was elected.
A democratic socialist, woman, youngest candidate in history, millennial, Puerto Rican, and probably a lot of other things they hate. I'm sure much like when they flipped their shit out over Obama, this would be much worse
Trump won by outraging leftists. I think outraging rightists is a viable strategy. We don't need to appeal to the right, we need to appeal to the people on the left who haven't been voting on the left. The people who showed up for Biden but not for Harris.
The FDR quote is extremely dubious; I've never seen any actual source showing that he said it. If anything, FDR was very vocal about the importance of elections. You might prefer this great, authentic one for future use, though:
An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as peas in the same pod.
—FDR, Fireside Chat, June 24, 1938
The tweet, of course, is fucking nonsense. Here's the wording used in the survey:
(Asked of 499 Voters Who Are More Likely To Vote In The Democratic Presidential Primary) If the 2028 Democratic Primary Election were held today, and the presidential candidates were Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who would you vote for?
As far as I can tell, this was not commissioned by "they" (the DNC). Who the fuck else were Rasmussen supposed to include? Genuinely, that statistically any of those 499 voters would have picked and are likely to run in 2028? That is a very plausible list of candidates, and the only absence I can think of who has any buzz is Mark Kelly. This isn't manufacturing consent; this is a poll designed to return useful data. "Instead of deciding who you want"? Yeah, no shit; that's because primaries are limited to people who are popular and determined enough to get on the ballot. Would it have actually made a difference if they'd put "Other (please specify)"? Not realistically, no, and you're lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
If anything, not including a list of candidates would likely even further centralize the responses around one or two well-known candidates, because most voters aren't familiar enough with politics to keep track of potential primary candidates.
This complaint is incoherent.
Welcome to “sabby sabs” and Lemmy. Where some random shit from a conservative pollster is of course an indictment of the liberal party. This sort of nonsensical dribble was all over Lemmy last election and will likely pick up more into mid terms.
I've never heard of Sabs before, but I hope I don't have to see more of her if the rest are like this. This post is like ideological vomit with half-digested chunks of sentiments I agree with, and it mimics the beats of an actual point but with none of the substance. It's clearly ragebait, but it seems more difficult to make up bullshit like this than it would be to just discuss real problems.
You’ll begin to notice it’s always vectored inward towards liberals and never anywhere else.
Up is down, left is right, Biden is Hitler and never a peep about anything else. Like this post, the flimsiest of bullshit just to paint liberals as the villains telling YOU what to think… based on Rasmussen?
It's not always targeted at liberals, when we target Republicans you assume we are one of you.
FYI, liberals are one of the villians
Case in point. You’re not talking to a republican you’re talking to someone who generally agrees with you and would otherwise be an ally… but you posted nonsense! Enemies aside your shit makes no sense and yet it had a very SPECIFIC direction…
It’s telling how you reply to me calling out the meta and not the poster who literally spelled out how full of crap your post was.
Everyone is a villain, especially those closest to you on a political spectrum. You offer nothing constructive and of all points you want to make liberals into the boogyman. Downvote, move on, thank you for electing Trump.
It did have a specific direction because that's the route you took by claiming leftists never punch further than Democrats. I was pointing out we do. You see it as a shit post because it triggers your cognitive dissonance that your political choices have been manufactured for you.
FYI, liberals are not closest to socialists and communists on the political scale, they are further now than they were 20 years ago. Today's political scale overlaid with one from 1980 would have liberals to the far right of Reagan, and that's what stems much of their anger at us, that we refuse to move to the right with them.
We are not allies, liberals want to reform systems founded on white supremacy into something they are more comfortable with, something they don't have to face or hear about. We want to dismantle white supremacy and the systems that prop it up.
Corporate Democrats begone.
Fuck Harris. I'd vote for a blue Smurf than her. Gimme something you retarded Dems!
Regurgitating failed policy and ideas is all they got.
This is FAKE NEWS! Progressive Liberal GAVIN NEWSOM, Host of such Podcasters as Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro, who ACTIVELY Sabotages ANY Tax on Rich people, is the ACTUAL Front Runner!
-The DNC!
Please tell me this isn't real, they aren't polling already, with Harris out in front?
We learned nothing. I know the establishment learned nothing, they are as arrogant in passing the buck onto voters for their bad status quo candidates. Because she's a minority woman it's ok they lost, because everyone's a racist sexist. Is the subtext.
Of course she was widely hated, including by woman and blacks, and lost ground with all groups. But the establishment taught the sheep to bleet that part, and they are repeating it in loud chorus, bleeting at anyone wanting a change of strategy, saying it's them to blaaaaaaa me for not believing hard enough.
It's way too early to even be thinking about this, but Harris is out. Newsome is out, for not throwing his hat in the ring in 2024 when we needed someone that could win, and he could with a little populist platforming. Hell Harris could've won, if she attacked some groups cheating us and forcefully and convincingly told us she would fix healthcare and drugs.
We cannot even have that though. The rich won't allow us what every other country in the developed world gets, even as the only alternative is guarenteed death of the republic permanent dictatorship of the worst people in the world fully intent on putting people into concentration camps if they get support to do it.
Jay Pritzker
The top 3 in that should be a non-starter. I'd support AOC. I don't actually know enough about the others to comment one way or the other.
Ro Khanna needs to run on legitimizing the Epstein investigation, bolstering checks and balances and prosecuting the grifters.
Affordability and healthcare would also be a given with him.
That's what I'd focus on first term, staying tight and consistent on messaging like Zohran.
Ro Khanna is mid af
As compared to who?
Actual progressive candidates?
Where are those? If any of them are running in the primary against Ro, they have my vote.
American democracy is selecting whether you wont to be hit in the face or the groin, and then being handed a "I voted" sticker to wear on your shirt.
I might try "groin" next time just to mix it up. Yes, I know I am terrible and I am why the system sucks. I know.
Why did they leave out RO KHANNA?
Sabby* has great videos, I need to watch her again.
This is not - oh ffs.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard