The Dems running a wet rag is a significant failing and they share the blame for fascism coming into power.
At the same time, that in no way excuses the thought process of any voter who sat by and said, “I don’t like the wet rag. Let’s go with fascism instead!”
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is whether they pay lip service to these policies or not (then Democrats find a way to not pass whatever that policy is, whether it’s with a rotating villain, the parliamentarian, keeping the filibuster, etc).
No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.
We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.
If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.
If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.
It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.
Blaming the people instead of the wet rag they ran.
“Too radical”
“Not radical enough”
“Trump Lite”
“Didn’t care about Trump voters”
“Another predicable establishment candidate”
“We didn’t know her”
“All she said was she not the other guy”
“Didn’t expose Trump enough”
“Joy bullshit! Where are the serious policies?”
“Elections are about feelings and she didn’t have appeal”
“Supports the Gaza genocide”
“Didn’t inspire pro-Israel voters”
“Failed border czar”
“Blue MAGA”
Everyone seems to think they know why Harris lost, and it’s always “didn’t do enough of what I like”. It’s boring and unhelpful.
The Dems running a wet rag is a significant failing and they share the blame for fascism coming into power.
At the same time, that in no way excuses the thought process of any voter who sat by and said, “I don’t like the wet rag. Let’s go with fascism instead!”
Keep projecting this nonsense onto people you clearly do not understand and see if it gets better. Maybe 2028 will be different.
HA,HA,HA,HA…~
“Stop calling me out for choosing fascism over the wet rag.”
This may come as a surprise to you, but yes, in a democracy the people are to blame for who gets elected.
In a functional democracy, the candidates would run on things people want. Instead, both parties cater to what the elites want.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is whether they pay lip service to these policies or not (then Democrats find a way to not pass whatever that policy is, whether it’s with a rotating villain, the parliamentarian, keeping the filibuster, etc).
No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.
We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.
You’re describing an oligarchy with extra steps, not Democracy.
If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.
If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.
It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.
There’s a huge range of policies that poll in the 80-90% range that neither party wants to touch because they upset the donor class.