THEN STOP FUCKING RUNNING CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS WITHOUT MEANINGFUL PRIMARIES
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
103 points (91.9% liked)
politics
26735 readers
2496 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
“It wasn’t because Biden voters shifted to Trump—but because so many of them stayed home.”
I'm sorry but that is bullshit. That's like saying that the protestor died because the gun released a bullet, completely forgetting that the police aimed at them in the first place.
Voters stayed home because they felt uninspired by whatever democratic candidates tried to represent. The thing is, i'm in europe and i do follow the news, but i barely ever heard any specific plans from Kamala. i never got the "oh wow that's a good idea" thought, because there was poor communication, no exposure, etc. It's all a bubble. If you're inside it, it seems like there's a lot of communication. But that communication doesn't leave the bubble because it doesn't speak the other's language. It refuses to communicate with people who are not already on the same page. That's why a lot of commenters are gonna reply to my comment, saying "no, actually, Kamala's messaging was great". Because they experienced it like that, because they actively seeked out the communication, and found it. But to the typical voter, who's not specially politically involved, and not specifically seeking out the communication, they don't get exposed to it.
On top of that what i'm strongly considering is that our political stances need to recognize that people really just want to live, both now and in the future. They want to have the economical perspective that they can buy nice stuff, and that the world is somehow gonna develop into a better tomorrow. A political party is gonna win exactly if it can provide these two to the people. That's what we need.
I really agree that communication is where the American "left" is way behind. Both in terms of individual campaigns and as a whole.
The American "right" now has endless well-funded platforms to push messages and narratives. Podcasts, streamers, YouTube channels, news networks, social media accounts, etc. They also embrace AI to increase exponentially the amount of content they can shovel out. And they understand you need to use apolitical or quasi political interests as an entry point.
There are examples on the left of all of these, but not at the same scale and with the same financial backing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If the next Dem presidential candidate would refrain from getting buddy buddy with Republicans it would be a lot easier to put in the effort to overcome voter suppression.
Well, I think there's definitely good reason to reach out to voters of all stripes. Including Republicans. But voters are different than politicians. By reaching out and inviting the politicians who enable the damage in amongst them. They just make themselves complicit.
Democrats would do much better if they reached out to their own voters at all. Not just dismiss them and pal around with other out of touch politicians.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And WHY DID PEOPLE STAY HOME?
I assure you that it is the party's job to inspire people to vote and not the people's job to inspire the party.
And it's the people's responsibility to vote.
Both failed. I definitely blame the losers who didn't show up as much as anyone else, though.
You blame the poorest working class people and not the party that spent a billion on their campaign and still couldn't convince anyone they were worth voting for?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Voting should be mandatory. I read about how other countries handle their elections and I notice that people in Australia and Brazil have far great satisfaction with their system. Part of it is they have laws that make voting easy and secure. Since voting is mandatory they receiving time off to vote.
Another advantage of making voting compulsory is it helps reduce conspiracy theories about people voting twice. Everyone knows that everyone gets one vote and they must use it.
Also jury duty which is also compulsory is much more of a burden than voting so if they can force you to do jury duty we can have everyone vote.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well keep in mind those "losers" might have a job that conflicts with their polling hours and have restrictive absentee ballots. It's much easier for, say, retirees to vote than working poor.
Because the Democrat Party pretty loudly told people who supported an end to Palestinian Apartheid that they did not want their support let alone their input. That they thought it was more important to court Liz Cheney and other Republicans and lock the Uncommitted delegates out of the convention despite exceeding their goals by 10 times to show that not listening on this issue had enough votes on the line to close the 2016 Clinton-Trump gap, let alone the 2020 Biden-Trump gap that it got over halfway to. The party said they wanted more support from lean Republican voters than the voters asking for a Democrat candidate who would speak out against genocide, and, even with record turnout in one of the main states for the issue, the there were more voters for Trump then either of his previous runs. But, yeah, blame the voters, they only turned out at the second highest rate since 1908 (with only the 2020 election being higher) and even Democrats had better turnout among the voter-eligible population that any of the second-place candidates since the 60s (and better turnout than more than half of presidents since then as well). If you're putting the onus on the relatively small proportion of non-voters instead of either the moderate showing of the Democrats, or, you know, the people that actually came out to vote for Trump, then you're not really focused on the issue.
I'm saying that everyone who didn't vote Harris is at fault. And very, very few people had a good reason not to.
It certainly a convenient place to lay the blame. Makes it real easy to tell flattering narratives. No need to examine what role the party has, since clearly they're doing what they must to get their candidate elected. Why should they carry any blame? They voted for Harris, after all! Surely, pouring millions of dollars into candidates that don't resonate with the people and that are unwilling to push the needle against the direction conservatives are pulling it has nothing to do with their consistent messaging that people should just settle for the options they're presenting the country with?
Clearly, the DNC has some serious misunderstanding of the electorate given their choices over the past quarter century. But something tells me they're gonna roll the dice on "we're your only option" again and act surprised when that wasn't enough to garner support rather than lukewarm acceptance. Maybe if they really hammer how little they'll do to offset the damage Republicans have done over the past half century and tell us that they just want to get back to "working across the aisle" on "business as usual", it'll actually work this time!
K
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
I just skimmend the article and the accompanying report. But the analysis of what happened is contrary to my understanding. As far as I'm aware voter turnout in swing states (aka the ones that are actually important) was actually higher in 2024 compared to the few last election cycles.
Compared to Clinton and Biden, Harris was able to draw from the not-voting pool in states, where it mattered. Just Trump did it better.
The conclusion, that following the populist narrative of your enemy instead of drafting your own looses you votes, may be right, but I think the analysis, how they got to that conclusion is not what actually happened.
Not a US citizen or particularly versed with US politics, so I would be happy to hear something contrary.
I posted a longer reply below about some of the exit polling and the pictures that kind of info paints. And yes, it's in contradiction to this article.
Objectively, the last several federal elections had the highest turnout of voters in US history, including highest percentages of youth voters. There was a LOT more wrong than "Dem voters stayed home." That's the same tired BS they've been shoving down our throat for decades.
I immediately distrust any article or "study" published by a group who also claim to have the strategy to "fix" it and have an investment plan for "getting voters to the polls." This smells a lot like attempt #4,497,349 to grab people's money and run.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Maybe have a fucking primary and people won't stay home.
Or, you know, vote, because fucking LUCIFER is on the ballot.
I can appreciate not wanting Lucifer to win but the average person doesn't get motivated by lesser of the two evils, its not enough. The other guy has to make them want to get off their ass. Obama made people want to get out and vote. Trump did too, as much as I don't like to admit it.
And that just means we Americans get what we deserve.
It's a civic duty. The only people to blame are ourselves.
I don't think that puts enough blame on the assholes with money who are taking advantage of the system and intentionally tipping the scales
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
the average person doesn’t get motivated by lesser of the two evils
A huge number of choices in life are just that. So suck it up, Buttercup.
This person isn't saying it's not enough for them personally, they're saying it's clearly, obviously, per all evidence, not enough for MANY people - objectively enough to turn an election. So if you want better leaders you must motivate voters by giving them something to vote for. Lesser of two fascists pisses me off but I'll hold my nose and vote. However, I also recognize this is a piss poor strategy since so many will not.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
If you want me to vote, then you need to stop nominating corporate puppets.
I've showed up at every primary, for example.
I guarantee you that for whatever district or race if you compare the Democrat and the Republican running in that race you'll find that the Democrat is less corporate and cares more about the people than the Republican in that race does. Voting for the Democrat even the one who wasn't your first choice in the primary brings you closer to where you want to be and helps shift the Overton window. Primaries typically happen every election cycle and eventually by electing enough Democrats flipping every seat you can will either result in the Democrat you believe is too corporate to shift their beliefs or will result in their ouster with someone who is less corporate.
if you compare the Democrat and the Republican running in that race you'll find
This is the fucking problem, right here.
People dont make """"rational"""" choices when they're driven toward frustration and desparation, and democrats marketing themselves as 'not republicans' in lieu of offering any significant change is a massive source of that desparation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Kamala's not Good Enough
So you get Trump
"With every mistake
We must surely
Be learning "
-George Harrison
load more comments
(1 replies)
Way to Win pointed to three main problems that cost Democrats last year: Voters were upset not just about rising prices but about longer-term economic trends, and wanted change; Republicans and the far right have a built-in media advantage, thanks to years of investments, which made it harder for Democrats to break through; and movements on the left around issues like Gaza, racial and economic justice, and immigration weren’t aligned with the party.
Yea... Close...Not quite though. Basically, YOU HAVE TON FUCKING ACT YOU DIP SHITS! Do real things people can fucking believe in.
As it stand I still want both sides out of all the offices. When you actually represent me and the voters.... Not some corporate lobby group, PAC, or persons with more money than sense but "We The People", then I might vote for you.
Mamdani is a good start... If he follows through.
We've known since the day after election day something like 33 million fewer people voted, though.
We kinda knew that anyways. Those people thought "ahhh, there couldn't possibly be that enough people to vote Trump again" and didn't vote until the fact broke out to them on election day.
And it's going to be an even harder pitch for Democrats if they keep pussy-footing the way that they have lately.
These comments clearly show that people are completely fine to repeat the same mistakes that opened the door for a fascist to take up the throne.
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›