• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    541 month ago

    I think she’s partly right, but also, if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier? Which would make it her fault. Fuck, I don’t even know anymore. I don’t have a lot of confidence that the Democratic party will learn the right lessons from this loss.

    • @bostonbananarama
      link
      191 month ago

      if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier?

      No. His debate performance is what pushed it over the edge. That’s when a concerted effort began to get him out.

      • pewter
        link
        6
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        You’re right, but I think it was a combo.

        October 7th spilled a bunch of gasoline on the ground. (Almost immediately after that day his polling trailed Trump’s.)

        His debate performance dropped a lit cigarette.

        In my opinion, you really needed both of those things for him to drop out. A physically struggling Biden that’s polling at 60% would’ve stayed in the race. A Biden with an excellent debate performance that was polling at 45% would’ve stayed in the race.

        EDIT: typo

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 month ago

      Whatever they think they need to do, they need to do it or get the fuck out of the way and let someone else in there. Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden were not exciting candidates. Too many Democrats didn’t like Hilary Clinton from the get-go. Joe Biden won because he wasn’t the previous buffoon. Then was repeatedly slandered for 4 years by said buffoon over the economy, which was/is mainly suffering because of the way it was handled previously by said buffoon. When corporations can buy candidates and blatant lies are okay to broadcast because of “free speech” this was always going to be the inevitable outcome.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 month ago

        We need more political parties, especially ones that aren’t political extensions of the wealthy elite.

        • @seaQueue
          link
          121 month ago

          Or we could just get the neolibs out of the core of the Democratic party. They’ve been more concerned with corporate donor profits than the welfare of the working class since the 90s.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            I don’t really see that happening, since you’re essentially divorcing wealth from power, and you have a better chance at abolishing capitalism. Ultimately we need a shift of consciousness in this country, but I ain’t holding my breath.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              4
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Start at the local level and build up. It’s a lot easier to have strong progressives run in races that might not really be all that contested in the first place. And make even small primaries count

              That kind of power starts to add up. The local politicians tend to flow up the party. Obama first rose from the Illinois state senate. Tim Walz first rose from an unexpected flip in a deep red house district in Minnesota

              Power doesn’t always flow top down. It also flow from the bottom up

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 month ago

                Power primarily flows from the bottom up. The top just tries really hard to make sure we don’t know that so we aren’t able to organize and wield it. If power really came from the top then dictators wouldn’t bother to hold sham elections.