• barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Clinton got more votes than Sanders, that is why they went rightwards instead of leftwards. On the topic of that person saying leftists need to vote to move the needle, you claimed that was wrong. That’s delusional? You want them to ignore the majority of their voters and go left because you felt excited about Sanders? I did also but what the hell.

    I’m glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics. It is looking pretty good. I hope it does get voters excited enough to show up and I hope the leftward ones continue to participate in the future so that the needle swings in the correct direction.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics.

      I’m glad the party decided to fucking listen for once. The enthusiasm is because they listened. The listening was not because of enthusiasm, but rather its absence.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        They listened in 2008 and ran Obama instead of Clinton, then they listened in 2016 and ran Clinton instead of Sanders. They have been listening to people who actually show up to vote, which was that person’s point.

        How do you want them to behave such that they would have ignored the votes for Sanders but not ignored the votes for Obama? Please suggest a policy they can use which is consistent and has integrity, not just, “I was personally excited for candidate A therefore candidate A should have won the primaries.”

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you’re going to pretend that the party’s support for Clinton was the result of a fair primary and wasn’t already present before a single vote was cast, there’s no point in arguing with you.

          They moved to the right before the 2016 primaries.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You’re just happy they move to the right.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were, feel free to observe the facts if your ego isn’t too fragile for it. I’m not happy about it, I am just trying to not have a cognitive bias in the same why that you do. It’s insane. We agree on the desired outcome in these elections but you’re so focused on being mad about how the votes went in the 2016 primary that you accuse me of being happy they chose Clinton. Get a grip.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were

                  And implicit in that is the assumption that the 2016 primaries were fair. I also pointed out that the party leadership was all in on Clinton before a single vote was cast. They had no way of knowing where the votes were. They saw that Obama, who ran to Clinton’s left, was popular with voters. But they wanted Clinton. So they put the cart before the horse.

                  Maybe they should have taken the votes of people in swing states into account when they totally decided to follow the votes instead of just moving to the right.

                  • barsquid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    What swing states? AZ? NV? PA? FL? Somehow I suspect the DNC should have thrown out those votes and listened to only CO and WI, right?

                    Do you fact check anything you write or you’re just all in on cognitive bias all the time?