The DNC definitely didn't want him there. But the RNC didn't want trump. Trump was able to convince voters to vote for him despite him being a long shot candidate. Bernie wasn't. Bernie, if he was a better organizer, would have been able to convince more people to vote in the primary either to outnumber the people who voted for Clinton or convinced the Clinton voters to change to his side. Obama was someone who was able to convince voters to come out and vote for him in the primary and was able to convince Clinton voters to switch sides. Again, Bernie couldn't.

I also think a core part of this is just him running for the nomination for the Democrat party despite not in fact being a Democrat. I had many people around me who also agreed with him but voted for Clinton because he wasn't a Democrat and obviously only wanted to be able to be a part of the party when he needed them as opposed to always being there.

I personally think if Bernie had always been a part of the Democrat party he would have had an easier time convincing enough people to switch to his side. It's not like he needed a blowout to win the nomination. This is also why I think someone like AOC would have an easier time running for the nomination since she is and always has been a Democrat.

Bernie should be running "here's how to run for office in your area" drives on his oligarchy tour. The only way progressives will kick out corporate democrats is by the common person running more. Bernie should be pushing more people to run instead of just getting up on a stage in front of people and being a politician. He's not a good organizer. Great talker. Horrible at getting people out to vote. Dude couldn't even get enough people out to vote in the Democrat primary in 2016 to defeat Clinton. She beat him by a larger voting margin than Trump won by last year.

Reminds me of the "protests" outside of E3 when the game Dantes Inferno was shown in 2010. EA thought it would be a great idea to just, hire a bunch of people to take a protest that played into the games themes. So they'd each be holding stuff about the 7 sins, layers of hell. All that shit. It was not a good strategy. Faking shit to win never is, even if it works once, it means it likely won't ever again.

And? Progressives still win primaries all the time. If we had more people vote in them, and had more progressive candidates running, then more progressives would win regardless of what the Party wants. Republicans didn't want Trump in 2016, they desperately tried to not have him, but the voters kept voting for him so he won the primary and became the party.

No but it's incredibly incredibly rare for them to not hold primaries. It only happens when there is, either an obviously massive lead, an incumbent president, or when someone is running unopposed. Both parties do that. Primaries happen 99% of the time. People say primaries didnt happen in 2024 but they absolutely did in almost all 50 states president wise and in all 50 states lower than president wise.

So while there is no law that says "you have to hold a primary" they will still be holding primaries. There's only been one time when in modern history when the incumbent isnt running and there weren't primaries held to find his replacement and that was last year with Harris.

Primaries have the problem where so few people come out to vote in them, at least on the Democrat side, that even if the people broadly seem to support a candidate in the area, they'll often not even bother voting in the primary. This happened in 2016 when Bernie lost the primary by 3 and a half million votes and only would have won if all but 9 super delegates went to him which never would have happened because he didn't win a majority of the votes.

Primaries will happen, we can vote them out. AOC did it in 2018 and we can do it nationwide next year.

But why make a new party when you can vote out establishment corporate Democrats in primaries, remaking the Democratic party? Seems pointless to start from square 1 when the Dems are right there ripe for a take over.

The lawmaker said Democrats are worried they would get the blame for a shutdown if they voted to defeat the House bill. The House is out of session for the rest of the week, upping the pressure on Senate Democrats.

Voters haven't punished Republicans for their numerous shut downs. But that said, voters are always more likely to blame Democrats for anything at all.

In the article there are definitely some interesting points. Like how Elon would probably use the shut down to fire even more people. Or Trump would use it to take even more power from Congress.

I still think the Democrats need to stand firm and refuse to vote for it, make Republicans pass it via reconciliation. Shut it down if necessary. But there's definitely a lot of possibly terrible outcomes to a shut down to consider.

First point, this is not an instance to simply give up working with Democrats. That one bad experience shows that what you need to do is be consistent and when democrats withdraw from their views and moderate that you need to the primary them and show them that if they do those things they will be kicked out of office. You don't elect people once and then expect everything to always work out. You go and continue holding their feet to the fire. The article you linked is interested only in trying to show that working towards leftist politics in mainstream parties is a dead end because it's not taking the lesson of the experience to the logical conclusion of voting again to kick out the Democrats that moderated. But I'm not surprised since it also seems to think a third party will ever take root which will never happen and only removes any power we have as individuals.

Second. I totally agree just medicaid isn't enough, I mentioned that. I think the system of for profit insurance needs to go but I was talking to someone who said Democrats don't ever do anything and that was my point. They do shit all the time even if it's not as good as it should be, that just means more work needs to be done. Which is always a normal thing in any form of government, persistence is how things change and keep changing, not voting once and thinking everything will magically be fixed like what many did in 08 with Obama.

Third. I also agree that FDR saved capitalism but we as communists still had power back then through our voting bloc that was massively voting for the Democratic party. The communists back then supported FDR because they understood that we need to have a seat at the table and that to do that we need to vote for leftist Democrats. They did that and then had a seat at the table pushing for more socialist policies. Again, Communists, particularly during the war when FDR used a communist like structure of a federal government directed economy to great success, the people like Browder knew that we can be communists and have a seat at the table only when we vote for Democrats, that running our own people for the presidency and often for federal offices in general is a fools errand and that we need to invest in changing the democratic party because that's how the two party system works. Then they were cast out post FDR death at direct instruction by the authoritarian piece of shit Stalin.

A third party is a lovely idea until you remember that that's not how the American system works. First past the post, the different voting restrictions, all the other shit, these keep third parties from being able to impact anything but local politics. But until many of those things change third parties are wasting your vote. Federal funding does fuck all when it means you lead to fascists wanting to put queer people in camps and wanting to create trump Gaza into power. Federal funding also won't fix any of the systems that keep third parties out of power. A third party can't simultaneously take power and change the system while also not be capable of taking power and changing the system. It's running around in circles pretending you're moving towards a brighter future when it's be better to just remake the democratic party who already has the infrastructure and funding and who many will just always vote for and who doesn't have the system literally making it impossible for them to take power.

Edit: I've helped some of my local communists and socialists impact our local area but being in a deep red state most of what everyone does is outreach and organizing as opposed to actual governmental stuff. I'm also disabled and trans and have my own shit going on working to getting out of my red state so that I'm in a much more blue area where I will be more comfortable working with my fellow communists and socialists.

Democrats have definitely not done enough and done some shitty things. They also passed the first infrastructure bill in 15(?) or so years under Bidens first 2 years. They passed a bill fucking saving the economy during both Obama's and Bidens first 2 years, providing stimulus and saving a collapsing economy. They passed the Dodd Frank act in Obama's first 2 years that regulated Wall Street even if it wasn't enough, it still significantly helped shit. They passed the the ACA which, while not perfect, mandated insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions which got healthcare for tens of millions. It expanded Medicaid which, despite being refused by red states, in the states that accepted the funds it provided relatively cheap healthcare to tens of millions. They passed the first bill that has ever had any climate change initiatives in it during Bidens first 2 years and Harris campaigned on doing more. They introduced the EV tax credits that have got people to buy non gas producing cars at massive rates, even if not enough. They increased the minimum wage in 2009 and tried to again in 2021. That only failed because they simply didn't have the votes. They could have gotten rid of the parliamentarian if they wanted but then it still wouldn't have had the votes even for a simple majority so it wouldn't have mattered. They invested in expanding trains across the country but because of trump being elected last year that'll probably be cut.

They have passed plenty of really progressive legislation that died in the Senate because of the filibuster and Republicans refusing to vote for even the most basic things. They could have tried to get rid of the filibuster but to do that they need a majority of the Senate to vote for that rule package and 2 Democrat senators refused to because they're assholes. They could have fixed much of that if they had been given by the voters a larger majority in the Senate so they could have tanked those 2 senators votes.

Democrats should have done more. They should be doing more when they have power. They have run on progressive policies time and time again, however, and even though they're not as progressive as they should be and still have some shit policies, that doesn't mean they do nothing.

If not for the ACA I wouldn't have healthcare, I have a preexisting condition and that law mandates insurance companies to keep me on. I also happen to live in a state with expanded Medicaid which has given healthcare to tons of people I know when they could only afford the cheap stuff. Should there have been a public option? Absolutely, health insurance shouldn't be a for profit industry.

But to say they did "nothing" is to directly say you either, refuse to acknowledge anything positive they have done because it wasn't perfect or because they also did shitty things, or that you simply aren't paying attention enough to know they did positive things.

Listen, you're a .ml user. That makes me assume you're a communist, which is completely okay in my book. Ya know the only time in American history that communists have had any amount of influence in American society? It was under FDR because they went out every primary and every year to vote for progressive and leftist Democrats to have representation in government just as much as non communists. Earl Browder was the leader of the party at the time and he pushed for supporting Democrats and it worked. They didn't run candidates during the election years because FDR was their candidate. Browder correctly realized and stated that American parties are coalitions. If communists, of which I am one too, want to get a seat at the table, want to be able to actually influence policy instead of just twiddling our thumbs and yelling at fucking walls without getting anywhere, we have to vote in the primaries for progressive leftist Democrats and change the party. We have to be consistent voters. There will never be a third party that takes root, it will never happen, but that doesn't mean we can't have a seat at the table and work towards moving the Overton window back left by voting in primaries and voting out establishment Democrats in favor of people with better views who will do more. This is how we as leftists had power under FDR, its how we helped introduce more socialist policies. We had a seat at the table and were able to influence shit. We need to be able to recognize that that was a time when we had the most power, acknowledge why we had any, and do what we can to get back there.

Democrats have done a shit ton in the 4 years of the last 30 that they've had majorities in both houses and the presidency. But sure let's just ignore all that and play into the literally right wing propaganda that "Democrats don't do anything when they have power".

Also, it's really frustrating that I see so many people both being upset Democrats are only doing political theatre stuff because they want them to do something with a minority that has next to no power, but also see people say that Democrats need to do more political Theatre. Often I see this from the same people.

They can and will pass it via reconciliation. Budget related measures are able to be passed with a simple majority vote.

Totally agree about their votes not being gettable. But they still always vote. They're reliably going out there and doing their civic duty, not staying at home and complaining about policy. But if democrat voters reliably voted, they'd be catered to. Democrats need to always vote because not voting is not a punishment for anyone but ourselves by taking away any representation we have.

It's both. The Republicans expect the Republican voters to come out and always vote and always vote Republican. Which they do. And the Republican voters expect the Republican representatives to adhere to their beliefs through the fear of the primary.

The problem is Democrats only have some of it. They have the democratic representatives expecting Democrats to always come out, but the voters don't. Because of the democrat voters not coming out, because of them not putting the fear of the primary in the representatives, Democrats don't have to adhere to their constituents as much as Republicans. If we want Democrats to cater to us, we need to both always come out in the primary and the general. But also force primaries to kick out Democrats who don't follow the base. Because if we don't always come out and vote, Democrats have to cater to the people who DO always come out and vote. Which are Republican voters.

Democrats have put forward voting reform laws that get rid of gerrymandering and citizen unity and have supported getting rid of insider trading for Congress members (although that one has less support). There hasn't been the proportional voting reform put forward in Congress but the only party fighting for that on the state level is Democrats. Maine got it passed because of Democrats campaigning for it. So saying that Democrats wouldn't do any of what I talked about is BS.

Democrats who throw marginalized voices under the bus deserved to be primaried and kicked the fuck out of office. They're supposed to be supporting us, not giving an inch. And if the people currently in office won't do that then the thing to do is primary them, not just abandon the Democratic party.

Edit: republican voters put the fear of the primary in their elected representatives if they didn't/don't support all of Trump's policies without question. We should be putting the fear of the primary in the Democrat representatives too.

Definitely agree. On all your points. I've had AI be able to tell what I'm working on in my IDE and be able to literally complete the rest of my code for what I was doing with minimal errors. It's pretty nuts. Same thing where I was learning a new programming language and the AI was able to help me basically convert my knowledge of prior languages to the new one. It's ability to teach, as long as you continue to ask questions about it because sometimes its first answer is wrong, is really helpful!

I think AI summarization and search are also great. Particularly search can be great for those of us who are both bad at googling things and are tired of the ads. I've had questions that I've googled and have to go through so much to get to the right thing (simple stuff, just differences between stock and broth or whether to throw out meat that has a slight smell to it), but then you ask the AI and boom, there's the answer. And with AI it's a lot easier to do the search, you can just ask the question instead of having to use fancy techniques for getting the right results.

AI has some great uses but the problem is that it's getting used in ways it shouldn't be at all. Like the way the article talks about and in any artistic fashion. AI is a very exact tool, not a catch-all for everything.

This is of course bigger than just AI but this kind of thing is one of the things that really bothers me about it. AI is useful for a handful of things, I've mainly just found it useful to help debug code. But the industry puffs it up so much as this revolutionizing force which leads to people doing things like this. Take a tool that is useful in less than a handful of circumstances and have it do EVERYTHING. Because the industry says it can and they wouldn't lie right?

Of course all this will do is revoked visas of brown immigrant students.

Fuck dude, I hope that all the calls that his office is getting shows him he fucked up. The right will never like him, they view him as a globalist who believes in science and shit.

Maybe, maybe, he will have a trans advocate on his podcast who will give the information about how BS this shit was. But even if he does, the damage has been done.

This is another moment that shows why we need to remake the democratic party during the primaries next year. We need to go out and vote for progressive candidates so people like Newsom see that progressive is the right way to go, not this shit he's doing.

Some stuff from your link

Republicans can’t pass a spending bill without Democrats but they’re trying to ram through a MAGA budget disaster that slashes essential programs, attacks basic rights, and enables the Trump-Musk coup.

They can pass that budget without Democrats. They're going to use Reconciliation like the Democrats did under Biden. So this one is moot. Also in this point they talk about how the Democrats just have to refuse to vote for a bill that cuts the social programs. Which they have. So both moot and already done.

Deny a quorum to completely freeze Senate business. If Republicans don’t have 51 votes on the floor, Democrats can walk out, preventing the Senate from doing anything at all.

What? The Republicans have 53 senators. As long as each one is there they can still do whatever they want. This one just doesn't make sense.

Refuse to give an inch. Block every unanimous consent request and force the GOP to waste precious time on every single step of the process.

This one is actually dead on and something that should happen.

So basically the article you linked has 3 ways the Democrats can fight back. The first way is something they're already doing, refusing to vote for a budget that cuts programs. But also the point is moot because it says they need Democrats to pass the MAGA budget but they don't. So that point doesn't work. The second is also moot because the Republicans have 53 senators and will be able to do stuff if the Democrats are there or not. And the third is actually an option they can do.

So your article has 1 possible action while acting as if the Democrats aren't already doing another one of these. The article is saying they will gladly vote for a budget that cuts the programs despite the Democrats saying they won't.

Thanks The Guardian for not mentioning how he also talked about a trans woman that set a new record on a race by 5 hours. Turns out 2 things, the race is over 800 miles and takes 8 days so 5 hours is next to nothing, and also that it was a Co-Ed race. So the trans woman set a record in a race that takes 8 days and I would bet she set that record because she traveled just a little bit faster than her competition.

He portrayed it as the trans woman setting the record in woman's sports but if he said it was a Co-Ed race then his point would be moot. But the Guardian can't talk about that because they are on his side there.