The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in
Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?
Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.
What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.
It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.
Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.
Made this point on another article and the response I got was that they need to keep fellating rich donors because if they stop those rich donors will run attack ads against them and cost them the election. I don’t know if that’s true or not but if so they might as well give up now because those rich donors aren’t winning them elections either.
But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…
That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
By “I’m not sure if that’s true” I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I’m pretty sure they would. For what it’s worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I’m not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don’t think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.
It’s worse than that.
The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in
Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?
Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.
What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.
It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.
Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.
Made this point on another article and the response I got was that they need to keep fellating rich donors because if they stop those rich donors will run attack ads against them and cost them the election. I don’t know if that’s true or not but if so they might as well give up now because those rich donors aren’t winning them elections either.
The rich 100% would.
But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…
That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
By “I’m not sure if that’s true” I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I’m pretty sure they would. For what it’s worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I’m not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don’t think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.