• NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Trump would only win if the Democrat party found someone seemingly more inept than him.

    I am impressed that the Democrat party managed to present not one, but two outstandingly incompetent candidates. In a row. That’s some bottom of the barrel advanced scraping techniques right there. They even managed to get a representation of both sexes.

    I’m sure Mr. Biden will be terribly distraught, as soon as he is able to understand what’s happening around him at the moment.

    • kylie_kraft@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The Democrats are still stuck in this post-Clinton seniority mindset where they unofficially pick a candidate before primaries even begin, based on who has been around the longest and who has held the highest position. Remember “it’s her turn”? Yes, yes, I know it didn’t work against Obama, but heading into the debates everyone assumed Hillary would be the candidate until Obama put on the better show. More to the point, I think Obama breaking through scared the establishment Dems into doubling down on primary fuckery. See what happened to Bernie, twice. So now we have a president who knows all the right people but plays politics with the 1990s rulebook and has a terminal case of crusty old man voice.

      Still better than Trump.

      • MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        5 months ago

        Obama has absolutely absurd charisma. He’s the Democrat version of Trump - knows exactly what to say to his base and knows how to convince moderates he’s not insane.

        Clinton and Biden have the charisma of a limp noodle. Sanders has absurd charisma, but he’s seen as too big of a threat to Democrat lobbyists and big corporations.

        Sanders would’ve mopped the floor with Trump because he would’ve actually been able to grab the 18-44 demographic (which last saw peaks in 1992 Clinton/Gore and 2008 Obama/Biden, both to unseat a Republican and, coincidentally, a Bush).

        Sanders would have been able to avoid the collapse in turnout from working-class Black people in 2016.

        Sanders would’ve stopped the increasing right-wing radicalization of the youth of America, or provided a counterweight for left-wing economic radicalization.

        The US federal elections are basically a pony show and the DNC doesn’t know how to play the game without throwing out their playbook.

      • cmbabul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is about a succinct of a deconstruction of the DNCs hand in this cycle as I’ve seen. They’re effectively Ned Stark

    • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Seriously though, I don’t follow American electoral politics much, but why didn’t they swap him out for someone else? It’s a country of ~330m people. Like even the likes of Blinken would have been acceptable to them surely? What’s the actual reasoning?

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s some stupid adherence to precedent where we don’t primary an encumbant because in the past it didn’t work out well. So now we shut our eyes and pretend he isn’t absolutely one of the worst candidates ever because we refuse to primary him.

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        An old American tradition to not run a primary during a President’s second term who is running for office. I guess it’s supposed to help unify the party behind a proven winner or something. That’s mostly it. Liberals love traditions, guidelines, and rules more than anyone.