• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Right!?

    Young and charismatic. That’s all that is necessary for Dems to sweep elections. Proven time and time again. With a hearty message of progress and love.

    It’s that fucking simple.

    (signed someone who ultimately voted for Hillary and Biden but they were far from my 1st preference in the primaries).

    Edit: Typo.

    • psvrh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Young and charismatic might mean higher taxes for the rich and more progressive policies.

      The Democratic leadership doesn’t want that. They really like the neoliberal consensus, they like having funding parity with the Republicans. They like being seen as “very serious people “ and they’re deathly afraid of being called socialists.

      The problem is that their apparatchiks all came of age, politically, in the 1990s under that same neoliberal golden age. That’s not the world they’re in anymore. They aren’t running against Bush the Elder, and cutting taxes while playing jazz isn’t going to cut it when they’re losing working class votes to fascists.

      We saw this play out horribly in the UK: where Labour’s party leaders would rather sabotage their own leader because he was too progressive then risk him winning and give socialism credibility.

      The political left really liked the 1990s, but it’s a bygo era and it isn’t coming back.

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

        I agree that the third-way shtick of the Clinton era must go. Watering down reality to appeal to ignorance just doesn’t work.

        • daltotron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I mean, big nuts that’ll ever happen. There’s no glut of idiots no matter what generation you look at, I’m sure they can just keep appointing cynical self-interested assholes to succeed them whenever they drop.

    • Ænima@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      The last time the Democrats ran a progressive candidate allowed Nixon to sweep every state except a few in that election. I mean, just look at this shit!

      So yeah, if anyone is wondering why the Democrats don’t run progressive candidates, this is why! They’ve only moved further to the right since then. Expecting Democrats to run a progressive would likely sweep the whole nation blue, but if you thought tRump was bad, a progressive would be just as bad for monied interests, which have only grown more emboldened and enriched the last 40-45 years.

      It will take a lot of time, I’m afraid, to undo the damage Republicans have have done with their shitty ideals and politics, starting largely with Reagan’s racist, homophobic, anti-union, and regulation gutting bullshit!

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In fairness I emphasized young and charismatic — was McGovern charismatic? I don’t know about that.

        Still, I think this is the exception as opposed to the norm, considering we can point to FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. RFK was setting up to be another obvious front-runner.

        It’s a race to the bottom to put forward someone who will water their rhetoric down and cater to ignorance; but of course, some of the country isn’t educated enough to understand why progressive policies must be better — hence why you run someone young and charismatic — hence why Obama swept traditionally red counties that neither Hillary nor Biden picked up.