• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s simply the logical thing for them to do, in the present state of things

    Except the last time we had a true progressive campaign…

    A lot of those 1/3 of voter showed up. And we flipped a bunch of “red states” that the DNC had given up on those.

    It’s not that those people won’t vote, they just won’t vote for candidates like Biden and Hillary.

    But they turned up for Obama in 08.

    We found something that worked, and the DNC’s response was to tighten down primaries so there wouldn’t be another upset.

    Which has progressed to them straight up removing an entire states delegates.

    Unfortunately we can’t fix this situation without a healthy show that they don’t have the far left / moderate left votes guaranteed, and need to start paying attention to what we want, to

    I disagree.

    I think if a moderate loses because they don’t get the progressive votes, then nothing will change. They’ll say that progressives are unreliable and this means they need to go further right.

    Because we have decades of recent history that shows even if they still get the “lesser evil” votes, they’ll still say the same thing if they lose.

    The only option is primaries, which is why I’m so pissed the DNC just vetoed a state primary by yanking delegates away.

    If we don’t even have the primaries where the DNC openly say they can ignore results…

    We’re kind of out of options.

    And I legitimately don’t know what the path forward is. Or why everyone else isn’t shitting bricks right now.

    If the DNC doesn’t get substantial pushback, they’re not going to just give up on this veto they just decided they’ll have.

    Hell, Republicans will probably keep control of NH’s state goverment for the next four years, if they don’t agree to the DNCs demands about primary order, will NH Dems not get a say in 2028 either?